I don't expect you to read this.
The Latest in American Racism and Arrogance
A political rant
Hmmm, golf. Tiger Woods is pretty good at it; he went over to Dubai in 2004, in fact, and teed off on top of the Burj Arab Hotel. Dubai's a new, sleek and remarkably Western-styled city in the United Arab Emirates. The U.A.E. is a Middle Eastern nation on the Persian Gulf, which plants it right in one of the most dangerous chunks of real estate in all of the world. Two of the hijackers in the 2001 attacks came from the small nation (but let us not forget that Timothy McVeigh was an American, or that the attempted shoe-bomber Richard Reid was British).
Despite this, when considering that UBL and his al-Qaeda buds hate the West, chances are they're not too excited about a country inviting in rich American golfers, or, at least for a while, Michael Jackson. I don't think the fact that the U.A.E. is working with America to cut the head off the al-Qaeda operation or to train Iraqi security forces is doing much to foster good ties either.
Given their recent record, it is clear that the U.A.E. is someone we need on our side in the so-called War on Terror. Like Israel, they're a somewhat western-leaning oasis in a veritable - and literal - desert. Also like Israel, they aren't the perfect partner; Lord knows none of us were really digging Israeli retaliatory terrorist actions over the last fifteen years, among other things. But all things considered, it's better to have slightly imperfect - but overall loyal and likeminded - homies in an incredibly unfriendly, hostile neighborhood than no homies at all; while these guys may hold up the corner store on occasion, they're also helping you track down crack dealers.
But when Dubai Ports World won the bidding war over some American ports a few weeks ago, America lost its head. The obviously complaint: they're terrorists. Asks one xenophobic American: "They've already used our airplanes against us, why wouldn't they use our ships?"
If only the world were so easily categorized: a few thousand Arabs have joined terrorist groups -- and truly, a few "Middle Eastern" nations have sponsored terrorism (the pre-eminent one being Iran, which is a Persian country, which means they're indo-European and not Arabic [but this is neither here nor there]) -- this must clearly mean that all Arabs are terrorists. If we open up our country to them, it'll be a veritable shitstorm of destruction and suicide bombings.
Wrong.
First off, DP World wouldn't even be handling the security of said ports -- the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs service would, just like they always have. Said Secretary of Defense "Donnie Darko" Rumsfield, who is someone I hate but someone who is correct on this matter: "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."
So, uh, let me ask a pretty important question: How would these suicide bombings happen then? Would it be because a foreign ports company is running the logistics? So, hypothethically, this "logistics" company would be able to override the U.S. Coast Guard, who would approve all ship entries, check all boxes, and handle any threats of "rogue" ships launching towards the New York Harbor at full speed like the big boat in "Speed 2: Cruise Control" (but this time minus Sandra Bullock and plus a cargo bay full of explosives)? If anyone would be to blame for a terrorist attack then, it would be the Coast Guard, not DP World. Yes, things could happen -- we all saw governmental failures in full view back in September 2001. But again, any failures here would be our own.
But in a pretty awful bipartisan blunder, Congress, failed to get the memo about all of this. Instead, they caused a big fuss - as did mainstream America, only 17% of which approved of the deal. I can understand the ignorance of John Q. Public; at first, the thought of Arabs running American ports is a bit weird. But isn't it the job of Congress to see through the stupidity of the population as a whole?
If Congress had done its job, they would have seen we were arguably safer with the ports deal. First off, we would then be, in a way, forcing a Middle Eastern country to open a bit, to become a "global player." We would likewise be sending a message to the Middle East that we're not just a country that wants to come over and blow up buildings -- we want to help the Middle East grow. We would also show that being an ally with the United States has its perks. We would be alienating the radical fringe; you know, the al-Qaeda types.
Instead, we've alienated our allies by succumbing to ignorance and simple-minded racism. Arabs are terrorists. Arabs have bombed us and will bomb again. Arabs hate America. Arabs Arabs Arabs Arabs Arabs.
"They love the jihad. They wish to drink the blood of infidels."
Okay, maybe I'm over-reacting. Perhaps we're not that racist -- maybe we're just greedy. I mean, after all, we're the United States - fuck yeah we're the United States! We throw out the rule book whenever we want, cause last time we checked, we wrote it. We deserve the best right? I mean, don't we deserve everything in the world and more because we were born here?
And on this point, the disgruntled worker shows up right on cue with the million dollar question: "We've got plenty of good folks here in America. Why do jobs keep going overseas?"
Let me initially point out that the job isn't going overseas, it is staying overseas: DP World is buying the contract from a British company which has run the ports in question for decades.
Further, the jobs are going overseas because globalization is a reciprocal process and not a one-way street. We want the cheapest possible goods of the highest quality. Sometimes, then, we buy them from China; but if China started sucking, we'd go elsewhere. It's competition, it's social darwinism, and it is the way things work.
DP World is, simply put, one of the world's best in the industry. The Guardian, a British newspaper, calls "one of the most efficient port organizations in the world."
But this fact is of secondary impotance. The real deal is that the DP World deal is a means to an end: we can use this deal to show the world that America, too, is a global player; that we don't simply want to take but are willing to give in good faith. That we do not close ourselves off due to ignorance and/or misunderstanding. That good work deserves recognition. That we expect the best, and in turn, are willing to give our best to everyone else.
Instead, we dragged our nails on the chalk board for so long that yesterday DP World gave up on the deal.
In the process, we lost an opportunity to broadcast a message of legitimacy and good faith to the rest of the world. This is not only indecent, but potentially harmful seeing as we're the biggest debtor nation in the world; consider this snippet from an article in today's Washington Post:
"Where do you think that [America's] $724 billion [trade deficit] comes from? Let me tell you: It comes from the people who have the dollars. And in case you hadn't noticed, tops on that list are the Japanese who are selling us all those cars, Arabs selling us all that expensive oil, and the Chinese selling us the shirts on our backs, the athletic shoes on our feet and all those computers and flat-screen TVs in front of our noses.
If these folks suddenly get the idea that we don't really trust them enough to do business with them, and begin acting the way human beings do when they get poked in the eye, you could be looking at 8 percent mortgage rates, 6 percent unemployment, $4 gasoline, a $1.50 euro and a 9000 Dow."
I'll admit, this is a bit apocolyptic. But, man, the possibilities sure sound pretty awesome!
Way to go America!