There is a lot of stuff about Dubai at the moment. The issue of Dubai Ports’ purchase of P&O and the reaction by certain American Democrat and Republican politicians is a massive story Stateside, though it has not registered much in the UK, unless you are a reader of the business sections. There is a smell of protectionism in the air in Europe too, with a number of European states scratching each other’s eyes out about merger and acquisitions involving banks and utilities. Plus ca change..
Dubai is now a major story on a number of fronts. The BBC recently ran a series of programmes about the incredible amount of construction happening there and the local magnates and immigrants who are driving the economy forward. A vast artificial archipelago of homes and estates has been built into the Gulf. Dubai is also a major business and media centre, a place where a lot of sporting and cultural events goes on. Dubai is also becoming one of the major venues for business conferences in areas such as finance.
So it seems to me that even with all the reservations one might have about that part of the world and the islamist threats not far away, Dubai’s vibrancy is a sort of Good Thing. The place has, potentially, the capacity to exert the same impact on parts of the Middle East as Hong Kong did on mainland China. Perhaps it is all a bubble and will go up in smoke, as the Eyeores out there might think, but on the whole I am optimistic. Let’s face it, pessimism is a sort of cop-out.
May the meme of liberty spread out from its borders and confound the naysayers. Meanwhile, this man is doing something highly admirable.
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… 😛
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.
You’re proving my point.
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.
Huh?
So you’re equating food poisoning on Oak Lane with nuclear devices and other WMDs?!?!?
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.
This libertarian wants to stay at liberty.
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.
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.
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.
Sesquipedalian,
I have to second most of ResidentAliens comments and yours to Midwesterner. I attended the Transportation Research Forum Annual Meeting in DC last year. One of the themes was port security. One of the keynote speakers was Dr. Patrick Griffin of Sandia Nat’l Labs; he outlined some of the currently available technologies for scanning inbound (and outbound) shipping containers.
One major issue is that you have to have different types of screening equipment depending upon the threat you’re seeking to detect: one system for biological agents, one for chemical (these two could be combined at greater cost) and then one for radioactive system, as well as one for plain-old tnt, plastique, etc. I believe at the time that the cost-effective rate of screening at ports would be in the neighborhood of 3-6% of all inbound containers.
FYI for nonAmerican commenters – a goodly number of US ports are already operated by foreign-owned operators including the (Red) Chinese, horrors! Morevoer, most of the major ports are intermodal hubs, so there are overlapping transfer (on-off load) operations at the ports. As a result, DPW or any other operator is primarily only concerned with the tracking of containers at the port. The longshoremen’s unions (who are probably the bigger security threat IMO as they are intimately associated with organized crime) actually schedule (by hand, no less) the loading and unloading of containers. The other operations are under the control of railroads such as CSX or Norfolk Southern, as well as some smaller private firms that handle local warehousing, drayage and trucking services for inbound/outbound shipments.
Most of my experience is with the ports in Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, but the basic setup should be the same.
Finally, scuttlebutt from various sources has it that the above-mentioned unions (ILWU/ILWA) are actually leading the opposition to the DPW deal – since P&O was British the international longshoremen’s affiliate in GB could put pressure on the group under GB labor laws, court rulings, agreements, etc., to enforce some sort of agreement, but with a Dubai-owned firm, all such comfy arrangements are off.
SKPeterson
Thank you so much for shedding some informed light upon this entire matter. I’m amused that longshoreman unions in the US would have anything whatsoever to do with their sad UK cousin (RMT) – a union still firmly embedded in the 1970’s ethic of striking for no reason at all.
SKPeterson, your information is relevant and your points are interesting.
In the very first comment on this thread, I said –
Imagine, if you will, determined terrorists with unlimited budgets. You know, the Wahabist kind. Could they get a container into port or, worse, through the port and onto a truck?
Is our system safe? Seems to me that with enough money, a container could conceal a pretty scary device.
Are we safe from this method of attack?
Julian –
ILWU/ILWA will strike at the drop of a hat. There was a mild suggestion a few years ago by the West Coast port operators to actually enter into the digital age and manage the tracking of ships and containers using RF devices and computers (sort of like scanning products at the grocery store). The union went ape-shit and shut down the entire West Coast (LA, SeaTac, SF, the whole deal). I cannot recall the estimate of damage to the economy, but it was in the $ billions, IIRC. And these guys make about $95K/yr.
Another quick 🙂 clarification – the west coast and east coast are actually under the control of two different unions, but they are both members of the international group, which also covers the union in GB and Europe. If you link out to ilwu.org (the west coast longshoremen) you can then link to the whole sordid mess of international longshoremen’s groups. I don’t know about GB, but here in the US these guys (and they’re almost 100% male) are among the most violent unions we have had.
Midwesterner – your concerns are somewhat valid. Most of the security responsibility is effectively in the hands of the shipping companies who transport the containers. Supposedly, there was going to be some sort of international agreement to provide electronic manifests of inbound ships to Customs and the Coast Guard, who could then interdict ships at the time they cross into national waters and prior to their approach and docking. I haven’t kept up with developments here, but it ties back in to the electronic tracking of containers which the unions are opposed to, as the expected efficiencies might constrain their income levels or reduce employment. MARAD (Maritime Administration, USDOT) has some good data on ports, operations, and some of the security concerns documented at their site: http://www.marad.dot.gov. They have a link to the “Maritime Security Program”, but when I tried to get in the link timed out, so I’m not sure if they have good info for you.
If we do get to electronic tracking of inbound and outbound containers such as cargo contents, provenance, companies involved,. etc. any terrorist activity involving a container would be traceable – not comforting to the victims, but perhaps an incentive to the various parties to the transactions to abide by caveat emptor. The big concern would be with containers coming from those nations, firms and ports least able to afford monitoring and oversight of the cargoes. As such, a terrorist strike via container would probably be more likely to occur at ports in the developing world involving shipments between developing nations (similar to the hotel bombings in Kenya and Tanzania).
Apologies for the long post.
SKPeterson
Excellent post, don’t apologize.
I remember driving east/west after that strike ended. What people often don’t realize is that most of our rails are running at maximum capacity. The trains and roads were full of containers headed belatedly for their destinations. I suspect the unions are more security risk than help.
Your provenance point is well taken. It at least gives us a focus point after an event.
If I can intrude on your time a little more, there doesn’t seem to be any serious discussion of full inspection of containers. There was a time we would have thought it impossible to scale luggage inspection to the detail and speed it is now. My understanding is that we are well on the way to scanning and sniffing all luggage, checked and carry on. I understand there are approximately 25,000 containers each day. Is there no thought of airport style inspection lines of x-rays and sniffers, etc?
I just stopped typing to hear someone on the TV suggest that the longshoreman may not cooperate with increased security procedures. Maybe it’s time for the security procedures to be legally required and arrest any longshoreman that threaten the United States.
What the US has done for container security is fairly clear headed and likely to reduce the chances of terrorists being able to smuggle a WMD into the country. The actual level of searching varies quite a lot from one port to another due to different perceptions of threat and the availability of specialist equipment. There is (I assume deliberately) quite a lot of ambiguity and obfuscation about exactly what measures are enforced. It is possible that containers are being moved through “detectors” that detect nothing but act only as a deterrent. That being said I think that a very high proportion of containers will be X-rayed, CO2 detected (to detect humans or animals) and subjected to radiological exam. The percentage of containers actually being opened is probably now closer to 5%.
The most effective security measures will always be the Mark One Eyeball and common sense. I think that the biggest improvement in security has been due to getting manifests earlier and putting US Customs officers in overseas ports. These officers are not opening containers they are just building up good relationships with customs agencies in other countries and gathering information to help guide security checks when the containers arrive in the US.
Notwithstanding all of the above it would be fair to describe the container shipping industry as “wide open” to terrorist attack in the same way that public transportation or even airlines are. A determined fanatic will always manage to get through and even if you catch 99% of the would be murderers it is not good enough.
The nightmare scenario is of a nuclear device being shipped inside a container direct from Pakistan to Manhattan with a time delay fuse. Relying on port checks to stop this is crazy (you could just explode it before the containers come off and the container could be officially destined for a third country.) This sort of thing has to be stopped by intelligence and co-operation with foreign countries.
In response to SKPeterson’s comments, there already is 100% electronic tracking of containers between ocean ports and manifests are almost entirely sent electronically to US Customs. A container could not be profitable or meet US customs requirements for timeliness without using electronic data. The problems that container lines have when trying to track containers mostly relate to inland movements which are not under their control.
The discussion about adding RF or satellite tracking devices to containers is mostly due to manufacturers of these devices lobbying congress to get legislation which would require container lines to fit a particular device. Most of the devices being touted are unreliable, impractical and would do hardly anything to improve security. Congress’s continued interest in this subject has put a stop on all real prospect of shipping lines introducing new technology for fear that the investment may be wasted if Congress decrees that everybody must use another technology.
There is no way that container shipping can be made totally safe. Just as airlines and mass transit can never be completely secure, a determined terrorist with enough money will succeed eventually. The measures taken so far substantially reduce risk but they do not diminish the will of those who want to harm the West so, ultimately, they only divert the threat to another less protected area. IMHO the next mega terrorist attack will use a vector that hardly anybody has thought of and will come as a total surprise.
Verity, you are right when you say that the government of the UAE does not have its nose pressed against the window of the West. My uncle and cousin both work directly for the Sheik, and he is one of the most urbane and pro-American leaders I’ve known in the west. My uncle trains his racehorses in Ireland, where the Sheik spends a surprising amount of time. I should be spending a little time in Dubai myself, this Winter. I’d be much happier with my security being managed by Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum than by some random British businessman, since he seems far more security minded and pro-US than the typical city bien pensant.
For all their having “Arab” in the name, by most cultural and economic indices they’re more like the OECD than the Arab league. Their position is not like that of the Hungarians, eager to buy jeans, so much as like that of the French during the Cold War: they don’t have the constitutional freedoms of the US; they’re not as wealthy; they have a lot more citizens who support the enemy.
If there was a bomb in a UK managed port, there’d be criminal investigations and a few people might be locked up until a Good Friday agreement came along and they were given senior government positions. If there was a bomb that could be traced in any way to the UAE, the UAE would be fucked.
Midwesterner, I was on a course last year that saw us going out to the Port (I live in San Diego), talking to the admiral who runs it, and to some of the undocumented workers who work there. Apparently, it would be amazingly easy, if they had a nuclear bomb, to pull a Pearl Harbour and wipe out a decent chunk of the US fleet at harbour here with a nuke.
If your concern is that people can get a truckload into the US then, well, that’s still likely to succeed. It’d be easier, though, to get it in through Mexico, where many of the ports are less high-tech. For non-nuclear materials, biological and chemical weapons and such, there’s really no difficulty at all in getting them in. If they’re not common enough that airport security are going to look for them, then much of this stuff is small enough to put in your checked luggage when you fly over. If that’s too expensive, then it isn’t going to be tough to package it in a way that, even if it is x-ray’d and the container is opened, there isn’t going to be a problem.
Most terrorist attacks are ridiculously simple to achieve. How on earth could we stop another OKC? So far as I am aware, intelligence is really the only tool we have. Somehow, we’ve prevented the bridges being blown up, planes from similar fates and from being hijacked, and various other schemes. We can’t stop people evading customs on the way into the US (witness the war on drugs). At the moment the security in most US ports is awful. Likewise in airports. Likewise on the roads and outside important buildings. There’s no question that we could do more to improve any of them, although I’m not certain how the cost benefit ratios work out for the various different schemes.
The question, though, is not whether security would suck after the sale, but whether it would be any worse. True, the Emiratis would be likely to get Visas through the purchase, but they can do the same when they buy anything in the US. If we’re not against selling them cabbage farms in Ohio, there’s no grounds for us to be concerned here. They could have employed Emiratis, but few Emiratis are interested in living in the US. Also, they agreed to maintain the current, American, management in place. They could learn about ship movements, but they would learn little, and already have tremendous information about this. They manage supplies for the US 5th fleet, which requires pretty detailed knowledge. What security risk gives you concern?
Thanks ResidentAlien and J of E, I read both of your posts several times.
I think there are two reasons the containers are and should stay near the top of our priority list. One, the sheer volume. 25,000 containers per day if my information is correct. And two, the intact size, weight and shape of each unit allows very large, complicated and labor intensive devices to be installed.
If this page is correct, that’s almost 10 million containers per year. That volume, combined with the potential effect of a container device, suggest to me that we should always keep that MO near the top of our concerns. Touché on the bomb on a boat v. bomb on a dock non-difference.
James, the Mexico border is a problem, but states like AZ and governor Napolitano are taking that into their own hands. Whether they think it legal or not, I doubt the feds have the political capital to make an issue of it. Interesting, this is little flash back to the way the founders intended things to work. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
re the harbor and the navy, I’ve gotta believe (maybe I should say ‘hope’) we are also doing serious watching of all civilian shipping off shore, especially for a long ways to windward.
I used to believe that the ‘war on drugs’ sole redeeming feature was keeping our border control tight and reducing the chance of terrorists getting in. Now I just think it generates a lot of border noise that makes detection and interception of terrorists that much harder.
As for concerns with the Emirates, throughout the Mideast it seems to be standard operating procedure to cave to terrorist demands and in exchange they leave you alone. The Saudis have lived this way for decades. But the Saudis have learned that even this is, eventually, not enough. I guess I just don’t trust the Emirates (and to be fair, a lot of non-Arabs) to not hire a designated person or give away some info, layouts, schedules, whatever to avoid getting hit by an act of terrorism. This seems to be the way of the world now. When threatened, give in and rationalize it.
I guess I’m beginning to develop a ‘Fortress Usa’ mentality. I’m trying not to but the world in general, and Europe in particular (Denmark excepted), are so diligently and determinedly stupid.
It sounds like the consensus on this thread is, ‘we will take several more major hits, deal with it’. You’re probably right.
Verity, wasn’t it you who was complaining about the Indians keeping foreigners from investing in their property? How the hell are we meant to complain about foreigners using bullshit complaints about security to stop us from investing there if we stoop to their level?
As I said on the Bush sucks post about a week back, the area where Bush has excelled as a POTUS has been trade. Every month for years has seen developments. Recently we’ve seen the Peruvian and Colombian FTAs being sorted out, South Korea warming up, the Australians agreeing not to renegotiate an FTA with a massive trade imbalance in favour of the US, and the Byrd Amendment finally being broken.
For the first time since Bush took over, the US has taken a step that leaves it not leading the developed world on trade, but trailing it. The Argentines, the French, the Belgians, the English, Mozambique, the Australians, the Russians, the Red Chinese, the Phillipinos, the Indonesians, the Thais, the Indians, the Sri Lankans, the Pakistanis, the Canadians, the Dominican Republic, the Venezuelans, the Germans, the Romanians, the Morrocans, Djibouti, the Indians, Hong Kong, the Malays, the South Koreans, and, less impressively, the Saudis, have all risen above the ugly protectionism that marked all but 2 of the house appropriations committee members.
It’s true that the US still allows the UAE to supply their navy, and apparently they already run the Stevedores at a bunch of US ports (via ISS, rather than DPW), but it’s still pretty seriously humiliating that the US should be No. 1 only on an inverted league table.
ResidentAlien – good points. I haven’t kept up on port issues very much, most of my interests lie in the railroad sphere. I knew they were getting to the 100% officially, but as of last year or so, there were issues in getting the smaller, developing nation ports up to speed. Most of the Customs personnel were going to China, Singapore, Japan and Korea (which makes sense as they are the source for the overwhelming majority of inbound shipments to the US. I’m sure there are also substantial numbers in Europe and likely Brazil and Chile.
And yes, RF is possibly an overblown technology. It’s well suited to tracking containers (its used to track rail cars, though they still do get lost), but you can always make “national security” a good (over)selling point. I know Wal-Mart tried to get its suppliers to RF code all product moving into their warehouses and met with determined resistance to the cost imposition.
You’re comments and James’s regarding security are right on – ports aren’t safe, but neither are most of the other transportation modes, especially those regarding freight transportation: there just aren’t that many people involved in transportation to have constant oversight of every container, railcar or trailer. And you can have RF technology telling you where the container is, but it won’t necessarily tell you what’s in it.
Midwesterner – the technology issue for scanning/sniffing containers is more complicated than screening passenger luggage. As it stands, I’m not sure to what extent air cargo containers are actually checked prior to being loaded on aircraft, passenger or freight. Regarding the containers, their sheer size complicates the smooth and timely checking for hazards, and, as James points out, you can just set the trigger for any device to go off prior to being offloaded, but while still in port.
Just to let you sleep a little easier – there are a few major east/west rail lines that run very close to the US/Mexico border. These rail lines have been routinely targeted by Mexican thieves who cross the Sonoran desert, ride up to the railcars, open the cars and steal whatever valuables might be inside. It would be just as easy for terrorists to do the same thing and put something special on board as to take something off.
SKPeterson,
The last time I saw one of the rail corridors you refer to (about 2 months ago) they appeared to be adding one track. This would at least allow the trains to run both directions non-stop. Presently, every few miles there is another train parked (I presume) waiting for the trains to run the other direction.
I’m thinking of containers as being a greater risk because of the size and the complexity of a device that could be in one. Not something likely to be stuck in a box car door of a parked train.
I caught the issue with harbor v dock and realized that in-country inspection, while better than nothing, is, shall we say, sub-optimal? It sounds like port of departure inspection is the ideal. Assuming there is reliable tamperproof seals and containers available.
At some point, however, it seems, and several have pointed out, insurmountable. (Terrible sentence structure. Time to go to bed.)
Thanks all, for sharing your info.
I used to believe that the ‘war on drugs’ sole redeeming feature was keeping our border control tight and reducing the chance of terrorists getting in. Now I just think it generates a lot of border noise that makes detection and interception of terrorists that much harder.
I think it was Clare Short (a former British government minister) who suggested that a good step in the war on terror would be to legalize drugs. She is the only public figure I have heard to make that very wise suggestion.
If I were a terrorist with a nuclear bomb I’d bring it in from the South along an established smuggling route and have a chance of success in excess of 80%.
Adopting a “Fortress America” attitude is tempting and might pay some short term dividends but in the long term it will reduce co-operation from the rest of the world; making America more vulnerable and at the same time a more appealing target because of its “arrogance.”
Midwesterner, I don’t think that we will necessarily take more hits. I honestly don’t understand how the US manages to maintain its intelligence advantage so powerfully, but it does seem to be doing pretty well. The No. 1 target since the Iraq war has had… nothing.
It’s not that we shouldn’t do more about security, either. I don’t really know what can be done at ports, but if there are affordable changes that can be made, we should make them. If a 40 billion dollar expenditure can reduce the chance of a nuke going off in New York or LA by a single percentage point, then my math says that that’s a worthwhile cost. (cost of NY>4 trillion). You’re way more optomistic about the AZ proposals than I am, but maybe they’ll make a difference. For the most part, though, it’s intelligence that seems to make the difference, not blindly stopping and patting down everyone you see. Stories like this come through on a regular basis.
If people argue that the US Coast Guard should increase its protections and that the CBP should get more funding, then I’ll point them to the Bush administration and suggest that they write him thank you letters. This press release claims an increase on port security funding from $259 million for FY2001 to $1.6 billion for FY2005. That sounds about what we were being told a year ago, by people who really didn’t like trade in general and tried to put a negative spin on almost everything.
For the most part, though, if we’re going to make it hard for people to get stuff into our ports, we need to be doing it abroad. An ever larger part of the war on terror involves small numbers of US soldiers and government workers in foreign countries gaining intelligence and working to promote positive relationships with their customs workers.
The crime of this is that Globalization is the only thing that can let the US survive the next century. It’s criminal that when we hear about something going on in Niger, we have to send a half hearted traitor like Wilson out there to have a few cups of tea and chat to his friends, because that’s the best that we can do.
The UAE was a great example of how that was working. Without incident, they’ve been working hand in glove with the British and American navies to supply them. They’ve been upgrading their port security systems to check for anything obnoxious passing through on its way to us. They’ve been supporting us in Afghanistan and Iraq, where we’ve really been needing Arab support (and a safe base). They’ve been a role model for the world, showing how globalisation, capitalism, and openness and support for the west can really create a wonderful country.
They’re relatively socially liberal, with a decent regard for gender equality (note their female literacy and education rates, in particular). They’ve been pushing the Gulf Cooperation Council to liberalise. They detest Iran, probably more than anyone else outside the US. They’re introducing significant democratic measures. They’re doing everything that we could possibly ask of them. They’ve banned the use of camel jockeys under 18 years old. They have a decent freedom of religion (as an Orthodox Christian myself, I particularly appreciate their donating the land for our church out there). The “human rights violations” that they’re accused of are mostly the kinds of things that people on this site often approve of (restrictions on immigration and a lack of union power). Human Rights Watch is less upbeat, but that’s a cross almost every country has to bear, and particularly the capitalist ones. They are becoming a qualified intermediary for the IRS (a relatively trusted position). They donated $100 million of the $126 million that got donated (rather than promised) by foreign countries to help with the Katrina aftermath, and give generously too all sorts of other worthwhile causes. They were near completion on a Free Trade Agreement with the US, and through the GCC are quickly becoming one of the chief proponents of free trade generally (FTAs with India, China, the EU, and others).
When I’m saying that the UAE aren’t just neutral, they’re the good guys, I don’t mean that there’s no bad guys in the Emirates, just that their government is really keen on beating them down. There’s a lot of Islamist money that flows through the Emirates, ’cause it’s the only decent financial centre in the Muslim world. They don’t agree to every western request for information, but they agree to a lot, to the point where they are considered “cooperative” by the US Financial Action Task Force.
As a socially liberal, democratising, force out there, they are at much more risk against terrorists than we are, and take a much harder line against them. After India, the UAE seems like America’s best hope for the future outside the Anglosphere. Kind of like India, they’re on the edge of the Anglosphere, although they were a little further out towards the edge. Congress’ rejection one what still appears to be entirely ethnic grounds has been the saddest story I’ve followed since I came out here a couple of years ago. Nothing even rivals it for the depression induced.
Make no bones about it, Dubai may be the most progressive city in the Middle East, but it is still backward as hell. Property rights here are non existant, including for those silly enough to have bought an incomplete $250k villa in one of the mega-projects; a non-local is still prohibited from opening a business here, except in a handful of free-zones; bureacracy resembles that of Soviet Russia; and the rule of law is applied differently depending on your nationality and colour of skin.
Dubai made a reasonable stab at diversifying, but in reality the mega projects are subsidised by the high oil price via Abu Dhabi. The future looks like a jumble of penis-size competitions between the ruling elites, constructed by near-slave labour in appalling conditions, and a lack of decent infrastructure to support the city. What Dubai should have done was diversify by scrapping the impossibly restrictive employment, business, and property laws here and become like any normal Western city. Instead they slapped a few hand-picked western companies and fancy buildings into what is still very much a Middle Eastern city.
Having lived here for 3 years and travelled all over the Gulf, I’m in a reasonable position to judge.
Gosh, that was more depressed and wordy than I meant it to be.
I’ll state separately one of the chief ideas in that, and why this hit me so hard. In trade law, you get a lot of your profs being pretty ugly protectionists. At Cal Western (my JD school) they’re combined with liberal students. At UC Davis (my LLM school), they’re not so much. Still, it means that you’re constantly hearing how the US is hated, how it’s failing. And yet…. And yet it constantly succeeds. Every FTA that has been passed has been passed after months and months of non-stop pessimistic stories about how it stands zero chance of doing so. Domestically, the Byrd amendment seemed immovable, the agricultural and manufacturing lobbies impossibly powerful. Abroad, everyone hates America.
But, while the Middle East hates us rhetorically, its leaders have been most of the concessions that the US has been asking for. Democracy has been springing up. Free Trade Agreements, with the accompanying labor rights, gender rights, and other western values, as well as intellectual property rights and money laundering protections, have sprung up in Bahrain, Morroco, and Oman, since the invasion of Iraq. You read in the papers how the Summit of the Americas is a massive defeat for the US, with unified opposition from MERCOSUR, and then you read (not in the MSM) about the socialist who ran on an anti-American platform making some of the strongest guarantees for US investments ever made by a South American leader, with a Bilateral Investment Treaty being signed (BBC headline: No trade deal at Americas summit, my favourite BBC lie ever). A little later, you hear how the opposition to Bush has fractured the alliance and that Uruguay and Paraguay aren’t so keen to be involved as they once were.
We hear constantly how the EU types attack and deride the war on terror, and only occasionally get glimpses of the tremendous help that their intelligence services offer. An analogy might be the way that Lagos Escobar, on coming to power in Chile, reached out for Socialist economists and found out that every respectable economist was a capitalist, even the ones who strongly opposed Pinochet and had supported Allende back in the day.
Everywhere the rhetoric and news stories were of defeat until the final story was that Bush prevailed, often gloriously. We were told after CAFTA that the vote (217-215) was too close and future deals would be tough, and then the Bahrain FTA went through 327-95. At the same time, the administrations that were louder in their hostility to America than their opposition seemed to be losing almost all the elections, and the guys who were closer to the US seemed to be winning theirs. While almost everyone agreed that the US was to be opposed, almost everyone became a better ally to America, partly because America’s requests were generally clearly the right thing to do. America wanted the developing world to become developed, to break down national barriers and governments, and raise up economies. They wanted to dispell terrorism and bring peace. They were very successful in doing that (arguably less international conflict now than ever in history). Sometimes they’d take negotiating positions that weren’t terribly positive, but they’d pull through in the end (Softwood lumber, for instance). The Unocal sale block was disturbing, but every country gets irrational when they talk about oil. There’s just no excuse here, though. Nothing. No one else even to share the blame with. It knots my stomach and eats me up inside, but America is being the villain. If America doesn’t lead, then I honestly don’t see how the world will be led into being a safer place. It sounds like the FTA negotiations are just being briefly delayed, but I’m terrified that the US will reject it. I’m stuck for any response more articulate than praying “Please, God, Let this be a blip, not a trend.”
For what it’s worth, my thoughts as a pro-American, pro-business, Brit living in Dubai are here.
Tim, I’ll trust to your assessment of real property rights, although I feel confident that their treatment of securities and the like is pretty decent (they’ve always seemed that way from Bangalore and London). They still have the 51% ownership laws, but it looks like that’s going to go in a few months (or it was going to). If it does go, would that change your assessment much?
The indices all seem to put the UAE closer to the OECD than to the arab world, but they’re still not Kentucky, or even France (they seem to be pretty close to France circa 1975). Would you support my unsupported hypothesis that their regional role is somewhat analogous to that of South India elsewhere? I don’t think that by saying that it was 2nd best to India I was implying limitless wealth and San Francisco style modernity, but is your sense that I was still exaggerating the bounty?
Other than that, I’ve not talked to many people who weren’t employed by the Sheik and who’ve spent much time out there. How strong is the pro-American sentiment? Compared with, say, Islington?
I’m returning from DesertSun and some of the linked blogs a fair bit more cheerful. Thank you, Tim
I don’t know if anyone else read Glenn Reynold’s take on the DP World affair but that pretty much sums it up in my opinion, a kneejerk response by Congress that should have been better explained to them and to the American public by the parties involved.
What would now happen if one of DP World’s Middle East partners were to apply as a front for their bid? Certainly there are enough potential US corporations who would act on their behalf – DPWn does, don’t forget, handle one of the most sensitive port areas in the region, the Jebel Ali port, where most US warships dock let alone handlingjust about all the stevedoring for the US military in the Middle East.
A very fast scanning of some of the comments show some gross ignorance of the UAE, of which Dubai is one of the emirates. I live here (an expat American), in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, which has all the oil, whose oil revenues are invested by the Sheik of Dubai, Sheik Mohamed al Maktoum. One comment had it that the citizens of UAE… Let me tell you that 20 per cent of the population are citizens, that is, are Emiratees. All the rest of us hold foreign passports. We have no representation in the government. What I am trying to say is that many of the comments have underlying suppositions that are rankly false and lead to very prejudicial statements that just smack of total ignorance, especially when it takes the form of a blanket statement that American ports would have been under Muslim control. (What is Muslim control, anyways. ) There may be more Hindus here than Muslims, I’m telling you there an awful lot of Indians. Sheik Mohamed has a board of directors none of whom are Emiratee, and most of whom are Europeans. He probably cares diddly-squat about where his capital goes because it can always go elsewhere than the US. Don’t let the headgear and long robe you may have seen fool you. Don’t let the image of the hooked nose Arab from the Cheech and Chong film influence your thoughts.
Hi All,
Most Muslim do not understand their own religion. They are freaks, who follow in the footsteps of their so call leaders also Major Freaks preaching the unthinkable. Islam / Muslim all are associated with Terrorism.
Where have all the teaching in the koran gone, in the shitpot. They should throw the book away since they not using it at all and create a new book “The Holy Terror”. Since it is already widely used and practice in the middle east much easier for all to adapt.
I don’t think you need an education to know that killing anyone is wrong for whatever reason. Everyday some innocence party get killed / murdered, any he/she might be a muslim, is this faithed as per the muslim would think. I think this is a whole lot of crap. There is no heaven or hell, please get me in touch with anyone who has been to any one of these places. Religion on the whole a Money Making Pyramid Scheme. Look at all Religious Domain – Multi Million Dollar Regimes.
Well if anyone get offended, sorry to say these are my views and opinion, you are welcome to share your opinions.
Most people would not understand why the Port Security is of the upmost important.
Key issue to address: Prevent Smuggling.
This help any goverment collect what is due to them in taxes. Prevents import of banned items, eg weapons, bombs etc. etc. etc.
Security it’s everyone responsibility. Everyone blames the US, since they take an active role doesn’t mean they owe it to the world. As the saying goes Being a Nice Guy doesn’t always pay.
If I had a choice, I would wipe the whole Middle East clean, Fat hope. And the reporters will only have the weather to report & what’s happening in Hollywood etc.
Unfortunately, it not going to happen, tension in that part of the world is going to stay for a very long time.
The Korean’s want the same attention, so they starting the shit on their own, not only the US have to manage with the Middle East now the LAZY Korean, have big bucks to manufacture missles etc but need money for subsidies oil, food etc. Crazy asshole. Wipe them out too. Where is the UN – 7 party nations are negotiating with the asshole.
UN – will be UN, they can’t call the shots, period. UN should just close shop. NO wait there is money to be made for the next 15 plus year, we will keep it open.
“FOOD for OIL” – Free OIL Free FOOD…. Money in the pockets for the middleman. (And what happen to Kofi’s son or son-in-law – OIL for Food scandal.)
I think I have said my peace for the day. Cheers..