This is really strange. As a former Wall Streeter, I’m guessing that most people would assume that I would have no problem with having the management of six U.S. ports put into the hands of the United Arab Emirates-based Dubai Ports World (DPW). As a card-carrying capitalist, I’m supposed to favor letting the marketplace work its magic (DPW submitted the highest bid) and to oppose allowing political considerations to interfere with foreign investment.
In virtually every instance, I’m true to my capitalist credentials. But this time I’m not. By opposing DPW’s management takeover, I’m parting company with blog friend Dave Schuler, with whom I normally agree and who has closely followed the controversy, and a number of other thoughtful bloggers.
Let me make my position perfectly clear: even if there were an iron-clad guarantee that putting the management of some of our ports into the hands of an Arab company would not endanger our security, I would oppose it.
Here’s why.
An early February Gallup poll asked Americans: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today.” Only nine percent responded “terrorism.” In a major survey of American opinion conducted last November, the Pew Research Center found that just 16 percent of the “General Public” identified “terrorism” as the most important international problem facing America.
If, like me, you’re among the small minority of Americans who believe that terrorism—or, more accurately, Islamofascism—is the most significant problem we face, these poll results are profoundly disturbing. They must—or, at least, should—be even more disturbing to the President, whose frequent efforts to persuade Americans of the seriousness of the threat have evidently fallen on largely deaf ears.
Much has been said about the need to put together a far more effective public diplomacy effort targeted at the Arab world. Judged by the poll results I’ve cited, it seems to me that it’s more important for the Administration to craft a domestic public diplomacy program.
Few Americans have the time or inclination to familiarize themselves with the details of the agreement with DPW. With some Republicans—notably Senate Majority Leader Frist—having broken ranks with Bush, most Americans are simply going to wonder how a company headquartered in an Arab country whose banks were involved in the financing of 9/11 could be allowed to manage cargo operations in the U.S.
If this deal stands, it will be even more difficult for the President to persuade Americans that the War on Terror is for real. In my judgment, having more of our people recognize the reality we face is more important than improving our image in the Arab world or, dare I say it, giving capitalism free reign.
Part of capitalism is understanding the value of security, which allows for commercial action.
There isn’t any conflict between capitalism, and the obligations of citizenship. One doesn’t cease to be a citizen, simply becauae he prefers free trade, free minds functioning in free markets.
Moreover, it’s interesting to note that Dubai, which is hardly a “free” anything, is having their acquisition defended by people living in a genuinely free society.
Just think instead of the group in Dubai, it were the Bin Laden Group that was behind the takeover. How would that colour your conclusions?
The idea behind this sale, is grotesque. We have men in the field, bleeding, sweating, fighting, and sometimes, perishing. And they are doing so to drag Islam out of the Stone Age, {that’s effectively the mission, provide an example, a glimmer of hope, a beacon in the prevailing stygian darkness}. And in the midst of this war, fought to preserve our cities, some economic fetishist has signed off on one of the most brain dead ideas ever proposed in my lifetime.
It’s beyond disbelief, it’s surreal.
This isn’t a security arrangement. The security arrangements for the ports remain the responsibility of the U. S. Customs Service and the Coast Guard.
I recognize that I’m in a very small minority on this issue but I see very little additional risk in the capital ownership of the leases on the port terminal operations in question being acquired by a Emiratan company rather than a British company and it seems to me that such additional risk as it may present can be mitigated.
Additionally, I see the value of consistency in our foreign policy objectives as being more significant than what seems to me to be a vanishingly small incremental risk.
Dave,
There may, in fact, be very little additional risk. That’s not what worries me. What does worry me is a public reaction that’s dysfunctional for our prosecution of the war on terror.
Never noted for its PR acumen, I think that the Administration has shot itself in the foot and handed a campaign issue to the Democrats on a silver platter.
I’m inclined to think that there are larger geostrategic considerations prompting Administration support for this deal. In particular, the fact that the UAE as a very important hub in Central Command and a steadfast US ally, something we’ll need in confronting Iran.
That said, Marc makes a good point regarding American desires to forget that we are at war, although I think the media, the ACLU, and the Democratic Party have done more to undermine our resolve than this DPW deal. I suggest a compromise.
Let’s give the Arabs control of only one US port – that of San Francisco. This way, we help solidify our relation with the UAE, the residents of SF shouldn’t have any objections since they don’t believe we are at war, and if anything happens, America will get a much needed reminder and San Franciscans will be awaken to the same reality as everyone else.
Marc,
We may want to welcome any opportunity for the Democrats to appear hawkish. But of course they can’t, even if they wanted to, having expunge all their credibility on national security.
At best, the Dems can argue that this is a case of outsourcing US jobs, but that would force them to side with American big business. Such is the ideological and rhetorical sinkhole the Dems find themselves. Bush could be caught eavedropping on Cheney as he’s water boarding Bin Laden in the flooded streets of New Orleans and the Democrats still couldn’t use it to make themselves look good.
Well, the President has now reaffirmed his position, so it remains for congressional Republicans, and Democrats, to respond.
The one positive thing about this which seems viable is maintaining working relationships with those in the ME who are more pragmatic and business minded in their approach to us and whose history repeatedly and consistently reflects that type of approach. That is precisely the types of relationships which need to be cultivated and rewarded. Still, viscerally and intuitively, it causes unease. We had a long history of commercial air relations with Egypt Air, yet it only took one instance where, the evidence seems to strongly indicate, an Egypt Air flight 990 pilot commandeered the plane in an act of sabotage, suicide and mass homicide.
Still, beyond that intuitive and visceral sense, on a more rational basis, I’m just not sure about this one. Minimally, the debate in the Senate and House should eventuate in sufficient information and scrutiny which, for now, seems lacking (even the Senators on the Sunday morning talk shows appeared to be lacking information, and that alone may be a bad sign). Bare minimum, a thorough-going and transparent debate is needed and for political reasons alone the administration needs to be entirely forthcoming with this issue. This is not an issue, like the NSA program, which merits any secrecy at all.
Has anybody done any basic research on this company? This is a fast growing Frankenstein corporation, sewn together from many international port facilities in “strategic” acquisitions that “take the long view”. That’s usually code for empire building in business. It’s a pride thing and oil money went to overpay for a number of acquisitions, the latest of which is the UK firm P&O.
Look at the management team. There’s a distinct lack of arabs there with most biographies talking about extensive experience in firms acquired by DPW. The current COO is a US Navy veteran!
There may very well be something actually wrong with the deal. A DPW executive recently left to take a position in the Bush administration. Useful oversight would be asking whether this guy had any input into the deal approval. But that’s not what’s going on. It would also be useful oversight to ask what would happen if there were an Al Queda led coup in the UAE. Would port operations be safeguarded? How? Has anybody asked whether privatization is in the cards for DPW?
No, all we have is a bunch of “the arabs are coming” hogwash that was tiresome when I heard the same warmed over bile about the Japanese. Yes, now we’re at war. And in war, it’s necessary to be discriminating about your targets. Given the current performances of critics, I wouldn’t trust them with a nerf gun. Grow up.
My sentiments are exactly the same as Marc’s, but the issue I’m unclear on is the legality of the opponents’ position. I understand from the reports that the Administration followed laws approved by Congress is granting their approval to the transaction. Granted, those laws were grounded in Cold War considerations, but what right does the Administration now have to abrogate its approval based on extralegal considerations? I’m not arguing it would be illegal to now revoke the approval – I just don’t know. But I do believe we’re a nation of laws, and pandering to the chorus of critics if the law is not on the Administration’s side would cost us something I value more than the security concerns.
What’s the political lesson four and a half years after 9/11? Xenophobia is alive and well in America. It doesn’t make any difference whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican—drum up some fear about the Arab threat and you’re sure to win applause. (more…)
Marc- i hope the democrats do try to make an issue out of this, as they will just end up looking racist. I see no difference between a British company running the ports or an Arab one (and one that has been helping out in the War on Terror). The only reason being put forward against this sale is that the company is an arab one, which for some reason results in a breach of security.
Bush is right on this, you cant say to the world you believe in equal rights, then discriminate on the grounds of race, hidden behind a pretext of security issues. Some small measures can be put in place to double check the security (if they are needed).
Besides which, using the same line of logic, surely an argument can be made in favour of the purchase on the grounds it will increase security! After all, the arab company wants to make money, therefore it is in their interests to make the ports more secure (and hell, they might know who to look for!! Joke..)
Just another ingredient, being tossed into this huge pot of stew, for us to and make sense of.
With a media that has become undependable, politicians with personal agendas, a white house short on words and obviously necessary secrets, this is becoming very difficult.
Hmmm. Really, devilishly, interesting problem.
Strategically, we will have zero-zilch hope of maintaining an Arab-liberals-Arab-despot alignment agin’ them thar Is——fascisti if we do abrogate this deal. Strategically, we have no choice but to maintain an Arab-Lib/Arab-despot alignment, as best we can. And, heck, a free market is, er, somehow, sort of ‘freedom’, no?
OK, no, we wouldn’t sign a deal with Krups in 1939 to manage our armaments contracts. But now we are still, of necessity, committed to the idea of ‘giving Freedom a chance’ in the M-E [Middle_East] by dealing with unreliable ‘partners’. Just as it is inevitable that nascent M-E’ern democracy will give rise to Is——fascist (dhimmitude practice, ok?) governments which squelch demomcracy for breakfast, it is inevitable that the economic entanglements with M-E’ern capital will result in, er, vulnerabilities, shall we say? Acceptable risk?
The telling argument [questions of whether President Bush is more loyal to the House of Saud than to this country aside] is what this tells us, the hoi-polloi of America, about the seriousness of the GWOT (aka Global War on [Liberal] Truisms). War? WHAT war?
Here is an administration which Goes to Global War in our interests—interests which accidentally coincide with Royal Saudi interests. The same administration does zilch [as hard as it can] to control our borders in spite of the obvious military foolishness of such a non-effort.
So, Repubberkins, what gives?
Is the Honorable G’W’B (sitting) a patriot or is he an agent of the ‘Saudi-Wahabist conspiracy’? M.Moore gets the last laugh?
Is our best hope that they can’t allow us to be destroyed because too much of their money is tied up in North-America? Wait and see, maybe they’ll settle for our complete humiliation (=dhimmitude), right?
Hey, better a living dog than a dead Lion, right?
The idea that the Repubberkan officialdom can be trusted on defense has been seriously crippled by their glaring inaction on our borders and this appalling situation only exacerbates the wound. Not being sympathetic to non-moderate solutions myself, I’d say we’re going to Hell-in-a-hand-basket with no viable recourse at hand [so to speak].
Ach! Krups wouldn’t be a better boss than some corporate owners in the UAE? I have an ancestor who gambled EVERYTHING on selling food and supplies to the Continental Army in exchange for obviously worthless ‘Continental Dollars’, in the process exposing himself and his own to the depredations of British and Iroquois mercenaries.
He wouldn’t have sold his interest to Krups, OR the UAE, in the name of ‘freedom [of markets]’.
Should we sell? What is the common man missing here, you nuanced and sophisticated Brahmins?
“Let’s give the Arabs control of only one US port – that of San Francisco.”
Tom-
I like your thinking, but isn’t one of the ports they are going to run Boston? That sounds like fair punishment for voting those two dipsticks into the Senate. Maybe Bush is really taking a calculated risk here.