More than two hundred years ago, the Americans overthrew the rule of their imperial masters with a shot that was heard around the world. Racially and ethnically, they came from the same stock just a couple of generations ago but within those generations they had grown intellectually apart from their European brethren, a divide that exists even today and a divide that many people still find difficult to comprehend; hence they consider everything west of Turkey to be the “Western World” (case in point – read this article by Vir Sanghvi over the Arcelor controversy).
This stark difference in ideology has been put into sharp focus by the controversy over a Dubai-based company taking over the operations of six key ports in the US and President Bush’s stance over it, and a similar controversy that was raging in Europe a few days ago over Lakshmi Mittal’s attempt to take over Arcelor and the response of the Europeans. French President Chirac and his government responded to that takeover attempt with vitriol and xenophobic comments against the Indians.
Mr. Bush on the other hand has stood firm on the ports deal that essentially hands over the day-to-day operations of six key American ports to a company owned by one of the Emirates governments. He went out of his way to emphasize that there should be no difference in rules whether a port is run by a British company (which was the case until now) or a Middle Eastern company. In fact, on a day when it would have been politically expedient for him to strike down this deal since there was bi-partisan support on the Capitol Hill for it, Mr. Bush used this opportunity to make a point about lack of bigotry towards the Middle East in his administration.
Of course, people who have already made up their minds without considering the facts will continue to revile the US and the Americans while turning a blind eye to the true bigots – the mainland Europeans who have given this world three crusades, two world wars, imperialism, colonialism, and holocaust and who continue in their xenophobic ways right until this day.
This article originally appeared at Desicritics.org, a Blogcritics.org network site, providing news and information on media, culture, politics, sports, etc. with a South Asian focus. Visit Desicritics.org for more fine stuff.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ Elliott
So...Bush is being more politically-correct than the Europeans? And he is to be PRAISED for this???
2 - lumpy
great, short and to the point. nice to see someone who understands this issue without the usual prejudgements of Bush.
3 - AlphaTux
This could be a pivotal moment of the Bush presidency, and also perhaps illustrate that globalization is a force gone too far to stop the new order of transnationalism
4 - JELIEL³
Didn't JUNIOR put a ban on dealings with coutries that harbor and/or support terrorists?
5 - ss
I'd have no problems with an Indian company managing the ports, and, by most accounts, Dubai has a fairly progressive government by regional standards and has been a friend of the US, so I have no problems with the government of Dubai.
I have heard one congressman make the claim that AQ Khan smuggled nuclear materials through Dubai.
If that turns out to be true, we should examine how he did it. If Dubai was an almost random choice, if it was the sort of thing that could have happened in any hub of world trade, then I don't see any reason to penalize the company. If corruption in Dubai customs makes it a favorite for smugglers in the Gulf region, maybe we should reconsider.
It would be nice if we could have this discussion without politicians using xenophobia to score points in the rust belt, though.
6 - BRYL
The Bush administration has started an unjustified war in Iraq, has rounded up Arabs and allowed them to be incarcerated as well as tortured without any actual charges being lodged against them because they have been classified "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war, and has named Arab countries in the notorious "Axis of Evil," yet we are to pretend the US is fair when it comes to our relations with the Arab world? Bush asked, yesterday, why people have a problem with an Arab company running the ports instead of the British, suggesting that we, as a nation, should treat everyone fairly. Another administration could, perhaps, get away with this line of argument. Bush and company, however, have not treated everyone fairly, and it's extraordinary that suddenly, the administration is trying to play the PC fairness card! I guess the administration isn't for profiling or wire-tapping or questioning or detaining people because of their ethnicity or because of who they're seen with or speak with either? Please. Bush's sudden flirtation with fariness is a joke.
7 - tommyd
I hope this controversy shatters the illusions of some Bush sychophants here who believe that George W Bush actually works and cares for the interests of Americans. Bush is a phony. A traitor. A forked-tongue double talkin' cowboy impostor puppet. Hope y'all Repugnicans are happy now, idiots. Our ports are controlled by Arabs and our borders remain open to Mexicans and other Third Worlders.
Great. Just great!
8 - tommyd
Also, the original post is shite. Just more ridiculous Euro-bashing from the self-righteous peanut gallery of neconservatives. Spit.
9 - Nancy
I find it suspicious that Bush is suddenly posturing about fearmongering by those against the ports deal, when he's the one that's been fearmongering terrorism/muslims/arabs from the inception. Dubya Bush speak with forked tongue. You got it right, tommyd.
10 - Bing
TommyD I am a republican and I agree with you on this issue. Bush is either an idiot because he sincerely believes that letting arabs control 6 ports poses no danger or he is a heartless jackass who sees the threat but just doesn't care.
Either way he fucked up and I hope congress sets him stright.
However this one issue and Bush alone do not represent all of what the GOP stands for and I am still proud to call myself a Republican.
I am a Republican and I am on here right now critisizing Bush for his stupid view on this port situation. However I have yet to see any of you liberals critisize the ACLU when they try to block every action taken to prevent more terrorism from occuring on our soil. Also it's the ACLU who tries to stop every action taken to stem the tide of illegals such as calling the minutemen racists and suing them. I have yet to hear any of you leftist liberqals critisize Cindy Sheehan for saying America is nothing but an imperialist nation that is not worth dying for. I have yet to hear any liberals critisize Planned Abortionhood" when they refuse to provide the name of a 30 something year old man who has had sex with a 14 year old girl.
So call us what you want but I think I'll stay on this side and continue to call em like I see em TommyD. Bush is wrong on this issue without a doubt but the Dems and liberals are wrong on just about every other issue.
11 - Christopher Rose
Oh yes, ALL Europeans are racists, that's for sure.
Total drivel.
Oh, and Bing, you're not a Republican, you're just bitter, twisted and mean.
12 - lumpy
despite the comments of the various crypto-nazis above, the article has an excellent point. to take it even further, imagine that an indian comany was taking over those ports. if that had happened it would have been so uncontroversial it wouldn't even have made the news.
13 - troll
shut down the ports...seal off the borders
repel the invaders
return to the land...grow corn
US out of North America
troll
14 - RJ Elliott
"Oh, and Bing, you're not a Republican, you're just bitter, twisted and mean."
Official comment policy:
"We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner."
Hmm...
15 - Dave Nalle
TommyD: Also, the original post is shite. Just more ridiculous Euro-bashing from the self-righteous peanut gallery of neconservatives. Spit.
Of course, the person who made it has demonstrated time and time again that he's quite left-leaning, not vaguely conservative and pro-European.
Nancy: I find it suspicious that Bush is suddenly posturing about fearmongering by those against the ports deal, when he's the one that's been fearmongering terrorism/muslims/arabs from the inception.
You never, ever get the hint, do you? This issue more than any other reveals who the real fearmongers are, and they ain't Bush.
Bing:TommyD I am a republican and I agree with you on this issue. Bush is either an idiot because he sincerely believes that letting arabs control 6 ports poses no danger or he is a heartless jackass who sees the threat but just doesn't care.
Or he's a sensible conservative who thinks that the government shouldn't interfere in a business transaction which clearly poses no national security risks. BTW, when you side with TommyD you lose any legitimacy as a commentor.
Dave
16 - Christopher Rose
RJ: The defence is that it isn't a personal attack, rather an accurate description. In my opinion.
17 - Dave Nalle
I don't think 'bitter, twisted and mean' describes bing well at all. On most topics he's just conservative. On a couple he's a rabid fanatic. But I really don't see bitterness or meanness overall. Which makes me wonder whether you ascribe those negatives to him just because he's conservative.
Dave
18 - Christopher Rose
Dave, thanks for implying that I ascribe qualities to people based on their opinions. That's the nicest accusation of discrimination I've ever had thrown my way.
The fact that it's total nonsense and comes from such a rigid mindset as yours does only so much to reduce the hurt I feel at a suggestion that goes against some of my deepest convictions. I am offended and feel like rioting in the streets and lynching Texans for this foul calumny!
Stewie Griffin: When the world is mine, your death should be quick and painless.
19 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
A point of order, sir.
Chris says,
RJ: The defence is that it isn't a personal attack, rather an accurate description. In my opinion.
In the Commons and in the Knesset, the Speaker defines the rules. When there is a question in the Commons, the honorable members appeal to the Parliamentarian. The Honorable Parliamentarian adjusts his/her wig, coughs a couple of times and consults a huge tome of the rules compiled by the "Mother of Parliaments" over a millennium.
When there is a question in the Knesset, the "honorable" members just scream at each other. Sounds more like the internet to me.
On this list, the Comments Editor is the Speaker.
Is there a Parliamentarian or do we follow the model of the "honorable" members of the Knesset.
Just a point of order, sir.
20 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy: I think the correct answer is that we take a mixed approach, a little "Order, Order" here, a bit of "back-and-forth" there.
I am most certainly not the Speaker, that would be the collective will of the Gang of Four that actually run this place, which is most usually publically manifested through Mr Olsen. If anything I am a peculiar mixture of Doorman and Cleaner, rather like in that movie "The Cleaners", lol.
As you are already aware, Blogcritics has a comments policy and I simply try my best to follow it's spirit and intentions.
There is a guideline that says editors should not edit comments when involved in a debate for fear of abusing the editing power. I do occasionally ignore that guideline when I am 85-100% certain that I am maintaining my objectivity but if I feel the red mist rising I stop and bring in the big guys.
If anybody feels that I have made a big mistake and is unhappy with the way I have handled the issue, they are welcome to contact the management directly.
My comments are my own and carry no more weight than any other goy, apart from their polish and clarity of course!
21 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Thnks for the clarification, Chris.
Doorman, eh? Hmm...
22 - Linda Lewis
President Bush did a great disservice, both to Americans and Arab friends, by claiming that rejecting the Dubai deal would be "discriminatory." He supported his statement with a deeply flawed assumption that the Dubai deal is similar to the British deal, except for the ethnicity of the firm owners. But, the deals are in two very different categories. The British firm is a private company, while the Dubai firm is state-owned. Enforcing accountablity is very different for private companies and governments. In previous deals involving state-owned firms, the U.S.rejected the deal, or required the government to eliminate or reduce its control of the company. Therefore, the Dubai deal was treated much more favorably than the others, involving non-Arab states. The approval is an anomaly, and as such, deserves an independent revew to determined in US officials abused federal laws, and to ensure that any approval is consistent with US law and policies, regardless if the country is the U.A.E., Canada, or China. Documentation is available in US government reports by the GAO and CRS, showing the past treatment of state-owned firms by CFIUS.
23 - MCH
Re comment #14:
"'Oh, and Bing, you're not a Republican, you're just bitter, twisted and mean.'
Official comment policy:
'We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner.'
Hmm..."
This from the same guy who in the past on BC has made fun of the size of Elizabeth Edwards' rear end...(?)
24 - Bliffle
"The approval is an anomaly, and as such, deserves an independent revew"
True.
25 - David Ben-Ariel
Let the useful idiots for our enemies bark and growl that we're "bigots" or whatever trips their trigger. No foreigner (even our beloved British-Israelite brethren) should have any control of our ports.
President Bush is dead wrong on this issue and is endangering America's security, betraying our borders and our ports. It's better safe than sorry. At least we'll be LIVING "bigots" than blind fools who are dead.