« Todays excercise in futility brought to us by: Iran | Main | Yet another reason ninja's > pirates »
February 21, 2006
The international fiasco of the day
Well, it seems that today's boondoggle revolves around ports and who gets to run them. (bbc link for those so inclined)
So, a British company had been running several major ports in the US. That company was purchased by another company, which is part of a larger organization operated out of the UAE, or United Arab Emirates. It seems that some people don't like the idea of a company that ultimately reports to the Middle East running ports in the US of A.
I can understand the knee-jerk reaction but once you break it down, I don't see how we can deny the company the right to do this in good faith. The standards regarding the regulation of ship born traffic is set by the US coastguard and whoever is running the ports will have to adhere to it. This should take out most of the argument for the ports being less secure. Worse case, congress can up the number of inspections by the coast guard and levie huge fines if security lapses are found.
I don't see how people can oppose this based on the fact it's a foreign country because until now it was run by a bunch of Brits.
The UAE is a pretty descent ally to us from what I know, it's not like this company is HQ'd in Iran or Venezuela.
So, in my opinion, if we deny this country the right to do this, or even make a huge fuss over this, we're sending the message that we're okay with foreign run countries having their hands in our business, but only if it's the "right"(Euro-caucasians) type of foreign country.
Let me know if I'm way off base about the UAE or if you feel strongly in another direction. I think this is a significant topic as this country has a pretty bad reputation in regards to being hypocrites and xenophobic right now, and this could be one more piece of ammo that other countries can use against us.
Maybe a better way to put that is if you want to be the morality police, you need to play by the rules yourself? This is coming off as hyper-critical and that's not what I'm going for, just looking to spark some input from other people.
UPDATE: corrected a typo brooke pointed out in the comments.
Posted by bucjos at February 21, 2006 04:37 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.PUNTAKOALA.ORG/mt/mt-tb.cgi/215
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The international fiasco of the day:
» lipitor side effects from Foo1
lipitor generic levitra lipitor buy levitra onli... [Read More]
Tracked on March 9, 2006 11:44 AM
» Spanking Story from Foo1
otk spanking horny secretary milf hunters free erotic stories
[Read More]
Tracked on March 14, 2006 08:25 PM
Comments
venezuela...that's how it's spelled :)
Posted by: brooke at February 22, 2006 08:48 AM
for the record, i think this is an interesting issue. (i'm interested in more than spelling, i swear!)
i won't pretend that i know much about foreign policy or relations, but i can understand the apprehension with allowing this company to run the ports...it seems like it's more the idea of an arab company being in charge of something in our country than an actual question about safety. i have a feeling that these ports would be watched more closely than most....and they may be the safest for that reason.
Posted by: brooke at February 22, 2006 10:11 AM