On the menu today: A strange report indicates that the U.S. government is eyeing the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, warily and contemplating action to interrupt his purchase of Twitter — with all kinds of objections about foreign investors that don’t make much sense; a recent proposal to have the U.S. government seize SpaceX’s satellite-based Internet system, Starlink, ignores some glaring obstacles; as Election Day approaches, Democrats have belatedly realized that some of their big statewide candidates turned out to be a bunch of lemons; and a particularly bizarre scandal involving state attorneys general erupts.
Elon Musk: Person of Interest
US officials have grown uncomfortable over Elon Musk’s recent threat to stop supplying the Starlink satellite service to Ukraine — he said it had cost him $80 million so far — and what they see as his increasingly Russia-friendly stance following a series of tweets that outlined peace proposals favorable to President Vladimir Putin. They are also concerned by his plans to buy Twitter with a group of foreign investors.
Wait, they’re worried about Musk’s stances on Russia, but not his stances on China?
Back when the news of Musk’s interest in purchasing Twitter broke in April, a whole bunch of folks on the left reacted like he was the devil, and a whole bunch of folks on the right greeted him like he was an angel sent from above. But the whole truth about Musk was always more complicated. Back then I wrote:
There’s a lot to like about his fearless, innovative, Tony Stark-in-real-life style, particularly his view on the First Amendment and his opposition to cancel culture; he asked recently, “Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?” But Musk is also way too friendly with the Chinese government, his businesses are built in part on government contracts and subsidies, and he can be erratic in his decision-making at times. He’s a really intriguing, bold, and imaginative guy, but he’s not Tech Jesus.
Lately, Musk’s been spit-balling some proposals for international diplomacy in his trademark frenetic, casual style. As the world’s richest man, with business interests all over the globe – including in some geopolitically consequential places — I’m sure Musk is eager to help and is certain his keen mind can find the answer.
But you’ll notice that Musk tends to look at longstanding, complicated, tense, international border disputes like the managerial engineer that he is, coming up with ideas that probably won’t work because they involve flesh-and-blood human beings with longstanding historical grievances and sometimes illogical or irrational stances. He also expects autocratic regimes with long histories of breaking promises to keep their word.
From where I sit, I think Musk means well, but it is not particularly good to see him floating proposals such as creating a Chinese “special administrative zone” for Taiwan, an idea that was immediately endorsed by the Chinese ambassador to the United States and furiously rejected by his Taiwanese counterpart. A few weeks ago, Musk suggested that the war in Ukraine could be resolved by plebiscites in Ukrainian territories that have been annexed by Russia, assurances of fresh water supplies to Russian-occupied Crimea, and a Ukrainian pledge to remain neutral. This, of course, rewards Russia for its unprovoked aggression and gives Russia a de facto veto over Ukrainian alliances — with no guarantee that Putin or some other Russian leader won’t come back for another round of conquest in a few years with a rebuilt military.
Musk may think he’s coming up with a reasonable compromise between two sides in conflict, but his proposals would reward aggressive, autocratic regimes with half a loaf, and leave Taiwan and Ukraine hoping those regimes don’t come back for more somewhere down the line.
None of that, however, points to Musk being a Chinese or Russian agent of influence. He’s just a spectacularly successful businessman who’s worked with the Chinese and Russian regimes in a business context and thinks those regimes will be similarly reasonable and trustworthy in matters of war, peace, and national ambition.
Bloomberg reports that:
One element of the $44 billion Twitter deal that could trigger a [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] review is the presence of foreign investors in Musk’s consortium. The group includes Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Binance Holdings Ltd. — a digital-asset exchange founded and run by a Chinese native — and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund.
Wait, now we’re worried about a U.S. company’s being partially or wholly owned by powerful Saudi, Chinese, or Qatari investors? This isn’t just closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted; this is thinking about closing the barn door after the horse left the barn, ran away, went on to live a long and fulfilling life, and now it’s in the horse retirement home awaiting visits from its grand-foals.
The notion that the U.S. government is suspicious of the foreign investors in Musk’s consortium doesn’t make a lot of sense, because Prince al-Waleed bin Talal is already a major shareholder of Twitter.
Al-Waleed bin Talal is a fascinating figure: part of the House of Saud, and once nicknamed the “Warren Buffett of Saudi Arabia.” He’s one of the wealthy Saudis who was detained for several months as part of what officials called an “anti-corruption” probe, but what many outsiders saw as an internal power struggle within the kingdom, driven by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
You know what else al-Waleed bin Talal currently has considerable investments in? Citigroup, The Four Seasons and Fairmont hotel chains, Uber, and Lyft. In his long career, he’s owned considerable chunks of Apple, Coca-Cola, Compaq, Ford, Hewlett Packard, McDonalds, Pepsi, Procter and Gamble, Marvel Comics, and Disney.
If I wanted to make readers on the right suspicious of him, I’d point to his criticism of Trump and his financing of Islamic-studies departments at Georgetown and Harvard. If I wanted to make readers on the left suspicious of him, I’d point to his former ownership of Fox, the parent company of Fox News.
Are there reasons to be wary of al-Waleed bin Talal? Sure. Among other things, his firm “invested more than $500 million in Russian firms in the days around Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.” But after this extraordinarily wealthy Saudi invested in so many American companies for so long, it’s a little odd to see the U.S. government suddenly decide it thinks his investments in those companies represent some sort of unacceptable national-security risk.
Perhaps the argument is that al-Waleed bin Talal or Musk, because of their past and current business ties to Russia, are now de facto agents of a hostile foreign state. That’s not too far from the perspective of David Frum, who a few days ago contended that:
It was always unreasonable, and is becoming unwise, to expect Elon Musk to provide Internet to Ukraine for free forever. Western allies should pay. And US should have a plan ready to nationalize Starlink fast if Musk cuts off Ukraine’s connection to advance his political agenda. There’s abundant precedent for US government seizure of critical infrastructure during wars or national emergencies. Of course, reasonable compensation must be paid, per the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
First, to “nationalize” means to take over and run; Elon Musk and SpaceX built Starlink, and in Frum’s vision, the federal government would just say, “Hey, nice satellite-based Internet access system you’ve got there, we’re just going to take it from you and pay whatever the court determines is ‘reasonable compensation.’” (That compensation would be a pretty penny. Starlink involves nearly 3,000 small satellites in low-earth orbit, and the company could be valued at $100 billion if it goes public. For perspective, the budget of the U.S. State Department is $84 billion, and the budget for NASA is $30 billion.)
Second, what “war” is the United States currently fighting in this context? Oh, you mean the one in which the Ukrainians are fighting the Russians?
Didn’t President Biden explicitly say, “We will not fight the third World War in Ukraine” back in March?
If the U.S. government is going to start seizing vast networks of satellites and entire businesses in the name of fighting a war, is it too much to ask that there be an actual declaration of war, or at least an authorization of military force?
ADDENDA: Over in the Washington Post, some guy notices that while you heard a great deal about the flaws of GOP candidates in the past year, you didn’t hear much at all about whether Democrats had their own deeply flawed candidates winning competitive primaries in key states. Now, Arizona gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs won’t debate, Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman didn’t reveal the full extent of his health problems until after the primary, Mandela Barnes looks far too radical to get elected in a purple state, and Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke are sucking up vast fortunes in grassroots donations that could be better spent elsewhere. Democratic-leaning readers are greeting this assessment with all of the thoughtful contemplation you would expect.
Meanwhile, in the long and sordid history of state-government scandals, this one stands out:
An investigation by CBS News Colorado reveals how state attorneys general, including Colorado AG Phil Weiser, are attending lavish events funded, in part, by companies they’re suing and investigating.
An organization called the Attorney General Alliance — made up of 48 attorneys general — is at the center of it all. Weiser is Chair the organization.
It’s a private club that corporations and lobbyist organizations pay tens of thousands of dollars to belong to. Their membership buys them access to extravagant events where they can schmooze the top legal officers for state government, individuals who have sole discretion over whether to sue, settle, or investigate them.
CBS News Colorado received video of the group’s 2021 annual conference in Maui from a Republican group. While its motives are political, the events in question include AGs from both parties.
The video shows Weiser and other AGs at the Grand Wailea Resort, a place billed as a “tropical oceanfront paradise” with “luxurious accommodations” that start at a thousand dollars a night, but AGs didn’t have to pay a dime.
Did we need to write down a rule which says, “Don’t party on the dime of someone you’re suing or investigating?”