Its turn-back-the-clock day in the mainstream media and on Capitol
Hill. While polyester and Depeche Mode are far from the rage in
Congressional chambers and newsrooms, an overzealous fear of foreign
investment has been taken out of mothballs to cast a wide shadow
over the national security debate. Wistful of that heady decade of
relentless crusades against Japanese investment in United States
assets, a coalition of isolationists and the eternally grouchy has
found a new target: Dubai Ports World. And, oddly enough, a new
marksman has joined the firing squad: mainstream conservatives.
The economic and financial benefits of the transaction
are considerable. Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates-based
company, is renowned as one of the most efficient managers of
seaports in the world. The importation of cost efficiency and
competent management into U.S. ports at Philadelphia, New Orleans,
and Baltimore is a welcome derivative of free trade. What does the UAE get out of the deal? A stronger trade relationship with a
powerful and lucrative economy is but one of the benefits. The most
important advantage, arguably, is the political goodwill engendered
between trading partners and allies in a complex and far reaching
war on terror. But, regardless of those benefits, conservatives want
to ax the deal.
Never mind the usual suspects who loathe the very
concept of free trade: their motives are just as diverse as they are
ill-informed. The surprise is that conservatives are so riled up
over a relatively benign transaction. Benign, when compared to the
woeful level of vulnerability of this nations economic
infrastructure on other fronts: border security, airline screening,
to say nothing of whats being loaded into shipping containers at
the overseas departure point. The criticism of this deal is
tantamount to haranguing the Atlanta Airport for allowing Egypt Air
to service and manage airport gates. As the New York Times David
Sanger expressed in a Feb. 23 article: most experts seem to agree
on only one major point: The gaping holes in security at American
ports have little to do with the nationality of who is running
them.
While the notion of an Arab company managing our ports
is certainly likely to strike conservatives as disquieting, normally
rational-thinking people have been distracted by a cynical
manipulation of the debate.
Upon news of the approval of the Dubai Ports World
transaction, vague reporting and sloppy syllogisms pushed notions of
Al Qaeda operatives piloting fork lifts of radioactive cargo at the
port of Newark. In his Feb. 17 broadcast, CNNs Lou Dobbs asked if
the transfer met any reasonable test of a responsibility to secure
the national interest. Even conservative weblogs set torches and
wielded pitchforks, demanding the deal be stopped. However, Dobbss
motivation was more likely an allergy to free trade and foreign
investment: a contempt bred not by familiarity, but economic
blindness. By releasing a cathartic demand for more investigation
into the security ramifications of the sale, conservatives
unwittingly gave cover and credibility to isolationists like Dobbs.
Bedfellows have rarely been stranger.
However, as information began to fill the void, some
critics took a deep breath. As Jim Geraghty tersely wrote in his
blog at National Review Online, Weve been snookered. The
controversy over this port sale has been driven by a great deal of
vague, ominous and sloppy language thrown around by lawmakers, the
media and bloggers.
Thankfully, as fact reins in rumor, the debate has
become more measured. This development is good news for the abject
search for the truth (not to mention the Bush Administration) and
bad news for the 20-year class reunion of anti-free traders and
isolationist zealots. As Lou Dobbs profiled what appears to be the
Bush administration's special relationship with Dubai, Dubai's
friends in high places on K Street, and those serious questions
about national security, many have already addressed those
concerns.
In a February 23 article, the Washington Posts Paul
Blustein, to his credit, reported that Homeland Security (DHS) sat
first chair on the governments investigation into the transaction.
In addition, DHS had a favorable view of the Dubai Ports World
because the company participates in a U.S. program to screen
containers before they are put on U.S.-bound ships. Those
responsible for performing vital security functions, like the Coast
Guard, will retain that responsibility. These facts are a far-flung
reality from the notion that the Bush Administration considers our
nations port security a fungible good.
Amidst such a contentious, but erratic, debate, one
thing is manifestly obvious: the White House is ill-prepared for the
fluidity of the blogosphere. By hewing to a press room philosophy
that is structured around a reliably paced 24-hour news cycle, the
Bush Administration is highly vulnerable to quick flashes of
information and the concomitant change in the debate. By simply
crossing their fingers for luck while observing the metamorphosis of
rumor into conventional wisdom, the White House has lost the ability
to drive the debate and assumed a passive role of response and
panic, instead of exercising the active, confident determination
that wartime leadership demands.
Charles Simpson is a research analyst for the Media Research
Centers Business & Media Institute.
The Last Days of Disco and Dubai
February 23rd, 2006 2:00 PM
Font Size