View Comments |  Print This Post |

The sad fact about this deal is that it makes one think of that old saying that capitalists are so intent on a profit that they would eagerly sell you the rope with which you intend to hang them.

The sound and fury over the Dubai Ports World (DPW) acquisition of P & O, and with it, control of operations at a number of American East Coast and Gulf of Mexico ports at first appeared to be a conservatives only issue. That is, until liberal legislators found that it made an excellent weapon with which to attack President Bush, which has led to possibly the first truly bi-partisan consensus since Mr. Bush first took office. The issue reached a new level late today when it was reported that 22 ports, rather than only 6 are involved.

According to Jerome Corsi, author of this above item, DPW is a front company owned entirely by the government of Dubai. Thus the issue becomes even more interesting when we understand that we may be handing control of our ports to a foreign government rather than an independent corporation. Considering that Dubai is a member of the United Arab Emirates, the White House should be extremely concerned, despite its statements that the UAE is a valuable ally against Islamist terror. There is some past evidence to the contrary, and Mr. Bush has also said the same about Saudi Arabia, despite the well-known fact that the Saudi royal family has been one of the major sources of funding for militant Islamists worldwide.

Meanwhile, a brief search of the Dubai Ports World web site located an interesting news item :

"Dubai, 24 January 2006: – Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that
one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President
George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment
reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member."

Whether or not there is a connection between this appointment and White House approval of the pending port takeover is unknown. One also wonders whether or not any news media agents spotted this item, which was extremely easy to find.

Among conservative voices there are differences of opinion on the issue. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have taken a position approving the deal. Those familiar with these two may account for their positions because O’Reilly has been accused of being less than dedicated to conservatism, while Limbaugh has taken his role as unofficial mouthpiece for the Bush White House to such and extreme level that one would expect him to approve if the President were to abdicate his office in favor of Osama bin Laden. Limbaugh states in his defense that the issue is only a lease of port operations, which while correct, isn't the point. Security concerns brought on by the lease rights are.

Sean Hannity who freely disagrees with the administration regularly, when he sees fit, disagrees with the deal, as does Michael Savage, who’s position, predictably matches his constant refrain of concern for borders, language and culture.

While Americans are entitled to know why the White House was approving this deal behind what appeared to be closed doors without any significant legislative oversight, and whether or not the management change would effect employment of American dock workers, the most important concern must be security. While the Bush Administration may have reason to believe that the UAE is a trustworthy ally, one must question whether we can expect every DPW employee to be equally trustworthy. It probably would not take much for a few militants working together to smuggle nuclear explosives into several ships. Such explosives would not need to be unloaded. They could be detonated while still on board and still produce massive destruction. We should also be concerned over whether the present government of Dubai can be expected to continue a posture favorable to America in the long term. One has to have concerns over Pakistan’s loyalty, given that its government contains several rival factions, and those who favor the US may require the prop of American military power to stay in office. It may be the same in Dubai, which contributed $100 Million to Hurricane Katrina relief, unlike some other nations in the region, which made pledges, but apparently did not honor them. Perhaps the UAE sheiks are concerned that someone might have them in the cross hairs and they are trying to buy a powerful ally.

Why a respected British shipping company with a proud history would want to sell out its interests is a question that probably has only one answer; money. It makes one think of that old saying that capitalists are so intent on a profit that they would eagerly sell you the rope with which you intend to hang them. Since we can’t be sure of the motives here, or the risks, it is necessary to be cautious. Globalization of the economy may be desirable, but care must be taken for the safety of all concerned. Fairness and a level playing field are all well and good, but leveling must take place on all sides. We cannot have one nation saying they are our friends when they do not permit a full cultural interchange. If Dubai and the UAE were to permit full religious freedom, erect Christian churches and permit missionaries it would go a long way to proving that their alliance is more than a temporary convenience. Acting to convince other nations in the Persian Gulf region to do the same, or funding US troops in Iraq would also make a major contribution toward a more favorable public opinion and make security less of an issue

Meanwhile, in the words of Desi Arnez, Mr. Bush and his colleagues “have some ‘splaining to do!”