Dubai Ports Deal: Politics Trumping Business.....

And Security..........April 2006

        All the recent banter regarding the Dubai ports debacle has been amusing if not sad. With the nation still feeling the effects of the September 11, 2001 attacks, it’s easy to tug on our emotions, especially with national security. Seems intelligent debate gives way to partisan bickering and weak political motives.

            Unfortunately, President Bush’s recent poll decline has killed any chance of this deal materializing. Why? It’s simple. Democrats finally have a chance to act as though they are security hawks while weaker, moderate Republicans are showing no spine while facing an election year.

            Past articles written on my web site warned Republicans of playing this game. Republicans usually fare better at the polls as conservatives. Bailing out on President Bush at this time may have consequences politically with the 2006 elections closing in. For those of you believing the likes of Senators Schumer, Durbin and Reid are now security hawks, wake up.

            Politics aside, the deal selling these terminal rights to the United Arab Emirates-owned company may make sense for the security of this country as well as being good business. Port security would still be in the hands of the U.S. Coast Guard, accompanying port authority organizations, as well as assistance from Homeland Security. The actual selling of the ports is not an issue. In fact, Dubai Ports already operates some functions at the port of Miami. Was this ever mentioned in the mainstream press? Not when news organizations can pepper their ratings by jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon. Not when weak-kneed politicians and journalists can suddenly feel a jolt of testosterone, culminating with their morphing into defense hawks.  Truth in reporting on this subject has been an option for many.

            The United Arab Emirates have had a past worthy of concern. They have reportedly supplied financial aid to Hamas and the Taliban before their defeat in Afghanistan. They have joined other Arab countries in their condemnation of Israel. The UAE have not been boy scouts in the international community.

            With that being said, there are positives to be gained from this deal. Having a business relationship with a more moderate Arab country can only further our success in the Middle East. Like it or not, our nation depends on oil as well as keeping close military ties to Israel, Turkey and other regional allies. The UAE has assisted in bringing to justice various al Qaeda members as well as helping with U.S. Navy ships docking at Dubai.

            Former President Bill Clinton spoke on a couple of occasions to the UAE to help better position them for this deal. It’s funny how he can  come out against President Bush while in the past he’s made money speaking to the good folks of the UAE, advising them on how to conduct business with US ports. He has not necessarily been in line with the bulk of Democrats on Capital Hill. Many Conservatives have also spoken out against the President on this issue.

            The UAE has also been placed in the position of having to save face with their more militant Arab neighbors. I normally like Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, but how are executives of Boeing feeling at this time? Hastert convinced Boeing to move their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, only to side against the President on this issue. With the UAE being embarrassed, will they stay with their current deal for Boeing jet liners, or would a more logical deal be to opt for the European Air Bus products being considered before the Boeing deal was made? This being allowed to happen while a moderate Arab country is trying to become a more acceptable player in the world market does not make sense.

                        After the events of September 11, 2001, our country has to view the world differently. New allies are needed and more partners familiar with Middle East language and culture can only be a plus. I’m not suggesting this deal should have received instant approval. I’m simply stating the security of our country has concerns that range far beyond our borders. More research and less partisan bickering should be the goal for making policy. Playing political football with this issue will only muddy the facts regarding national security on further issues. When is the average American expected to believe anything rolling out of Washington? It would be nice to see Republicans get back to being Conservatives with a spine and back the President. The upcoming election year is allowing too many on both sides of the aisle to demagogue this issue to the point that their real views are nothing but hyperbole.

                        Letting these politicians veil their true stance on this issue behind election year smoke and mirrors serves no one.