Choosing friends wisely

The more I think about the recent Dubai ports deal, the more I think that our leaders have really chosen political pandering over serious leadership. I am shocked at how overwhelming the political opposition has been over the last week. In my limited view, the deal would have been a net gain and an important strategic partnership.

A number of people in my company do business in Dubai regularly. I’ve long thought, if more places in the Middle East were like Dubai, the world would be much safer and more prosperous. To hear it described by my colleagues, it is Las Vegas times ten. A Canadian Londoner said it is more American than America.

I always wondered, if these descriptions are true, why we don’t hear more about the UAE? It is a capitalist success story, right in the heart of the Middle East. They’ve made a huge turn to establish an economy that looks beyond oil.

I also wished, quietly, that other leaders in the area would develop a healthy sense of envy.

Now, no friendship is perfect. The official stance of the UAE is not to recognize Israel. It is run by a monarchal family. Men still dominate business and politics (although Western female visitors are treated as equals), and they don’t do well on a number of human rights measures.

This is where our leadership really needs to do the cost-benefit, and make the case. Bush did so, too meekly in my opinion, and almost no one else argued the case on its merits.

Those merits include strengthening a mutually-interested relationship with a country that has proved itself to be an ally. The UAE has really extended itself with support for our military. They condemned 9/11 and chose sides: ours.

Regarding the safety of our ports, I don’t see how UAE ownership of certain operations makes us more or less safe than British ownership. The vulnerabilities exist regardless. The shipping business knows very few borders.

I would even speculate that such a deal would make us safer. I think that’s how Bush sees it, too.

If the sheiks have a multi-billion dollar stake in the operations of our ports, security is in their interest, too. Here’s how I put it in a note to Michelle Malkin, with whom I respectfully disagree on this issue:

[...] ownership of logistics operations at US ports, by the Dubai-based company, might actually be healthy. That company would have a compelling financial interest in the security of those ports -- it might even be useful to have a Middle Eastern company actually invested in our welfare. Would 9/11 have happened if the Twin Towers were owned by sheiks? Mutual interests make for tighter bonds. Or put another way, finance usually trumps ideology.

Put another way, we push our borders out. The UAE becomes a self-interested partner, essentially part of the US infrastructure, halfway around the world.

Back to politics. Kudos to John McCain, earning his maverick title (for once!) in bucking political trends. Otherwise, our national hysteria makes it appear that we are unwilling to engage meaningfully with the hard questions. And it makes our allies wonder what we stand for.

Am I naïve? Let me know...

Comments

[Kevin (QC)]

You're only being a little naïve. It was never a security issue for me in opposing the port terminals deal, it was a matter of trusting the UAE's priorities. The reason lies in your question: "Would 9/11 have happened if the Twin Towers were owned by sheiks?"

Yes. The radical Islamists don't care if a target is owned by other Muslims. Especially if the other Muslims don't toe the Islamist line. And that's what scares me about the UAE or any Muslim government. When push comes to shove Islam will always come first with them, and that makes any alliance with us second place.

Of course, I'm not sure in this day and age we should trust any foreign government to run vital infrastructure here at home.

The DPW deal made good economic sense, but I was never convinced it made good common sense.

[The Gentle Cricket]

I'm torn on the issue. My initial reaction, like so many, was one of disgust. I couldn't believe the deal. But, the more I learn about it, the more comfortable I became. I'm still not convinced it would be a good decision. Then again, we could use as many friends as possible in the region. The UAE has been a great ally since 9/11, and I hope this mess hasn't soured our relationship too badly. However, I do wish it came to Bush finally using his Veto power.

[WayneS]

I didn't know John McCain supported the UAE deal. Good for him. I'm not always happy with what he does, but I would take him as the next Republican President.
Like others, the Dubai deal didn't sound good instinctively, but the more I learned about it, the better I felt.
Our politicians are supposed to be public servants and leaders, which means they are supposed to do what is best for the long-term interest of the general public, and lead us to the right conclusions when we don't have all the information. This is another example where they followed the polls to serve their own interests, not ours.