The Dubai ports crisis is finally over. After large-scale public outcry and strong Congressional opposition, the deal which would have allowed a UAE government-owned company to manage six key U.S. ports has been canceled, and the company has agreed to transfer the management to an American entity to be named. At the same time, President Bush has avoided what surely would have been a nasty showdown with a large part of his political constituency.
So where do we, the American people, stand in the aftermath of the deal gone bad?
Most importantly, our national security has been strengthened. Before this issue came to light, hardly anyone was even aware that foreign companies managed most of our ports. Now, the operation of such an essential aspect of our border security will increasingly lie in American hands. It's also wonderful to see so many of us remaining skeptical of government officials who say "trust me" without providing full information, such as President Bush in this case. Of course these officials are our elected representatives, but they too can make mistakes, and we should always take proper action if necessary.
Some say that rejecting the deal sends the wrong message to our Arab allies, but let's not kid ourselves - the UAE is no true ally. Any nation with links to Al Qaeda and Hamas is fundamentally hostile to U.S. interests, no matter how much superficial support (such as airbases) its government has given us to save itself from a terrorist takeover.
Economically, meanwhile, the impact is neutral. Some pundits worry that we've hurt ourselves by sending a protectionist message to other nations, but the port cancellation clearly was a security-motivated isolated incident and by no means points to an overall protectionist trend.
The big question is the political fallout. President Bush championed a highly unpopular stand, and anger has run high, from all-time low poll support to even calls for impeachment. I don't think the latter will actually occur, but a much larger risk is the Republicans losing control of the House and/or Senate in 2006. If the GOP is no longer perceived as the party that can keep America secure, it will likely take a tumble.
The danger of this would lessen, of course, if the opposing Democrats had better national security ideas themselves, but as we have seen, for the most part they do not. The upcoming elections will be an essential judge of where Americans stand on this issue. Personally, I think the ports matter will quickly become old news a la the Harriet Miers Supreme Court episode, and while Republicans may lose a few seats, they'll still maintain control of both lawmaking bodies.
The ports crisis could have been avoided by some sharper moves from the get-go (such as considering only American companies for the management contracts), but once it occurred, our only option was to resolve the situation satisfactorily and build upon what we learned from the mistake. Having just completed the former, it is essential that we Americans continue on the path of the latter.
Hi Surfer,
I understand your reservations, but respectfully disagree with your assessment. It's important that we support free trade. And the UAE is more of an ally than you suggest http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002823048_portsemirates23.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186644,00.html. No it is not Israel, but in the middle east, it is a significant partner in a land full of very dubious friends and many outright enemies. Moreover, the ports had foreign shareholders before the foreign shareholders were themselves purchased by the UAE eentity. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/13/D8GB0HJGC.html and http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1161466,00.html. Therefore, it is not the presence of foreign owners that caused the uproar, but of arab owners. Certainly, under these circumstances, the UAE government could feel justified in forcing US companies to divest their ownership in companies based in the UAE as a result of the situation in the US. Indeed, the UAE may be justified in transferring its foreign reserves into dollars if it is not permitted to spend its dollars freely in the open market. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186601,00.html and http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article351127.ece.
Posted by: Verdant | March 13, 2006 at 08:55 PM
I'm not sure that the UAE is so important to the U.S. I think that America is actually way more important to them, since our troops have protected their oil fields from being taken over by their larger neighbors (Iraq when it was under Saddam, and now potentially Saudi Arabia).
Also, I don't think the prospect of having Arab owners is what scared people. Rather, it's the fact that the company is fully controlled by a government with links to terrorism and fundamentalist Islam. If the ports were controlled instead by, say, a company privately owned by Christian Arab Americans with no links to terrorism, then I doubt anyone would be worried, even though the owners would be just as Arab as the UAE rulers.
Posted by: Solid Surfer | March 15, 2006 at 11:33 PM