Entry: Port Deal Backlash Saturday, March 11, 2006



Killing the Dubai Ports World port deal has sent a variety of messages to the world, none of them good. It has weakened our credibility with other countries, a dangerous thing to do during a war. Forcing DPW to pull out of the deal because of poll numbers generated by media disinformation says that America is, indeed, a "fair-weather" friend. We have sent the Middle East a clear (though hopefully incorrect) signal that America will never trust Arabs and Muslims, even friendly ones who help us.

As hard as I tried, I could not find a single reasonable objection to the port deal that would hold water. Terrorists and their money have moved through the UAE, but it's the transportation and banking center of the Middle East -- everything that moves, moves through the UAE. DPW would not, in fact, have been buying ports, controlling ports, gaining access to port security or learning shipping schedules other than their own. P&O, the British firm that was bought by the Dubai company, merely leased terminals in the six ports in question. A sizeable portion of our incoming port traffic already passes through the hands of DPW, as DPW manages ports all over the world. As, in fact, do foreign firms in most American ports -- including state-owned firms based in Singapore, Norway, China and Saudi Arabia.

Some objected to DPW because the UAE boycotts Israel... but the chairman of Israel's largest shipping firm strongly endorsed the deal. "During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World," Zim Integrated Shipping Services CEO Idon Ofer said in a letter to Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) written February 22. "We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future." It's a pity Hillary never saw fit to make this letter public before it was too late to save face all around.

The consequences to our outburst of fear-based protectionism have already begun. The UAE has postponed trade talks with the US that were set to take place before the DPW deal was killed. As AFP reported, "Last year US companies exported goods worth 8.5 billion dollars to the UAE, making the small country of 2.5 million people a bigger export market for the United States than India or Spain." Robert Springborg, director of the London Middle East Institute of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said, "It doesn't matter whether it is a private investor or a public investor. This will affect investment." The Chicago Tribune reports the reaction in progress. "People are making decisions to invest elsewhere than in the U.S.," said Rachel Bronson, a Mideast expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Gulf money is being invested in Europe and Asia. This furthers that trend."

We don't yet know how our slap in Dubai's face will affect our relationship with the UAE as regards the War on Terror, but the odds are the reaction won't be positive. Until now, they've been a fairly good ally. Dubai hosts US military troops, planes and ships -- in fact, more US ships are serviced in Dubai than in any port outside the US. The UAE has trained Iraqi troops, given us valuable intelligence, and turned over captured terrorists to us. Will we be able to count on their aid after telling them in such a public way that we just don't trust them? Will other countries decide that the satisfaction of helping the US isn't worth the public humiliation of being treated with distrust? An essential part of the War on Terror is forming relationships with moderate Middle Eastern countries such as Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE, using our influence in a positive way. Public repudiation is no way to do that.  

All of this, for votes. Most Democrats misrepresented the issue from the start, trying to portray themselves as tougher on national security than Republicans. Most media outlets distorted the facts, ramped up paranoia based on lies, then published the results of polls based on the manipulated "public opinion." A majority of Republicans, nervous about coming up short on national security in an election year, joined the Democrats.

Now, foreign investors are considering whether to pull capital out of America before they get thrown out. Potential investors are considering whether China or the European Union might make a better trading partner than the fickle, xenophobic-seeming United States. Middle Eastern countries that have helped or might have helped us in the War on Terror are wondering whether being treated like they're our enemies would be worth the risk of angering the real enemies.

Fearmongering Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans in Congress have handed bin Laden a huge propaganda victory, while dealing the US a double blow, both in the economy and in the War on Terror. Congratulations all around.

There is, as usual, at least one positive aspect. We finally have the Democrats on record expressing a firm belief in the danger of terrorism and the need for national security. Any Democrat who backs away from that stance now is in for a rough ride in the polls by which politicians live and die.

   14 comments

Pete
March 13, 2006   09:06 AM PST
 
I agree with what you say that there was essentially nothing wrong with the ports deal, but if you think that the Bush Administration has til now been sending consistent messages to the Arab world, you are mistaken. The whole invasion of Iraq is seen across the Arab world as an assault on arab peoples. There was after all no link between Saddam and Osama. Bush has been banging this drum for 3 years and this is what he gets. To the Arabs this is just more of the same fromt he USA.
Paladin
March 13, 2006   09:56 AM PST
 
There's that "no link" thing again. Cav how many times do you have to show folks the facts before they type something new??
JM
March 13, 2006   10:10 AM PST
 
It's impossible to say, Paladin. First, he makes the mistake that the liberation of Iraq was because of links only to al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was never mentioned in the laundry list of reasons in the Authorisation for Use of Force Against Iraq for which Congress voted -- one of the reasons was ties to and sponsorship of terrorism. In fact, Saddam had plenty of ties to al-Qaeda and many other terror groups -- there's a link in my sidebar called "Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror" that lists many of them. As for Bush's message to the Middle East -- unlike Pete, I will not mistake all Middle Easterners for Arabs -- it has been extremely consistent. No more terrorism, no more tyranny, and we will help you rid yourselves of both.
Tommy
March 13, 2006   12:05 PM PST
 
(comment moved from another thread)

Your column on the Ports Deal is disappointing. Do you not realize the UAE allowed a minimum of 16 shipments of nuclear-releated materials to go through its ports; that it was one of just three nations to recognize the murderous Taliban; that its state-owned banks had been financing terrorism? Some "friend!" I do not trust the UAE nor any Arab when it has to do with U.S. security. And why do we allow Red China to control both endfs of the Panama Canal and why did we sell the Presido to Red China? Allowing Red China the power to shut down the Panama Canal and having the UAE or ANY other Arab country operate ANY of our ports is akin to having the Japanese and Germans running our ports during World War II. Sheer idiocy! The "wrong message:" to the world? Bull. The message we sent is correct: Do not screw around with Uncle Sam or we will kick your butt! We have no "friends" in the world, except, perhaps, the British. The UAE is allowing us to use its country temporarily because we have the upper hand . . . for now. Shoult that change, the UAE will be at our throats again . . . if it is not alreadybehind the scenes.
JM
March 13, 2006   12:08 PM PST
 
The UAE is the shipping and banking hub of the entire Middle East. Everything gets shipped through their ports. Since 9/11, they have made great strides in port security, even allowing US inspectors to check all cargo in their ports, and are partially responsible for stopping the nuclear proliferation ring of AQ Khan. As for banks, you might as well condemn NJ banks for receiving terrorist funds. No, they were not a great friend before 9/11, but they have certainly striven to become one since. And that is exactly what we WANT Middle Eastern countries to do, isn't it? Or do you think we should simply conquer them all and kill all Muslims?

>I do not trust the UAE nor any
>Arab when it has to do with U.S.
>security.

Well, neither do I. Luckily, leasing a terminal in a port has nothing to do with national security.

>having the UAE or ANY other Arab
>country operate ANY of our ports
>is akin to having the Japanese
>and Germans running our ports
>during World War II

So you see all Middle Eastern countries as our enemies, then? All alike? No differences? They're all the enemy and must be destroyed?

>The message we sent is correct:
>Do not screw around with Uncle
>Sam or we will kick your butt! We
>have no "friends" in the world,
>except, perhaps, the British.

And doing business is "screwing" with us? Xenophobic isolationism is not what America's about. Also, I wonder how Australia, Italy, Poland and the other countries that have stood by us would feel about your scorn for them.
Raposa
March 13, 2006   07:33 PM PST
 
I posted this on my livejournal (with a linkback), then thought you might appreciate seeing it, Cav.

"Do you remember Bush threatening to veto if Congress passed a law to keep DPW from managing any of our ports? To some people, it seemed petulant or vindictive, especially since he doesn't bother to veto spending or other things that people care about. Bush never promised to veto those things, but he's made a big point of 'winning hearts and minds' in the Middle East.

I may wish that Bush would veto spending, but I also support his approach to terror in the world. Put more crassly, it's the old carrot and stick. When people do things that support terror, we use the stick. When people help us in rooting out terror, we offer carrots. It doesn't matter if their record is perfect- what matters is if they're helping us more than they did yesterday, or if they're helping the terrorists more. So Bush acts to include Pakistan when it's possible, though I think practically everybody understands that anything we get out of them is going to be limited by the internal politics of that country. But progress is progress, and any progress should be applauded, just as any acts of terror should be condemned.

The UAE's record isn't perfect, but it had been improving dramatically ever since 9/11. In the end, the public relations mess made of the whole thing caused the firm itself to withdraw rather than face the problems waiting for it. Opportunity missed."

You contributed a lot of the facts going into those conclusions through your links in your articles.
Christopher Taylor
March 13, 2006   08:08 PM PST
 
Actually, the Dubai ports deal made President Bush look good to Arabs, at least the sane ones.
JM
March 13, 2006   09:11 PM PST
 
>thought you might appreciate
>seeing it

Thanks. You're absolutely right: "opportunity missed," indeed. I think this is why Congress was trying to rush through legislation -- they foresaw that given the time to learn the facts and think things through, most people would realise the port deal was no threat.
JM
March 13, 2006   09:14 PM PST
 
>the Dubai ports deal made
>President Bush look good to Arabs

It's funny, but I said the exact same thing to my friend Skye when I first heard about the deal, and was still somewhat ambivalent (not having done any research yet). "Whatever comes of this," I told her, "reaching out to moderate Arab nations this way can only make W look good in the Middle East."
Christopher Taylor
March 14, 2006   03:03 PM PST
 
Unfortunately, UAE and other Arabic nations recently made noises about swapping to the Euro for oil transactions instead of the dollar, which is in essence economic war against the USA. That doesn't exactly calm the concerned individual such as myself that maybe at this time dealing with an Arabic Nation in such a critical area of national security may not be the wisest choice right now.
JM
March 14, 2006   03:38 PM PST
 
>UAE and other Arabic nations
>recently made noises about
>swapping to the Euro for oil
>transactions instead of the dollar

I find it difficult to blame them. That's part of the "backlash" I was talking about -- something Congress should have taken into account before letting hysterics dictate policy.
Christopher Taylor
March 14, 2006   09:40 PM PST
 
Rush mentioned today that the company in question is already running a Terminal in Florida... sort of funny when you think about it.
MarK
March 16, 2006   09:07 AM PST
 
The firm at the heart of the controversy, Dubai Ports World is 100% owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation or PCZC. The boycott of Israel and Israeli products by the Arab world is enforced by PCZC. This enforcement of the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Arab boycott by PCZC was reconfirmed the week of February 27th by its spokesman, Muhammad Rashid-a-Din.
JM
March 16, 2006   09:34 AM PST
 
You didn't even bother to read before commenting, did you? Otherwise you might have noticed that the boycott of Israel hasn't affected Israel's largest shipping firm one bit... nor could it possibly affect the US.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments