Are we being sold
down a river again?
By Molly Ivins, Star-Telegram.com
from the Web, March 1, 2006
AUSTIN, TX Feb. 26 -- So aside
from the fact that it's politically idiotic and at least theoretically presents
a national security risk, just what is wrong with the Dubai Ports World deal?
As President Bush actually said, "I want those who are questioning it to step up
and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different
standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign
policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly.'"
So what's wrong with that? There's our only president standing up against
discrimination and against tarring all Arabs with the same brush and all that
good stuff. (The fact that it was Mr. Racial Profiling speaking, the man
who has single-handedly created more Arab enemies for this country than anyone
else ever dreamed of doing, is just one of those ironies that we regularly get
whacked over the head with.)
OK, here's for starters. We have already been warned that should we back
out of the DP deal, the United Arab Emirates might well take offense and not be
so nice about helping us in the War on Terror -- maybe even cut back its money,
as well as its cooperation. This is a problem specific to the fact that we
are dealing with a corporation owned by a country: A corporation only
wants to make money, but a country has lots of motives.
Second, this is a corporation -- consequently its only interest is in making
money. A corporation is like a shark, designed to do two things:
kill and eat. Thousands of years of evolution lie behind the shark,
whereas the corporation has only a few hundred. But it is still perfectly
evolved for its purpose.
That means that a corporation that makes money running port facilities does not
have a stake in national security. It's not the corporation's fault any
more than it is the shark's.
The president is quite correct that a "Great British" corporation has no more or
less interest in helping terrorists than an Arab corporation. It is not
the corporation that is supposed to have other interests -- it is government.
But as Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, said, "We have to
balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to
have a robust global trading system."
Balance is the arresting word here -- keep your eye on balance. We have an
administration that is absolutely wedded to corporate interests, both American
and global. It honestly believes that "free trade" is more important than
the environment and more important than the people. It has repeatedly
demonstrated it is willing to let both go in order to foster free trade.
There is no "balance" in its consideration on these issues -- and now, it turns
out, not much in "balancing" national security, either.
The people running this country -- and that includes most of the leaders of both
parties -- have proven again and again that they are perfectly willing to
outsource American jobs, American wage standards and American health and safety
standards all for the sacred, holy grail of free trade. Why would it
surprise us that national security is ditto?
I am amused by Chertoff's use of the word balance. The administration has
done zip, nada, zilch about port security, so it's unclear what he's trying to
"balance."
In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated that it would take $5.4 billion over 10 years
to improve port security to the point mandated by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act. Last year, Congress appropriated $175 million. The
administration had requested $46 million, below 9-11 levels.
As David Sirota points out, the administration was negotiating a free-trade deal
with the United Arab Emirates at the same time that the port deal was being
negotiated. This whole thing is about free trade and the lock that big
corporations have on our government to further free trade. Sirota also
points out that you will see and hear almost no discussion of this fact in the
corporate news media.
I have no idea whether DP World represents a security threat, but U.S. News &
World Report said in December that Dubai was notorious for smuggling, money
laundering and drug trafficking in support of terrorists. I suppose the
same could be said of New York, but it doesn't sound pleasant.
Dubai is believed to be the transfer port for the spread of nuclear technology
by the A.Q. Khan network. David Sanborn, an executive who ran DP World's
European and Latin American operations, was chosen last month by Bush to head
the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, according to the New
York Daily News.
It'll be interesting to see just how much power the free-trade lobby has over
the political establishment. Right now, both Democrats and Republicans are
yelling about what appears to be a dippy idea. Let's see what hearing from
their contributors brings about.
Molly Ivins, based in Austin, writes for Creators Syndicate.
5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
|
