Infinite MonkeysCal Thomas points out the following travel advisory issued earlier this week by Australian authorities:
Travel AdviceLet us not be put off by kneejerk race-based reactions in the CFIUS / DPW / P&O debacle or those who accuse of such. There are substantial reasons to object to this deal.United Arab Emirates This Advice is current for Thursday, 23 February 2006.
"High degree of caution"
This advice has been reviewed and reissued. It contains new information on Local Laws. The overall level of the advice has not changed.
Summary
• We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack.
• We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates. Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets.
Krauthammer mapped the path out of the Harriet Miers mess. Let's hope he comes out with a piece on this soon. Until then, we have the following tactical options offered by Frank Gaffney:
[Mr. Bush] could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase — withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.Posted by Brad at February 22, 2006 10:55 AM
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. So the UAE might be a terrorist target so UAE companies shouldn't be able to do business in the U.S.? Did we not act swiftly enough to kick out the British after they were a terrorist target?
Posted by: Monkey David at February 22, 2006 06:06 PMEarlier today Hugh Hewitt veered into the logic of why the high level of threat in Dubai and to Western interests through the UAE acknowledged and documented by longtime trustworthy allies ought to be considered here. In his interview with Admiral Craig Bone, rear admiral of the United States Coast Guard, Hugh explained:Then the heart of my objection, Admiral, and I know it's widespread, is that even though the UAE is a great and wonderful ally in the global war on terror, and this company has a wonderful reputation, that al Qaeda is deeply entrenched in the Emirates, and that pressures can be brought to bear on reliable people through their family, through threats, etc., that make them less reliable, even though they can get into the country after vetting, that places them at the port that gives them access to information and the ability to conduct surveillance, and that we just aren't...we're just not far-flung enough to know about threats like that. How do you respond to that?From earlier in the interview:I've been to the Dubai World Port website. In fact, I'm looking right now at Matthew Hogue, who's the general manager of their Venezuela operation. He's an American with 11 years in U.S. merchant mariner. So obviously, it's an international company with an international workforce. But my assumption is information flows will go back and be available to UAE officials, and that there will be an increased UAE management presence that would be inevitable with...I've also looked at their website, where they're hiring like crazy in UAE for jobs around the world. So my assumption is that there will be some increase in UAE national workforce presence at these ports.
Posted by: Monkey Brad at February 22, 2006 09:13 PMHeh. You said Admiral Bone. Heh-heh.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at February 23, 2006 08:11 AMOh, and he's a REAR Admiral. Nice one. This has all been a set up for a little juvenile brokeback humor, hasn't it?
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at February 23, 2006 08:12 AMI blame FARK.
Posted by: Monkey Brad at February 23, 2006 02:59 PM