In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Shades of Harriet Miers

zuzu

Bush’s reaction to the outrage over the port-security issue is reminding me quite a bit of his initial reaction to the outrage over his selection of Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Just as then, he’s getting awfully pissy with his critics for refusing to take his decision on trust. He’s actually threatening to use his veto power for the first time if Congress takes any action to stop the deal from going through.

And just as with Miers, his critics include Republicans. Even Peter King!

This is an easy issue — and it goes to the heart of “9/11 changed everything.” After spending five years conflating terrorism and the Middle East and of whipping up fears of attack and invasion through our ports (and, of course, assuring the country that only Big Daddy GOP can keep us safe), how else did Bush expect the country to react to the news that he’s turning over port security to a company run by the government of a country which two of the 9/11 hijackers came from? A country through whose banking system the 9/11 hijackers laundered money and through whose ports A.Q. Khan conducted his trade in nuclear components to places like Iran?

Hell, the idea that the government would turn over port security, after 9/11 changed everything, to a private company, is hard enough to swallow. The Administration sure as hell did its damnedest to keep the Chinese from purchasing Unocal, citing national security interests. Given how often we’ve been told that port security is one of the weak points in our national defenses, what Congresscritters in their right minds wouldn’t question this? (I said right mind — which eliminates Joe Lieberman).

And, of course, there’s a lot to question. The 45-day investigation required by law when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government was not done. Two of the members of the board that approved this deal are Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Snow. Rumsfeld claims not to know any details. Snow has very valuable options vested in a company that sold its shipping operations to the Dubai company, DP World. Then there’s David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and — what a coincidence! — was tapped last month by Bush to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Of course, now Bush is admitting that he didn’t even know about the port deal until after it was approved by his Administration.

In short, this whole thing stinks.

Julia has more.

19 thoughts on Shades of Harriet Miers

  1. Y’know, I’ve been told more than once around here that we should always take care to make clear that our problems are with Islamists rather than Muslims. And, yet, you’re now arguing that because the emirates have had some Islamists and because they operate as the banking center of the Middle East, we must distrust the entire country.

    Am I saying we should take it on faith that this deal is okay? No, of course not. Am I saying that we have no reason to doubt the good faith of the company and the country involved in the port deal? Why, yes I am. How in the absence of evidence to the contrary could we justify denying commerce with our Muslim friends?

  2. And, yet, you’re now arguing that because the emirates have had some Islamists and because they operate as the banking center of the Middle East, we must distrust the entire country.

    ‘Tis the hypocrisy GM, not zuzu’s precise feelings about the saud.

  3. And just one comment before the tolerance shaming begins!

    Gabriel, the Dubai company may be a very good one, but here’s the problem: there was a completely inadequate review, conducted by, among others, people who stand to benefit personally from the deal, the mandatory further 45-day review was inexplicably waived, and, let’s face it: when a state-owned company is bidding on providing port security and one of that country’s own ports has been used to move nuclear components to Iran, there’s just a bit of a problem.

    The Bush Administration has done a whole lot of chest-thumping about security, but they haven’t done a whole lot. There’s no good reason that private companies should be handling our port security at all — this is a matter that should be handled by the US Government.

    And politically, this is an incredibly stupid move, regardless of the qualifications of DP World. You’re going to turn over port security in, among other places, the city that was attacked on 9/11 to a company owned by the country that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from?

    By the way, are you aware of just how close the container facility in Elizabeth is to Newark Airport? It’s just across the interstate.

  4. zuzu, I’ve re-read your post. I see now that in the third paragraph you’re noting only the political problems with the deal and not listing reasons to refuse to do business with the emirates.

    I didn’t get a chance to read the thread on “tolerance shaming” that was here earlier (last week?) but I’m still chuckling over the idea. I hope I have time to go back and read it.

  5. Gabriel, you’re completely off the mark. DPW is government owned. The UAE government recognized the Taliban when nobody else did. Islamist-friendly? Check. The UAE’s royal family visited bin Laden in Afghanistan! This isn’t about Arabs or Islam. This is about a government that is friendly to political, American-hating Islamism.

    With all due respect, Zuzu is soft-pedalling it. No American port should ever come under the control of UAE state-owned companies, anymore than we should let any other terrorist-friendly state send its government agencies to run out infrastructure.

    Talk to me about a company from Qatar, and we can talk business. If you’re talking UAE state enterprise, I’m calling bullshit.

  6. Of course, I’m not talking about boycotting the UAE, or the private enterprises of any other Arab nation, which is a different question. I would even agree with using a private Dubai-based company, if it passed a careful review and didn’t have any ties to terrorists.

  7. The security of our ports should not be entrusted to any foreign entity nor to any private company. If this isn’t a governmental function, what the hell is?!

    So the gubmint hired all these airport screeners to work for the gubmint because the private industry was paying sub-standard wages and getting drones to do it. Then we turn around and give our ports to a private enterprise who will pay nothing and have us guarded by drones.

    The idiocy is simply mind-boggling. Nothing against the UAE, but I don’t think we ought let Lichtenstein or Andorra do it either.

  8. And just one comment before the tolerance shaming begins!

    Shaming? Why would we do that?

    I’m just glad you’re signing on to a recognition of the benefits of profiling.

  10. Robert, I’m not. As I said, a properly vetted foreign company, even an Arab one, is fine. A foreign government company is only as good as the government, and the UAE has one foot in the bad guys’ camp. Any assertion that I am making an argument based on ehtnicity or religion is not only without foundation, but calumny. I won’t try to interpret Zuzu’s position, as she speaks very well for herself.

  11. Profiling is not intrinsically connected to ethnicity, or religion, or any other particular descriptive grouping. It is a statement about statistical probability, and a belief that certain hard-to-quantify risks are associated with certain easy-to-observe proxy characteristics. The nature of those characteristics are utterly immaterial to the statistical reality that is being observed, and taken advantage of. In this case, the profile is being drawn on the basis of the political associations of the entity in question.

    If you aren’t profiling, then what are you doing? What is the basis for believing that this UAE firm should not get the contract, if not a belief that the risk of peril is statistically greater because of this firm’s associations?

  12. “If you aren’t profiling, then what are you doing? What is the basis for believing that this UAE firm should not get the contract, if not a belief that the risk of peril is statistically greater because of this firm’s associations? ”

    Robert, what you are doing is in fact due diligence, the belief that this STATE-owned firm is a risk is based on the previous actions of that STATE. Using past behaviour to predict nearly identical future behaviour does not fit your definition of profiling as “a belief that certain hard-to-quantify risks are associated with certain easy-to-observe proxy characteristics.”

  13. What is the basis for believing that this UAE firm should not get the contract, if not a belief that the risk of peril is statistically greater because of this firm’s associations?

    And what pray tell is the problem in that? The company in question is not being considered for a license to sell widgets in the US, but for the possibility of handing control of our major shipping ports to them.

    Certainly, the UAE’s poor positions on human rights and their utter contempt for democracy are enough to put questions in my mind about their fitness for such a powerful and trusted position in our country. The Dubai company is run by the powerful family that also is related to the family that runs their government. Their incestuous relationship and their complete control of their own country by way of economics and politics is the antithema to our concept of free enterprise and political structure.

    To speak of one you speak of the other.

    Also in Bushco too small a number of people have too much to gain if this goes through.

    Might I add that I have met persons of the ‘royal family’ (which is large and wide might I add) and I can tell you with confidence that they do not share our concept of inalienable rights. They also hold in contempt our constitutional liberties and see them as an obstacle to good governance by oppression, which so far as they are concerned, keeps the streets clean, the women subservient and the crime rate down. Nevermind how nice it is for the pocket book to run a government completely subservient to your own interests.

    They do not see our grappling with constitutional law and civil rights as an indication of strength, but of weakness; moral weakness and poor control.

    I personally don’t think the latest political bigotry against the religion of Islam is part of the equation here. It has to do with allowing a country/company that does not share in anyway our core values to run a very core portion of our security interest.

  14. “he’s getting awfully pissy with his critics for refusing to take his decision on trust.”

    Well, he’s simultaneously doing this AND saying that he had nothing to do with the decision. That’s gotta be the craziest thing I’ve ever heard of.

    “And, yet, you’re now arguing that because the emirates have had some Islamists and because they operate as the banking center of the Middle East, we must distrust the entire country.”

    Gabriel, the company is owned by the STATE of UAE. As others have said, the state does not have a great record regarding its relationship with Al Quaeda. It is not the “entire country” we distrust, it is the STATE. Just like mistrusting the Bush Administration doesn’t mean we mistrust our local Mayor, or our local schoolboard, or the man down the street.

    But the fact that this is a STATE OWNED company is important, and it has nothing to do with racial or ethnic bias. It has to do with the actions of that state.

  16. Other ryan, are you disputing that the UAE government’s recognition of the Taliban is a troubling hat-tip to political Islamism? Are you disputing that the UAE royal family met with OBL in Afghanistan? Are you disputing that DPW is run by the UAE government?

  17. Other ryan, please provide examples of xenophobia and Arab-bashing in this post or any of the comments.

    And remember, just as criticizing Israel isn’t synonymous with anti-Semitism, criticizing the UAE is also not synonymous with anti-Arabism.

  18. zuzu-

    I didn’t intend to imply that your post was xenophobic – at all. I actually think you’re spot on right about here:

    After spending five years conflating terrorism and the Middle East and of whipping up fears of attack and invasion

    I think it’s ironic that the xenophobia they’ve whipped up for all these years is biting them in the ass, though it’s sad for all of us that we have to live in that world. Bush et al are using muslim xenophobia to replace the communist bogie man, but then making all these side deals to enright their energy buddies – and they think no one will notice/care/do anything.

    As for exact examples of xenophobia – I think it’s permeated our culture in a most profound way. The instant newsmedia frenzy, politicians stumbling over themselves to bravely come out against an arab bad guy, and the visceral reaction of individuals. It’s not that there are no valid concerns – it’s that xenophobia is amplifying this reaction, and it’s so sad that this is one of the only bipartisan issues of late…

  19. other ryan, don’t make a charge of xenophobia and then back out of it by saying it’s pervasive. What, exactly, is it you’re finding to be specifically xenophobic in the opposition to this deal?

Comments are currently closed.