Another take on the Ports

by Sal on February 23, 2006

in Politics

Earlier today I outlined my trepidation with jumping on the bandwagon for being against the UAE port deal. Turns out that another element was introduced to my thinking. Rush Limbaugh is coming out, if not in favor of the deal, at least not opposed. His points are interesting, and should be carefully considered. Rush is one of the pillars of the Conservative movement, the person who not only popularized the Conservative thought of others such as Reagan and Buckley, but also established the New Media and bring the Conservative Ideology to the mainstream (also playing a key role in my education in Conservative thought). His attitude about the ports only adds to my uncertainty.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Matt February 23, 2006 at 7:01 pm

I agree… I don’t know enough of the facts to form a definitive opinion on the deal. The more I’m hearing about it, the more it seems like allowing the deal to go through wouldn’t be much of a risk. My understanding is that the UAE company would control day-to-day operations at the ports while the U.S. would continue to control security and customs.

Here’s what’s making it so confusing for me… We’ve heard President Bush and Jimmy Carter come out in support of the deal… and we’ve heard Hillary Clinton and Rick Santorum coming out against the deal. Bush and Santorum are almost always right, and Clinton and Carter are almost always wrong. Who do you believe?

Reply

rightonoz February 27, 2006 at 11:42 pm

I’ll throw in another angle for you.

I believe that with proper oversight there should be no security issues.

What I do wonder about is the outcome where a company owned by a foreign government from a region where governments are overthrown and/or change sides quicker than the proverbial ‘whores drawers’ becomes the dominant owner of ports worldwide. (NOT JUST THE USA)

At very least without competition within a country’s port infrastructure and within regions there could be the opportunity for standover tactics on costs as we’ve seen here in Australia, at worst I could see it being used as a full blown commercial weapon by any subsequent unsympathetic government.

I’m not saying it should not go ahead, but there should be a real hard look at any possible downsides. I’m not normally in favour of too much gov’t intervention, but we should at least have a good look in every country potentially impacted by the deal.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: