This weekend the White House has signaled agreement to submit the controversial so-called "Ports Deal" to a new and fuller review. This was the business deal whereby a United Arab Emirates company based in Dubai, was to take over significant operations at six leading American ports. The reconsideration is the result of an obliging offer by the Dubai company to submit the planned transaction to a second and broader U.S. review of potential security risks. This comes with fortuitous timing, rescuing the administration from a public relations gaffee with its own party that defies easy understanding.
Key Republican congress members, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, had been planning legislation in a roughly bipartisan intent to block or delay the deal until more was known. This was to take place at the end of the current week-long Congressional break. Moreover, it was to be in defiance to White House opposition - for when the predictable objections and concerns to a Mideast nation taking over some of our ports were raised, President Bush inexplicably responded in an obtuse manner, saying the deal would proceed regardless, and threatening a veto of any delaying actions. The administration went as far as to imply that even Republican lawmakers which had long supported many of its other initiatives (like the recent nomination Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court) were in fact engaging in a form of racial profiling by voicing what should have been obvious: After 9/11, people would be predictably jittery in at the appearance of turning over port control to Mideast authorities.
Stung and insulted, many Republicans have righly responded with indignation, and in an interesting testimony to the continuing Public Relations carelessness, even ineptitude, of the administration, the "Ports Deal" has momentarily brought feuding Republican and Democrat leaders into rough consensus and unity. Its been somewhat a minor spectacle, an abject lesson in how not to conduct political relations. At the moment, Republican congressmen seem to be showing more mindfulness of security matters, or certainly the perception of them.
On closer examination, the scheme for the ports likely poses little threat to national security, and may even be called semi-routine. What makes the matter important is rather what it revealed about how out-of-touch in the PR sense the executive branch is with the legislative branch at present. For the President to ask (paraphrasing) `what's the difference between a Great British company and a Mideast one?' is to boggle the mind. One is a staunch ally, has been, since the War of 1812. The other is in a nation that had definite links, however indirect, to the 9/11 attack itself. This is Public Relations 101, or should have been. Its especially so, when one considers the periodic segments on Fox that warn of various points of vulnerability, and speak in concerned volume about them. To not think that control of harbors or docks, or anything at all related to them, would not raise some hackles in this time of war with Islamofascism, is beyond astonishing.
The clash does have the ironic effect of making one wonder about some of the more long standing opposition, which claims the admin goes on the offensive with attacks whenever questioned. It sure looks that way --- Senator Frist and Representative King of NY were among those clearly smarting under the casual disregard for their concerns and what they termed the `playing of the race [profiling] card' against them. It was even enough to bring key pundits like Ann Coulter and Rep King to talking on MSNBC this week about their ire and simple point of what the real issue was: the `Ports Deal' may well be harmless, and not in any way put in jeopardy national security. But the executive branch should have realized that it had to make that case first, and not expect something of that magnitude to be taken `on faith' given other clear oversights in security matters, such as the continuing loose hand on the border.
For now, in speech Sunday, Senate Majority Leader stated that he will suggest that the Senate wait for results of fresh review that World DP (the Dubai firm) has obligingly offered. So any legislation to delay or block the deal is tabled for now. Senator Frist did say that he oversight hearings to continue to examine the agreement and its implications on the port and dockyard security of the nation. With this, the affair will now blow over for now. With this coming so soon on the heels of the `Cheney gun accident' affair with its lag in reporting, what remains is the vital needed for the administration to wake up to its mulish handling of PR and start speaking up more beforehand, rather than after, to prevent misunderstandings. One could wish Ari Fleischer could be enticed by a large sum to come out of retirement till '08. Experienced and/or new voices are clearly needed. If as has been claimed, this was another case of the right-hand not talking to the left, or of the State Department failing to inform the POTUS and Bush was truly surprised, then it is all the more reason for admin to demand better work of its go-betweens.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In addition to the concerns about the Bush admin’s public relations that you have pointed out, this controversy with the Dubai company also highlights another problem: what is our policy towards dealing with companies who are either (innocently) geographically situated near or dangerously ideologically affiliated with those who would consider themselves our enemies? Do we have a set methodology for determining one from the other? Are we asking questions of where a money trail could lead, or do we assume that because a company shares our “market” economic ideology, that it is ‘good?’
No one can deny that Dubai is a wealthy city with a diverse economy, a place that has fully embraced the things Americans most seem to prize: a market-driven economy, displays of wealth, and grand-style endeavors that are supposed to be products of a free trade of ideas and accomplishments of personal ambition. But is that truly what has been absorbed? Is that all? Are the citizens of the UAE actually liberal, as we define the word in Western civilization? Lest we forget, (and we received repeated reminders of it this past week) one of the 9/11 terrorists was born in the UAE, and Dubai banks may be funneling money that is used for terrorist activities. Is our goal to use economics and expansion of markets to advance our social ideals so that future generations consider them self-evident? Is that the best way to go about inducing social change?
This past week was tennis’ Dubai International Championships, which gives one of the largest money prizes of any tournament. One of the athletes competing was Sania Mirza, an 18-year-old rising in the tennis rankings, who is also Indian and a Muslim. Last September, she received threats from Islamist groups that if she didn’t eschew tennis playing skirts, and instead cover her legs and wear something more “appropriate” than skirts and tight-fitting athletic shirts, she would be “prevented from playing” and has since had to be protected by a security detail. Here we have two contrasting images: the embrace of Western style displays in a Muslim country, and a Muslim athlete who was threatened by Islamists. How deep does belief in the West in the former really run? Does it only run as far as the pocketbook, or have Western ideals themselves, including secularism and liberalism, actually been absorbed?
These are questions that need answers, issues that require discussion leading to coherent policy. Western civilization is already in danger of collapsing from within, and as China and other regions become stronger we need to better understand our own values and how those are being exported and adopted, and certainly consider whether similarity of belief in money matters also means similarity of belief in values.
The inevitable fallout from the failure of the ports deal: in the March 20th issue of Newsweek, columnist Robert J. Samuelson discusses the Dubai Ports World deal and accuses politicians of “posturing,” writes that the “grandstanding…damages American issues” and “is a public relations disaster in the Middle East” because the UAE has been an ally to our military, and perhaps more importantly, wants to be part of the world economy – on this basis, I assume that Samuelson expects that they will behave. He then discusses the possible erosion of confidence in the dollar because of ‘stigmatization.’
All of this strikes me as a different type of fear-mongering (a term Samuelson also uses in discussing the strategy behind the Democratic senators on this issue) than the one used to question security risks due to the ports deal. Now, so this line of thinking goes, the UAE and other friendly mid-East governments are going to penalize us for this affront and question our allegiance to them. But isn’t that assuming that the same things drive them as drive us? Do they think we are denying them the opportunity to believe in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” because we aren’t allowing one of their companies a role in our port operations? If they are so desperately eager to be part of the West, isn’t the most obvious option for them to leave behind dictatorships (much less theocracies) and embrace equal rights for men and women, etc? Or maybe the truth is that they just like our golden baubles, and want the wealth without embracing the non-economic values that helped to achieve that wealth. At this point in history, do we want rich partners who only like us for our money, but could do without all the Western value “stuff” that used to define us? There should at least be room for meaningful debate on the subject.
Let’s consider Turkey, a secular Muslim nation and partner in the “War on Terror” eager to join the European Union. Without delving into the history of the country, it’s safe to say that Turkey expresses a strong ethnocentricism that is incompatible with minority populations, most prominently Christians and Kurdish Muslims. Indeed, the Turkish government has taken strong actions to suppress both these populations since becoming a modern state (for example, the infamous forced relocation, seizure of property, and desecration of Orthodox sites in 1955) in favor of their ethnic identity. (By this, I do not mean to deny Greek retaliations against Turkey or the terrorist activities of those supporting a recognized Kurdistan.) I’ve often heard Turkey referred to as the example of how Islamic values and the modern world can co-exist, yet they do not display the religious/ethnic freedom and liberal attitudes that the West embraces, or at least, not for all their citizens. Western countries also have not afforded all their citizens these same rights, but these are seen as stains on their history, abhorrent acts, not something fundamental.
Back to Samuelson – his underlying argument reminds me of one I’ve referred to here before: Jane Jacobs' contention that since the Depression, every policy decision we make comes down to jobs, with “unemployment” being the term we most fear. I suspect that the “need jobs” argument has also played a role in the devaluation of our universities from places of higher learning with a focus on liberal education to “credentialing” factories, which in itself plays a role in the mindset of university-educated folk who think Western values are synonymous with a subset of economic values and can be summed up with the word “money.” TS Eliot’s “The Hollow Men” could, with poetic license, be applied to this group, and how apt the lines “This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper” are for our own civilization.
After reading over my previous comments, I realized clarification of my viewpoint was needed: I am not an isolationist, nor do I believe our government should dole out punishments to every nation that does not share our views. I do, however, believe in the superiority of Western civilization and think our policies need to reflection preservation and protection of that, and the question of the spread of our economic values arises frequently enough for us to develop a clear, far-sighted policy.
Post a Comment