Johnathan, this isn't even remotely about protectionism. IIRC, the company selling the 'ports' is a British one.

Plain and simple, it's about security. The companies are very much part of the security apparatus and we share much of our method. I'm one of those Americans who is perfectly happen to share many things with Dubai, but not our security.

The United States is very privatized. What this means in the security field is that the companies are privy to many methods and procedures.

Since it's my country that will be having such a huge tonnage of mostly unispected shipping going under the control of Muslims, Dubai is an Islamic state remember, please allow me to be hesitant.

Like most people on this site, I have little faith in the excellence of government services. That extends to security. We had major concerns about container shipping long before this ever came up. I think it was good timing that this issue finally put a point on that pencil.

I agree with Midwesterner. I've never heard a bad word about the Emirates and people who live there say they are relaxed about foreigners drinking, etc. But ... but ... they're Muslim. Sorry, but I think the US would have to be declared legally insane to entrust any secrets of national security with people whose first loyalty may not be to the West.

You're right Jonathan, we should encourage Dubai... to go fuck themselves. The emirates aren't the acceptable face of Islamic theocracy because it has no acceptable face.

And there I was under the impression that I'd find some rational thought here... :P

Surely none of you believe the security aspect is left to P&O, regardless of whether or not they're selling the ports to DPW, do you?

How secure the US makes its ports and borders is down to its government.

I think past recorded events would remind us that it's the bottom level of security that makes a fundamental difference, a la screening at airports- all the things the government are responsible for. Would anybody like to remind of the nationality of those organisations responsible for the security breaches of 9/11? I doubt they were Dubaian.

This just smacks of whipped up hysteria.

James (who hysterically refuses to disclose is email).

You're clueless.

Just as you refuse to disclose your email address, presumably for your own protection, it is wise for a target of terrorists (we are, remember?) to not disclose our important information to people with higher allegiances to other powers. If a US citizen/company gives our security info to terrorists he is had up for treason. If a Dubai citizen does the same with US info, what's he do? (we can be sure it will be a he) Take a few laps in his private pool?

I was comfortable in the past with full sharing with the UK. (Dr. Strangelove, anyone?) But as the UK snuggles deeper in to the EU, I think this same principle will begin to apply there, to.

We must not share security info with people who will share it with our enemies. US shares with UK. UK is required by the EU to share with the EU. EU are idiots who share with everyone who hates the US.

Isn't the real point here that in the War on Terror / Islamo-f'ism, our best weapons are free markets, freedom of information, free media & democracy.

It is capitalism & consumerism that will defeat the terrorists - after all, if you have 2 cars, a decent house & lots of wide screen TVs, being a suicide bomber suddenly looks a little less attractive

James of no known email address: None believes the security aspect would be left to P&O.

But, James, here is the bit you haven't thought of or have naively dismissed: the government has to share certain information with the owners of shipping companies. They need the cooperation of the shipping companies in certain routines.

Geddit?

Clueless?

But you're the one telling me that the US did/ does 'full sharing' with the UK! How optimistic... As for being compelled to share intelligence with the rest of the EU- please? Give us some credit.

I don't disclose my e-mail address because this is the Internet- it's not a ports corporation whom I can see and know about ;)

By your logic, I should stop eating food bought from the shop around the corner because- and here's the jawdropper- the foreigners are at the highest levels of the food supply chain and they might be able to poison our food! Christ almighty! Prepare the vegetable patch in the garden!

I don't understand this irrational stance taken on the P&O takeover.

If security is handled by the US government and its agents anyway, what's the big deal? Port operators are hardly likely to be the custodians of the US' state secrets anytime soon and I doubt very much that because the port operator happens to be Dubaian that there'll be a sudden influx of Dubaian workers. In fact, my money's safely on the idea that the workers in those ports today will be the same workers there if any deal is done. If anybody is likely to be a cause of any security incident, I'd also put money on it being them as well, because I'm doubting that an exec several thousand miles away is likely to be in a position to allow through explosives somewhere. I'd bet that would be the port worker that would need to be bribed ;)

Surely this stance also betrays a very anti-libertarian train of thought, as well? Government intervention in trade?

Also, you're pinning what substantial evidence exactly of them being a security threat? Inequality on the basis of mere suspicion, mostly from the rhetoric of people with a soapbox and an agenda? Sounds fair to me!

Well, if the US wants to block foreign ownership of innocuous entities, I'd suggest it also blocks any form of ownership in publicly traded defence/ transport/ blah blah blah companies- who knows what could happen at an AGM, eh?

Mr Free Market,
Osama bin Laden is the son of a billionaire. Most of the 9/11 and 7/7 bombers were pretty comfortably off.

Dubai is an autocracy built on sharia with the Emir in absolute control. It is not a free-market state in anything like the sense we'd understand that in the west. Letting companies from such a country buy something as vital as major port facilities is de facto giving a foreign potentate control over them. Would the US have allowed a Soviet "company" to have done this deal during the Cold War? No, and this is very similar.

Midwesterner,
As of know we don't share everything with the EU - certainly not Echelon decrypts. The world's largest listening station Menwirth Hill, in Yorkshire is for spying on Europe.

Maybe James has sold his email address to Yemenis.

Mr Free Market but Legally Brain Dead: The suicide bombers in Britain were third generation, had plasma TVs, one was driving a brand new red Jaguar, they watched British reality TV and whatever, they owned their own homes, had cool threads, some were married with children. (Certainly one of the jihadi twits who went to bomb Israel and blew themselves up on Allenby Bridge had degrees and were married with children.)

You are a very provincial thinker.

Do you think the Saudi suicide bombers don't have extremely cool cars - several each? - and giant screen TVs and didn't go on foreign vacations and to lapdancing clubs? How about the suicide pilots who took lessons in take-off but not landing? They had access to everything the West had to offer.

Not everyone is driven to become a suicide bomber because they live in a shithole in Pakistan. In fact, I don't know if any suicide bombers have come from shitholes. They're mostly from wealthy or middle class, achieving families.

Verity of no mutual respect for my desire for privacy,

I do 'geddit', thank you very much.

Perhaps you do not?

I don't understand how you think this deal would suddenly turn the operations of the organisation on its head? If there are security issues, these will likely be addressed.

The 'routines' which you talk about will, in such a heavily regulated country, likely be scrutinised anyway and those likely to be scrutinised are those that are already being scrutinised.

These 'routines' shared by the government to the shipping companies- they wouldn't happen to include foreign-owned shipping companies, would they? Perhaps the odd Asian and Middle-Eastern one here and there?

Whilst you're at it Verity, why don't you also suggest that Middle-Eastern airlines be banned from the US as well, lest they conspire to fly into airports packed with explosives or- heaven forbid- more foreigners!

Verity,
Most of the Palestinian ones are from shitholes. But then their family is usually generously rewarded by Islamic "charities" - so it's sort of aspirational in a way.

Blow yourself up and your missus gets a BMW!

It should be a gameshow. It probably is in Riyadh.

Clueless?

You're proving my point.

But you're the one telling me that the US did/ does 'full sharing' with the UK! How optimistic... As for being compelled to share intelligence with the rest of the EU- please? Give us some credit.

No credit here, James. EU rules require all intelligence agencies to share their information. If the UK is not doing this it's because the EU is unable to enforce it yet.

I don't disclose my e-mail address because this is the Internet- it's not a ports corporation whom I can see and know about ;)

Huh?

By your logic, I should stop eating food bought from the shop around the corner because- and here's the jawdropper- the foreigners are at the highest levels of the food supply chain and they might be able to poison our food! Christ almighty! Prepare the vegetable patch in the garden!

So you're equating food poisoning on Oak Lane with nuclear devices and other WMDs?!?!?

I don't understand this irrational stance taken on the P&O takeover.

If security is handled by the US government and its agents anyway, what's the big deal?

I'll type slowly, James. You seem to need it. US companies are not owned by the government. The government needs to have the company's involvement in it's security procedures. If you want to defeat security procedures, you need to know what they are. The owners know what they are. The owners are (to be) in Dubai. Get it. We share the complete details of our inspection procedures with the owners.

Surely this stance also betrays a very anti-libertarian train of thought, as well?

This libertarian wants to stay at liberty.

Well, if the US wants to block foreign ownership of innocuous entities, I'd suggest it also blocks any form of ownership in publicly traded defence/ transport/ blah blah blah

Only if they release secret info to stockholders.

Midwesterner,

I'm usually a bit suspicious when somebody starts picking 'rules' out of the air- which rules exactly? I'm curious. At present, I know of none which 'rule' that member states must share intelligence.

You don't understand how 'foreigners' at the top of the food supply chain could pose a threat to security in this country? Why, they could be operating a Dr Evil-style corporation, bent on poisoning the entire population from their distribution depot in the heart of Wolverhampton! Just like the sort of organisation you imagine in Dubai, I suppose...

So anyway, that the owners are in Dubai, that automatically makes them associates of terrorists and are thus not to be trusted, is that right? Never mind that the operational aspect is still to be managed from the US... Do you actually know what is being bought and sold here? I suspect that many people don't. I also suspect that many people think that it's just a few ports that are being sold.

Anyway, if there was such a huge risk in DPW handling the operation of these ports, then surely US Navy's 5th Fleet wouldn't already be using them for far more sensitive maritime operations, would they?

James - the port operators are obviously privy to a huge amount of security information. I would prefer that this not be shared with wild-eyed jihadis.

Nick M - It's true the Palestinian bomberloonies are from the proverbial shithole, but Saddam Hussein was bunging their families US$20,000 per boom. Now that Saddam's in captivity, I'm sure Boy Assad or someone has taken up the slack.

James again - "So anyway, that the owners are in Dubai, that automatically makes them associates of terrorists and are thus not to be trusted, is that right?"

Not "automatically". But I'd sup with a long spoon. In fact, prefer not to sup.

Verity, re-read my post. I did say there was a whopping financial incentive to go KABOOM!

Whatever side you're on, the plot thickens. The House Appropriations Committee just voted overwhelmingly (62-2) to block the sale.

I agree with james a little here. All of you may find it a huge security risk that they would now control the ports, but honestly, they could just as easily be smuggling all sorts of illegal what-nots in their own planes. And still, would not you think that those ports would be more heavily watched by the pure demand of the american public, let alone governmental worries? It would almost then be much easier to smuggle through our normal ports.

Anyway, we have to get on the middle east's good side somehow, better trade ralations(with the richest country there) would surely be a great start to that. Or at the least, slow down the great sense of anti-americanism in many of those countries

Oh well, we will all soon see what, if any, good will come out of this.

Verity,

What security information? Why is it 'obvious' that they are privy to this? Of all the operations involved in maritime activity, why is stevedoring suddenly so sensitive?

What's all the fuss about? It doesn't matter a tinker's damn who owns the ports. All sorts of sometimes unpleasant people own assets which we believe are "ours". We live in a globalized world and everything is traded. Is P&O responsible for (national) security? I don't know, but think not. Nor would Dubai be responsible. The US (gumment) is, was & always will be answerable for the protection of US turf & all that stands on it & comes into it. I am deeply against Islamists.....who want to KILL us, let me remind you all, but to think that a grass-snake represents a basket(case) full of rattlers just doesn't make sense. And in any case, if push came to shove, you can be sure that the Gumment (In Singaporean: Garmen) would seize control quicker than you can unzip your fly.

Another point I should make:

If there really was the will to commence terrorist activities against the US, wouldn't starting it off by spending $6.85Bn be a bit expensive, only to lose it all once activity has commenced?

The one thing I keep seeing is- even from wealthy beneficiaries such as bin Laden- financing of the most basic activities to produce the maximum effect.

Look at 9/11- bin Laden didn't engineer a plan to purchase airports or even airlines, did he?

The London bombings- very inexpensive project, which I think was costed at £2000 in total.

The Madrid bombings- financed by petty criminal activity in part. Again, against transport infrastructure in a relatively crude fashion.

All those billions seem a lot to lose on something that could just as easily be done (and has) on a fraction of the amount put forward here.

I was out of the house, I'll try to catch up. Here's Jame's answer.

James, fair question. I was reading on another topic and came across a rather dry explanation of the rules on an EU official website. I think it was actually intended to be reassuring of how everything would be peaches since no countries would have any secrets from each other. As an American looking at our intel sharing with UK, I found it far less reassuring. I didn't book mark it so I'll have to start from scratch with google. If I'm lucky, somebody out there will have that information close to hand and save me the search.

I actually have thought about the food poisoning angle, who hasn't? I discount not because I think it unlikely, I actually think it more likely, but because it is difficult to imagine the wide scale permanent damage being done that can be done by nuclear technology. Simple poisoning would be caught before too many hundreds died. Bio-tech infection spreading through the food supply is a more serious threat but less withing the means of terrorists. Any food delivered threat that I can think of can be repaired accept for the near term casualties.

They are in Dubai, that makes them associates of Muslims. They probably are Muslims. Please accept that many of us do not believe in a 'moderate Islamic state'. I think recent history should make clear it's an oxymoron.

TTBOMK, naval ops are not planned and carried through by private corporation personal that do not have a security clearance. I doubt the chairman of General Dynamics can see secret info without a security clearance.

Let me clarify. I don't care about the financial aspect of ownership on security. I don't think the present would be owners in Dubai intend anything malevolent.

It is our procedures, equipment, profiling data, likelyhood of containers to get what level of search, sort of information.

The 9-11 hijackers looked at a far more secured system than our ports. The looked at how the companies did business, how security checks were conducted, what was banned and what wasn't, etc.

They looked at information that taken alone was innocuous. The put together a plan that brought huge damage to us. A similar method could easily get a container any where in the US. What might fit into a container? This problem far transcends the aquisition of a company. As I said in my first comment, this sale only sharpend the pencil of that bigger problem.

Midwesterner,

I'd be interested to see that, if you can dig it out. However, I think that you might be thinking of a reference from the EU Solidarity Clause from the draft EU constitution, which requires that all member states be committed to provide support and assistance for each other in respect of terrorist attacks. Essentially, the clause is similar in principles to Nato's Article 5, which was invoked to the benefit of the US on September 12th, 2001.

With the food poisoning scenario, I'd have expected it to be far easier than the nuclear option. It's likely to be cheaper, there are a vast number of options and it is probably far easier to do.

A single food storage depot can be used for nationwide distribution, so the opportunity to have national impact is not improbable. Food gets mixed about and moved at various points in its life, so any contaminated product is likely to be stored with other products, thus risking possible cross-contamination with previously 'clean' products. The possibilities for cross-contamination must be endless, so I don't doubt for a moment that contaminating the food supply is less of a threat than a nuclear one, especially when it is more probable.

I too do not believe that there are moderate Islamic states, however I don't necessarily believe that UAE is ruled with Islam as its absolute yardstick.

With one of the strongest commitments to US co-operation in the region, I don't think the UAE government will try to subvert it through ownership of the operational rights to a few ports in the US.

As for the last point, I can only assume that DPW have the necessary clearance to work with the US forces.

The first page I opened had this....

The European Union has decided that from January 1, 2008, any information available in one country should be available in all other 25 member states.(Link)

You want me to keep looking?

James, for whatever reasons, we routinely have food contamination problems in the US. (ie My cousin was hospitalized after he was poisoned with salmonella by ice cream).

What is very reassuring is that within hours of an outbreak being confirmed, all of that batch is removed from store shelves nation wide.

It may be a bad sign that were so good at dealing with negligently dangerous food, but we are.

BTW James, this is the search string I used (in Google)

"European union" "intelligence sharing"

Yes, you're referring to future policies. I am aware of the 2008 proposal, however that is not yet in existence.

I think what it is actually referring to is the proposed intelligence service and its mechanics, which would mean that rather than a single member state cascading intelligence on a state-by-state basis or through Europol, there would be a single intelligence hub, which would have member 'spokes' gathering and submitting intelligence for central distribution. So far as I know, there is no policy, let alone legislative proposal, for requiring ALL intelligence to be shared.

I think that would require a shift in the dynamics of EU responsibilities, in that member states are responsible for defence and foreign affairs.

"from January 1, 2008, ANY information available in one country should be available in ALL other 25 member states."

The EU PTB will of course determine that this includes archived information as well. The nature of intelligence frequently/usually indicates it likelyest source.

So if you cooperate fully, the French will get all of the information we've given you, past and present, and will figure out our sources for most of it.

So, how fully do you think Tony will cooperate? What words will he use to justify his cooperation? I'It may be that you guys are suffering from a terminal case of T.B.

Hmmm, should we Yanks let Dubai own some of our ports? There are two articles in today's Washington Times quotes as sources a private non-proliferation organisation and the September11 Commission;

1.) UAE was transit point for forbidden miltary stuff for Uncle Saddami.

2.) Mid- 1990's transit point to ship nuclear technology to Iran.

3.) 66 switches for nuclear weapon ignition shipped through UAE to Pakistan.

4.) 2002 memo from Al Queda to UAE government stating thay had infiltrated UAE security, monetary and other goverment functions...

On the other hand present UAE leader's father was Islamofascist sympathizer. Pro side of ports deal claims the son is on our side and has since daddy's departure, crossed over from the dark side. So what to do? Can the scion clean up a country that was steeped in sin for so many years so quickly?

Son's a shill.

Just my guess.

I know the container shipping industry well. I am going to indulge myself with a longer than usual post....

What Dubai Ports are buying is not the port facilities it is the right to carry out terminal operations on behalf of the port authority. The port authorities concerned will generally be owned by State or City governments. They may purchase some cargo handling equipment but the big gantry cranes are likely owned by the port authority and hired out to the terminal operator (Dubai Ports, P&O etc.)

The actual labour (stevedoring) will be carried out by unionised Americans as a closed shop. What Dubai ports bring to the party is managerial skill and software for tracking containers within the port area and working out the most efficient way to get containers on and off ships and on and off the trucks and trains which carry containers inland.

I can see three potential security problems.

1) Direct access to sensitive areas inside the port, ability to put things in or take things out of containers.

The key factor on the ground is the staff. Having a closed shop union staff is not a good idea for general economic reasons but the type of people who are working as stevedores tend to be highly patriotic blue-collar Americans. If they think anything untoward is happening they will prevent it even if their new Arab bosses tell them otherwise.

2) Dubai Ports will more readily be able to get visas for foreign staff.

True, just like any other foreign corporation in the US.

3) Dubai Ports will be able to analyze how security measures are applied by the US government and therefore how to avoid them.

Dubai Ports will have access to surprisingly little information. They will know only from which ship a container came (not necessarily its point of origin) the bare facts about its content and to where it must be sent next. US authorities will have access to the systems used by the terminal operator they will use that to find the location of containers they wish to search and go straight to them and search them, only notifying the terminal operator if they need it to be lifted down from the top of a stack. They will determine which containers to search by looking at the cargo manifest which they receive 24 hours before the ship left the overseas port en route to the US and which contains full details of shipper and consignee.

Dubai Ports would not have the cargo manifests. They would only be able to get the barest perception of how US Customs choose containers for search.

It would be untrue to suggest that the purchase of the terminal operations by Dubai Ports has no security implications but they are minimal and far less serious than the threats posed by having foreign owned airlines or shipping lines calling in the US. It doesn't worry me at all. Maintaining free trade is more important.

Interesting demographic on this thread so far.

Of 4 commenters came out against opening this up to the Islamic/Arab ownership, all gave their email addresses.

5 commenters came out for not worrying about it, of which the 2 most voluble ones kept their email addresses secret.

Midwesterner,

I think the presence or absence of real e-mail addresses is irrelevant.

I've added a working one for me to this post. Here's why I didn't post it before...

I just got a new job and my employment contract could be interpreted as barring me from commenting on online forums under my own name. I also found out that as part of the background check they checked online, so I changed posting names and stopped putting up a working e-mail address. I know I can easily set up an email address just for Samizdata but I know that I won't be bothered to check it regularly. Because, in the six months or so I posted here with my main e-mail address I only got one e-mail from a Samizdatista so I think it is not worth bothering about.

I recognize. You used to post in your own name, no?

I said early on in this thread that the timing of this is good from a clean up container security standing.

I have a hard time imagining that a nation that can't keep out spectacular amounts of drugs which any half trained sniffer dog can find, is going to be able to find hermetically sealed anything. Are we xraying everything yet?

I'm assuming, you may or may not now, if we have a failsafe way to detect nuclear devices. I don't even know if it's possible to shield U-234&5 in a container sized configuration.

Excuse me, I'm having an oldies moment. Online radio. Loggins and Messina, Your Mama Don't Dance..... Okay, you can stop laughing. It's Pink Floyd, now.

Seriously, an awful lot of very credible people involved in port security think we've got a situation in the making if we can't seriously tighten up container shipping. Comments?

"We should encourage Dubai"

That is inverting the onus. They want to enter in "our home" that's their call . They have to encourage us to accept them. And it is not some money/post job to some senator or ex-President...

If the people of the US are so against a Dubaian company running the ports, just request that you wish to see the port of entry of the goods you buy (or raw materials thereof) and boycott anything coming in via the Dubai owned ports. Starve them out and avoid any 'contamination'. Dubai would have then injected billions into the UK economy buying P&O and then be forced to sell off the failing assets to another UK/US concern for fire-sale prices.

As to the US 'sharing' with the UK, I cannot believe that it is annything approaching a balanced relationship - the 'Nat West Three' is a classic example of the lop-sided arrangement.

From my reading, none of the security arrangements now in place at the ports are going to change, so the security angle strikes me as cover for protectionism. I started out thinking this might be an issue, but the more I read about it, the more it struck me as hysterical nonsense and a cover for protectionism. I still take that view.

Dubai is hardly perfect from a libertarian point of view, but the point that so many are missing is that if we are to crack open the Muslim world to better influences, we should be encouraging entrepreneurship and so forth in such places, not cutting them off totally. Are you saying that non-western airlines should not be allowed to land in the USA?

And of course, are Midwesterner and Verity prepared to stop using their cars, now largely fuelled by Saudi oil?

You do seem to brewing up a storm in a teacup. Despite the committee ruling against the takeover, so what if Dubai did remotely have an interest in the ports? Given that Saudi corporations have direct interest in US explosives companies (SABIC), let alone the amount of 1st generation military technology that gets sold into the Middle East, does it matter? Can anyone on here say that those ports would really, seriously be any less secure under DP World's ownership than it was under P&O's?

It strikes me that you seem to believe that there is some kind of evil cackling Muslim genius in Dubai who now plans to remove thousands of P&O staff from US ports and replace them with Bin Laden supporters. Do you really think that there was going to be some kind of 'halal' checking system at the NYPA, where Danish products, cartoons of Mohammed, scotch and bacon imports are banned or dumped into the harbour while SAM missiles, SEMTEX and RPG launchers are waived through?

The Daily Telegraph is none too impressed by the reaction in the U.S., either. And the Torygraph is hardly a bastion of multi-culti silliness:

(Link)

James refers to "a few" ports. Twenty-one? A few?

Blowing up the port at Galveston or New Orleans, never mind New York, could cause massive damage to the American economy and morale.

Why take the chance when these people come from a group that has openly identified itself as the enemy of the West?

Verity, go and read the James Glassmann article I linked to. The man is the soul of capitalist good sense and rains all over the security issue you mention. I have looked closely at this story, and there is no suggestion that security is going to be compromised. All that is really going to change is that revenues generated by the ports will enter a different bank account. That's it.

And I second every one of the good points made by Julian Taylor.

There are far, far more urgent security issues out there and this is not one of them. And what sort of message does it give to those Muslims that might want to open up to the West and modernise? It tells them to bugger off. That does not seem very smart to me.

I find the reactions of some people to this rather over the top. No wonder Glenn Reynolds is shaking his head in sorrow.

Verity,

Putting aside the 'OMG we're all going to be killed in our sleep by evil Muslims' hysteria, do you think that maybe George Bush knows something that you don't, that just maybe it is okay to allow DPW to take over P&O's operations? Any port operator would only run businesses that load and unload cargo, employ stevedores, manage cruise ship and passenger terminals or build port facilities and would most certainly NOT, repeat NOT, be involved in port security - that is handled by Customs and Border Protection under DoHS supervision.

I agree totally with what Jonathan writes above, that we must be about encouraging trade with all cultures since that is the way we foster economic security and eventually political stability in those regions. Nobody enjoying the benefits of an economic boom is likely to want to boom in other more explosive ways.

Julian Taylor - I find your reaction to my post naive, not to say infantile. I didn't suggest that we were going to be killed in our sleep. I suggested that this deal might be employed to wreak profound economic damage to the US at a cost to morale. Dubbing people who don't agree with you "hysterical" is very Sixth Form common room, don't you think?

Whether you are able to to get your mind round this or not, Muslims - specifically Arab Muslims - have been noted for duplicity for centuries.

Yes, I am assuming that George Bush knows something we don't know, which is why I am not more disturbed by this, but I still don't like it. (Johnathan, yes I am an admirer of James Glassman.)

I find Julian's statement that: "we must be about encouraging trade with all cultures since that is the way we foster economic security and eventually political stability in those regions. Nobody enjoying the benefits of an economic boom is likely to want to boom in other more explosive ways." awfully ill-informed. Have you ever been to the Emirates? They are economically secure in spades. The last time I was in Dubai airport, you could buy cars in Duty-Free.

Saudi Arabia is wealthy beyond any of our imaginations, and it is stable. It produces oil and rich suicide bombers and bomber-handlers and plotters like the very wealthy Osama bin Laden.

All this weak and whimpering talk about "economic stability" is s-o-o-o old-fashioned, trite and out of touch. They're rich. They're stable. They have a culture which is exactly antithetical to our own. They are not watching the West longingly and enviously. They don't have their noses pressed against the windowpane. Get over it.

Saudi Arabia is wealthy beyond any of our imaginations, and it is stable. It produces oil and rich suicide bombers and bomber-handlers and plotters like the very wealthy Osama bin Laden.

Well, I'm not sure I would call Saudi Arabia "stable," exactly. It is a one-product economy run almost entirely with foreign expertise with a political structure held together by a bribe (the royal family funds Wahabbiism and tolerates sharia law to stave off the otherwise inevitable rebellion).

But it's certainly true that there doesn't seem to be any correlation between weath and devotion to radical Islam. Some dirt poor muslims don't give a crap about Israel, some want to blow themselves up and Israel with them. Some weathy Arabs are hedonists, others are militant religious fanatics. Like with pretty much any other issue, the economic determinist explanation is way too simple.

I think the argument being made about about "economic stability" isn't really about making sure Arab countries get richer and more bourgeois/middle-class, it's about the bet that the militants won't blow up their own assets. The idea behind developing economic ties between countries is that it gives both sides a stake in the success of the other. There may well be militants in Dubai, but the government has reason to think that they do not own or interact with this company - or that they would not get any information even if they did because security would be handled by the US government, just as it is now.

Julian, invoking George Bush's intellect is hardly inspiring of confidence. If it weren't for the over all tenor of your comment I would have suspected you were having a bit of fun.

And how can "businesses that load and unload cargo, employ stevedores, manage cruise ship and passenger terminals or build port facilities" possibly "most certainly NOT, repeat NOT, be involved in port security" ?

I suggested that this deal might be employed to wreak profound economic damage to the US at a cost to morale.

Eh? I thought it was security that you were worried about, Verity. Actually, your point could be used to justify protectionism across the board, which I suspect might be the case.

And there was nothing naive or infantile about Julian's post. He is one of the most level-headed posters around.

With the UAE having a large financial stake in this, and knowing full well what the U.S. reaction would be to an attack of some sort in one of the ports it's associated with -- I'd say it would be in their best interest to perhaps try even harder than we do to keep them safe (assuming they would even have the means to do so)... which seems to be pretty negligible to start with anyway really.

(real email addess included)

Johnathan - I usually enjoy Julian Taylor's posts, especially the funny ones, but in this instance I feel he was way, way OTT and I said so.

You quote me: "I suggested that this deal might be employed to wreak profound economic damage to the US at a cost to morale."

"Eh? I thought it was security that you were worried about, Verity."

Yes indeedy. Blowing up the ports of Galveston and NO would put a dent in business which would weaken the economy and cause terrible loss of morale and weaken the country.

Joshua - Saudi Arabia is stable. It is not just the kind of stability ethnocentric Westerners think everyone wants. But it is a stable regime. Some of the posters here are stuck in the Cold War, with youths in Moscow saving up their kopeks to buy smuggled jeans, and gazing longingly at refrigerators and TVs.

This is a different circumstance and applying old solutions to new problems is a waste of time. Most of these desert regimes (which are at the heart of the problem) are rich and stable. They've got DVDs and plasma TVs coming out of their ears. They've got so many sports cars that when they need to be repaired, they just abandon them by the side of the road. Talking about bringing the sweetness and light of bringing stability and consumer products to them is too unrealistic and backward looking.

But Verity, you are ignoring the point repeatedly made that security measures will not be changed as a result. This is not about how these ports are actually run. The local authorities will continue to monitor that, as they do now. If there was any doubt about that I would agree with your point of view, but that's not the situation.

All of the debate as to whether or not the anti-Dubai group is worried about security or they're just Islamophobic or whatever is really missing the point. The main point is that this LOOKS BAD. There's a phrase here in the US that goes "How is this going to play in Peoria?" which means how is this going to look to the average Joe & Jane in the heartland of the US. It boils down to this: Bush is giving (selling) the ports to a Middle-Eastern company that's (partially) owned by an Arab government; the UAE (not the government, mind you, but companies in the UAE) have direct and indirect ties to 9/11. This means it looks really bad.

And since 2006 is an election year for the Congresscritters, this is an easy issue to latch onto (for both sides of the aisle).

With Bush coming off of the (apparent) bungling of Katrina, (apparent) bungling of the war in Iraq, the flipflop of whether or not he knew the deal was going on, etc. his simple "Trust me, I'm from the government" isn't playing well in Peoria. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Johnathan - Regarding the security measures being unchanged, that is not relevant. What is relevant is, the ports management company will necessarily have access to many of these measures. That has already been admitted.

ResidentAlien,

That is a very interesting insight. I am guessing you
work for one of the container lines because your comment was from inside the inside knowledge not to be found in trade mags like containerisation international.
I thought that the container security intiative took care of any of the security issues and that this whole takeover by the muslims thing was a bit overblown but its clearly more complicated than that.

Midwesterner,
if every box were xrayed it would be
the economic equivalent of an embargo. A huge price to pay. I understand around 2% are currently xrayed but AlienResident might correct that.