![]() ![]() |
11/21/08
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
February
27, 2006 Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and, more importantly, a Congressman from an area near two of the ports that will be operated by Dubai Ports World, expressed this xenophobic view about Dubais acquisition of the British company that is currently operating the ports: In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company. Why? Because two of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country in which the company is based. Yet the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was allowed to operate the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans despite Richard Reids (the infamous shoe bomber) British citizenship. And American companies are permitted to operate some U.S. ports despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and other U.S. citizens are convicted or accused terrorists. For that matter, how do we know that even an American company running the ports would be immune from terrorist infiltration? In fact, since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, Dubai Ports World might even have a stronger interest in operating safe and secure ports than companies from other nations. Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold. If a terrorist incident occurred in one of its ports, the company would probably lose more business worldwide than a non-Arabic company would under the same circumstances. The company should be evaluated on its qualifications to operate the ports, not on McCarthy-like litmus tests for Arabs or the UAE. Besides, although Dubai Ports World will operate the ports, U.S. federal and local authorities will remain in charge of security. Members of Congress such as Congressman King and New York Senator Charles E. Schumer certainly get points with their New York constituents for defending the nation against the onslaught by Arab terrorists, and perhaps trying to protect U.S. companies from foreign competition as well. But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldnt they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United Statesin spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners. After 9/11, U.S. authorities incarcerated and questioned people based on their Arabic nationalities and Islamic religion. The vast majority of them had no connection to terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. This was widely perceived to have been an overreaction. Yet more than four years after 9/11, this racial and ethnic profiling has now moved from individuals to businesses. The Bush administration was right to insist that no security threat emanated from a routine business purchase of a British firm by an Arab company. The politicians should quit posturing and move on to more important issues.
Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a Senior Fellow and director of The Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute. He is the author of Liberty for Latin America.
Robert
Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute,
author of Against Leviathan and Crisis and Leviathan, and editor of the
scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review. Click
here for a bio on Dr. Higgs, the noted economist and historian.
Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in Oakland, CA., and author of the books, The Empire Has No Clothes (forthcoming in October) and Putting Defense Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
William Marina is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and Professor Emeritus of History at Florida Atlantic University. David
T. Beito is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, Associate
Professor of History at the University of Alabama, and co-editor of
the book, The
Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. For further articles and studies, see the Center on Peace & Liberty and OnPower.org.
For further information, see the Independent Institutes book on wasteful farm programs, Agriculture and the State: Market Processes and Bureaucracy, by Ernest C. Pasour, Jr.
|
What Does the Administrations Leaked Mea Culpa on Iraq Portend? Will Iraqs Constitution Be Irrelevant? Top Ten Reasons to Undo Iraq in Due Haste Will the Governments Abysmal Response to Katrina Recur During a Terrorist Attack? Critics on Iraq Policy Come Out of the Woodwork Too Late Our Greatest Criminals Are Never Charged With Their Greatest Crimes The New Al Qaeda: More Dangerous than the Old Version The Failure of Nation-Building in Bosnia and Iraq TSA Treats for Holiday Travelers Making the World Safe for Theocracy War on Terror Continues to Create Terrorists More Defense Dollars, Less Security
| |||||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
|||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |