I finally saw the movie "Syriana." We were going to the movies, and got there 5 minutes too late to see another alternative. So we watched Syriana. I can see why a lot of people didn't understand it. The plot was convoluted. But it made sense to me because I've been following these issues. Of course the story is a bit of a myth. It had all the coincidences and implausibilities of a Hollywood move. But it was, unfortunately, fairly accurate in it's portrayal of the world of Big Business as it sometimes behaves in reality. I've heard prosecutors talk. They do make deals when dealing with businesses. The good ones go after the "people responsible." But the bad ones will indeed let a group offer scapegoats. See the movie.
And then on Monday, came the news that the administration wants to let the United Arab Emirates (UAE) buy our Port Authorities. As the Times reports
“We’re not really debating whether the ports are secure,” said Thomas H. Kean, the group’s chairman. “We’re debating who should be running them. It’s the wrong question.”
Syriana was obviously about one of these little Gulf Coast Countries, and was probably about the UAE. So it made a good primer to the administrations decision. I listened to the reports all week and it sounded just like something out of the Syriana World. The UAE has an ambivalent relationship with the Islamic Extremists. [wanna little paranoia: see this?] The Bush Administration has the same with the UAE. Both groups are what is termed "compromised". They have secrets which the other knows, relationships that are dirty, and they are related through business.
That is why the Bush Administration was so enthusiastic about this. I doubt Bush directly benefits from this deal. Nobody is that stupid anymore. Rather it would promote his long term agenda and promote relationships that he would benefit from later. In Business loyalty means that you make deals that have their pay off down the line. UAE running port security would mean an influx of cash to US ports and to Republican Campaign Coffers.
This deal should go down. That doesn't mean a company belonging to the Sheiks in UAE can't run port operations. It's because this particular deal is corrupt and should go down. Any deal that allows exemptions from security concerns is a bad deal. And at a time when our port security is still an awful mess, a deal that allows compromised people to run compromised opportunity is inviting disaster. And the "Devil" never misses an opportunity to come in where invited. The 9/11 commission reports that our port security is awful.
I read that:
In approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.
This deal granted exeptions to this company that are unacceptable in any situation where foreign governments or companies operate on US soil. This coupled with Dubai's record of complicity with terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, tells me that this deal is very bad business. It needs to go down. At the very least they should be made to comply with the strictest of regulations that every other company doing business here should have to follow.
Chris
Posted by cholte at February 26, 2006 02:29 PM