[Dialogue] It's the Corporation, Stupid

Fri Feb 24 16:21:51 EST 2006

AlterNet

It's the Corporation, Stupid

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on February 23, 2006, Printed on February 24, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/32699/

So, aside from the fact that it's politically idiotic and at least
theoretically presents a national security risk, just what is wrong with the
Dubai Ports deal?

As President George W. Bush actually said, "I want those who are questioning
it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is
held to a different standard than a Great British company. I'm trying to
conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, we'll treat
you fairly."

So, what's wrong with that? There's our only president standing up against
discrimination and against tarring all Arabs with the same brush and all
that good stuff. (The fact that it was Mr. Racial Profiling speaking, the
man who has single-handedly created more Arab enemies for this country than
anyone else ever dreamed of doing is just one of those ironies we regularly
get whacked over the head with.)

OK, here's for starters. We have already been warned that, should we back
out of the DP deal, the United Arab Emirates may well take offense and not
be so nice about helping us in the War on Terra -- maybe even cut back its
money, as well as its cooperation. This is a problem specific to the fact
that we are dealing with a corporation owned by a country: A corporation
only wants to make money, a corporation owned by a country has lots of
motives.

Second, this is a corporation, consequently its only interest is in making
money. A corporation is like a shark, designed to do two things: kill and
eat. Thousands of years of evolution lie behind the shark, where as the
corporation has only a few hundred. But it is still perfectly evolved for
its purpose. That means a corporation that makes money running port
facilities does not have a stake in national security. It's not the
corporation's fault any more than it's the shark's.

The president is quite correct that a "Great British" corporation has no
more or less interest in helping terrorists than an Arab corporation. It is
not the corporation that is supposed to have other interests -- it is
government. But as Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, said,
"We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that
we still want to have a robust global trading system."

"Balance" is the arresting word here -- keep your eye on "balance." We have
an administration that is absolutely wedded to corporate interests, both
American and global. It honestly believes that "free trade" is more
important than the environment and more important than the people. It has
repeatedly demonstrated it is willing to let both go in order to foster free
trade.

There is no "balance" in its consideration on these issues, and now it turns
out not much in "balancing" national security, either. The people running
this country -- and that includes most of the leaders of both parties --
have proven again and again they are perfectly willing to outsource American
jobs, American wage standards, and American health and safety standards all
for the sacred, holy grail of free trade. Why would it surprise us that
national security is ditto?

I am amused by Chertoff's use of the word "balance." Since the
administration has done zip, nada, zilch about port security, it's unclear
what he's trying to "balance." In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated it would
take $5.4 billion over 10 years to improve port security to the point
mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Last year, Congress
appropriated $175 million. The administration had requested $46 million,
below 9-11 levels.

As David Sirota points out, the administration has been negotiating a free
trade deal with the United Arab Emirates at the same time the port deal was
being negotiated. This whole thing is about free trade and the lock big
corporations have on our government to further free trade.

Sirota also points out you will see and hear almost no discussion of this
fact in the corporate news media. I have no idea whether DP World represents
a security threat, but U.S. News & World Report said in December that Dubai
was notorious for smuggling, money laundering and drug trafficking in
support of terrorists. I suppose the same could be said of New York, but it
doesn't sound pleasant.

Dubai is believed to be the transfer port for the spread of nuclear
technology by the Abdul Qadeer Khan network. David Sanborn, an executive who
ran DP World's European and Latin American operations, was chosen last month
by Bush to head the U.S. Maritime Administration, according to the New York
Daily News. It'll be interesting to see just how much power the free trade
lobby has over the political establishment.

Right now, both Democrats and Republicans are yelling about what appears to
be a dippy idea. Let's see what hearing from their contributors brings
about. 

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060224/b953158f/attachment-0002.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060224/b953158f/attachment-0002.gif