UAE Paymaster For Bushes and Clinton

The irony of the Dubai Ports World controversy.

It's hard not to chuckle at the Democratic Party cash-in on “Portgate,” the proposed sale of big East Coast port operations to Dubai Ports World. (The company is owned by the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part.) The other day a Washington-based friend—formerly employed by a Democratic senator—called to share his amusement over the spectacle of politicians, most of them professed free-traders, demagogically accusing President Bush of reckless disregard for America's security.

“They got kicked in the head so many times they finally woke up,” he told me with mirthful sarcasm. “Now, all they have to do is say it every day until November: 'He's selling our ports to terrorists!' ”

To be sure, the Dubai Ports World controversy is replete with irony. Since 9/11, neither major political party has shown much interest in port security—retired Coast Guard Commander Stephen Flynn notes that Congress has declined to spend anything close to the $5.6 billion estimated by the Coast Guard as necessary “to make ports minimally secure.”

Moreover, the leadership of both parties supported the Clinton-backed “free-trade” agreement in 2000 with China, which caused a huge increase in container traffic—conceivably bomb-laden—into the U.S.

There is also something comical about the “opposition” party suddenly getting tough after caving in to Bush on so many issues—from invading Iraq to tax cuts favoring the rich to assaults on civil liberties. I can't take the Democrats seriously when it's revealed that their fundraiser-in-chief, Bill Clinton, husband of Senate Portgate critic Hillary, advised Dubai's leaders last month on how best to navigate the ports crisis. He was paid $450,000 in 2002 to give speeches in Dubai, and his presidential library, in Little Rock, has received at least $500,000 from officials of the United Arab Emirates.

But beneath all the posturing lie serious questions and misdeeds by the president. For one thing, the initial decision not to invoke the 45-day review period required by law is more evidence that George Bush is running an imperial presidency that would make Richard Nixon envious.

Considering the president's inattention to Richard Clarke's warnings about al-Qaida before 9/11, I suppose it's possible that the president wasn't aware of the sale. But it's just as likely that his overweening arrogance makes him think that he can get away with anything.

Then there's Bush's free-market hypocrisy (nicely dovetailed with Hillary Clinton's free-trade hypocrisy). State-owned Dubai Ports World is mostly immune from the “natural” market pressures so dear to the right-wing ideologues infesting the executive branch. Why is there no outcry from the economic purists? Why not insist on competitive bidding, port by port?

But the worst aspect of Bush's behavior is his aggressive, rapid-action defense of the ports' purchasers. The contrast with his slow-motion response to Hurricane Katrina is so striking that it makes you wonder what's so urgently important about the deal's going through.

In truth, no one should be surprised by Bush's energetic promotion of economic multi-culturalism given his family's close ties to the Gulf States and the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Oil politics in Washington has long dictated special treatment for the Gulf States (we rescued Kuwait, after all, not Rwanda), but the Bushes are particularly devoted to the notion of favored-fiefdom status.

The Mideast roots of Nouveaux Texans, like the Bushes, are in some ways as deep as in Midland, scene of the younger Bush's checkered business career.

To call the Bushes' oil ventures largely unsuccessful would be accurate, but it would overlook the startling 1990 award of exclusive offshore-drilling rights to Harken Energy by the Emirate of Bahrain, another Gulf State. While the deal may have seemed illogical to many on business grounds (Harken had never drilled for oil underwater), Bahrain's political calculation was utterly rational: George W. Bush, son of the then sitting president, was a Harken shareholder, director and member of the company's “exploration advisory board.” Also rational was the market's response: Bahrain's selection of Harken pushed the company's share price up a dollar, to $5.50 from $4.50, and six months later the dauphin of Midland sold two-thirds of his stock, for a total of $848,560.

I'm not suggesting that any member of the Bush family has a direct financial interest in the sale of Peninsular & Oriental's ports business to Dubai Ports World. (And no, all Arabs don't look alike.) But it's a safe bet that the Bushes are well acquainted with people who have a lot of money riding on its successful completion.

And, to be evenhanded, I note that in the early '90s, the George H.W. Bush presidential library received at least $1 million from Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and “the people of the United Arab Emirates.”

There is a genuine security issue at stake. Granted, container terminals cannot be made terrorist proof. Two years ago, a U.S. oil-company chairman told me privately that he had participated in a business-sponsored study of what could be done to protect pipelines, ports and oil refineries from terrorist attacks. The conclusion: almost nothing because of the vast amounts of cargo and real estate involved. Terrorism was a political problem, he said, and the smartest thing we could do was to shut up about “regime change” and encourage rapprochement with Iran.

Nevertheless, the U.S. can reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. And we can't just ignore the links between the United Arab Emirates and Osama Bin Laden posited by the 9/11 Commission—given bin Laden's role as quartermaster and shipping agent to the Afghan Muhajedeen (and the CIA) in the war against the Soviets, such connections with the port of Dubai are quite plausible.

We would be somewhat safer with a company from a friendly European country minding our ports. But Bush's political blunder has newly nationalist Americans asking: Why can't we mind our own businesses?

Previous · Next

USERNAME
PASSWORD
Subscriber? · Lost password? Lost username? · More help