« The Roberts Court: An Early View | Main | Legal News You Can Use »
March 10, 2006
Congress to UAE: Can You Hear Me Now?
Today, the Washington Post earned every penny of the rather large subscription check I just wrote out:
THEY SPEND drunkenly, they fail at oversight and they can't stop the administration from abusing detainees or tapping phones. But never call the members of Congress powerless: Yesterday, in the exalted name of anti-terrorism, the Senate rebelled against its Republican leadership and joined the House in a vote to prevent a company based in a moderate, friendly Arab country from making a minor investment in the United States. When it became clear that some such blocking measure would pass, Dubai Ports World threw in the towel, announcing that it would sell all of its U.S. operations, including the management operations of six U.S. ports it recently acquired, and do business elsewhere.Of course, the speed of that announcement illustrates a critical point: that this investment always was a business decision, not the early stages of a covert attack on Baltimore. Quite rightly, the company and its Dubai-based owners -- who are stunned, apparently, by the unexpected reaction to what they thought was a routine business deal -- didn't want their country's and their company's names dragged through the mud, so they cut their losses.
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.
No one should underestimate the potential damage. Any government in a Muslim-majority country will have to ask itself: Why take the risk of friendship? If governments find no good answer to that question, the fight against radical Islamic terrorism will suffer. Meanwhile, Arab investors may think twice before putting their money in a country where their companies risk expropriation. With the price of oil so high, Arabs are rapidly becoming a major supplier of foreign capital. This isn't a good moment for Americans to discourage foreign investment, given the nation's dependence on foreign capital (see: Congress, drunken spending by). Nor will the message -- that foreign ownership was unobjectionable when it was British but intolerable when it was Arab -- do much to advance U.S. efforts to promote equitable investment rules for its own companies abroad.
Read it. Read it all.
I am disgusted beyond measure. And for once, speechless. In their cynical pandering to a craven and ill-informed electorate, our trigger-happy Congress has once more fired off a shot that will indeed be heard round the world:
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.It's hard to imagine an Arab more pro-American than Sulayem. He earned a degree in economics from Temple University in 1981, and he's still a fanatic about Philadelphia cheese steaks. He described a pilgrimage last New Year's Eve from New York to Pat's King of Steaks in South Philly, only to find the place closed. Before the deal collapsed, Sulayem had a free-trader's conviction that good business judgment would prevail over political rhetoric. "We are businessmen -- we don't understand politics -- but it is a surprise to us. We have been cooperating with the U.S. We are their best friends."
Many of the UAE's political leaders, including the crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed, had grown increasingly convinced this week that the wisest course would be to pull out. But that view was resisted until almost the end by the business leadership in Dubai, including Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid.
Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after.
President Bush tried to do the right thing on the Dubai ports deal, but he got rolled by a runaway Congress. The collapse of the deal was a measure of Bush's political weakness -- but even more, of America's traumatized post-Sept. 11 politics. The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.
Right now, I don't very much like us, and that speaks volumes.
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.
If can find the time to pick up the local dog trainer and inform myself about the Dubai ports deal, certainly this is not too much to ask of Senators who make over $90,000 a year on the taxpayer's nickel. I have always counted on at least some in my party to do what was right, even in the face of contrary public opinion. But the stench of fear pervading Congress seems to have unnerved them. Apparently keeping their precarious hold on power has become more important than doing what is right for their country.
And if that is so, perhaps it is time for change in Washington.
UPDATE: Via JMarsh, the WSJ nails it:
A CNN report from Dubai showed articulate and Western-educated Dubai leaders offering assurances that they would strictly maintain security at any port facilities they operated in the U.S. But aides to House Republican leaders reported that the sight of men in Arab dress saying they would handle port security only made the calls of complaint come in faster.A Feb. 24 item from Rasmussen Reports, a public-opinion polling firm, said only 17% of Americans believed DP World should be allowed to purchase operating rights at U.S. ports, with 64% opposed. The report said that even before the deal was announced, President Bush was falling below Democratic congressmen in measures of who is trusted on national-security issues.
In an attempt to halt the tide, the White House released details of unusual arrangements to which DP World had agreed. The ports operator would allow U.S. antiterror officials to examine company records without a subpoena and check the background of any of its employees. It also promised to separate its U.S. port terminal operations from the rest of the company.
Finally, DP World agreed to undergo a new, 45-day U.S. government security review of the acquisition so all the questions could be considered again. The White House hoped that would buy time to cool the political passions. But as legislators from both parties continued to push measures to stop the deal, the White House strategy fell apart. Yesterday, DP World said it would shed the U.S. terminal operations.
On the Internet, conservatives normally supportive of Mr. Bush channeled those fears and fed the flames of opposition. Commentator John Podhoretz, citing the Rasmussen data, posted his analysis on National Review Online: "The deal is dead. ... Congressional Republicans have no choice but to be extremely aggressive and nasty toward the president and the White House, because they will be properly terrified of looking like Bush's lapdogs on a hugely unpopular matter that goes to the heart of the Republican Party's political advantage in the United States."
No, Mr. Podhoretz. Congressional Republicans had a clear choice.
They could have acted like leaders, not frightened sheep. But that would have required some measure of courage, or at the very least an understanding of honor.
But as I remarked yesterday, honor is a concept which, like the ports deal, is deader than a doornail in Washington.
Posted by Cassandra at March 10, 2006 05:55 AM
Comments
Not so fast guys...just because an Arab government makes an announcement doesn't mean it's necessarily so...
LittleGreenFootballs linked to this post at the IRIS Blog:
Posted by: Fred ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 10, 2006 07:47 AM
We'll see, Fred.
You have to admit that it would be amusing, if true. Most of this stuff amounts to little more than a shell game anyway. Either way, the damage has been done.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2006 08:08 AM
WSJ (sub req'd) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114196073745594485.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
They knock it out of the park, with an entire article about how the media *created* the uproar, with a special bitch slapping to Lou Dobbs.
End of the article:
n an attempt to halt the tide, the White House released details of unusual arrangements to which DP World had agreed. The ports operator would allow U.S. antiterror officials to examine company records without a subpoena and check the background of any of its employees. It also promised to separate its U.S. port terminal operations from the rest of the company.
[i]Without a subpoena?[/i] I can't think of a member of congress that would allow that kind of scrutiny of their office finances.
Posted by: JMarsh at March 10, 2006 08:16 AM
Lou Dobbbs has always been, as Shakespeare once said, 'an ass in the world'...
You know, this is one of the things the spouse and I fight like cats and dogs about. Y'all know I love the Shrub. The Unit likes to bag on him, most notably for allowing Frist to become Senate Majority Leader - he thinks that was unbearably dumb. He thinks Bush should be more of an infighter a la LBJ, even if he has to do it by proxy (Rove) whereas I suppose I don't subscribe quite as much to that view of things when there's a war going on. I will fault Bushfor not being more ruthless - there are some folks he needs to sack.
But in the current toxic environment, you tend to circle the wagons and buy loyalty with loyalty and I understand that too. As the spouse always says, somewhat sardonically, "it's an approach..." :)
Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2006 08:40 AM
I could be wrong, (doubtful) but I sensed that the public was softening to the idea of this port management deal as more was learned about it.
I think that opportunistic politicians had to hurry their killing of this deal so as not to lose a talking point as they stump this fall.
I may have missed it, (not likely) but I never saw a single senator or congressperson actually weigh the pros and cons of this deal and look at the downside of killing it.
That shows me a lack of seriousness about national security and an absence of statesmanship.
I also get the impression that congresspukes view the public as an angry xenophobic mob, and they responded accordingly.
Posted by: Pile On at March 10, 2006 11:26 AM
More and more Washington reminds me of Rome in the latter days before it fell: rotten to the core. We are no longer a Republic: a nation of laws.
We are, sadly, well on the way to mob rule.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2006 11:44 AM
I often wonder what in the Sam Hill DOD is doing, preparing detailed reports for these Congresstwits.
If this vote is any indication, it appears facts play no part in their decision-making. My husband could be coming home at 6 instead of 9 pm like normal men do.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2006 11:46 AM
My husband could be coming home at 6 instead of 9 pm like normal men do.
Ah-HAH! Finally, some confirmation that getting in at 9pm is normal. Mind if I cite this to KtLW the next time she hammers me with a trivet for doing the unpaid overtime thang?
Posted by: Hawksbill at March 10, 2006 12:58 PM
Okay, two countries: Britain and the UAE.
Let's take a good, close look at both countries in the last six years and tell me which country it moving closer to Sharia, radical Islam, and terrorism, and which is moving away.
Let's see which country is actually instituting laws allowing Sharia to be used. See which country is cozening terrorist leaders and turning a blind eye to terrorist-enablers. See which country is actually bucking its neighbors *hard* by cooperating with us in such a wide and, thus far, nearly limitless fashion without complaint. See which country is moving itself toward freedom and which is instituting laws that restrict freedom of speech.
Then come back and tell me which country's company you'd rather have managing these port terminals.
Posted by: Jimmie at March 10, 2006 01:01 PM
Sure, Hawksbill :)
I had to laugh. I was on the phone with one of my sisters-in-law last nite and she was bitching to me about how her husband was 'home for once'. I thought to myself, "manischevitz, tell me about it - the man works for a living".
I don't mind that my husband works late. You do what you have to do. A lot of times I have to work on the weekend, which I know he is not madly thrilled about, or he goes to bed and I'm up all night working. I just try to hand the poor guy a beer or a soda when he walks through the door and give him a big hug.
I do mind like hell when he comes home looking like he's been through a VegaMatic and I know there isn't any particularly good reason for it. But I'm proud of him for doing his job.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2006 01:07 PM
Wow - preach it, Cassandra! A few days ago on my blog I said I was close to changing my party affiliation as well - to Independent. I've never been more ashamed of my party than I am right now.
Keep up the good fight!
Posted by: Sister Toldjah at March 10, 2006 11:38 PM
"It's hard to imagine an Arab more pro-American than Sulayem. He earned a degree in economics from Temple University in 1981, and he's still a fanatic about Philadelphia cheese steaks."
Well, HELL...I've been accused of (credited for) making some of the best cheesesteaks around, by native Philadelphians, no less.
(And they would know!!!)
I wonder if I could make some big $$$ off of Sulayem. Maybe I should email him...
PS: Hi, ST, you sweet thang!
Posted by: camojack at March 11, 2006 01:18 AM
Cassandra: I agree that your party acted reprehensibly on this deal. But if you're reconsidering your party affiliation, where would you go? If you consider coming on over to my side (the Democrats), we were equally craven and disgusting.
I've never felt such comradeship with some of my conservative blog compatriots like Dennis the Peasant and Lounsberry as on this issue. And I'm a liberal Democrat (of course ashamed by the likes of Schumer & Clinton). I've never felt such disgust for my former comrades in arms. I'm having a really hard time after this contemplating voting for Hillary if she runs.
Maybe we ought to create a pro-free trade party called the Clear-Thinking party? "We don't pander, we don't hate, we just stick to business."
Posted by: Richard Silverstein at March 11, 2006 05:41 AM
Richard, I think about that too. This is the first time I've ever seriously considered such a move.
I couldn't be a Democrat - my views are simply too incompatible with the party platform, though I have on occasion voted for Democrats. But I've been an Independent for most of my adult life.
The Republican Congress' lack of support for this President and lack of leadership has been simply stunning to me. We are at war and the nation needs, certainly not mindless conformity, nor unthinking willingness to follow, but definitely a bit of discipline and ability to stay on message.
I'm not seeing that from our leaders on Capitol Hill - everyone wants to go their own way. Whatever happened to pulling together for the common good? I don't see any strong leadership - none. It's a wasteland up there.
Frist is worthless. I'm sorry, if I were up there I'd be doing some major arm-twisting in my own party and some reaching across the aisle. How about some bipartisan trips to Iraq? How about trying to heal this bullshit from the past election and the rancor about the war?
The Congress needs to step in and stop the festering hate. The country needs that.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2006 08:00 AM
Thanks Sister.
By the way I love the name. I posted (just kidding around) as Sister Toldjah a few times on another blog a long, long time ago but I had no idea I was usurping your identity! :)
Great minds...heh. I must have been channeling Miss Cleo again. You have a great site - I need to update my blogroll. So many wonderful sites out there and I never seem to get around to updating my list.
Posted by: Cassandra at March 11, 2006 11:34 AM
Crocodile tears.
Bush's team depended on racism to justify the invasion of Iraq, now he's reaping the "rewards".
If the deal were so straight as you claim, Homeland Security woudl not have expressed concern, and the Bushies wouldn't have lied about that. And they wouldn't have made the exceptional exception of allowing the records to be kept off US soil, out of reach of courts. Crony capitalism at best, and probably much worse going on there.
If UAE were what you claim, they wouldn't have recognized the Taliban.
If you were honest, you'd realize that the Bush admin pushed through exceptions for the sake of business, at the expense of a real security review. It's not racist to point that out. And the UAE BEHAVIOR is suspect, not their race. It's not profiling on race if it's based on behavior.
But the argument against the deal plays well with the repub base after YEARS of the admin blurring distinctions between Arabs. That's not the fault of the Democrats.
If
Posted by: tubino at March 11, 2006 01:41 PM
Tubino:
First of all, I resent the suggestion that Cassandra is not honest. Having associated with the lady for some time, I can confidently assert that a lack of honesty is not one of her problems; and it is, furthermore, not a fit thing for a gentleman to say.
Secondly: I recall a number of justifications put forward for the invasion of Iraq, to include: WMD, the torture and murder of the Kurds, the torture and murder of the Shi'ites, the torture and murder of political dissenters, the sheltering and support of terrorist entities such as the Abu Nidal Organization, and concerns that there might be a connection with al Qaeda -- this last did not play out, as it happens, but it was a reasonable concern in the intelligence void created by the failed CIA coup of 1997.
I don't recall "the Iraqis are dirty Arabs" being among the reasons. In fact, I believe one of the errors in which the Administration was culpable for bad planning was due to their faith in the Iraqi people: that they would be gracious and receptive of an invading army, and would behave themselves accordingly. That was naive, but it wasn't racism: someone who held a negative racist view of Arabs would have maximized policing resources before undertaking the project.
I do, however, agree that there was more crony capitalism involved here than is generally appreciated. Indeed, the Bush Administration seems utterly wired-in to cronyism at every level. That much of you critique seems plainly correct.
There indeed may be national security concerns relating to rising anti-American Arab sentiment arising from the collapse of the deal. That fact does not require that the origination of the deal have been honorable; the Bush administration does seem to do a lot of things (including its entire immigration policy) for no better reason than that it is favored by this or that corporate conglomerate.
Posted by: Grim at March 11, 2006 02:22 PM