No doubt that the few congressmen and Senators who are making a major issue of the DP World proposed contract to run some of the largest ports is predicated on cheap political expediency and the opportunity to score points against an unpopular adminstration.
What they raise is a canard that is guided by opportunism and bigotry.

It is important to note , however, that many , both inside and outside of government, have rushed to the defense of the proposed deal. It is also important to note that some issues that have been raised are legitimate especially that DPW is controlled by a foreign state. I believe that the government of the UAE owns the majority of the shares in DPW which is an issue that needs to be addressed. No one is questioning the competency of DPW but many would like to be assured on who will be making the decisions on hiring, security etc… These are important questions that need to be raised irrespective of the nationality of the ownership of an enterprise.

I hope that in the end cooler heads will prevail.

I believe there is something similar happening in Europe with disquiet over Lakshmi Mittal (Indian) buying out a major company.

Here’s seconding Ghassan’s comment, with emphasis on the cheap and expedient political point-scoring. The complexities of the actual deal (not to mention the complicated nature of how ports are administered, as well as how the companies that run ports are administered) would undermine the message from opponents of the Republican administration that everything that this administration does is based on money, money, and more money. Therefore, the message itself as well as the ensuing debate has been packaged for American domestic consumption, relying of course on the shallow understanding that we Americans have of the rest of the world. This whole thing just smacks of cynical and weak political posturing, and I hope that it gets exposed as such.

What do you guys expect? We want to fly airplanes into their cities? Okay, but then we have to face such consequences. Personally, I think we deserve it. Although Dubai Ports World specifically is innocent, as a whole, we have to realize that are violent behavior (think cartoon portests as an example) is going to backfire on us eventually. I live in America, and from what I am watching, i’m telling you there is no way they are going to let this deal go through.

There is nothing wrong in trying to prevent an
arab company from operating ports in USA. This is not racism at all. I am an arab living in the USA and fearful that arab fanatics can
somehow use this opportunity for their advantage. Once the water is clear between the arabs and USA, this can happen, but not now.
Period, end of story.

All Americans are definitely anti-Arab. You nailed it.

Great post. This is just anti-arab sentiment being used by the pundits on the left and right, and smacks of total racism and hypocritical fervor. There was no mass outrage when big business fork over company operation to other countries, and fail to mention other cases where big business already owns much of what they thought was “american-ran”. Great discussion and glad I am not the only one that sees through this ploy to stir up the nationalistic fervor and so blindly. No wonder we can’t get over our issues of racism here.

President Bush himself has said that he will veto any law blocking the deal. The pseudo-worries of the anti camp are over security which is in no way dealt with by DP World - that pleasure goes to US Customs and the US Coast Guard and of course, the Dep. of Homeland Security.

In a nutshell, a British company P&O, which used to run six American ports, was bought up by another company, DP World, which runs ports all over the world. The company is one of the world’s largest ports operators and is expected to run the American ports more efficiently than their predecessors. But there’s a problem: DP World is based in Dubai, which is –horrors!- an Arab city.

A small precision, untill very recently DP World didn’t even exist. It was created and it’s strategy is to buy out major port operating company to become “one of the world’s largest ports operators”.

Anyhow, returning to the subject, I think this is one of the backlashes of privatization. One day, a Pakistani or someone else company will buy out an american nuclear waste management company.. and that could eventually be bad.

Anon: It’s Mittal Steel (An indian Steel giant) who is trying to buy out Arcelor (A european steal giant). And the french government is opposing the buyout.

The Democrats are scoring political points. They are going to run on a militant/isolationist foriegn policy next November.

I don’t think that Americans hate Arabs anymore than they hate any other group of Americans. There are a ton of different people in this country and each group has a problem with different groups. I think the only reason that it isn’t a problem is that we are to busy getting rich and having fun to hate people enough for it to matter.

-Mike in the U.S.

A small precision, untill very recently DP World didn’t even exist. It was created and it’s strategy is to buy out major port operating company to become “one of the world’s largest ports operators”.

The company has always been there under the name DPA, they just recently renamed it to DPW..

Want to read a good argument about this issue visit one of my favourite Canadian blogs:Arabian Dissent

“All Americans are definitely anti-Arab. You nailed it.”

*All* Americans? Fighting misconceptions, generalizations and bigotry with more of the same is no way to improve the state of things.

My first visit Beirut Spring. Quite agree with sentiments. This is improper behaviour on the part of certain US politicians and commentators. I am Australian and DP World has been managing a terminal here for some time without any fuss. That number is about to be expanded with the purchase by DP of P&O.

Had thought that it was just racism originating in fear, but with your points and other comments I now wonder if it is also a more basic human emotion, ego. How could an Arab firm be buying into the global logistics industry in the home of capitalism, the USA. The fact that there are no US firms in that part of the logistics sector doesn’t seem to impinge. No ports are run by US firms. That a wholly government owned Chinese firm operates terminals on the west coast of the US is ignored, though they too will be effected if this proposed legislation gets up.

The really silly aspect of the objections is that the more effective and efficient the terminal operator is the better the chance that terrorism attempts will be detected and stopped.

I am a fan of the US but am very saddened by this unpleasant behaviour. The fact that there are elections looming has to be relevant. Those on the right objecting have stuffed up. And then there is the sections of the left in the US who if Bush says it is night, they scream it is day.

Our host refers to the respect for effeciency that DP World has. Is this carry on in fact nothing more than overpaid wharfies (the reason US business won’t be in the business) are either worried about jobs and inflated salaries, or it is the first salvo in bargaining about wages and jobs with the new owners. Here in Australia we had a huge fight about the wharves and P&O were definitely inclined to go along with the wharfies demands and pass the cost onto Australian consumers.

Why this even more distatseful cause suggested. As another blogger says

And, lo, the New York Sun reported this week that “nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse” in the form of campaign contributions. They include New York Representatives Peter King (R), Jerry Nadler (D) and Vito Fossella (R) and Senators Clinton, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.).

Another sign of the protectionism at work here is the call to give Congress a larger say in vetting such transactions.

Dp World and Arab business is really owed some apologies.

hm, politicians can talk all they want, in the end it’s money that makes the world go ’round, and the only thing this deal depends on, is whether it will make money or not.

ghassan (first comment)

In the US:

The political-political floodgates, crossing party lines, opened in the first half of last year 2005. The clearest sign of the transition, from a staunch war-footing (partisan nonetheless), to normalcy was the controversial nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court. This was the first time since 2001 that pundits attacked a loyalist of their own party. It was a free-for-all slam-fest. A clear, unmistakable symbol of change.

It is important to remember that US politicians are shrewdly positioning themselves for future elections. Playing to their own constituencies in their districts. Issue-promiscuity is paralleled in all democratic nations and hinted in theocracies and monarchies. This movement, in the USA, is an enormous transition from just a year ago. Now the world has witnessed three elections in Iraq and elections in Afghanistan amongst other things. Tides turn.

Decisions and deals are made. They are posed to the public by the media. The public reaction must be considered beforehand. A storm of controversy, for example, is often a transitional venting for the public at large. The public will be the last to move from one disposition to another. This notion is surely not lost on Washington figureheads.

My impression is just that. The deal, in some form, is done. That’s why the story appeared. The UAE company will operate the ports. My understanding is that the changes have nothing to do with; manpower, day to day functioning or any of the myriad of security forces. The change is shareholders. Different operating company with different shareholders.

Swifter minds have observed the distinct ties of the US to some Arab Nations -for years- and decades. To these incredibly perceptive people; the ports deal was another psychodrama in primetime. When the story was first released with “UAE Company” in the headline; It was just a matter of hours before the fuse burned down to the firecracker. When you guess right and then watch it happen over the course of a week; It is a great kick.

The news-media, the bloggers and the politicians all need “issues” to promote. The reality is often different from the debate.

I.E. Saudia Arabia is often criticized as the subversive wahabbi exporting center. Saudi Arabia has consistently supplied the industrial worldwide-world with petroleum for well over half a century. How subversive are they then?

-

Rolando

I don’t hate Wafah Dufour. Not even for a split second.

Don’t misunderstand me though. The mutual contempt for others is almost eternal for some population cross sections. We have our distinct cultures and identities. That is the only identity that some will ever have. Others maitain their links to political power by strict alignment with the “mainstream” issue/ideals.

We mark ourselves as belonging to a group. Language is just one example of many many. There will always be those who share interests above and beyond the pose of the media. It’s all over history. Wars are fought while some members, of opposing sides, are happily in bed together and not at war. This is often reserved territory for elites but it is not exclusive to them. The queues are all around Washington and have been. Many just miss the signals.

In any culture, moving up and down or across a horizontal, there are opposites. There will always be the less intellectual and instinctively more rascist camps which are opposed by mirror opposite camps.

During the recent US State of the Union Address by President George Bush; A Muslim woman sat in a position of prestige with First Lady Laura Bush.

I didn’t miss the symbol.

-

Desmond

Yes.