Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

5 Responses to “Bush is Right About Dubai Port Deal”

1. Dan Sniderman says:

   February 22, 2006 at 7:36 AM

   This is quite illustrative on many levels. While I mostly agree with you on your points – I do have a lot of concerns about one issue this issue illustrates – globalism and outsourcing run amok (I personally lost a job due to offshoring…)

   While it begs the question to assume whether a domestic company does a better job of providing security than a foreign company – I DO think it’s a valid concern about a foreign company with this responsibility. This issue is the same whether it is a Dubai’an company, a British company or even an American company…

   This is the discussion I don’t hear – all the talk about Dubai and the UAE and their ties to terrorism and 9/11 – but no discussion of globalism and outsourcing…

   Reply
2. Dan Sniderman says:

   February 22, 2006 at 7:40 AM

   D’oh I meant that to read:

   This issue is the same whether it is a Dubai’an company, a British company or even a CANADIAN company…

   Reply
3. Heather says:

   February 22, 2006 at 11:22 AM

   Richard,

   I frequently agree with what you write on your blog, but I think you’ve missed something very key. The Bush administration has been saying for days that the sale had gone through a very tight background check for security and national defense issues, yet it has since come out that neither Bush nor Rumsfeld knew anything about the deal before it was approved. How thorough could the scrutiny on the defense issue be if the Secretary of Defense didn’t know about it?

   It doesn’t matter to me what country it is. This just makes the administration look either more secretive or more clueless.

   Reply
4. Richard Silverstein says:

   February 22, 2006 at 1:48 PM

   Heather: The Bush Administration had no clue how controversial this deal would become. Do you mean to tell me if you ran the Pentagon & the entire U.S. military you’d be up on every development that fell within your purview (& even more ditto for George Bush)?? I think not. Now, one might argue that someone should’ve thought a bit more about the issue of whether this deal could become controversial so they could’ve warned the powers that be. But we’re talking in hindsight here & it’s water under the bridge.

   And finally the deal DID go through the appropriate channels before a 12 agency federal task force established to review precisely these types of business deals that impact national security. Are we saying there’s something wrong with that process? If so, let’s fix it. But why punish DPW & Dubai for something wrong with OUR review procedures?

   Reply
5. Richard Silverstein says:

   February 22, 2006 at 1:54 PM

   Dan: I too am concerned about outsourcing & I commiserate w. you about losing a job to foreign outsourcing.

   But I don’t think this transaction will cause any jobs to be outsourced since the same (British) company & personnel who’ve administered the ports will remain in place. Now, if you’re talking about the issue of U.S. companies leaving the business of running our ports to foreign companies that’s a diff. story. But there is a thread of globalism running through many businesses worldwide & port management is one of the big areas for that. I’d say it’s pretty hard to stop a trend like this if the economics don’t make sense for American companies to get into & stay in this business.

   It’s sorta like telling Mexicans to stop coming to the U.S. for work. If economic conditions favor them coming here (higher paying jobs, etc.) how’re you gonna get them to stay put? You could build up the Mexican economy so they don’t have to come here. But that becomes a complex & big job to take on.

   Reply