We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.

First of all, a lawyer for Eller and Company (the Miami firm that sued to have the deal blocked) says that even if the sale is not a security threat, there's a widespread perception that it could be. And that could scare away customers and hurt business. (see here) In other words, for Eller and Company, this is all about PR. They don't want the public to hold it against them that they are doing business with Arabs. Is that a legitimate reason for all of the fuss? This is what sends Senators running to the cameras? Because this doesn't look good for Eller and Company?

The second issue would be comments like Kip's:

Put the "national security" concerns aside for a moment -- what about the human rights concerns?

Fair enough. Kip has some legitimate concerns about how free the Emirates are. The fact that they are "emirates" (princedoms) says a lot. Kip lists a litany of offenses that I do in fact find egregious. And it would be worthwhile for us to try to infuse the ideals of liberty and justice in Dubai and in every other place on this planet where they are not held in the highest regard. But the US government does not have an embargo against the UAE, and we engage in other trade with Dubai. It is good to be concerned about the issues Kip discusses, but this is not a legitimate reason to block the P&O deal. In the absence of issues of national security, there is no difference between this deal and any other exchange.

Kip is part of a Pundit Roundtable over at Willisms;

I oppose the transaction for a very simple reason. We should not be doing port business with the UAE government because we shouldn't be doing any business with the UAE government.

The best way to advance human rights is not to isolate ourselves from nations who do not live up to our standards, and we would not want to see other nations enact that sort of policy toward the USA. This is simple nationalism and high isolationism, and it stands in the way of the free exchange of ideas and goods that Americans are supposed to believe in. Human rights are not brought about by trade embargoes (Cuba?), and I feel that Kip's argument would lead logically to a refusal to do trade with the UAE.

That would not be a good thing.

Our government is neither obligated nor justified in stopping business deals because of the human rights record of the nation that is home to one of the parties. Among other reasons, there is no obvious place to draw the line. For example, Kip notes that homosexuality is punishable by death in UAE. This is clearly the opposite end of the spectrum from my own libertarian view of how the government should treat homosexuality. But what level of human rights would the UAE need to attain before Kip's objections were withdrawn? If homosexuality were punishable only by prison? Flogging? Would homosexuality have to be completely unpunishable? That certainly brings up a question of whether the United States itself would be acceptable, since same-sex couples are punished by our government financially, and gay servicemembers are punished for nothing more than being gay.

The decision of whether to participate in trade with a company from UAE or owned by the UAE is one that should be made by each of us according to our own conscience. Let the Cokes and Nikes flow to the far corners of the Earth. Let our dollars go there as well, in exchange for Persian rugs and Cuban cigars* that are currently not permitted to me, because you (or Kip) object to some country's policies and you think you know how best to change those policies.

I like Kip's blog, A Stitch in Haste, and I usually agree with his analysis of a situation. And I am flattered that he likes our blog. But the libertarian in me will not let me agree with the take that he and many others have taken on the Dubai ports. (Among the others is Michelle Malkin, who is upset that the UAE boycotts Israel and apparently has blocked her site. Again, not admirable but where is the security issue?) The collectivist commentary from the left does not surprise me, but that coming from the right does. So I am calling Kip out on this, in hopes of changing his mind.

For the record, the human rights cause demands action, but not an authoritarian, isolationist blocking of business deals.

There are a few other issues being discussed on the port deal. For example, The MSM harped today on an unclassified internal memo by the Coast Guard that didn't actually say much of anything. Headlines read "Coast Guard warned of port deal intel gaps", but of course the actual story is a bit less exciting.

There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential [for assets owned by DP World or P&O] to support terrorist operations,

That sounds serious. Except, the USCG says it isn't. (Malkin is among those who lept before looking on this one) Taking a few lines from an unclassified document and reading them out of context is a bad way to evaluate security threats. It would be wise to point to the gaps in port security that exist whether the DP World deal goes through or not. But that is a totally separate issue, and it should have nothing to do with allowing this deal to go forward.

One more thing to note; A good point from Media Matters:

An article in The New York Times misrepresented the reasons cited by "Democrats and some Republicans" for criticizing the recent agreement to transfer control of terminals at ports in six U.S. cities to Dubai Ports World. In fact, members of Congress from both parties have accused the administration of flouting the law, which requires a 45-day investigation when the acquiring company is owned by a foreign government and the deal could affect national security.

Media Matters then goes on to paint Bush domestic security adviser Frances Townsend and NYT reporter David E. Sanger as trying to mislead the public on the whole affair. It seems ridiculous to suggest that the Bush Administration would try to hide a disagreement in interpretation of the law, by asking the American people if they agree with decisions that are racist against Arabs. After all, the average American probably thinks even less of Arabs than they do of government lawyers. But the point still stands; Lawmakers have demanded an investigation, not a blocking of the deal. I'll give them credit for that much. I suspect they will get their 45 days. The deal will probably go through in the end, but the flail surrounding it will probably not project an image of America that is very pro-liberty and pro-justice.

* "Don't think of it as supporting their economy. Think of it as burning their crops." - Kinky Friedman to Bill Clinton

Update: Kip is also taking heat from Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of..., who says:

So Kip is right in pointing out the weakness in human rights in UAE, but I’m not sure that punishing them economically is the right course of action. I would also like to point out that if all Middle East countries raised their standards to those of the UAE it would be a vast improvement; so holding them up as an example for their neighbors is not necessarily a bad thing.

Reasonable people can disagree whether or not the lease of several piers at US ports is in the national security interests or not but I think it is a mistake to overlook the incentives that such a deal would create. I don’t believe that having an Arab country with a financial stake in US security is a terrible thing to encourage.

Kip addresses a couple of the arguments in the post (see the comments section), but does not seem to be swayed on the general principle. Hopefully he will expand on this at some point.