February 24, 2006
JUST IN CASE YOU WEREN'T CLEAR ABOUT IT BEING RACISM:
A Dubai Finesse (Charles Krauthammer, February 24, 2006, Washington Post)
If only Churchill were alive today, none of this would be happening. The proud imperialist would have taken care that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., chartered in 1840 by Victoria ("by the grace of God . . . Queen defender of the faith" on "this thirty first day of December in the fourth year of our reign"), would still be serving afternoon tea and crumpets on some immaculate Jewel-in-the-Crown cricket pitch in Ceylon.The United Arab Emirates would still be a disunited bunch of subsistence Arab tribes grateful for the protection of the British navy in the Persian Gulf.
And we hapless Americans -- already desperately trying to mediate, pacify and baby-sit the ruins of Churchill's Empire: Iraq, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Yemen, even (Anglo-Egyptian) Sudan -- would not be in the midst of a mini-firestorm over the sale of the venerable P&O, which manages six American ports, to the UAE.
Presumably the editor struck out the phrase "bloody wogs" and substituted "UAE"? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 24, 2006 5:44 PM
Just in case anyone doubts what a sign of desperation the whole racist schtick is:
Anti-Anti-Backlash Lash Lash: Whiners Unite! How annoying is it to be guilt-tripped as a racist by President Bush and his administration's suspiciously well-coordinated, 35%-convincing pushback on the Dubai ports deal? "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company," insinuated the President on Tuesday. "The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots," declares GOP organizer Grover Norquist. Hmmm. Wasn't it the left's traditional strategy--e.g.,when people raised doubts about the welfare system and its effect on work and family structure--to charge that legitimate worries were really disguised bigotry? It worked well for the Democrats, didn't it Grover? Voters love being called racists when they have legitimate concerns! Too bad Bush couldn't have made his accusation from the stage at Bob Jones University. ...Posted by: joe shropshire at February 24, 2006 10:38 PM
joe:
Well, old Grover is always being accused of cozying up to the Arabs (indeed, of being a fifth columnist), so turn about is fair play.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/451
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11209
Or did you think their picking on him was a coincidence?
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2006 12:18 AMIn the end, though, Krauthammer does abandon the "they'll take my port when they pry it out of my calloused, dead longshorman's hands" talk that was prevelent earlier in the week and says:
This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.
Not exactly George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, even if it does show a level of distrust that might be overwrought given the number of foreign companies, including those owned by the folks in Beijing, already running ports in the U.S.
Posted by: John at February 25, 2006 12:22 AMJohn:
He could at least pretend by saying that all foreign companies operating in the U.S. should be subject to these provisions, not just Arabs.
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2006 12:37 AMAnd 4. Question all longshoremen, truckers, and office personnel wearing head wraps, turbans, lead suits, or commuting to work by camel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you want to feel like whining, I recommend Daniel Engber's Explainer on what a port operator actually does:
It gets cargo containers off of ships and puts them onto trucks or trains. A port operator also provides other services to the shipping industry: It does the paperwork to get incoming shipments through customs and uses its computer system to help connect the goods with potential recipients. ...
Most operators invest in a computerized yard management system to help each trucker connect with his payload. ... The port operator also handles personnel issues."
From Slate; same article as Joe's quote.
Posted by: Genecis at February 25, 2006 10:02 AMOn The Waterfron Redux. Can this be a sly way to get rid of the longshoreman's union? Whoa. What an idea!
Posted by: erp at February 25, 2006 10:21 AMTwo points, first of all, Churchill, would be surprised to be alive, since he'd be 135?. But
seriously, this action by P&O, is a perverse
twist on the first major British devolution of
responsibility; No I don't mean Hong Kong, in
1997 or Yemen in 1967; which presaged the retreat
from the Gulf; in the following decade, or India
in 1947, but the devolution of inperial responsi
bility that preceded the Truman Doctrine in the bailiwicks of Greece, Turkey & Iran. They have segued out of the shipping business; because
they found it umprofitable, and hoped DP Worlds
would provide the capital to update the retrofitting of ports for the New Age
narciso:
The Hammer and company are still bitter that Ike stopped the Brits and Israel at Suez.
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2006 3:41 PMThat's true, even when one realizes the 'ace in the hole' card was Qutb and Said Ramadan's Muslim
Brotherhood. however, it would have arose out of
the same circumstances as the original intervention back in 1882; the repossesion due to
it's loan portfolio to Barings and Schroder; Cromer was a Barings,