Bush is Right on Ports Sale.
Today’s article in the WSJ entitled “Ports in Storm” (subs req) makes the case that Bush is right to aprove sale of port management to Dubai World Ports. On balance, I concur with this assessment.
The author Zachary Karabell rebuts the three major objections to the approval of the sale:
1. Concerns about the Deal itself and the concern among critics that a relationship exists between the Dubai comapny and terrorists.
Dubai is rapidly becoming a major entrepĂ´t in the Middle East. Like Switzerland, it is a haven for assets owned by individuals who crave anonymity. It has become a duty-free shopping haven that actively courts global companies. It aims to become the financial hub for the region, with a new stock exchange and offices throughout the world. The ruling family currently owns property and assets across the globe — including a minority share of the gambling and resort company Kerzner International and a controlling interest in the Essex House in New York and Madame Tussaud’s of London. Dubai is, in fact, an example of global capitalism taking root in unlikely places, a hybrid cross between Miami and Singapore with a dollop of Las Vegas on the fringe of the Arabian Peninsula. And precisely for these reasons, it has as much to worry about from fundamentalist terrorism as the United States.
2. Critics are concerned the Bush admin is placing economic interests over port security.
However, many American ports are currently operated by foreign entities, a fact which seems to have been overlooked. The port of Los Angeles has terminals run by companies from Taiwan, Denmark, Singapore and even China. The model the administration should follow is that of the airports, which are managed by private companies but whose security is the responsibility of the U.S. government. Yet while decrying the proposed sale is a way to score political points — because the company is Arab and thus can be easily (and wrongly) equated with Islamic terrorism, and allows for revisiting a failing of the administration’s homeland security policies — it is not without considerable costs. Think of it: America says that it wants Muslim partners in its struggle against terrorism, yet politicians on both sides of the aisle are willing to tar a potential partner. The president may deserve attacking, but doing so in this way is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face.
3. Critics are concerned with “globalization” - that the U.S. is “outsoucrcing” U.S. jobs to foreign comapies.
Having committed ourselves to a system and crafted its rules, we are suddenly confronted with the possibility of real competition, whether from China, India or the emirates of the Gulf. There is a debate to be had about the perils and promises of globalization, but invoking national security to block corporate sales or instituting retaliatory tariffs risks eroding both our global leadership and our economic growth. In the coming months there will be calls to label China a “currency manipulator,” which may satisfy domestic discontent with the trade deficit but is unlikely to strengthen our economy or enhance our security. In the quid pro quo of international politics, other nations are likely to retaliate the only way they can: by making it more difficult and costly for U.S. companies to operate within their borders.
The author does a nice job of hitting on the most important aspect of the debate that many are missing:
The real national security question is not who owns the ports, but how to ensure that they are safe and secure. Period. The economic question is also simple: Do we really want a world where capital and goods flows freely, trade barriers are minimal, and companies can operate on a global scale? Or, do we only want that when it is convenient and comfortable? Nothing the U.S. government can do is likely to halt globalization, but in the process of trying we might unwittingly make the U.S. less competitive, more isolated — and ultimately less secure.
Matt Margolois of Blogs For Bush has a great post on how Dems are flip flopping on racial profiling by opposing the sale of the 6 ports to the UAE.
Michelle Malkin provides a diferent viewpoint here.
Vodka Pundit has this on what Peggy Noonan see as the real story that is not being covered. I could not agree more.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Gregg,
No mention of the important fact that this company is controlled by the government of the UAE, not simply a UAE based company?
Did the WSJ mention that the UAE was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime?
How about the fact that the UAE was an important player in the AQ Kahn nuclear research peddling network?
How much did the WSJ article go into the Committee on Foreign Investment, an interagency body led by the secretary of the Treasury?
What does it say about this ‘wartime adminstration’ if Bush, Rumnsfeld and Rice has no idea this was coming down the pike?
Any mention of Treasury’s John Snow’s previous, profitable dealing with the UAE?
Not to mention the fact that Bush first defended this, then said he didn’t know about it until after it happened?
Is this really the ground he wants to lay down his first veto on?
And let’s definetely not mention what a gift wrapped present this is for the Democrats on a security issue. They have been essentially subversive if not seditious in their actions since day one of the Iraq war, and in the months leading up to the mid-term elctions, Bush gives them an eraser and a start over?
Let’s face it, even the good guys screw up sometimes.
Kevin
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Kevin,
Again, you make some salient points. But to me, again,Bush will be proven right on this one.
I will try to answer some of the questions you raise.
“No mention of the important fact that this company is controlled by the government of the UAE, not simply a UAE based company?”
This point does not change the fact that the security for the ports remain under the sole jurisdiction of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs. While I am always wary of government controlled companies of any ilk (an aspect of this argument that should actually be comforting to many liberals)let’s remember that these same government controlled companies have also managed the very same ports and launch sites for our military in the war in iraq and elsewhere in the region. Where were the critics for the past 4 years since our military has been utilizing these very same UAE managed ports? Seems as though one of our closest moderate Muslim allies have established a fairly distinguished track record of facility/port management helping us in our efforts to wage an effective military campaign.
You ask “Did the WSJ mention that the UAE was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime?”
While this is true, they no longer are allied with them. The U.S. at one point allied itself with Iraq when times were differnet and our mutual enemies and allies were different. The fact of the matter is that the UAE are no longer a supporter of the Taliban. Ditto with your question: “How about the fact that the UAE was an important player in the AQ Kahn nuclear research peddling network?” Disconcerting to say the least, but the operative word in the query you pose is “was.”
You ask: “How much did the WSJ article go into the Committee on Foreign Investment, an interagency body led by the secretary of the Treasury?”
Until there is evidence that you can enter into the discussion that there have been any untoward relationship between Snow and the COFI, your assertion can only be speculative at this point. I am sure that the 45 day investigation forthcoming will answer that question in greater detail.
You ask: “What does it say about this â??wartime adminstrationâ?? if Bush, Rumnsfeld and Rice has no idea this was coming down the pike?” Commercial transaction such as these are often times under the radar of the administration. There are thousands of commercial transactions which the administration is brought to the loop on later on in the process. I blame the late notification on endemic bureacracy not negligence on the part of Bush, Rice, and Rummy.
“And letâ??s definetely not mention what a gift wrapped present this is for the Democrats on a security issue. They have been essentially subversive if not seditious in their actions since day one of the Iraq war, and in the months leading up to the mid-term elctions, Bush gives them an eraser and a start over?”
The Dems are on the wrong side of this issue. Most notably Hillary whose husband (alledgedly) the ex-fondler and chief just delivered a speech at the UAE in which he called them one of our closest allies and friends in the region. I ahve the feeling he is telling hillary to “moderate” her tone on this one. Also, I believe that the Dems’ “knee jerk” opposition to this commercial transaction will end up reinforcing what Americans already know, Dems will politicize our national security and have zero credibility when it comes to protecting and defending the county they are all to quick to ridicule. The Dems always overplay their hand. This is another one of those times and in a week or two they will back track when Americans know all the facts associated with this deal. They want to reverse the public opinion which shows Americans don’t trust them on nat’l security especially on the domestic front because of (Gitmo,military/Nazi comparisons, Shaheen, the Newsweek story, divulging our terror surveillance program to the world, and thier constant defeatist negative, as you say, and I agree, “treacherous” words and actions with regard to the WOT- “unwinnable war,” “timeline,” “pullout,” intractable quagmire,” “Bush the real terrorist,” etc…
They figure they can reverse all this damage by opposing a commerical transaction. They figure that it will play to their base (Kos, moveon, and the unions). And it will. Unfortunately,when Americans understand the entire story here, the vast majority of the country will see the Dems for who they have always been- political opportunists who hate Bush, the military, and fundamentally the United States of America.
Gregg J
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Gregg,
Too much emphasis on the “commercial transaction”. For the average American who isn’t a political junkie like us, this is all about politics and security, not commericial interests. It doesn’t matter if it IS actually about commerical interests, if the public perceves it otherwise based on how you have allowed them to learn about it.
Even if you are 100% correct, it matters little if the public thinks this is a nasty deal, selling out our security interests for commerce.
You said, “there are thousands of commercial transactions which the administration is brought to the loop on later on in the process. I blame the late notification on endemic bureacracy not negligence on the part of Bush, Rice, and Rummy.”
Are ports a major component of national securtity? I think you’ll agree that they are. The Bush security team had no idea this was coming. Inexcusable from a security perspective, a policy perspective, a procedural perspective and a PR perspective.
In politics, you can be 100% right on the facts and still lose the debate.
Kevin
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
I’m with Malkin, although Noonan and Black Five also raised some stand up counter arguments, as has Rush. Still, I just don’t feel comfortable with DP World or the UAE. Maybe I’m thinking too emotionally about and not logically enough. Time will tell.
BTW: Saw your language artist sticker. I’m a big fan of La Shawn’s and I was fortunate enough to do the TLA logo design for her, so it’s really cool to see people utilizing her services!
February 24th, 2006 at 6:35 am
John,
LaShawn, aside from being one of our favorite bloggers, is running a great blog consulting business. She put this blog together for us, and I love the way it looks. Since then, we have worked with her on a number of other side projects, including a blog for Gregg’s book, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies. She is fantastic and we recommend that anyone interested in starting a blog, personally, or for a business, contact LaShawn.
Kevin
February 24th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Kevin,
Again, you make some solid pts. But I must point out that this is entirely a “commercial transaction.” I wish that the management company from Hong Kong would have gotten the job. I wish that there was an American company that could compete. (which there isn’t- which is why we are not “outsourcing port management as many have incorrectly suggested.)However, this transaction is a “commercial” one and given our larger geopolitical considerations in waging a robust WOT, most notably cultivating relationships with moderate Muslim allies such as the UAE, I have to side with the administration and other govt officials who have evaluated the transaction from a commercial nad security standpoint and have given their approval.
Also, you say “It doesnâ??t matter if it IS actually about commerical interests, if the public perceves it otherwise based on how you have allowed them to learn about it.”
I disagree. The president is not supposed to wet his findger and stick it in the air to determine what positions to take. public “opinion” is largely a result of decisive leadership. It’s the administration’s job over the next few weeks to make a compelling and persuasive logical argument why this deal makes sense geopolitically, with regard to nat’l security, and free trade overall. I don’t know how it will turn out, but I hope that the critics of this move will take a more critical self assessment of their positions on terror surveillence, terrorist detention,our politically correct feckless airport security policies that Pegy Noonan noted yesterday, and stopping the 8,000 Mexicans who illegally cross our southern border every day. Those are the real nat’l security concerns that should be debated right now. And yes port security is a nat’l security concern. But as I have said before, since security for the ports still resides with our Coast Guard and US Customs I have no reason to believe that our nat’l security is imperilled in any way. I am more worried about the Dems actively cheering for “civil war” in Iraq and people like Hagel going on Nat’t tv and claiming we are losing in Iraq. That’s what really worries me.
Gregg J
Gregg J
February 24th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Grabbed from the San Fran Chronicle today. Can anyone verify that the Sept 11 commission thinks the UAE is dangerous?
“In 1999, Emirates officials were happily commiserating with bin Laden in Afghanistan. According to the Sept. 11 commission, these officials also provided “one of the Taliban’s only travel and financial outlets to the outside world.” This, at the same time as the Emirates rejected U.S. requests to crack down on terrorist financing. Today, the State Department’s Web site about the Emirates notes the serious anti-American threats there.”
February 25th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
[...] This UAE Port deal will go through and the protectionist labor backed doom and gloom liberals who are attempting to be perceived as taking a tough stand on national security will be seen for the political demagogues they have always been. The liberals who glom on to one potentially damaging story after another in their seething hatred of the Bush administration (Scooter Libby, terror suerveillance, Katrina, Cheyney’s hunting accident, etc… will eventually abate once the American public get all the facts. Then, they can turn their attention toward the next “scandal” they hope will lead to impeachment proceedings. Filed in: Uncategorized, Politics | No Comments » [...]
April 25th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I enjoy reading your blog. KyleX