Mood: incredulous
Topic: What a Mess!
What do we make of this hullabaloo over who manages our ports? It really is a fascinating issue! After all, how many affairs of state manage to split the most partisan of political factions? With each passing day, we see such divisiveness as Hannity versus Limbaugh, and the New York Times versus the L.A. Times. Could this be the apocalypse?
Let’s be clear on one thing: the acquisition of the contract for running six major American ports by Dubai Ports World will not pose a significantly greater security risk. After all, DPW is simply a holding company; it will not impact current port security operations which will remain in the good hands of the Coast Guard, the Border Police, et alia. So, if security is the main objection to DPW, it is completely unfounded objection (albeit, certain Democrat demagogues are trying to convince the American people otherwise).
However, I believe that the main objection is not, in fact, security. It is something much subtler. Quite simply, the American people are sick and tired of the economic pillaging of our shores, be it by the Gulf States, Asia, or Europe. We are fed up of being berated by the rest of the world, doubly so when it comes to the hotbed of anti-Americanism that is the Persian Gulf, and yet find these self-same righteous nations buying up every American asset they can get their hands on. Furthermore, the people of this great nation are also tired of the “cash and carry” mentality, the pernicious idea that it is okay to sell everything that is not nailed down in the name of globalization and capitalism, an idea that infects so many in American government and business. The furor over DPW is simply a reflection of these concerns.
And rightly so.
Recall how this whole issue started. DPW, a business owned and operated by the government of the United Arab Emirates, a nation which has had more than a few dealings with the Taliban and terrorism, legally acquired the British-based Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a firm that had been handling American port operations for a number of years. With the acquisition of P&O, the responsibility for honoring the remaining term of P&O’s contract fell to DPW. However, since such an acquisition could impact American security, it was automatically reviewed by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which found no security concerns and approved the deal.
Now, herein lays one of the first problems with this whole situation.
While defenders of DPW point to the security review of CFIUS as sufficient to assuage the fears of the American people, most correctly dismiss this notion. After all, those of us with political memories recall that CFIUS, just a few short months ago, approved the acquisition of one of America’s last domestically-owned energy companies (Unocal) by the Communist Chinese! That’s not particularly reassuring, is it? The ChiComs, the very people who at this moment are custom-tailoring their armed forces to confront this nation, who are vocally identifying the United States as their primary rival, WERE NOT DEEMED A SECURITY RISK by CFIUS! And we are supposed to feel confident with a CFIUS stamp of approval??? CFIUS is clearly an example of one of those governmental bureaucracies that embraces the “cash and carry” mentality.
“And what is wrong with that?” some of you ask. Everything. I am a strong proponent of capitalism---it is the only just economic system available to mankind. However, being a capitalist does not entail acting like a ruthless mercenary who places a price on everything…even patriotism. Such an idea is axiomatic, yet I am truly shocked by the number business talking-heads that have denied this simple, ethical principal over the last two weeks. Indeed, “denied” is too understated---they have viciously attacked such a notion. To listen to them, one is inclined to believe that the current breed of what I like to call “know-nothing business majors” are composed of individuals hostile to capitalism restrained by any sense ethics or morality. Is it any wonder that recent years have seen one corporate scandal after another (Enron, World Com, Tyco to name just a few)? Back during the presidential election of ‘04, John Kerry referred to “Benedict Arnold companies”, that is, companies that felt no deep ties to their home, who would abandon their own countrymen in order to grasp that last dollar on foreign shores. While it was ironic that Mr. Kerry’s wife, Theresa Heinz, was heiress to a fortune created by one of America’s largest “Benedict Arnold companies”, Mr. Kerry (attempting to steal a point long-since made by Pat Buchanan) had a point. Capitalism does offer economic liberty. But, as with all things, just because you are at liberty to do a thing, does not mean you should do that thing. CFIUS, first by allowing the ChiComs to purchase Unocal, and now by granting approval of DPW’s acquisition of American port operations, would seem indicative of a “cash and carry” mentality.
Next, the White House intervened…and made it worse. Now, as many of you know, I have been very supportive of this administration. Indeed, many of the past criticisms that have been fired at President Bush are both unfair and, in many cases, unsubstantiated. However, in this particular case, the White House truly did botch a situation that required careful public relations. Instead of a thoughtful policy position, we got a ham-handed “like it or lump it” approach. Now, I understand why President Bush supports DPW as he has made it abundantly clear that, since 9-11, the UAE has been a close ally in the War on Terror. Fine. But if you truly believe that to be the case, take the time to explain your position to the American people and your colleagues in Congress. Instead, we witnessed the White House have a virtual tantrum over the mere questioning of the propriety of this deal. Worse, President Bush then had the audacity to 1) impugn racism to those who question this deal, and 2) threaten a veto of any inhibiting legislation.
To begin with, to label his opponents as possible racists is something I would expect from the cheap playbook of Jesse Jackson, not a Republican president. Racism has nothing to do with it---common sense does. After all, it was not Christians, Jews, Puerto Ricans, or even the Communist Chinese that killed 3000 Americans on 9-11, it was Islamo-fascist Arabs who did so! Excuse me if, as a result, I find the UAE operating American ports a little alarming (doubly so considering their pre-9/11 terrorist ties, as well as their continuing economic boycott of Israel). Quite frankly, since 9-11, I could care less whether or not Arab / Muslim sensibilities are hurt by American suspicions---alas, that is just the Middle East learning a necessarily uncomfortable lesson in reaping what you sow. After 9-11, the UAE, as well as all the other “moderate” Muslim nations, should have, at a minimum, been apologizing profusely for the state-sponsored Islamic hatred that has caused so much harm to this nation. But instead, some five years later, we’re still treated to non-stop hostility and acts of terrorism. In light of this fact, it truly amazes me that anyone would seriously propose that we need to worry about Persian Gulf sensibilities! Radical Muslims chant death to America, burn Paris, issue death warrants against political cartoonists, and we need to keep from offending the UAE by fretting too much over port security?!? Give me a break! For shame, Mr. President.
Secondly, to threaten to veto any future legislation is outrageous as well. To begin with, foreign trade is the proper purview of Congress. As the Constitution states, Congress is empowered:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
----Article I, Section 8
A presidential veto would be flatly unconstitutional as, like it or not, Congress is just exercising its federal prerogatives. Again, this political bluster would seem more appropriate from the mouth of Chuck Schumer than George W. Bush. And, to add insult to injury, I find myself incredulous that the administration would threaten a veto when President Bush has never vetoed a single bill since he first took office over five years ago!!! In effect, the president is saying “sure, feel free to blow the budget out of the water with all sorts of unconstitutional spending, but don’t dare mess with our Arab allies!” Nice order of priorities there. Quite frankly, this is the type of political ineptitude that the DNC has been excelling at since 1994, not what we’ve come to expect from a supposedly seasoned White House. What is going on here?
Lastly, I find the argument that to deny the port takeover would be an insult to the UAE and consequently jeopardize all our Middle Eastern alliances to be specious at best. Tell you what: if our Middle Eastern alliances are so fragile as to be threatened by a single Arab company not getting its way, well, such an alliance isn’t really worth much, is it? In effect, such a sensitive coalition would seem to be predicated upon little more than economic blackmail. And, by the way, didn’t President Bush just warn about the dangers of economic extortion in his State of the Union address? Isn’t that what his “addiction to oil” rhetoric was all about? Well, why must we distance ourselves from Gulf oil, but be forced to maintain other economic relationships in the region? Which is it? Are Gulf ties good or bad for this nation? Please, Mr. President, stick with a position! You are starting to sound like Mr. Kerry!
So, yes, a strange situation we have here. Liberals sounding like conservatives, capitalists proving John Kerry correct (if hypocritical), and a Republican president behaving like a bumbling Democrat wanna-be. What a dustup! Hopefully, when all is said and done, this nation will be wiser for the experience. Perhaps the wholesale auctioning off our nation will garner a hard examination, slowing the process down. Hopefully, Arab states will start to learn that the American people are now fully awake from their slumber and are paying close attention to whom our real allies are, and, lastly, perhaps the Bush Administration will finally get back on its feet and reclaim some of the glory from its first term by a return to clear-eyed leadership. I can hope, can’t I?