Dubai-ous Business
By Callimachus | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Foreign Policy, General Politics, In The News, The War On Terrorism, The WorldWell, the Dubai ports deal is dead. Everybody happy?
If this is what it takes to create the impression of unity in this country, I’m beginning to be fond of the polarized debate of three weeks ago. A “get Bushie-boy at any cost” attitude on one side, a “no Arabs allowed” knee-kerk on the other, and a center that fulminated and bloviated in inverse proportion to what it knew about the issues and characters and historical perspective and facts of the case. Bloggers who did actually understand something about any of this were drowned out in the tidal roar of a perfect storm ginned up by a right-wing radio talk host. Good job, America!
Now that it’s done, the hangover is starting to hit. A Washington Post editorial lacerates the guilty:
But our brave new Congress has achieved more than the irrational spiking of one business deal. It has also sent a clear message to the Arab world: No matter how far you move along the path of modernization and cooperation, Americans may be unable to distinguish you from al-Qaeda. Dubai welcomes hundreds of ship visits every year from the U.S. Navy and allied ships. It has worked with U.S. agents to stop terrorist financing and nuclear cooperation. But none of that mattered to the craven members of Congress — neither to the Democrats who first sensed a delicious political opportunity nor to the Republicans who then fled in unseemly panic. As to long-term damage to the United States’ security, economy and alliances? Not of concern to the great deliberative body.
In the same paper, David Ignatius gives the morass a personal perspective:
The ports deal was part of the UAE’s embrace of things Western. Wednesday night, I traveled with the minister of higher education, Sheik Nahayan bin Mubarak, to the dusty city of Al Ain to attend a Mozart festival at which the Vienna Chamber Orchestra performed. And I visited the American University of Sharjah, created nine years ago as a beacon of liberal arts education. On a wall next to the chancellor’s office is a photo of the twin towers in New York, taken by one of the students on June 8, 2001. “There are no words strong enough to express how we feel today,” reads a statement signed by UAE students.
Villainous Company riffs on this and scorches the Republicans — and believe me, she’s no Daily Kos:
Thank you, Senators Schumer and Clinton for opening your stately blowholes and fanning the flames of xenophobia and ignorance. Oh, and congratulations to the Republican party for your stellar support of the war on terror. Now if we could only win the war on stupidity here at home. I’m sure our armed forces will remember you fondly the next time we need to negotiate logistical arrangements or port privileges with the Arab Emirates.
I never thought I would say this, but if this is how we behave during wartime, perhaps I should reconsider my party affiliation. The President hasn’t lost me: the reprehensible and cowardly behavior of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill is rapidly turning me off. It is not up to the President of the United States to micromanage business deals and do Congress’ homework, to twist the arms of his party to gain their cooperation in a deal most people privately admit is not a security risk. That is the job of party leadership. It’s called delegation.
You want to get a feel for a people in the world today? Visit them where they shop. Martin Kramer visits a mall in Dubai.
Orientalist kitsch? Definitely. But Arabs have built it. Such cross-cultural play is possible only where people are comfortable with amalgams. To see the incredible mix of people strolling this mall, happily shopping for designer labels and making their choice at the 21-cinema “megaplex,” restores one’s faith in the Arabs’ potential for embracing a global future. It’s no doubt fragile, this odd experiment in our own style of consumerism, on a stretch of hot sand a world away from us. That’s all the more reason not to turn Dubai into a whipping boy for our disappointment with the rest of the Arab world.
Finally, Captain Ed grades the performances, and hands out “Fs” all around — including the blogosphere:
This entry was posted on Friday, March 10th, 2006 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Foreign Policy, General Politics, In The News, The War On Terrorism, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.Too many of us jumped to the conclusion we saw when the media first reported this deal, myself included. When it became apparent that the facts had been badly misrepresented, some decided that further criticism equated to either xenophobia or bigotry (echoing the White House) or an inability to see past the media’s supposed chicanery. Others assumed that those bloggers who dropped their objections either had become Bush toadies or more concerned with money than national security. This name-calling continues to this hour by otherwise respectable and rational bloggers, and both sides ignore that the deal has enough complexities and implications for national security and the war on terror for both sides to make entirely rational arguments for either supporting or opposing the deal. For some reason, online commenters stopped assuming that their friends and colleagues operate from sincere beliefs and honest motivations.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Ah … even the peanut gallery seems to be polarized, huh? Here we sit, a country divided issue by issue. Kudos all around for giving such focused assessment to this UAE thing instead of panning back and seeing how it connects to everything else. On one side we have the folks who are dedicated to Bush no matter what he does. On the other we have the folks thta are so incensed that he could never do anything right.
First, let’s analyse what this ports deal means in terms of business, and then let’s look at the human side. A business deal is a business deal and is generally clear in the terms and conditions of sale. I this particular case, the supporters tout the good graces of the UAE in it’s efforts to show unity with the U.S. in the War on Terror. On the surface I agree that they have done much in our behalf. It was not for free per se(they have profitted on the money side). These same folks also tout from a business perspective that AEU would be investing significant money in our economy and providing jobs for Americans. No argument there. However, if you follow economic theory to it’s end state you would have to recognize that the capital gains (very significant) would be leaving the U.S. economy and going to …UAE. If an American company has the deal, the capital gain is returned to the U.S. economy. Be fair, and recognize that the more items that are handled (services, manufacturing etc.) from the U.S. and shipped or sold to the rest of the world makes our economy more robust and expansive. I am not saying that we shouldn’t play in the world market or that we should isolate, just that since we decided to pursue fair trade agreements, we have profited only in the short term by allowing our internal capacity to flow out of our control and become dependent on others throughout the world. I am just a simple working man and no economic genius, but for those of you who are economists I think if you look at Pareto Charts of U.S. goods and services you will see a steep and steady decline in our ability to become the industrial behemoth that we once were. The argument is often proffered that becoming a service economy will make life better but I would have to question “better for who”? Paper wealth looks good on occassion, but the expanding gap between the haves and have nots is becoming more and more apparent. this is where we need to connect some dots in our thinking. For myself, I think that the deal with UAE was probably not as bad as many have made it. On the other hand, the social side of things does have some real issues to consider.
From the social aspect, Many have reacted with unwarranted fear that the Arabs (the terrorists) are going to control our ports. That fear has been instilled by our Administration, who had NO PROBLEM with xenophobic behavior at the ballot box when they wanted to run the war on terror like the backroom of a moderate sized corporation planning a hostile takeover. That backfired on them with the UAE deal. YES, the general public is seeing “spirits in the night”, and they have been groomed by the very folks in the WH that are now saying it is racist. We are not that kind people in the U.S.. We want to recognize our enemy. We want to band togather and defeat them, and then help them join the world. We haven’t done that since WW ll, and we aren’t going to train millions of citizens to sophistication of the WH model. that is precisely why they soft pedaled all they planned(”) in the Middle East or just did what they wanted and started one after another pissing contest in the congressional and Judical arenas.
Make no mistake … now that the “man on the street” has had a reactive episode, they will watch, learn, and act in accordance with their value systems, which is what should happen.
From a social perspective, the one aspect of the UAE deal that I haven’t heard a lot of focused discussion on is the following:
The deal would have functionally been the first in which a “COuntry” (under the name of Company) would have been doing a significant piece of work in the U.S. in a vital and strategic environment.
If a U.S. owned company wanted to bid on the same type of work in the UAE, it couldn’t even be considered …. not even a Corporation from the U.S. or any other country could secure that work because all work done in the UAE is done by UAE owned companies. that is the law in UAE. THIS ALONE IS A GOOD ENOUGH REASON FOR THE DEAL TO GO SOUTH.
The most positive sign from this incident is the average american’s reaction (right or wrong in terms of motive) called there political reps into the office and told them in no uncertain terms: ” You work for me hotshot … Stop the bullshit and do what I tell you to do!” Welcome back to America, friends.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
I was plenty informed and read a bunch of different perspectives on this. And still I thought the deal needed a second look. Nothing odd there.
March 11th, 2006 at 11:36 am
I suspect that this would have gone down much differently had it not come right on the heels of the Mohammed “cartoon intifada.”
That Arab foreign nationals have American-based assets is nothing new. For crying out loud, Caribou Coffee is owned by First Islamic Investment Bank of Bahrain, and once even had ties to a major Islamic supremacist figure, yet our politicians (and most of the public) barely bat an eye. But that was before the “cartoon intifada,” even with the MSM’s dubious coverage of it, made the Islamic supremacist agenda toward the West impossible to overlook. It spooked a lot of Americans and their politicians. Even those who recognize that Muslim-owned businesses aren’t all in bed with Islamic supremacists may have decided that they were still too close for comfort.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether this sentiment will fade away now that the ports deal is dead, or be extended to other Arab and Muslim assets in this country. But now that many Americans are, for the first time, aware of an Islamic supremacist threat that goes beyond terrorism, I’ve got an uncomfortable feeling that this is just the beginning.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
When you link to a site because they are “Bloggers who did actually understand something about any of this” I think a more accurate description would be “Bloggers who did actually agree with me about this.” The arguments at the site were very unconvincing, and not particularly well thought out. The fact that Al Gore issued a press release lauding the sale of fighters to the UAE is supposed to somehow demonstrate hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats? What a leap. We sell arms to lots of countries. It’s part of ongoing diplomatic efforts to maintain good relations, or at least influence with them. That’s a far cry from providing access to our ports. Or did you think the fighters had enough range to get to New York?
And I notice how the blogger (and, by extension you, since you endorsed him) decries how the fulminating left torpedoed the deal. Then scroll down a bit and read about how the fulminating Rep. Hunter (R) helped torpedo the deal. The fact that he tries to spin this into an anti-Democratic issue, when there was clearly bi-partisan opposition to the deal, makes me question everything else he writes.
I notice that you are studiously avoiding the issue of the Coast Guard’s concerns that security questions had not been fully dealt with. And instead of portraying this as a bunch of xenophobes trying to keep the filthy Arabs down, perhaps you could acknowledge that many people were calling for a full 45-day review. Although there is debate whether the 45-day review was mandated, the fact that it is an option makes it more than reasonable to call for it. And by the way, Schumer was calling for a full 45-day review. He wasn’t calling for the deal to be cancelled completely.
According to Schumer, the port operator is responsible for hiring security personnel. You don’t have to think the UAE is a corrupt nation to realize that we need to take extra precautions. Or are you claiming that the UAE is the only Middle Eastern nation in which it is absolutely impossible to have al qaeda sympathisers in its government? It doesn’t take an endorsement by the top level of government for mid-level officials to cause mischief. Lord knows the Bush administration has managed to blame everything that’s gone wrong on its watch on mid-level officials, why should the UAE be any different?
You must really think the American public is stupid. For five years, whenever a Democrat has called for dealing reasonably with the Arab world, Republicans have ridiculed them with the whole “You just think the terrorists need a hug” meme. To hear Republicans call Democrats xenophobes not only doesn’t pass the sniff test, it doesn’t pass the laugh out loud test.
March 11th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
What Justin said.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have access to some kind of an economic summary for Dubai? I know they have absolutely rediculous real estate and such, and downright sickening amounts of cash flows through there, and I’m wondering what the breakdown of that cash flow looks like.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Bob Aman,
I couldn’t find any matrixed data, but heare is a link for an article where you can extrapolate enough info to get a sense of the wealth.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_n1554_v267/ai_17281263#continue
March 12th, 2006 at 5:40 am
Indeed. I’m not saying that those who wanted the Dubai deal to go through didn’t have a point. In fact, Schuler and others had some extremely good points. But when I was called a racist for simply questioning the soundness of this deal…well…considered me surprised.
In fact (and I’m sure you can appreciate this Cal), I was called a xenophobe and a racist in my own office and I shot back with some very specific points about the UAE and its recent history. The person in question is a VERY intelligent guy, and once he had heard my points he essentially said, “Fair enough.” That’s enough for me to think that I not only have a point, but I have info that many haven’t considered before they accept the common wisdom on the “Support The Ports Deal!” side. Especially if you think that 9/11 was a suckerpunch which exploited existing holes in our system, I think many can appreciate the holes in our current port system and understand why I cringe at a Middle Eastern country controlling the management of them.
So yes…in short…I’m happy. :-D
March 16th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
We have American soldiers on Saudi Arabs soil and in some other Middle Eastern countries, which is a threat to our security, does this also mean that they should be thrown out! They cost a lot and do nothing plus their presence in Iraq & Afghanistan is the basis of many innocent civilian lives.