|
It's the Corporation, Stupid
By Molly Ivins
02/23/06 "ICH"
-- -- AUSTIN, Texas—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
deal?
As President George W. 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’m 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 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 may
well take offense and not be so nice about helping us in the War
on Terra—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, a corporation owned by 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, where as the corporation has only a few
hundred. But it is still perfectly evolved for its purpose. That
means 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’s 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 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.” Since the
administration has done zip, nada, zilch about port security,
it’s unclear what he’s trying to “balance.” In 2002, the Coast
Guard estimated 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 has been
negotiating a free trade deal with the United Arab Emirates at
the same time the port deal was being negotiated. This whole
thing is about free trade and the lock big corporations have on
our government to further free trade. Sirota also points out 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 Abdul Qadeer 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
U.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.
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
Syndicate web page at
www.creators.com
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
