  
| 
| ||||||||||||
Your e-mails: What was the ports controversy really about?
 The Tioga Marine Terminal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is part of one of the ports involved. RELATED(CNN) -- United Arab Emirates-based DP World announced Thursday, after weeks of public and political debate, that it would transfer operation of six key U.S. ports to a U.S. "entity." As the dust settles on the failed deal, CNN.com asked readers for their thoughts on what was really behind the controversy: I think the controversy was first about security, since having another nation control our ports might not be the best idea. But the more interesting controversy came from Capitol Hill. I found it almost comical as the GOP saw for the first time the Democrats have an opportunity to use stronger homeland security in their campaigns. Does the president just not care about the rest of his party anymore or what? Pure politics. From what I understand, the reason for not going through with the deal was because terrorists have come from the UAE. Give me a break. I guess the ports can't be run by any U.S. company either. Remember Timothy McVeigh. In a word, the DPW controversy was about Islamophobia. Nationwide, our ports are operated by plenty of global corporations, some of which come from countries with track records even more questionable than the UAE. Both Singapore and the Philippines were interested in P&O -- and I didn't hear any whining about them. It is a foreign country owning the management of the ports that is the problem. Not a foreign company. There is a greater potential for terrorism. I don't like the idea of ANY country owning or controlling our infrastructure. I think the controversy was due to a genuine concern over security on the part of the American people and a growing dissatisfaction with our so called leadership. As far as the House and Senate go, it was all politics. They saw a way to once again hoodwink the Republican people into thinking they are doing it "for the people" when they are really only concerned about getting re-elected. All this was about was Democrats trying to NOT look like a party weak on national security in their effort to win the upcoming election. This controversy had nothing to do with national security. Republicans wary of the upcoming elections are doing anything they can to create distance between themselves and Bush. Even at the expense of foreign relations. Nobody cares that China runs a port in California. By creating a common enemy, foreign businesses, these politicians can point a finger and say "Look at them! We're trying to protect you from them!" (Where "them" refers to key allies in the war on terror) Isolationism didn't save us from WWII, why do politicians, and an uninformed constituency, believe it will work now? The Bush administration has been striking fear in our hearts with the terrorists this and the terrorists that. We believed him and now are afraid all the time. How he could then think we would not have a problem with another country in charge of our ports is beyond belief. He is a victim of his own success. The issue isn't this particular deal. The problem is that our borders are as porous as they were on Sept 10, 2001. Without much difficulty, the next terrorist weapon will arrive from the north, the south, through a port, or an airline cargo container. We know, deep down, we're not safer. This Dubai issue is a manifestation of that insecurity. This whole issue of the port security ownership, was based on a prejudice against those of Arab dissent. Not once was the issue of the former company being British even brought up within government debate or as an argument against foreign companies controlling port labor. If this was truly about foreign companies owning a stake in our ports then we should be discussing that, not the fact that a middle eastern company has the deal. We should be disgusted with our representatives and ourselves as a majority for being so two faced. The Bush administration is correct when they say that opposition to this deal assumes the ugly mask of racism, especially when we see that security measures will be largely unchanged. However, this argument is not, in all actuality, about Islamist terrorists -- rather, this argument is about corporate fundamentalism and globalization. Why is the world's greatest economy, "the last superpower" as my students like to say, outsourcing the operation of its ports? Yes, I understand that Americans are being employed and Americans are sitting on the Board, but the profits are going to a foreign bank, a foreign economy, and, I might add, this foreign company then is not subject to the rules of transparency that govern our own institutions (as reliable as they are, given that as I write this Andrew Fastow is being set up to take the fall for a Board-wide conspiracy to defraud its shareholders). As long as we continue to tolerate this system, we will continue to be its victims. Politics, of course. The UAE is an Arab country, and that's all the press and politicians needed to work up a frenzy in America. Too bad, UAE is on "our side". The politicians state that some 9/11 money went through UAE, etc. Well, the country that had the most to do with 9/11 is ours! We let the hijackers in the country, trained them at our facilities, refused to investigate them, etc. We will now have another "black eye" in the Arab world. This was really about the Bush administration trying to slip yet another crony (in this case, a crony organization) yet another choice government contract -- at the expense of the public safety. I applaud the congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- for shooting down this ill-advised piece of legislation. I'm deeply disappointed in the behavior of our Congress over this issue. I believe we have damaged our reputation as a place for free enterprise. This issue was created due to a complete lack of understanding and more importantly, the lack of will to understand. What happens to us now if we want to build ports in other countries? What happens if a U.S. based company wants to expand their business operations to the UAE? Should no U.S. investments be allowed in Iraq? 
|
| ||||||||||||
| © 2007 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map. |
 |
|
External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pay service with live and archived video. 
