A Sense of Reality: Arabs and US Ports
‘It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through,’ Bush told Congress today.
Bush was referring to a deal which would allow Dubai Ports World (DPW), a United Arab Emirates based company to have control over six ports in the United States: New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.
The debate and the President’s vow to veto any law which would be an obstacle to its success has raised both eyebrows and gained applaud.
Who would applaud and who would raise their eyebrows?
Lawmakers fear that it would make the United States more vulnerable to terrorism since only 3% of incoming cargo containers get checked. Senior Republicans have certainly raised their eyebrows and raised immense concerns.
Regular, average citizens of the United States would also raise their eyebrows. Unfortunately the word ‘Arab’ and ‘Middle East’ have gained an incredible momentum of negative connotations ever since 9/11 and thus it is hard to understand why a foreign-owned ‘Arab’ company would be given the opportunity to control US homeland ports.
The uneducated, unexposed and uninterested chunk of US citizens will associate the Middle East and the word ‘Arab’ to terrorism. It is an unfortunate reality since the media has played an incredible role in defining peoples’ minds, opinions and perceptions. Moreover, Osama Bin Laden’s horrendous acts of 9/11 have certainly not done the Muslim/Arab world any justice – unfortunately he represents one of the distorted faces of Islam today.
Has President Bush lost his mind? No he certainly has not. Based on intelligence from the counterterrorism unit, the deal should not jeopardize US homeland security. This is purely a shift in ownership from the current British company which controls the ports (P&O) to DPW. Bush understands that denying the deal would send the wrong message across the world and especially domestically. This is a rare moment when Bush is able to read between the lines.
However, there are ulterior motives. It seems that Bush becomes interested in Middle Eastern affairs only when it concerns money and profits. Attempting to overthrow the ‘tyrannical’ regime of Saddam Hussein as an excuse to invade Iraq was only a euphemism – Saddam was violent, however he did not pose an imminent threat to the United States or its allies at the time. Until now, weapons of mass destruction have not been located as initially promised.
It was about Oil.
In this case, Bush felt he could hit two birds with one stone. First, he would appear wise enough not to deny the deal because it is with a foreign company – more importantly an ‘Arab’ company. Second, it is inevitable that future synergies will surface from the transaction – this would be a conduit for American business in the United Arab Emirates to thrive and continue growing in a nascent, yet booming economy.
If ulterior motives exist, they will remain clandestine at the moment and might potentially surface later on. Regardless of this issue, Bush’s approval of the deal is an indication that he understands the delicacy of Arab-American relations at this point. If he genuinely desires to gain allies in the war on terror, then good business relationships will certainly help.
Bush was referring to a deal which would allow Dubai Ports World (DPW), a United Arab Emirates based company to have control over six ports in the United States: New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami.
The debate and the President’s vow to veto any law which would be an obstacle to its success has raised both eyebrows and gained applaud.
Who would applaud and who would raise their eyebrows?
Lawmakers fear that it would make the United States more vulnerable to terrorism since only 3% of incoming cargo containers get checked. Senior Republicans have certainly raised their eyebrows and raised immense concerns.
Regular, average citizens of the United States would also raise their eyebrows. Unfortunately the word ‘Arab’ and ‘Middle East’ have gained an incredible momentum of negative connotations ever since 9/11 and thus it is hard to understand why a foreign-owned ‘Arab’ company would be given the opportunity to control US homeland ports.
The uneducated, unexposed and uninterested chunk of US citizens will associate the Middle East and the word ‘Arab’ to terrorism. It is an unfortunate reality since the media has played an incredible role in defining peoples’ minds, opinions and perceptions. Moreover, Osama Bin Laden’s horrendous acts of 9/11 have certainly not done the Muslim/Arab world any justice – unfortunately he represents one of the distorted faces of Islam today.
Has President Bush lost his mind? No he certainly has not. Based on intelligence from the counterterrorism unit, the deal should not jeopardize US homeland security. This is purely a shift in ownership from the current British company which controls the ports (P&O) to DPW. Bush understands that denying the deal would send the wrong message across the world and especially domestically. This is a rare moment when Bush is able to read between the lines.
However, there are ulterior motives. It seems that Bush becomes interested in Middle Eastern affairs only when it concerns money and profits. Attempting to overthrow the ‘tyrannical’ regime of Saddam Hussein as an excuse to invade Iraq was only a euphemism – Saddam was violent, however he did not pose an imminent threat to the United States or its allies at the time. Until now, weapons of mass destruction have not been located as initially promised.
It was about Oil.
In this case, Bush felt he could hit two birds with one stone. First, he would appear wise enough not to deny the deal because it is with a foreign company – more importantly an ‘Arab’ company. Second, it is inevitable that future synergies will surface from the transaction – this would be a conduit for American business in the United Arab Emirates to thrive and continue growing in a nascent, yet booming economy.
If ulterior motives exist, they will remain clandestine at the moment and might potentially surface later on. Regardless of this issue, Bush’s approval of the deal is an indication that he understands the delicacy of Arab-American relations at this point. If he genuinely desires to gain allies in the war on terror, then good business relationships will certainly help.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 3:40 PM
2 Comments:
One other relevant issue: the U.S. is currently hooked on foreign credit and investment. American consumers are basically saving zero on net. And the Federal government is a net borrower. The difference is made up by capital inflows into the U.S.
This is something that most Americans don't understand, but Bush knows it -- or his economists do. The U.S. cannot afford to start closing the doors to foreign investors.
@Charles N. Steele. I certainly echo your point.
Given the US' current budget deficit and the fact that the Federal government is a net borrower, the US certainly needs foreign investment.
On a more political perspective, the US is a protagonist in promoting free trade and globalization. Bush cannot simply be seen as a hypocrite in disallowing a foreign Arab-owned company to go through with the buyout.
Bush needs to be consistent with his rhetoric and he has to accept that he cannot apply a double standard to situations like this.
Post a Comment
<< Home