Dubai or not Dubai
The Dubai Ports World story hasn't completely disappeared yet, Allowing me a chance to unload an assortment of warmed over thoughts on the matter. Ken Cousins from Augmentation blog in comment on my previous post particularly noted that Dubai was a state-owned company. Many others did also. At the time I didn't think that was significant, but there is a minor legal matter involved. The U S law in this matter requires a 45 day study period triggered by stated concern by any federal stakeholder into a transaction. This apparently never occurred and the only cover the administration has, is to pretend that no one within the executive branch had any concerns. This is why the Coast Guard memo
Coast Guard memo which seemed to raise concerns attracted attention. That part of it is moot now that DPW moved to unilaterally end the Presidents political crisis
BBC NEWS | Business | Dubai firm to 'transfer' US ports. A lingering sense of 'What really happened' hangs in the air Why the Dubai deal collapsed | csmonitor.com. What does Dubai mean by a "A United States entity". And why did it seem that this news came first from Sen. Warner (R. VA) on the Senate floor? Because half the Senate and everyone who will still take calls from the White House were all working behind the scenes to produce an outcome that would end this while leaving the President looking above it all
Globe and Mail: Dubai firm abandons ship in battle over U.S. ports. The question now is what does Dubai really intend to do
Dubai Firm to Sell U.S. Port Operations. Retain indirect control or undertake (complete) divestment *
DP World Unveils Port Operation Sale Plans. Some on the right ( David Brooks on the Newshour last friday) have tried to frame this as purely a security matter and not a Free Trade issue at all. There is no logical reason; however, to privilege one protection type above another. The dismemberment of U S industrial capacity, and dissolving the incomes and livehoods that were part of it, this is real damage too. Done in the name of global free trade. Where capital flies from unionized workforces and forever chases the lowest standard of living across the world, where it can pay the smallest possible wages. This is also a matter of destruction or protection, as much a political decision as antagonism to it. What we see here is that free trade does not exist in an abstract plain floating above the terrestrial. Two related matters are involved. There is the future of infrastructure security. If port security is a real problem, a blue border problem. The key is to know what is in incoming cargo and to know - before it is in a US port. Stated another way the problem and spatial point of confrontation is either in the ports of departure or the high seas (and/or air). If nothing else awarness of this is awakened and those seating on various committees of concern are seeking to move on it
Secure ports seize agenda in Congress.. As critical in its own way is the specter of an investment crisis: Becoming closed or paranoid of foreign investment is "the Wrong message", the president is concerned about
Bush Says Political Storm Over Port Deal Sends Wrong Message - New York Times. For the 40 year period roughly centered on the turn of the 19th to 20th century what was built in this country was built with British capital if we had shut that capital out our path to industrialization would be starkly different. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R.CA) is considering a law that will force foreign owners to divest control of all infrastructure deemed critical to national security. This does not account for our need for this investment or the need for foreign banks and investors to do something - anything with the massive influx of cash our trade deficits have left them with.
11:31:06 PM  ;;
|
