March 19, 2006
Dubai Ports Controversy--Posner's Response to Comments
A number of good comments, as usual. I will respond very briefly.
One comment points out that since only 5 percent of incoming containers are inspected, the real danger of lethal cargo is created is in the foreign ports (operated by foreign companies) in which the containers are loaded into ships bound for the United States. However, U.S. port security can be thought of as a second line of defense should dangerous cargo not be detected in the originating port. A second, very pessimistic comment considers port security basically hopeless--if terrorists obtain weapons of mass destruction, they will find a way to slip them into the United States. That is certainly true with respect to bioweaponry: smallpox virus sprayed in any international airport would create an epidemic in the United States. But probably the greater danger is a nuclear or radioactive ("dirty") bomb, which would probably come in by ship.
I would like to know how much it would cost to inspect 100 percent of the cargoes that enter the United States.
I don't agree, by the way, that it is "protectionist" to trade off foreign investment benefits against security costs. I don't think it would be protectionist to forbid Iran to buy Boeing or provide janitorial services at the Pentagon.
Finally, I do think that an excellent point made in one of the ccomments is that had the deal gone through, Dubai would have had a real stake in enhancing port security, since if a terrorist attack occurred at a port operated by Dubai Ports World, it would be a disaster for Dubai.
In retrospect, the Administration could have made a better case for the deal. But I suspect that the political opposition would still have precluded acceptance of the deal.
Posted by Richard Posner at 03:17 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1150
Comments
This whole issue has caused total bemusement in Britain, where the takeover of P&O excited no comment. It is true that most Americans do not know the difference between Dubai and other Arab countries, global geography not being the national strong point, while Brits know it as a winter vacation destination and there have always been close links with the UAE. The whole point about Dubai is how different it is from the rest of the region. It is not a democracy, but the Al-Makhtoum reigning family have created a liberal capitalist Hong Kong of the Middle East, dedicated to successfully making money from everything except oil. This is far less harmful than religious fundamentalism, and the state's freedom from terrorism probably owes more to the fact that alone in the region it is successful at the West's own game, than any tacit deals with terrorists. Fundamentalism thrives on a sense of grievance and failure.
Dubai is a model, within its own culture, of what we in the West would want the Middle East to be. Rejecting Dubai ports sends a message that no matter how hard they try, Arabs will never be trusted. This is not only racist, but self-defeating. Oh, and there is indeed every reason why Dubai Ports would have a greater incentive to be more thorough on security than others
Posted by Pat T at March 19, 2006 04:58 PM | direct link
UAE was one of only three countries to recognize Taliban led Afghanistan government. UAE's links to charities that raise money for terror are well documented. However within UAE, Dubai is the most liberal emirate.
Posted by Arun Khanna at March 19, 2006 06:10 PM | direct link
They play cricket in UAE. That makes me a whole lot less nervous about the place!
Posted by ben at March 20, 2006 01:32 AM | direct link
Yep! I think you are absolutely correct...you can take Dubai as the most liberal emirate.
Posted by ethan at March 25, 2006 08:18 AM | direct link
