March 9, 2006
The Port Deal
Is it a win? ... and for whom?
- United Arab Emirates-owned DP World said Thursday it would transfer its operations of American ports to a U.S. "entity" after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the firm's takeover deal was essentially dead on Capitol Hill.
"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship ... DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," Edward H. Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, said in a statement.
Lets hope it's Halliburton.
A good American company.
Current Events Posted by AlexC at March 9, 2006 4:36 PM
I think it's a huge loss for freedom. A moderate Muslim nation that has supported the US in the War on Terror has been told that it is not allowed to compete on a level playing field with other companies.
And the protectionists have allied with the xenophobes to help do their part to diminish wealth creation. A very bad day and deal all 'round.
Robert Green makes a great case in TCS that the Dubai sale would improve port security: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030906B
Posted by: jk at March 9, 2006 4:48 PMWe've spent the last five years actively hunting terrorists across the globe. It's not lost on Americans that those terrorists are from one culture.
That's the message.
Posted by: AlexC at March 9, 2006 11:52 PMWe fought Japanese, Germans, and Soviet Satellites for more years. When they wanted to play by civilized rules, we welcomed them into world markets.
What you describe is natural and -- trust me -- after the cartoon wars I find it hard not to succumb. But I still believe in trade and still believe that the ultimate solution is to integrate the moderate member nations into world markets.
Yeah, the UAE shuns Israel. China thinks she has sovereignty over Taiwan and exercises it over Tibet. Trade will someday make both the UAE and China better to those who live there.
Posted by: jk at March 10, 2006 10:27 AMWe defeated all those countries first, THEN welcomed them as partners in Western Civilzation and world markets.
Which country should we defeat that will solve our quickly solve our problem with Islamofacism? The democracy in Iraq strategy is a long term one.
Nazism, Communism and Japanese Nationalism were all based around a nation.
Fascism went down to defeat in the 40s because the whole world rallied against it.
It took 50 years to defeat communism, and that was working with some strong allies, some tepid "Americans are better than the Soviets, for now" (ie Old Europe), and seemingly the rest of the world with the Soviets.... and it was with rational actors as enemies.
Islamofascism is not a rational actor, it's in a lot of places, and with global trade and travel the way it is, can we well afford (or willing to do what it takes) to wage a war with these guys for 50 years? They've been sharpening their knives for 700 years.
Now, of course the UAE is not a sponsor of Islamic terror, but democracies are fickle, and sometimes they throw the baby out with the bathwater, for this reason. Trust is hard to earn, but easy to lose.
Posted by: AlexC at March 10, 2006 12:55 PM | What do you think? [4]