nomorekelp Two points. #1 the symbolism of this escapade is surreal. Bush touts himself as the sole crusader for keeping America safe, security first. In fact security before civil rights. It's so important that he assure security first that he can set aside FISA and our civil rights. But the kicker comes when we see for ourselves that what trumps security, what is more important to Mr. Bush & Co than security and thus civil rights is the economic handshake with UAE - yes it's commerce with UAE first!     #2 As I understand it, the company that's selling in the transaction to UAE has held these contracts a very long time. Through good times and bad. Why sellout now? Is the business solvent? If not, what does DPW/UAE bring to the table, $ ? So is that why an American company hasn't won this contract, because it's economically a poor deal? One that DPW/UAE is wiling to buy into the black?

Once one gets over the idiot childishness and arrogance of the threatened Bush veto ("my way or..."), the issue really becomes a matter of corporatism.  

There is nothing new here, only a sort of faux pas in the Administration-driven context of "homeland security" and "long war."  The reality is that everything we do now is driven by international private interests. Many of them are international corporations which originated right here.  We're kind of getting a taste of our own medicine!  If I'm right, the Dubai concern which would manage (not own) the ports was originally that old P&O, that staid and sturdy British shipping company, now transmogrified.

The UAE wouldn't own the ports (the states do, don't they?).   The real scandal here is not whether Danes or Arabs manage American ports, it's really about Bush's refusal to respect democratic process, and about how little the "average citizen" knows about who owns not the ports but our debt, our economic futures, our personal information, and our souls!

Put on your Michael Moore hat for a moment, and ask yourself, how realistic is Michael Moore's view?

Let's see, is the Carlyle Group involved?  Well, yes, indeedy.  Isn't that coincidental?

Bush just appointed a Dubai Port Worlds executive, head of the Maritime Administration.  Another coincidence.

After five years, this is the issue on which he feels passionately enough to threaten his first veto, and to speak in his own words ("Great British" -- I think we can be sure no speechwriter mistyped that).  Coincidence? 

Bush's whole program has been building the fascist State for the 21st century, and the core of that program, along with the fear-mongering and secretive authoritarianism and contempt for the rule of law and the requirements of common decency and reason, is a government of, by and for giant business corporations. 

This is Bush at his best.  "Just because you are paranoid, does not mean 'they' are not out to get you."  You can pretend that this is all a lot of ta doo about nothing, or you can recognize the pattern: authoritarian decision-making in secret; crony capitalism governing major political appointments and choices;  Bush family in bed with Arab oil sheiks.  Its a Michael Moore moment.

According to the Washington Post this deal has been discussed in the financial press for months.  is this true?  Why didn't anyone in the main stream press focus on this story?  Why did anyone in the Congress, especially Schumer who has been making port security a big issue, raise questions?  Or, was this deal really done on the sly?

 One other things to ask.  Bush has a long history of being a failed businessman and being bailed out, with the help of his father, apparently by Arab business money.  Did that play any role in this deal?

 
Lasly CNBC perhaps even great sycophants for Bush than FOX, is going to have someone come on to argue that privatization is more important than the security of our ports.  Probably lives in Nebraska.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

For this first time in his presidency I agree completely with Bush. He should veto any law passed to prohibit this transaction. Perhaps privatization is an issue but it's a separate issue. All the discussion has centered around the fact that the UAE is an Arab state. It's shameful that so few have stood strongly against the real trangressions of this administration (torture, the erosion of the rule of law, corruption, etc.) and so many are making political hay over a relatively harmless business deal.

Um, no:

On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike. The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Ladin’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely…According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis

It's not cause they're ay-rabs. It's their cozyness to bin Laden.

You remember bin Laden, no? 

Dissent Protects Democracy

The potential sale of P&O has been discussed in the British press for several months.  However, the final deal in which P&O agreed to be bought by Dubai World Ports happened only in the last two weeks.  The Wall Street Journal reported on February 11, 2006 that:

Dubai Ports World was poised to become the world's second-biggest ports operator with the expected acquisition of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of the United Kingdom for 3.9 billion pounds ($6.79 billion). Rival PSA International Ptd. of Singapore withdrew from the bidding war Friday.

It does seem that any scrutiny of the takeover by US authorities must have been cursory given the limited amount of time since its announcement.

In practical terms, however, the takeover of P&O by Dubai World Ports is just another example of globalization and should not really have caused the excitement it has.  The most significant point of the whole brouhaha is that it demonstrates how out of touch the Bush Administration is from its own party.

So you have no concerns about the UAE ties to bin Laden and terrorism?

Didn't 9/11 Change Everything(tm)? 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Evidently vast portions of American infrastructure are routinely farmed out to companies ... Without rising to the level of front-page news.

Quite evidently. 

All the farmers certainly knew about it.  All those who read the business papers knew about it.  All those who own stock in multinationals knew about it.  All those who work for multinationals knew about it.  All those who take the trouble to see where the products they buy are produced knew about it.  All those who explore the details of globalization knew about it. 

The only ones who didn't are those who rely on headlines for their news...which apparantly means most of the left-wing "intelligentsia". 

The port shebang would seem to be a certifiable Big Story, a segment of the Bigger Story of the privatization of nearly everything.  But I haven't seen it crop up in national business news. 

I'm confused.  Is the privatization of infrastructure a certifiable Very Bad Thing or not?  Or is it just another excuse for the left to bash corporations, who, as we know, are the font of all that is evil in this world.

It's so telling that Prof. Gitlin would choose to harp on the corporate angle rather than the security angle of this story.  You couldn't ask for a more perfect illustration of how out of touch the left is in so much of American life.

Personally, this story does not excite me, given that when it comes to port security, there are much much bigger fish to fry than who runs port operations.  Only 2% of shipping contrainers are inspected - still - 4 1/2 years after 9/11.  Why will it take another terror act to get people to act on this?

Judging by the number of Republican congressmen fleeing form Bush on this issue I would suggest that Bush as succeeded in frighten Americans. It may be political but it is the politics of Republicans trying to save themselves.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Bush made a ridiculous mistake by announcing he would veto any legislation blocking the measure, thus ensuring the story would "explode" throughout the media.

Yes, it's political. So politicians should take advantage, that's how they win elections, they do politics, especially when others make "mistakes." Do I sense that in your comment, that you don't think it's wise to do so?

It's all about executive power, don't you see? His own party getting mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

One really can't blame this on Dems or the left whining, you have to blame Bush. His base says hey, this is important, stuff, why wasn't Congress informed? And he says: shut up, I made the right decision and I'll veto it if you don't approve?  A common word I heard from GOP talking heads last night from the tube in the background was "transparency," as in "where's the transparency"?

The message machine is falling apart. Rove used to be real savvy about what would bother the media and the public and would have the troops in line with the talking points ASAP. That's not been happening since Katrina. And it's all been about national- security-related issues on which Kerry supposedly erred with swing voters! Bush has consistently taken this tact: butt out Congress, don't need your input, I know what's best, trust me, I'll keep the country safe. And more and more, it seems the White House doesn't even care to prepare the message and line up the GOP troops?

And the opposition party is doing the wrong thing to take advantage? I don't buy that. Overall, it is about national security, stupid. It's about whether you think a king should handle it or our government as a whole. Though the Democratic party has been known to give prez's like FDR and LBJ a lot of power, generally they don't go for the monarchy solution. Yes, they favor Federal government handle national security issues, but no, they don't think it should all be unquestionably put in the hands of one person.

Privatization >< Outsourcing.

Privatization is the conversion of  a public enterprise into a private enterprise, as with Poland's Ursus Tractor company, or as with the conversion of a number of enterprises from public to private during Thatcher's term in office.

Outsourcing is using another enterprise  to provide a service, as when an organization hires a security guard company or a cleaning service.

Privatization is often a good thing. Some enterprises are better operated in a competitive  environment.  Privatization generally reduces government expenditure; the public enterprises often operate at a loss and are subsidized.  Amtrak's an example.  if Amtrak were privatized, a number of its routes would be terminated until it was operating only those routes that made money.  (Whether that's a good idea or not is a normative question to be settled by policy makers.  But it is a fact that as a public corporation, it is being subsidized.)   

Outsourcing usually saves a company money because the outsourced firm enjoys greater economy of scale, as when a company outsources its printing functions, or when the resource requirement doesn't justify developing management of those resources, as with security guards.

In the case of the government, it already has huge economies of scale--it would be idiotic to outsource the Government Printing Office, for example.  In general, outsourcing costs taxpayers money.  Run at levels of quality and efficiency, the contractor's need to make a profit itself raises the price. 

There are times it makes sense--when special expertise is needed as with rebuilding oil infrastructure in Iraq, or when competition is desirable, as in defense contracting. But it makes no sense at all to outsource, for example, security services in Iraq.  The Armed Forces are cheaper, better trained and in the chain of command.

It's surprising that port management is outsourced.  It's even more surprising that it is outsourced to foreign firms.  This is just one more piece of evidence that this administration's concern for security is purely political.  An obvious first step in improving security would have been to bring that function back under government control..

But issuing a government contract to a private firm is not privatization. The activity remains in the budget, whether it's performed by contractors or employees.  This practice is more widespread than most people realize--contract employees are being used, increasingly, at the EPA, for example.  The contractor also has a conflicting incentive; it is routine for government contractors to deliver less than they promised to deliver.

This is yet another instance where the administration* has succeeded in describing an activity in such a way as to obscure what they are actually doing.  

----------------------

*I'm no longer going to refer to the Bushies as republicans or conservatives.  Authoritarian cultists are neither, and the more we work to distinguish the cult of Bush from people actually interested in public policy (and there used to be such republicans; they can't all have died in the last 5 years), the more difficult it will be for the president to retain the peripheral members of his cult. 

I'm glad there are still some cool heads left.  I agree completely.  Is this the direction the Dems want to go?  Protectionism?  What are the alternatives - nationalize the country's container terminals?  What is saddening, is how quickly the lefty bloggers put on their tinfoil hats on this non-issue (and how well they fit).  Five minutes of googling will uncover the following:

DP World is the port management arm of the Ports Customs Free Zone Group (PCFC), a Dubai listed (Dubai International Financial Exchange) company that is quasi-goverment.  That is created by the government but operating as a commercial concern.  We have quasi-government entities too.  Every heard of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae?  PCFC is integral to the Jebel Ali Free Trade Zone Authority (JAFZA), a place in Dubai where THOUSANDS of companies from all over the world have set up businesses because there are no import/export duties.  JAFZA is integral to the emirate of Dubai's plans to become a world center of trade and finance.

PCFC issued the largest "Islamic" bond at the end of 2005 to help finance the purchase by DP World of P&O, the "Great British" firm that currently owns the container terminals in question.  P&O appointed Sir John Parker as Chairman last year.  The deal was first announced in October 2005.  Sir John described the takeover as "compelling strategic logic."  Sir John is also a non-director member of the boards of Carnival PLC (remember the cruise terminal in NYC?) and the Bank of England.  Before P&O he was chairman of the RMC Group until it was bought by the Mexican company CEMEX.

See the pattern here?  It's called financial capital and we are in the middle of a period of tremendous liquidity.  Dubai is just one of seven emirates that make up the UAE and is not some wingnut hate America place and has practically no oil, that's why Dubai is developing its economy in other ways.  It wants to be an Arab Singapore. And its banks are flush with cash thanks to the ongoing financial speculation in oil.  Hence, the big deals.  This is all about global capital, globalisation, etc.   If the Dems start coming out against all of this then we are going back into the 1930s and start an avalanche of retaliation.  What next?  Scrap the China trade deal Clinton signed?  Attention KMart shoppers - All Items at Three Times The Price!

"Where the bullk of the population cannot read, true democracy is impossible." -- Bertrand Russell

I’m interested in and concerned with the lack of discussion surrounding the origins and the intent of this fiasco.  Obvious discussion points aside, I think it’s naïve to so quickly assume that the President (and more importantly his advisors) are so far removed here.  The issue seems clearly manufactured in order to reestablish the credibility of GOP reps on security and to distance them from a struggling executive in time for the midterms. . . . thoughts?

The Washington Post comes down in line with Professor Gitlin's "old news," though it certainly does not seem to be interested at all in taking the story in the same direction he is, while the New York Times remains the homeland security v. executive privelege paper of record.

and Rove has decided that the best excuse is to say that Bush just threatens vetoes about stuff he doesn't know anything about for the hell of it?

Bush Played No Role in Approval of Port Deal, White House Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 2/22  12:30 PM ET
President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to an Arab company.

note these graphs:

Treasury Secretary John Snow said failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas.

 

''The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome,'' Snow told reporters Wednesday following a speech in Connecticut to a fuel cell manufacturer. ''That sends a terrible message.''

I am guessing from that that Bush forgot to say "you're doing a heckuva job, Snowie" yesterday?

To be honest, and this is just me, I don't see this as being an issue.  What I do see is alot of humor in the situation, though.  I see politicians who have railed against the current administration's heavy-handedness when it comes to dealing with security issues (i.e. wire-tapping, Patriot Act), but when it comes to a business venture that has a minimal change to existing security (or lack thereof), it's a rallying point.  I am also amused by those people who claim that we need to treat people fairly, and there should be no profiling at airports, yet turn around when a Middle Eastern company wants to manage something within our country.  I am not speaking of any of the comments I have read on this thread, or anywhere else on this site, I'm referring more to those I see on tv or in news articles I've read.

 Ultimately, the company is going to be managing the ports.  The current company that manages them is also foreign.  No one complained about them (oh wait, they're British, so that makes it all ok).  Security will still be handled by the Coast Guard, and the Customs agents.  Last I checked, they're all our government's employees.  So why is this an issue?

Again, to me, you don't get things both ways.  You want to be seen as being against discriminatory policies, against the idea that profiling is bad, you should be against a law like the one being proposed.  Bush or no Bush, I think the President is dead on with this one.

Of course, the possibility exists that the President brought this up to prove the point that security (which the Dems have been seen as being weak on) is still the single most important issue for mainstream America.  He has effectively set the stage for the next election, possibly.