Nothing Aside

Agricultural Jihad?

This is old news since it was created in 2000, but I just heard about this today: Iran has a Ministry of Agricultural Jihad.  Ok, well not really.  It's actually the Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture, which I'm pretty sure makes it a legitimate thing since that would actually mean the word "jihad" was being used in its less commonly used form to mean "struggle" or "development" or "effort" or something along those lines.  The website makes it look like the ministry's goal is to promote sustainable development in Iranian agriculture.  Certainly commendable.  It just happens to also be an amusingly named ministry considering I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility that Iran would have a ministry that thought about how to use agricultural products as weapons.

Pandering To The Fear Factor

Here we go again: another Congressional outrage over a business takeover that is no real threat to American security but appears so if our representatives are willfully ignorant of some basic realities. This time around the outrage centers on a proposal to allow a Dubai-based company operate six shipping port terminals in the U.S.  The outrage is coming from all corners of Congress, Republican and Democrat alike.  Much to his credit, President Bush is standing his ground on this deal against the Lou Dobbs-fear mongerers of America. 

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." '

This outrage is totally illogical.  We are trying to send a message that race and origin should not matter when it comes to running companies or anything else, yet Congress goes apoplectic when news comes out that a foreign company would own something domestic.  It's yet another moment when Congress lets its adherence to isolationism and xenophobia get in the way of practical policy.

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine — especially since China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush's aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.

This is really the worst part.  Foreign companies already own a number of our major ports, but suddenly this becomes an issue when the media gets a whiff of it.  Cue Congressional outrage.

Some administration officials, refusing to be quoted by name, suggested that there was a whiff of racism in the objections to an Arab owner taking over the terminals. The current operator of the six American terminals, P&O Port, is owned by the British company that Dubai Ports World is acquiring. The ports include those in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as New York.

I'll say it: it's racist.

Mr. Frist, in a rare break from the Bush administration, declared that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter."

He added, "If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."

If Bill Frist is on one side, count me on the other.  More so than just about anyone else, I disagree with Frist on this issue and everything else he comes up with.  This is just another reason.

Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a persistent critic of the administration's actions on port security, said in an interview that "this is now a bipartisan posse chasing the president."

Democrats who think that this is a great opportunity to nail the president on a homeland security issue are sadly mistaken.  This type of deal is incredibly routine.  And even if it was not, what is the real threat?  Opposition to this deal seems to be based solely on the idea that this is an Arab-based company.  That is racist, by definition.

But firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

But the reasoning did not resonate in Washington, where members of Congress from every end of the political spectrum piled on to condemn the deal and to propose emergency legislation to block it if necessary.

"This sale will create an unacceptable risk to the security of our ports," Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, joined by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez and Barbara Boxer said in a letter Tuesday. On Monday, the Republican governors of New York and Maryland raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore.

Hillary is wrong and is pandering to the worst elements of the Democratic Party.  Democrats (and Republicans in a different way) are far too beholden to a xenophobic streak that strangles any efforts to act smartly in a globalized economy.  There is no such thing as an "American company" versus an "Arab company" in many markets like this one.

At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld praised the Arab country as an important strategic military partner.

"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

This whole debate is a firestorm over nothing.  The American public is too ignorant to realize that globalization has dramatically changed the way business works.  Congress knows the difference but doesn't have the courage to stand up and say so.  It's pathetic.

**UPDATE**: I'll add two comments I saw on The Plank blog over at TNR.  They raise good points about why this hysteria is misguided.  I'm disappointed that TNR is joining the xenophobic crowd:

What the hell is happening--first CNOOC [the Chinese energy company that unsuccessfully tried to buy the American oil company Unocal in July 2005], now this. Are we turning into some neo-mercantilist economy? Foreigners have always been in US port operations--the company acquired by Dubai Ports was British. Look, this company is going to handle commercial operations. Don't confuse port operations with security: security will ALWAYS be handled by the US. So if we want better port security, we should beef that up, spend more money on inspections, etc., rather than dump on this company.

And:

[T]he outrage over port security should be directed toward the administration's complete lack of action or concern in strengthening cargo inspection. If there's no one there to look at the cargo, who cares who's scheduling the operations?

Truthiness

All jokes aside about Cheneyshota78yearoldmaninthefacegate (thanks Jon Stewart), there is something terribly troubling about the vice president's response to the accident.  In particular, in his Fox News interview, Cheney suggested that he didn't come clean earlier because, get this: no one would believe him.

Q: Now, it strikes me that you must have known that this was going to be a national story --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, sure.

Q: -- and it does raise the question of whether you couldn't have headed off this beltway firestorm if you had put out the word to the national media, as well as to the local newspaper so that it could post it on its website.  I mean, in retrospect, wouldn't that have been the wise course --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, who is going to do that?  Are they going to take my word for what happened?

Sigh.  Yes Mr. Vice President, the American people should be able to believe you when you say something.  Unfortunately you're right, no one does believe a thing you say.  Of course that's your own doing though.  This administration is one of the most secretive in history.  It doesn't matter what the issue is, they don't want anyone knowing anything about it and when they are questioned they don't shoot straight (sorry) in their answers.

We should be able to take the word of our president and vice president.  It's been a while since we've been truly able to do that, and it's a shame.

Jaafari Stays On As Iraqi Prime Minister

This latest political news from Iraq is certainly disappointing.  Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current interim prime minister has been selected to remain in that post in the first perminent government of Iraq - a four year government.  He beat out Adel Abdul Mahdi, the current vice president and fellow Shiite, by an internal vote of 64-63. 

This is unfortunate on several counts.  First, Jaafari's interim government has been widely seen as ineffective and a bit corrupt.  Second, he won this vote only through the full support of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who called for and inspired the bloody 2004 Shiite insurgency against American forces.  Third, I attended a speech by Mahdi when he visited CSIS last fall and found him impressive.  He is an economist by training and was seen by many as an ideal choice for prime minister since he can more easily garner support from Kurdish and Sunni groups. 

On all those measures, it seems there is a tough road ahead for Iraq under a Jaafari government, not least of which is how much the four year government will be dependent on a radical cleric for its most basic support.

A Cartoon For Freedom

I suppose it's time I comment on the ongoing outrage across Europe and the Middle East over some cartoons.  That sounds pretty ridiculous when I say it like that, doesn't it?  A couple of cartoons.  Of course it's no small matter when the subject of the cartoon is the Prophet Muhammad, who according to a good chunk of the Muslim world is not to be depicted visually.  Hmm.  I guess that would be bad enough, right?  But of course that alone would not be enough to provoke the kind of protests and Danish flag-burning that's going on across the Middle East today.  If it were all of Turkey would be in trouble since most Turks practice a moderate version of Islam that isn't so strict on the use of images. 

But I digress.  The problem with these cartoons, and the one in particular, is that they depict the Prophet with a bomb on his head in place of traditional head coverings.  Hmm.  Offensive?  Certainly.  But so are the various "art" displays that seem to congregate in the Met in New York City of the Virgin Mary depicted using nothing but feces.  Or something.  Yes, the Danish cartoon is offensive to many Muslims, but a lot of things are offensive to a lot of people.  This incident could illuminate quite appropriately the need for greater toleration and greater respect for the opinions of others.  That certainly would not be a bad thing.

The fact that the printing of this cartoon - no less than five months ago - has suddenly provoked an outbreak of anti-Danish sentiment is almost comical.  Kevin Drum says it thusly:

I fully realize that I should be taking this more seriously — it involves issues of free speech, national sovereignty, gratuitous religious insults, Islamic radicalism, etc. etc. — but it's hard. I mean, just look at whose flag they're burning in the Middle East right now: Denmark's.

Cuddly little Denmark! Home of Hans Christian Andersen, delicious pastry, and tasteful furniture. Home of Tivoli and the Little Mermaid. Denmark!

Perhaps Denmark made a big mistake centuries ago when it made its flag the world easiest to make copies of for burning purposes.  Red with two white lines?  That's not even trying.

But indeed, this whole incident is almost comical.  All jokes about Hamlet aside, this whole hoopla is a centerpiece example of what Europe is facing each and every day.  Western Europe seeks to be the foremost upholder of all things free and tolerant, and it has every right to do so.  The United States should support that effort and move towards emulating it.

Instead the State Department today announced that United States policy was opposed to the free speech of a European cartoonist.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"Press responsibility"?  There was no effort to incite anything.  Any protests that we see today are the result of a mindset in parts of the Middle East that does not accept that others have different views on some of the things that they hold dear.  I thought we were trying to bring freedom to that region, no?  Does that marching freedom not include freedom of speech and freedom of thought?  If it doesn't speak to almost this exact incident, what are we doing?

 

Hamas Takes Over

The recent Palestinian election has everyone predicting gloom and doom for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the foreseeable future, but is it really as bad as everyone says?  Hamas, the militant terrorist organization/charity anchor of social life in the West Bank, won 76 of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament.  In the short term this is no doubt a bad thing for peace prospects.  With Ariel Sharon out of the picture in Israel and his considerable political weight now unable to move the pile towards a peaceful solution, the election of Hamas could indeed be seen as threatening. 

But long term, what does the Hamas victory lead to?  Here are a few possibilities we might see:

• Now that Hamas will actually have to govern, will Palestinians continue to support it's most radical elements?  Nothing moderates a party quite like having to put up results (though as a friend of mine pointed out, that's what Germany said about the Nazis as well).  Will Hamas be able to govern successfully?  They have been a strong part of Palestinian society for years, but they have had the luxury of criticizing from afar.  Do they have the goods?
• Fatah has finally been forced to shape up and stop being a corrupt, do-nothing governing element.  Are they better than Hamas?  No doubt.  But they have never had strong enough support from the Palestinian people to crack down on terrorism in a real way.  Not that Hamas will be better at this since they are the problem in the first place, but Fatah has gotten its wake-up call.  Will they answer it and make some real changes so that a legitimate challenge to what will inevitably be shaky leadership by Hamas can be made next time around?
• In the ironic world of politics and peace, is it at all possible that Hamas could be the Palestinian party that brings peace to the conflict?  Don't laugh.  Could a yet-to-be-named Hamas leader pull a Nixon-to-China and be the hawk that brings about a softening of relations, if not outright peace?  On the Israeli side Yitzak Rabin was able to use his reputation as a hawk to bring (albeit temporary) peace in 1994, and Ariel Sharon seemed on his way to doing something similar in the coming months and years.  Is there a Hamas leader who can pull the group in from the cold and find a settlement (sorry, wrong word) to the never-ending dispute?

I think there could be something to each of these possibilities, but it will take time.  Israeli leadership is uncertain (I'm pulling for a Kadima win) and a group largely seen as a terrorist organization is set to rule in the Palestinian territories.  In the short term things look bad.

Bin Laden Returns

After 13 months without an public presence, Osama bin Laden has again made an appearance in a tape in which he says that al-Qaeda is winning in Iraq and, oddly, offers a "truce" to the United States.  According to bin Laden, the lack of attacks in the United States is not because of anything we are doing to beef up security, but because they just haven't chosen to attack at this time.  To which I say, "yeah, right."  Terrorists don't sit on operations that could be successful.  The risk of being caught before the attack could be carried out would be too great.  Essentially bin Laden is trying to keep up the appearance that he could order an attack at will.  He would have done so by now (assuming he has any contact with anyone at this point), so we know this argument is nonsense.

On the "truce" comment, again, what is he getting at?  Is it a sign of weakness that he wants the U.S. to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and everything will be just fine and he'll leave us alone?  Does he really think we're that stupid? 

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars -- which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

For someone who has in the past said that victory will only come when the "crusaders and zionists" are gone for good, the suggestion of co-existance is totally absurd.  And he should know this much. 

Apparently bin Laden's voice was weaker and less dominant, perhaps as a result of living in the border regions of Pakistan while on dialysis.  One way or another, bin Laden is on the decline.  And that is always a good thing.

#2 Down? Dr. Evil Is Next

ABCNews is reporting that Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command and its most vocal representative these days, may have been killed by a CIA drone in the border region of Pakistan.  Let's hope that these reports turn out to be true.  We haven't seen a video from bin Laden in more than a year and instead have seen al-Zawahiri taking the lead.  No one really knows why this is - bin Laden may be too remote to really lead al-Qaeda, he may be dead, or something else - but it seems that a dead al-Zawahiri would be a boon to the war on terrorism.  Certainly al-Qaeda has moved on to become more than just its leaders, but if the reports of his death prove accurate, this would be a huge step forward against terrorism - unlike our current efforts in the terrorist factory that is Iraq.

**UPDATE**: It seems that we may not have gotten al-Zawahiri.  Drat.  Pakistan of course is declaring its outrage for this attack on Pakistani territory, but they knew this was going on.  Hopefully we'll get him, and bin Laden, next time.