Bloodless Coup

I hate to defend the Bush II Administration, but I can't imagine a terrorist making the first step in his dastardly plan buying the port from which he's going to launch his attack. I mean, surely one would expect them to check that (whether or not they did, and I'm still willing to believe the CIA and DHS do stuff they don't tell us about -- not everyone the U.S. government is spying on is a U.S. citizen).

This post is meant to be solely on the political aspects of this deal, not the substantive ones.

As a substantive matter I think there are some legitimate questions to be raised (SOME UAE businesses have indeed played a key role in funneling cash and financing terrorist organizations, but does that matter here?) - but that's a murkier issue.

But as a political matter this is about as obvious as can be imagined. You've got the terrorism angle, trade angle, percpetions about immigration and racism, cozy with big foreign business angles - all these things building upon each other in a very clear way to make this a political nightmare for its advocates.

The crony aspect is one that isn't getting enough attention. On the one hand, building ties with the pro-Western capitalist (and if Dubai is anything it's pro-capitalist) ME is a good idea in general. The carrot of foreign policy. However this is an awfully easy target for criticism when every other aspect of security under the Bush administration has trended towards massive centralization.

Then again, I don't know much about port security, beyond a smattering about the Panama Canal.

UPDATE: Norbiz weighs in.

Y'know, the opposition to this deal does have distinct undertones of "all Islamic countries are evil" (not to mention the usual "everything W supports must be opposed" bit from some quarters, which is adolescent). Of course, the administration's usual inept public response isn't helping, either. There seems to be room for accusations of hypocrisy, etc., in both directions. The question the Administration needs to answer clearly is, what is the compelling national interest here? If it is that we want to improve relations with the UAE, which is something of a moderate voice in that corner of the world, then that should be articulated and argued. But "articulate" and "argue" are not exactly W's strong points.

I've wondered too about the silliness behind this deal. The deal itself doesn't really seem controversial: the company that runs six ports will be sold, so that it will be a subsidiary of a Dubai based corporation. How does that really hurt US port security? As best I can understand, no actual personel will change: the same people will be doing the same jobs. Thus, who care (other than the fact that it will likely hurt our current account deficit, as the profit from running the ports go offshore).

Why is Bush making this into a thing about his authority? Explain the issue (not done), take a stand (done poorly), and the let Congress act if it wants.

Baltar,
The company that now runs the ports is British, so I'm confused as to how it will affect our current deficit, because the profits weren't coming here to begin with, right?

Well, the longshoremen aren't going to change - but I think it's fair to ask questions about the types of access and control this company could have in the future.

And of course this sort of stuff Josh Marshall notes is really fishy - "the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government," requires a "mandatory," 45-day investigation. That was never done, and what's more, "Administration officials ... could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."

And it's not like this is just some average Middle Eastern company. It's an extremely well-connected company. And given that many UAE royals (who are the people who control business there - and as such I don't know that "capitalist" is really the most accurate term for them) aren't exactly "moderate" in a lot of ways that terms is used - well, I think this needs to be investigated. Is there some racism in the opposition to this, sure. But there are also some very fair questions.

"The question the Administration needs to answer clearly is, what is the compelling national interest here? If it is that we want to improve relations with the UAE, which is something of a moderate voice in that corner of the world, then that should be articulated and argued."

Exactly. You said it so much better than I.

My assertions about capitalism there come largely via reports from someone I knew who was living and doing business in Dubai a couple of years ago. And, btw, I make no assumptions about modern or democratic when I say capitalist.

Well, I guess in many ways its hugely capitalist. But it's also so hugely affected by oligarchy, cronyism, and endless growth without limitations norms that I'm not sure its particular capitalist norms are the sort the USA should be embracing.

Good point, Morris: if a foreign firm already ran the ports, this makes not a jot of difference to our current accourt.

It really is interesting to see Bush flail about for legitimate reasons to do this (I can think of two: the - as noted - improvement of relations with a moderate Arab state, and the fact that we're a capitalist nation, and capitalism argues the lowest qualified bidder should do the job - any other outcome violates our beliefs in the market), and fail to criticize the critics for what seems like racist logic (we'll let the Brits run our ports, but not the Arabs?).

Instead, it has devolved into "I said this woudl happen, so don't challenge me" which isn't really a reason.

I'm a bit worried about the cronyism myself, but if everyone would calm down and maybe put that 45 day hold on this, maybe we could figure this out. How is a 45 day wait a loss for Bush?

Oh Armand, come on. Somoza was our most staunch ally in the defense of Western capitalism for decades.

Why, naturally. ;)

The more I think about this the more I don't care about (like I ever did, really) about who runs the ports. It's the crony connection that's starting to look more ugly.

The sad thing is, it's probably smart foreign policy to keep the UAE happy with us. I was joking about Somoza above, but what do you think we were doing with the Good Neighbor, Alliance for Progress and all that? Cementing friendship with money. And the US needs friends in the region.

Of course it looks like the Bush family has friend in the UAE:

Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

And so does the administration.

Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.

The head of the agency that oversees US port operations was a DPW executive. Gosh! What a coincidence!

[goes off humming to to the badger badger badger tune: crony crony crony crony crony crony crony crony crony crony crony crony SCANDAL! SCANDAL!!!]

Am I the only one wondering why we'd entrust something as important as major port security to a private company of any nationality? If this country's so utterly besieged by terrorists, shouldn't it be military or intelligence agencies seeing to this? I mean, it's not like we're using mercenaries in Iraq, or anything, right? Right? Hello?

More expensive, less accountable -- really, I don't care if the company's registered to Mars, I'd prefer trained American soldiers guarding the equivalent of our private parts than any company with shareholders' quarterly expectations to satisfy.

If privatization's so damned good, how about the President turn over his security detail to Halliburton. I'm sorry, is that crickets I hear?

By the way, Binky, is it just me or does the multinational character of all the players in the port security drama really reaffirms the developing corporate dystopia Kaplan anticipated in the article you directed me to the other day.

Maybe not in the world, but I think here? yeah.

The Voice Of Reason (from the neoliberal political economy camp).