On Dubai port "scandal," I vote for connectivity
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 6:39AM ARTICLE: "Bush, Congress Head for Clash Over Ports Deal: President Promises a Veto, As Republican Leaders Move To Block Dubai Acquisition," by Greg Hitt, Dennis K. Berman and Daniel Machalaba, Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2006, p. A1.
EDITORIAL: "Ports of Politics: How to sound like a hawk without being one," Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2006, p. A14.
EDITORIAL: "Paranoia about Dubai ports deal is needless," Financial Times, 21 February 2006.
After lecturing the Europeans over the cartoon flap, it's awfully weird to watch the paranoia, racism, and pure political nonsense at work on the proposed purchase of a British port-managing firm by a Dubai corporation.
The message we send on this is clear: if you're Arab, you're immediately untrustworthy. Dubai seeks to become the Singapore of the Middle East, and watching that rather progressive model of capitalism + Islam reach out for this strand of connectivity in a venue it knows all too well (shipping) makes perfect sense, just like CNOOC reaching for UNOCAL last summer.
Is it the pretense of these "hawks" that America somehow "secures" itself in a globalized world, not being able to trust any others in this process?
This thing is so overblown on so many levels as to be truly, madly, deeply stupid as a political football. Shame on any presidential types for grabbing this one and running with it. Our goal in the GWOT is to connect the Middle East faster than the jihadists can disconnect it, so again, what do we say here to the people of Dubai,who have--believe it or not--done plenty to aid our efforts in the region at great personal risk to their national security?
This is something I harp on in BFA: either we reward countries trying to make the journey from Gap to Core or we stop pretending we're in this GWOT for anything other than our own profiteering--political or otherwise.
The biggest joke? This labeling of the contract as somehow putting the company in question in charge of our port security, when it's only about managing commercial activities. The Coast Guard runs security for our ports--always has and always will. This is misrepresentation of the worst sort, and it's why I argue against a strategic communications strategy with the Gap: our own politicians screw up that sort of effort on a daily basis. Better to police our own loose lips than seek any singular voice abroad.
People act responsibly when you give them responsibility. Dubai has earned that trust. Either we're true to our word or let's just go Tom Friedman's 'cut-them-off-at-the-gas" proposal and tell the entire Islamic world that we accept Osama bin Laden's offer of civilizational apartheid.
I'm with Bush on this one. He's showing some serious maturity on a subject about which too many in Congress are acting childishly.
Reader Comments (13)
We forget that during the Cold War, in fact all of the Twentieth Century wars against the Soviet Union and their client states, there was an avowed Marxist in control of America's ports. So anti-American in his fervor against the Korean Conflict that he threatened to "allow American soldiers to die on foreign shores" rather than "unlock" the ports.
We survived.
I couldn't agree more. UAE has been one of the few Middle Eastern nations to provide local humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, and they've provided a lot of equipment (APC's, body armor, aircraft, etc) to the developing Iraqi army -- not to mention much of technical training Iraqi troops get from NATO forces occurs in the United Arab Emirates. Its stuff like this nonsense that makes me want nothing to do with politics whatsoever.
McCain's press release yesterday was the very middle of the road on this one. Trust but verify was his basic thrust. We should have due diligence with those involved, but shouldn't be reflexively anti-Arab.
It is not at all clear to me that the deal improves connectivity. The agreement appears to do more to support the business structure for existing powers-that-be inside the UAE, and less to establish any economic reach to the level of people below the ruling class.
I agree that the security outcry may prove unjustified in the end. However, the White House kept everyone outside the executive branch in the dark, and blind-sided their fellow Republicans who in turn instinctively retreated to the security concerns of their consituents. Then, the White House responded with indignation that Arab companies are being singled-out.
I anticipate that the reports that will follow in the Middle East media will not further the cause of connectivity in the eyes of the Arabic street.
There may be no basis for concern, but the whole deal was very poorly handled.
DG
Strategically, to penetrate kinetic energy into the country of the USA, a foreign government would first have to manage a foreign port. 80% of the cargo entering the USA is first inspected abroad. Upon obtaining management of a foreign port, the foreign government, interested in penetrating kinetic energy into the USA, would have to manage ports in the USA. These things would have to happen just to bring the odds up high enough to insure that this kinetic energy will reach inside the USA.
While I applaud your effort at connecting the world, in the mean time things are becoming disconnected in the Middle East. The war is largely coming down to a battle between Shia and Sunni. More precisely it is coming down to the Iranians and Arabs.
The problem that I see is: we are largely on the side of Iranians. I believe they entered our OODA loop (by way of Chalabi and the neocons)before we penetrated Iraq and they have not yet left. Our efforts, no matter how noble, will give Iraq to the Iranians, either directly or indirectly. Unless the Arabs can figure out a way to break the OODA connection, Iranian influence will be on the boarder of the Kingdom within a few years.
A Penetration of kinetic energy into the USA may, isolate the government from its people by reorienting our government into a new way of thinking. This may cause a re-harmonizing of the USA into a more positive way of thinking.
OF course, I am just saying that this might be why some people are concerned with Arabs managing our ports. Even if it is a benevolent government like UAE. I mean at the end of the day who's got control of the sh*t house keys, the security force or management?
"I'm with Bush on this one."
Well, you are either with him, or against him :)
I don't know nearly enough about port operations to understand the implications of having a foreign company run operations. In essense, I agree with Tom's point. I think that most of the reaction to this deal is motivated by fear and bigotry. However, I don't trust the president's motives to be truly wholesome either. Which one of his cronies stand to benefit from this deal? Was this a truly competitive bid process, or is it another Haliburton-style giveaway? I am in favor of connectivity, and I support the principle of free trade. However, I do think there are certain services and industry sectors that are best left to the management of, at a minimum, U.S. companies, and preferably the U.S. government. Sometimes, I think, the cost of inefficiency is less than the risk of abuse of the profit motive. I have no idea if port management is such an industry. My gut tells me to trust reasonable analysts like Tom on this deal, and I certainly trust him more than any politician. However, I am bothered by the fact that the company is controlled by the government of a foreign nation. I understand that this is the case with other U.S. ports, so maybe we should push to have these companies privatized.
As soon as I heard this story break on CNN/Fox this weekend...I couldn't wait to read the blog. The politics of the issue verge on racism/xenophobes.
I haven't read McCain's release, but the advice of RR - "trust but verify" seems applicable here. The outstanding work of the USCG is our check on port security.
Without knowing the nitty gritty details of this company, it is hard for me to make logical statements.
With respect to Tom's view, I share a concern of Eric. I feel many of Tom's arguements for economic connectivity (as well as those I have with my fellow grad students on the office here) are based on civilian entities doing the connecting. The theoretical framework in America is that companies are private entities and officially state sponsored (but we can debate that point over a copy of the tax code another day). If this company is a state owned entity, then this deal is equivalent to having a foreign govt run our ports, which in my opinion is not a good thing. If this company can severe financial ties and support wires with the UAE government, then this would be a great thing. If the latter works out well, I would love to see the company set up a 5-year cycle of exchange workers. We all had foreign exchange students with us in high school, what happens to that concept when you grow up??
After hearing (hoo boy, what a mess on talk radio) and seeing everything about the port deal with the UAE, I have to stand with the port deal. My only precaution is that the UAE minimize it's on scene involvement until all of the UAE people here are fully vetted and cleared of all terrorist connections. Until then, there should be a strong information firewall between P&O and UP Dubai.
While I'm mostly in agreement with the deal and Tom's reasoning, I do have a concern.
What happens if say a US media outlet, a newspaper for example publishes political cartoons dispariging Islam or an Islamic figure head.
What happens when the Arab world is, once again, incensed at our content flows and an Arab company is managing 80% of our ports...I don't know, but as we've seen, it can happen and it is scary.
I have a little bit more about this at my logistics site, with a logistics angle.
www.asiagander.typepad.com
Racism. Muslim-phobia. Xenophobia. Agreed.
My personal philosophy of inclusiveness and agreement with Tom on increasing connectivity makes this a tough call. Dubai is certainly an ally, and undoubtedly has the very best of intentions.
However...
The threat I see in this port deal is the opportunity afforded the Salafi Jihadists to exploit a joint US / Arab vulnerability.
Imagine... Dubai takes over the ports after all the furor settles down, followed a few months later by Al Qaeda successfully detonating a chem / bio / kinetec device inside the gates of one of those ports.
The inevitable finger pointing, distrust, confusion, and fear resulting from such an event would tear at US Islamic relations, and be a political bomb within the context of internal US Politics. Could Bush be perceived as "soft" on security? How would it affect global confidence in US security? Stability? Financial markets? These are the effects terrorists are hoping for, and the prospect of causing such disruption is exactly what Al Qaeda seeks.
If I were Al Qaeda, I would be salivating at the opportunity to create a "television spectacular" that would drive a wedge between the near enemy and the far enemy, while sending that far enemy into political turmoil. What a springboard for spreading the message of hate, fear, and exclusion.
Tom,
I agree with you. As I am doing know how transfer and business between Dubai and the German speaking countries for 2 years now I see more and more the possibly important role of the UAE especially and the GCC Region in general.
Even the Palestine/Israel conflict could be supported integrative perspectives from a globally supported Gulf Region.
I heard that a couple of Israeli Businessmen are already working in Dubai....
They are buying in Germany too container ports in the town of Hamburg..and I see a very important role for the UAE Goverment if it is supported and connected by American and European individuals and organzations.
Cheers,
Albert