Bush and the Dubai Ports World deal

Photos

Dubai

see larger image

uploaded by heart_thrb

• 

  uploaded by heart_thrb | add comment

• 

  uploaded by heart_thrb | add comment

What to think about
the controversy surrounding Bush’s plans for granting Arab control of
American ports? Profit, prejudice, politics, and paranoia?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/19/news/policy.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4737940.stm http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5225492

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/21/national/w085205S43.DTL



             Superficially, it seems that the
pro-business, cash-strapped Bushies may gain extra revenue/perks from
this ports deal with a wealthy state-owned Arab firm. And Congressmen
on both sides of the aisle want to score national security points by
protesting and over-reacting to the danger. I'm sure the White House
truly believes that this venture is harmless, and the legislators are
genuinely concerned for our safety. Maybe all of them are correct, but
it’s hard to justify “taking chances” during this tense period of
American history. If the deal is innocuous, then prove it to us and
that’s that. Acting secretively and remaining blasé about our concerns
only augments our suspicion and resistance. Some outsiders view such a
move as politically inconsiderate (even if it’s not actually dangerous
to us, it *appears* risky) from an administration with a penchant for
stubborn, callous behavior. With sometime gross disregard for
dissenting opinions and contradictory data, I just don’t know how much
credibility the White House has left on making controversial decisions.

I
personally do not believe that this transaction will compromise our
security in the least. Port security already sucks (and it has for
years under American, British, or any other management) regardless of
which company is running operations, so I blame the Federal Government
and not Arab businesses for that. But reassurances coming from the
usual suspects don’t hold much water these days. Alberto Gonzales,
Donald Rumsfeld, Scott McLellan, Michael Chertoff, and President Bush
have all said that the deal was carefully inspected and totally safe –
but they just can’t share the details with us. So they’re not
compromising national security, but they can’t tell us why and how…
because that would compromise national security! However, these are the
same people who said that George Washington authorized electronic
surveillance, Iraq certainly had WMD and posed an imminent danger to
us, DHS did nothing wrong during the Katrina response, and detainees in
the War on Terror are treated totally humanely.

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=6777

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4717916.stm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060216-1.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

The
fact that the “National Security President” tolerates just a 5%
inspection rate for inbound containers is not very reassuring (I guess
it costs the port authorities and shipping companies too much money,
time, and labor to do better). The same is true of the chemical
industry; they have successfully lobbied Washington to condone fairly
lax security regulations (since improvements are expensive), even
though plants stockpile tons of deadly toxins near urban areas that
terrorists could potentially exploit. Investigative reporters have
infiltrated facilities on numerous occasions to prove the point. Bush
even threatened a veto on his Senate buddy Bill Frist, the Democrats,
and the rest of the GOP-controlled Congress if they dare attempt to
block or even delay the transaction with emergency legislation.
However, I also think it’s disingenuous of the Democrats to raise hell
about the potential security risks of the ports deal, when they weren’t
so livid about Saddam or Darfur. But gearing up for the November
midterm elections, they have to restore credibility on national
security if they even hope to reclaim Congressional majority. This
isn’t always the case, but I don’t approve of politicians or
journalists using national security as some sort of cheap boon for
publicity and career advancement.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-25-chemical-plants_x.htm



             However, with all the scrutiny
and publicity over the deal, it's unlikely that the transfer of port
management from a British company to the United Arab Emirates’ Dubai
Ports World will become the catalyst that permits a major terror attack
to take place when it was previously impossible. With our free society
and occasional unacceptably porous security measures, many people are
surprised that the USA has not been attacked since 9/11. I commend our
security forces for that accomplishment, not to mention the fact that
the majority of violent terrorists are preoccupied with attacking
Westerners in the Middle East. But there are easier ways of smuggling
nasty stuff into the country and hurting Americans than working out a
multi-billion-dollar, multinational shipping deal in plain view of
everyone. It’s analogous to sneaking illegal immigrants into the
country via the Goodyear Blimp. The deal poses inherent risks, but
there are much larger, overlooked dangers in the US that we should be
more upset about. The War on Terror era has engendered a lot of
paranoia and distrust in American society, and national security has
also become a political leverage tool and mass media hot button.
Therefore, it’s really hard for lay Americans to decide what to really
fear and prepare for. Color-coded fluctuating alerts, duct tape,
anthrax, freezing assets and staking out American mosques, pat-downs of
the elderly at airports… it’s just too much.

Am
I defending the Bushies on this one? It certainly appears so, but I
also fault them for their bad sell on this venture. Even if the deal is
safe and legal, it just doesn’t look good and they’ve kept the details
to a minimum as usual. Bush’s stern veto threat also raises some
eyebrows – why is he so adamant to oppose legislators and defy public
opinion just to protect a foreign business venture? What’s in it for
them, and how does it benefit us? The secretive, imperial presidency
has once again given us nothing persuasive or respectful to earn our
support. Chertoff says safeguards are in place, but we can’t find out
more because it’s classified? What is the danger of delaying the deal
to permit further Congressional investigation? Will the worldwide
shipping industry implode? Throw us a bone if the administration wants
to get us on board; after such a bad track record, we can’t just take
them at their word anymore. The Bushies’ shotgun approach to forcing
this deal through is sadly reminiscent of their fast-tracking
questionable legislation, pushing for elections yet grumbling over the
unfavorable outcomes, and of course rushing into war with Iraq. If the
White House defended Katrina victims as dutifully as they do for Dubai
Ports World, maybe Bush’s approval rating among Black Americans would
be higher than 2%. But then again, the latter is a multi-billion-dollar
company from an oil-rich nation, and the former are part of a fairly
marginalized, destitute minority in our country. Regardless of Michael
Moore’s sensationalism, we know that the Bushies have strong ties with
Middle Eastern oil regimes, especially the House of Saud. Where are
their loyalties in this deal, and who stands to gain or lose? No
accusations, just inquiry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/10/13/BL2005101300885.html

http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap3-2.html

And
finally, we must consider the elephant in the room: the
racism/xenophobia factor. Yes, I agree with Bush that it reflects
poorly on American tolerance and sensibilities that we accept British
port management (white Anglo Christians) yet protest transfer of
control to Arab Muslims. Dubai Ports World is not a terror
organization, and has a much cleaner track record of foreign enterprise
than even Halliburton or Royal Dutch Shell Oil. Both companies receive
huge government contracts and US revenues, but their list of violations
are quite extensive on the British website corporatewatch.org below,
yet DPW is not even listed in their index. There is no reason to
believe that DPW poses any threat to us, besides guilt by loose
association: two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE, and Al Qaeda
supposedly funneled money through Dubai (which had nothing to do with
DPW shipping of course). But Bush is one of the most hated US leaders
in the history of Muslim-American relations, and isn’t exactly viewed
as a champion of Arab-Muslim rights and dignity. So it seems a little
suspect that he’s now fighting anti-Muslim backlash over the ports
deal. Where was his protest after the slew of post-9/11 hate crimes? Of
course many Iraqis are very thankful to Bush and the US for liberating
them from Saddam, yet they’re still very upset about the continual
violence, hardships, and American military presence in their country.
In 2002, Bush declared two of the most prominent Muslim nations in the
world as part of the “Axis of Evil”, and even stated that “Radical
Islam” is our primary enemy in the 2006 State of the Union Address.
He’s not exactly the most appropriate messenger and champion of
Arab-Muslim equality and fair treatment.

http://feeds.dubainews.net/?rid=866a8538855a1531&cat=452e5186f1a5ee58&f...

http://www.dpiterminals.com/subpages.asp?PSID=1&PageID=1

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=305

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=275

http://antiwar.com/eland/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4185205.stm

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=869

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/17/bush.axis/

Nationalistic,
protectionist backlash could be justifiable if the deal involved some
sort of symbolic, sentimental American landmark, but most Americans
have never set foot in a port and don’t want to. Some people were upset
when a Japanese outfit bought the Pebble Beach Golf Course, and no one
would allow Samsung or Rolex to purchase the New England Patriots.
Globalism is an obvious reality, and foreign direct investment in
America was 1-5% of our GDP in 2000. Considering larger security risks,
the Department of Energy estimates that over 10% of the American energy
sector is foreign owned/invested! Considering our “oil addiction”, the
critical energy-security link, and the ability of oil regimes to sway
American policy, where is the protest over this? But again, the
majority of such foreign investment originates from “non-threatening”
nations in Europe and Asia, so laissez-faire I suppose. However, some
of the Congress and mainstream media were up in arms over the proposed
Chinese buyout of Unocal in 2005 (our 9th largest oil
company). Eventually CNOOC withdrew their bid and the California-based
ChevronTexaco acquired Unocal instead. However, analysts recognized
that the Chinese were willing to overpay for Unocal because access to
Asian oil reserves is so vital for the future of their growing economy.
Their bid was higher than Chevron’s, but due to the politically charged
situation and the perceived “Chinese menace” threatening American
business, the deal was nixed even though some experts saw no danger to
US interests and the global oil market. However, nationalism and
paranoia may trump economics and mental clarity from time to time.

http://www.pebblebeach.com/page.asp?pageName=golf_history_timeline_1990

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/fdi/fdi.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/fdi/advance/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4121830.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063002081.html

            So
what do we make from this ports deal controversy? Only time will tell I
suppose, but this example once again illustrates the tremendous
interdependence between commerce, security, nationalism, and prejudice.
After the cartoons catastrophe and new Abu Ghraib torture pictures, I
don’t think that Muslims need another reminder of Western bigotry.
Surely security is a paramount concern for America, but there are smart
and dumb ways to go about it. As always, we need to prioritize,
scrutinize, think clearly, and manage finite resources. Why is this so
hard for Washington? Are the benefits worth the costs and risks? Was
Saddam the gravest danger compared to other regimes, and was war the
best solution at the time? Are scissors and nail clippers serious
dangers to American flights, or are guns in the hands of fearful pilots
and poorly trained air marshals even worse? Is the handover of our
ports to DPW management going to put us at risk compared to other
security lapses like border porosity and lack of container inspections?
Let’s think rationally, instead of shooting from the hip over every
little fear of terrorism, addressing the problem by making it worse,
and allowing hyped-up faux-threats to blind us from real concerns.

If
we expect the world to treat Americans fairly and respectfully, then we
must do the same to others. If DPW has made the best offer to acquire
American ports, and the deal is beneficial to us with few to zero
drawbacks, then why not? However, I have no idea why the Bushies
haven’t leveled with the American public about it – isn’t he the “MBA
president” for heaven’s sake? He went to great pains to explain the
benefits of the trickle-down tax cuts, Social Security privatization,
and the ridiculously complex Medicare benefit plan to us; why can’t he
elucidate the benefits of the ports deal for us? Just put our security
concerns to rest, or are they hiding something? No accusations, just
inquiry.

http://www.nbc4.com/news/7361101/detail.html?rss=dc&psp=news