(Long Island, NY) Govenor George Pataki made a statement recently alongside Maryland Governor Robert Erlich regarding the controversy over six United States ports recently acquired by Dubai Ports World, the business owned by the United Arab Emirates. Pataki’s concerns over an Arab-based company having control of major U.S. ports is part of the growing controversy over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow the deal.
The main source of concern according to opponents of the deal is one of security. In the wake of the 9-11 attacks on New York, Govenor Pataki is right to be concerned about any business deal giving control of United States port to any foreign interest. That said, is nationality the issue? The fact that the United Arab Emirates is the controlling interest in the six U.S. ports should not be the major concern.
The real issue here is twofold. First, the port controversy is symptomatic of a larger problem–America’s outsourcing issues. In the quest to find cheaper solutions to expensive corporate problems at home, many companies have sent the work outside the office or overseas. Outsourcing and overseas contracting may be a great solution for the corporate bottom line, but the end result does not necessarily help the economy in general.
Globalization has gotten a very bad name thanks in part to disreputable practices in overseas factories that are ignored or tolerated by some American companies outsourcing or otherwise creating work in other counties. Sweatshops, child labor and other issues are given a whitewash or a nice PR campaign while those back home in American try to sleep at night knowing what’s being done.
The only real changes seem to come about when a large network news agency gets an investigative report on the air. Outsourcing to other countries may not be the evil to end all evils, but it is a practice which could have a negative effect on the entire economy overall long after the corporate savings have been pocketed and forgotten. One of the real issues with regard to the ownership of six major U.S. ports has more to do with America outsourcing itself to death than homeland security. Isolationism is NOT the answer, but neither is the other end of the scale, where we seem to be at now with the issue of who owns America’s ports.
The second part of this issue is one as of this writing unaddressed by any major news outlet; the possible conflict of interest involving George W. Bush as a member of a “Texas oil family” approving the ownership of six U.S. ports by a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. If Dick Cheney’s ties with Haliburton could be called into question at the start of the war in Iraq, certainly George W. Bush must be forced to some kind of accountability for his own past or present ties to the oil industry with regard to UAE port takeover approval.
According to some polls, as many as 53 percent of Americans believe the President should be impeached for his role in misleading the public in justifying the war in Iraq. How much more should Americans question the decision of a Texas Oil man–past or present–with regards to any business deal involving the United Arab Emirates. Bush sold the majority of his oil stock in 1990, effectively moving him out of the business in favor of his purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team. The team was sold in 1998, but if Bush were to approve a business deal involving the Texas Rangers, certainly there would be raised eyebrows. Why such a lack of scrutiny in the case of the UAE deal? It is a question far too important not to raise, yet no one in the media or otherwise seems to be concerned with the appearance of impropriety.
George W. Bush is commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. Those in uniform are held to a high standard in all respects of their lives. One of the most stringent set of regulations that govern those in uniform concern avoiding the appearance of impropriety, favoritism or giving consideration based on favors or business arrangements. If the commander-in-chief cannot lead by example in these areas, he should be considered unfit for the position.
Why no one calls the President’s behavior into question in this issue is puzzling, but certainly no one in the military will do so; there is also a strict rule about public speech or press involvement that is considered derogatory to the President, Congress and other elected officials. Some one else will have to point out that the President has failed to lead from the front when it comes to accountability, integrity and the appearance of favoritism.
The ownership of America’s major ports is indeed one of national security. There is more than a hint of racism in the idea that Arabs should not own our major ports. There is no racism whatsoever in the notion that American companies should be in charge of American ports. If America outsources our lifelines to and from the continent to outside concerns, it runs the risk of falling under control of those concerns, however small. Is the risk really worth it?
