Wednesday, February 22, 2006
By David Sirota, at Working for Change Blog -- Wednesday 22 February 2006
Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.
How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.
The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:
"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."
Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a US taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the US-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors to export so many US jobs.
There is no better proof that our government takes its orders from corporate interests than these kinds of moves. That's what this UAE deal is all about - the mixture of the right-wing's goal of privatizing all government services (even post 9/11 port security!) with the political Establishment's desire to make sure Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy supersedes everything. This is where the culture of corruption meets national security policy - and, more specifically, where the unbridled corruption of on-the-take politicians are weakening America's security.
The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major US security scandal with the same country we are simultaneously negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal.
Source: Working for Change Blog.
Bill Spier: David is correct with this information. You see, big U.S. assets have co-mingled with or moved into foreign hands for as long as I can remember. In the seventies, the Japanese were on a buying spree in the U.S. They bought some silly things like Rockefeller Center—an American icon. I am not sure who owns it now, but it might be some Saudi -- maybe the same one who owns a big chunk of Citibank. But the idiot occupying the White House must have known that this deal was going down as part of the “free trade” agreement with UAE. Perhaps his old man's Carlisle Group (the outfit that the bin Laden family are heavily invested in as well) nudged this one.
And, oh brother, are Republicans crazed over the disclosure of the port deal. They have been taking payoffs from "multi-nationals" for eons. The border state folks, obsessed with poor Mexicans crossing over to make a living, better watch out. If 50,000 or so of these poor folks pooled their wages for a decade or so, they could buy Boeing.
As for Bush, in the words of Digby: “At least it will be satisfying to see Bush toasted irrationally, since he lit the match."
Donate to DemLog, a project of Marcus Comton (click on box below to go to PayPal and donate). Thank you very much: