The Great Port Debate
One of my co-workers asked me today what I thought about the Bush/UAE port debacle. And I had to answer that I honestly didn't know enough about it to know WHAT I thought. All I'd really heard up to that point was the sound-bite debates with little or no facts to back them up.
Well, now I've researched it a little more. Slate magazine has a good explanation here of exactly what a port operator does. In that context, it would be easy enough to say that it doesn't really matter if it's a Middle Eastern country (emirate) or Walmart who runs the port. But unfortunately, there are other concerns.
One is port security in time of war or conflict. While most military shipping for the current operations (wars?) in Afghanistan and Iraq is originating in Navy controlled ports, there is still a substantial amount of materiel carried by the merchant shipping industry. And in a major effort, such as the buildup prior to Desert Storm or what would be required should the Middle East tinderbox finally explode, those civilian ports would be crucial to the military effort. I think that, under those circumstances, having ANY foreign company controlling those ports would be short-sighted at best, and disasterous at worst.
There is the realpolitik argument that forging economic ties with the UAE and other so-called moderate Middle Eastern governments works in our favor. After all, if an attack on our soil harms OUR economy, or so the argument goes, it would also harm THEIR economy. And therefore, the logical assumption is that they will do whatever they can to prevent such an attack from occurring. I think such reasoning was sound during the Cold War when we were dealing with governments and nations that, culturally at least, were similar to our own. But that is simply NOT the case now. We are dealing with cultures that see nothing wrong with rioting, destroying property and killing because of cartoons! Can we safely assume that economic issues have the same importance to those cultures that they do to us? I think to do so is foolish. Tying our economy to those of moderate Middle Eastern governments does NOT ensure that they will work to protect those ties, but rather gives us a false sense of security and complacency. If, for religious and/or cultural reasons, those goverments see fit to do use harm, I do not think mere economic ties will be enough to forestall them.
We need to lose the "Cold War" mentality in international relations and realize that the rules have changed. And rule number one is that the other guy HAS no rules.
I am not generally a member of the "Blame Bush First" club...but this time, he blew it. And he needs to admit it, back down and move on.
Well, now I've researched it a little more. Slate magazine has a good explanation here of exactly what a port operator does. In that context, it would be easy enough to say that it doesn't really matter if it's a Middle Eastern country (emirate) or Walmart who runs the port. But unfortunately, there are other concerns.
One is port security in time of war or conflict. While most military shipping for the current operations (wars?) in Afghanistan and Iraq is originating in Navy controlled ports, there is still a substantial amount of materiel carried by the merchant shipping industry. And in a major effort, such as the buildup prior to Desert Storm or what would be required should the Middle East tinderbox finally explode, those civilian ports would be crucial to the military effort. I think that, under those circumstances, having ANY foreign company controlling those ports would be short-sighted at best, and disasterous at worst.
There is the realpolitik argument that forging economic ties with the UAE and other so-called moderate Middle Eastern governments works in our favor. After all, if an attack on our soil harms OUR economy, or so the argument goes, it would also harm THEIR economy. And therefore, the logical assumption is that they will do whatever they can to prevent such an attack from occurring. I think such reasoning was sound during the Cold War when we were dealing with governments and nations that, culturally at least, were similar to our own. But that is simply NOT the case now. We are dealing with cultures that see nothing wrong with rioting, destroying property and killing because of cartoons! Can we safely assume that economic issues have the same importance to those cultures that they do to us? I think to do so is foolish. Tying our economy to those of moderate Middle Eastern governments does NOT ensure that they will work to protect those ties, but rather gives us a false sense of security and complacency. If, for religious and/or cultural reasons, those goverments see fit to do use harm, I do not think mere economic ties will be enough to forestall them.
We need to lose the "Cold War" mentality in international relations and realize that the rules have changed. And rule number one is that the other guy HAS no rules.
I am not generally a member of the "Blame Bush First" club...but this time, he blew it. And he needs to admit it, back down and move on.
posted by Just Some Guy on the Radio at 5:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home