Choosing friends wisely
The more I think about the recent Dubai ports deal, the more I think that our leaders have really chosen political pandering over serious leadership. I am shocked at how overwhelming the political opposition has been over the last week. In my limited view, the deal would have been a net gain and an important strategic partnership.
A number of people in my company do business in Dubai regularly. I’ve long thought, if more places in the Middle East were like Dubai, the world would be much safer and more prosperous. To hear it described by my colleagues, it is Las Vegas times ten. A Canadian Londoner said it is more American than America.
I always wondered, if these descriptions are true, why we don’t hear more about the UAE? It is a capitalist success story, right in the heart of the Middle East. They’ve made a huge turn to establish an economy that looks beyond oil.
I also wished, quietly, that other leaders in the area would develop a healthy sense of envy.
Now, no friendship is perfect. The official stance of the UAE is not to recognize Israel. It is run by a monarchal family. Men still dominate business and politics (although Western female visitors are treated as equals), and they don’t do well on a number of human rights measures.
This is where our leadership really needs to do the cost-benefit, and make the case. Bush did so, too meekly in my opinion, and almost no one else argued the case on its merits.
Those merits include strengthening a mutually-interested relationship with a country that has proved itself to be an ally. The UAE has really extended itself with support for our military. They condemned 9/11 and chose sides: ours.
Regarding the safety of our ports, I don’t see how UAE ownership of certain operations makes us more or less safe than British ownership. The vulnerabilities exist regardless. The shipping business knows very few borders.
I would even speculate that such a deal would make us safer. I believe that’s how Bush sees it, too.
If the sheiks have a multi-billion dollar stake in the operations of our ports, security is in their interest, too. Here’s how I put it in a note to Michelle Malkin, with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue:
[...] ownership of logistics operations at US ports, by the Dubai-based company, might actually be healthy. That company would have a compelling financial interest in the security of those ports — it might even be useful to have a Middle Eastern company actually invested in our welfare. Would 9/11 have happened if the Twin Towers were owned by sheiks? Mutual interests make for tighter bonds. Or put another way, finance usually trumps ideology.
Put another way, we push our borders out. The UAE becomes a self-interested partner, essentially part of the US infrastructure, halfway around the world.
Back to politics. Kudos to John McCain, earning his maverick title (for once!) in bucking political trends. Otherwise, our national hysteria makes it appear that we are unwilling to engage meaningfully with the hard questions. And it makes our allies wonder what we stand for.
Am I naïve? Let me know…
Cross-posted at The Only Republican in San Francisco
March 12th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Very nicely said.
I wish you had cross-posted with me too … for the So. California crowd, where Duncan Hunter carries so much weight.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Duncan Hunter is indeed doing the work of many. So many of these people in Congress and the Legislature are just banking on this whole shallow Politically Correct thing and getting away with it. Geez, announce you drive a Prius and you get another free term.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Bush: Ports storm hurts terror war
President Bush said Friday that the political storm over the Dubai ports deal sent a bad message to
March 13th, 2006 at 8:37 am
I have no doubt that the U.A.E. would turn on us in a New York second, if they felt it was in their own economic interest to do so (kinda like most other corporations, don’tcha think?), but it will be a lot of long winters before the islamofascists can offer the kind of profit our economy does.
Saudi Arabia gets away with pandering to both sides (kinda like Hillarious) because it has an economy based solely on oil, and they know the U.S. is dependent upon it, at least for the moment.
It’s too bad everyone made fun of GW for his comment about oil addiction. He was spot on, the Saudis will continue to rape us with oil prices and fill the coffers of the terrorists, and the U.A.E. will continue to do business with us. Until it becomes more profitable to do biz with the terrorists.
March 13th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
I made fun of GW’s “oil addiction” statement because he made it in 2006. (Who says he’s slow?)
Jimmy Carter, for instance, said it in 1976. (And pretty much anyone with a half a brain has known it for years).
The problem for Buah and the UAE is Bush spent the last 4 years scaring the American public about those crazy middle-easterners who hate us.
In the words of Lou Reed: “ou’re gonna reap, just what you sow.”
March 13th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Gosh, I was dumb enough to think that the “reap/sow” thing was from the Bible! No wonder I’m considered an uneducated knuckledragger by brilliance like Robert.
BTW, Robert, welcome to the blog. This is the third consecutive article I’ve reread, and the third consecutive one you added your wisdom, such as it is, to.
March 14th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
political opportunists
reasonable people can disagree on what would result from the UAE managing (not controlling) some of our ports, and post 9/11, it makes sense to ask questions and give all deals like this a complete and thorough review. mccain was right when he advocat…