Oh Dubai... Where has the love gone....
I've been paying attention to this entire Dubai Ports World deal, and I have to say, I'm not surprised at yesterday's news. It's just another example of how the President and his crewe manage to exculpate themselves from every controversy that in which they become embroiled.
I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen more of an imbruglio on the blogs about this issue, but since there seems to be only light attention paid to the deal (Big Pharoah and Daily Scorecard are the only two that I've seen in my little list), I thought I'd chime in.
I'm of the opinion, personally, that Dubai has been very pro-US officially, even though there is an undercurrent of anti-US hostility there. We have our largest US basing facilities in Dubai, with the largest US ship fleet outside of the US currently stationed at their ports and a great number of warplanes stationed at an Air Force base there. The Pentagon has often reviewed and never (to my knowledge) found lacking the security at their ports, which is one of the reasons that our military can do such brisk business through Dubai. They have been supportive of our presence in the region, are very pro-US business, support a large US expat community, and are progressive in the Muslim world in a number of ways.
On the other hand, they don't recognize Israel, they support Hamas, and they still have some of the more medieval codes of laws on the books in the Muslim Middle East (although they're not quite as bad as their big sister, Saudi Arabia). Those are serious concerns, but we do business with other countries who have human rights records or political positions that disagree with ours, so why should this be any different? Those are serious concerns, but they're not a reason to scuttle a business deal.
But the public here in the USA is up in arms about DPW. Why? They say security. I say the boogey man.
So the idea of a Dubai controlled company running terminals at 6 US ports is so scary to 71% of the American public that the issue had managed to do something that NOBODY saw coming--they made the Republicans divided and the Democrats united.
For the first time in 60 years.
But with overwhelming support for a bill to kill the deal in Congress, Bush springs into action threatening a very unpopular veto. The American public wakes up, Bush's poll numbers drop to my waist size, and pundits start using the term "lame duck" a lot more (except on Fox, where they're still using the term "Best President Ever").
But there is a reason to be concerned with the deal, and it has little if anything to do with terrorism. Dubai has been handling sensitive information about US shipping for years, between all of the ships that the UAE brings to port in America and the US Naval ships stationed there. They've provided good enough security for us in the past, even if it wasn't in our ports. The thing that concerns me is their financials. The UAE's reputation when it comes to transparancy has been, shall we say, "less than stellar". They're trying to straddle two different economic models, that of the west and that of the Middle East, and as a result too much business is done not only without oversight, but without the POTENTIAL for oversight. Anyone remember the International Bank of Credit and Commerce? I'll give you a hint--they were the biggest money laundering operation in history, and their two biggest clients were the CIA and UBL. If we want Dubai et al to be involved in the "War on Terra", it would be in our best interests to not give them exceptions to accountability rules, which is exactly what happened and why the Treasury department should be run up a flagpole on this one. We literally HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS to our accounting rules just to let this deal go through!
There's also the concern over whether or not we want companies owned by foreign governments owning land in "sensitive areas", like the ports. But that should be a drawn out, well reasoned, healthy public debate rather than a scare-fest like this. And it should apply to companies owned by Canada just as quickly as those owned by the UAE.
So Bush threatened to veto a popular bill, and the conditions for the proverbial rock and hard place were set. How could he wiggle out of this one?
Back room deals, y'all. Back room deals. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Dubai announced that they will be transferring control over to Americans to not further threaten the relations between our countries. And they need this relationship. We support them militarily and have too many economic interests in their country to have us pull out.
So Bush is off the hook again? That's the question. But I don't think the answer is that simple. The controversy has managed to tarnish his image with a majority of Americans, something that Valerie Plame, the NSA Wiretaps, the Abramoff scandal, and even the War in Iraq hadn't been able to do. Maybe it's a culmination of all of these things, but now I think that the tarnish has finally stuck. I predict that Bush's poll numbers will jump up to about 40% and languish there and that the Republican party will continue to be divided over supporting the president's policies and distancing themselves from him. Because now Bush has done something he hadn't done before--he "betrayed" the security of the American people.
He's been playing the security card since 9-11, using it as trump card to do just about anything, including wipe with the constitution. And he's always justified doing things that were unpopular by playing to the peoples' fears. But now he's gambled against the peoples' fears and he's been forced to beat a quiet retreat, to shift the focus again. But when it comes time for him to say "We've got to cut taxes to the wealthiest Americans so that the Terrorists can't attack us over here", I suspect that now people will remember this, and wonder whether he's more concerned with protecting the average citizen against terrorism or just trying to make more money for big corporations. And if he can't play the trump card any more, he may just have to fold.
I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen more of an imbruglio on the blogs about this issue, but since there seems to be only light attention paid to the deal (Big Pharoah and Daily Scorecard are the only two that I've seen in my little list), I thought I'd chime in.
I'm of the opinion, personally, that Dubai has been very pro-US officially, even though there is an undercurrent of anti-US hostility there. We have our largest US basing facilities in Dubai, with the largest US ship fleet outside of the US currently stationed at their ports and a great number of warplanes stationed at an Air Force base there. The Pentagon has often reviewed and never (to my knowledge) found lacking the security at their ports, which is one of the reasons that our military can do such brisk business through Dubai. They have been supportive of our presence in the region, are very pro-US business, support a large US expat community, and are progressive in the Muslim world in a number of ways.
On the other hand, they don't recognize Israel, they support Hamas, and they still have some of the more medieval codes of laws on the books in the Muslim Middle East (although they're not quite as bad as their big sister, Saudi Arabia). Those are serious concerns, but we do business with other countries who have human rights records or political positions that disagree with ours, so why should this be any different? Those are serious concerns, but they're not a reason to scuttle a business deal.
But the public here in the USA is up in arms about DPW. Why? They say security. I say the boogey man.
So the idea of a Dubai controlled company running terminals at 6 US ports is so scary to 71% of the American public that the issue had managed to do something that NOBODY saw coming--they made the Republicans divided and the Democrats united.
For the first time in 60 years.
But with overwhelming support for a bill to kill the deal in Congress, Bush springs into action threatening a very unpopular veto. The American public wakes up, Bush's poll numbers drop to my waist size, and pundits start using the term "lame duck" a lot more (except on Fox, where they're still using the term "Best President Ever").
But there is a reason to be concerned with the deal, and it has little if anything to do with terrorism. Dubai has been handling sensitive information about US shipping for years, between all of the ships that the UAE brings to port in America and the US Naval ships stationed there. They've provided good enough security for us in the past, even if it wasn't in our ports. The thing that concerns me is their financials. The UAE's reputation when it comes to transparancy has been, shall we say, "less than stellar". They're trying to straddle two different economic models, that of the west and that of the Middle East, and as a result too much business is done not only without oversight, but without the POTENTIAL for oversight. Anyone remember the International Bank of Credit and Commerce? I'll give you a hint--they were the biggest money laundering operation in history, and their two biggest clients were the CIA and UBL. If we want Dubai et al to be involved in the "War on Terra", it would be in our best interests to not give them exceptions to accountability rules, which is exactly what happened and why the Treasury department should be run up a flagpole on this one. We literally HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS to our accounting rules just to let this deal go through!
There's also the concern over whether or not we want companies owned by foreign governments owning land in "sensitive areas", like the ports. But that should be a drawn out, well reasoned, healthy public debate rather than a scare-fest like this. And it should apply to companies owned by Canada just as quickly as those owned by the UAE.
So Bush threatened to veto a popular bill, and the conditions for the proverbial rock and hard place were set. How could he wiggle out of this one?
Back room deals, y'all. Back room deals. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Dubai announced that they will be transferring control over to Americans to not further threaten the relations between our countries. And they need this relationship. We support them militarily and have too many economic interests in their country to have us pull out.
So Bush is off the hook again? That's the question. But I don't think the answer is that simple. The controversy has managed to tarnish his image with a majority of Americans, something that Valerie Plame, the NSA Wiretaps, the Abramoff scandal, and even the War in Iraq hadn't been able to do. Maybe it's a culmination of all of these things, but now I think that the tarnish has finally stuck. I predict that Bush's poll numbers will jump up to about 40% and languish there and that the Republican party will continue to be divided over supporting the president's policies and distancing themselves from him. Because now Bush has done something he hadn't done before--he "betrayed" the security of the American people.
He's been playing the security card since 9-11, using it as trump card to do just about anything, including wipe with the constitution. And he's always justified doing things that were unpopular by playing to the peoples' fears. But now he's gambled against the peoples' fears and he's been forced to beat a quiet retreat, to shift the focus again. But when it comes time for him to say "We've got to cut taxes to the wealthiest Americans so that the Terrorists can't attack us over here", I suspect that now people will remember this, and wonder whether he's more concerned with protecting the average citizen against terrorism or just trying to make more money for big corporations. And if he can't play the trump card any more, he may just have to fold.
posted by sadiq at 3/10/2006 09:05:00 AM
2 Comments:
He'll never stop playing the 9/11 card. Word has it he's getting ready to start a new campaign defending his stance in Iraq and of course 9/11 is going to be a major part of it. As much as he uses that excuse you'd figure he'd help out in rebuilding what was lost here in NYC, and address the situation in terms of the air quality in the area during that time and all the lies lies Whitman fed us.
Of course he'll never stop playing the 9-11 card. It's the only thing that Bush has to really trump the other concerns of the American public. It's been the way he's consolidated power, and he's not about to give that up.
But will it continue to work for him? This is the first time that the issue of security has come up that he hasn't been pro-security. It seems that for him security takes a back seat to big business. If the American public notices that dichotomy, there's a chance that the 9-11 trump card just won't work for him anymore. The emperor has no clothes.
Post a Comment
<< Home