UAE Ports: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs?
This week President Bush not only stirred the pot with the Democrats as usual, but he has also left his own party in an uproar announcing that the United Arab Emirates has been approved to run shipping operations in several U.S. ports. Allowing foreign owned companies to manage shipping in our ports is not a new thing. In fact, a Great Britain company--the company selling these rights, has already been managing these ports for years. Likewise, the a company from People's Republic of China is managing ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. The current deal will initially cost the UAE 6.8 billion dollars which is a good deal for Great Britain. The U.S. will also earn profits from leasing these ports to the UAE but, considering all of the implications, do the benefits of this deal outweigh the costs? President Bush and his administration seem to think so.
If anything can be taken from this decision thus far, it is the fact that Bush has finally created a primarily bipartisan government. The only problem is that almost everyone seems to be against him. In the past I have supported President Bush on many of his decisions. I believe that liberating the people in Iraq from a senseless dictatorship and its terrorists is a worthy cause. Therefore, I was spellbound when the Bush administration initially announced that a country from the Middle East, a country geographically close to Iraq, would manage some of our ports. However, my initial reaction was an emotional reaction without all of the facts.
Ultimately, no foreign countries should be able to manage our ports. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to keep our homeland safe from terrorists and as Americans; we have a greater vested interest in regards to port security. However, that is not the current state of reality and that wouldn’t guarantee 100% safety anyway. The reality is that the U.S. has been working its way into a Global economy for several years and now we’re seeing the affects of such “climate” changes. This means that today, some of our ports, airports, product manufacturers, and many other entities are managed or owned by foreign organizations. In all fairness, if we’re opening our borders to one country, I do not think it’s right to close them to another unless that other country specifically participates in acts of terrorism. After reviewing the facts that are currently available to me, I've concluded that the UAE poses no threats to our shoreline.
Some have argued that a portion of the 9/11 highjackers were residents of the UAE. That in itself is a poor argument because we allowed British companies to manage these ports; a country that was itself bombed by three of its own Islamic citizens. Besides, whoever manages the operations of these ports will not be the entity responsible for security anyway. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Customs Officials will still be in charge of security. If one argues that we need to beef up security at the ports regardless of which country manages it, then I would agree with that idea since 85% of incoming cargo are unchecked.
Other than security, here are some important benefits of having the UAE as allies:
1. In 2003, the US and UAE together participated in $4.6 billion in trade while the U.S.'s portion of that amount was $3.5 billion.
2. The UAE gave the U.S. $100 million for hurricane Katrina efforts.
3. The UAE's country in itself lies to the south of Iran which would give our military good strategic position in the event that Iran attacks Israel.
4. The UAE has a bustling economy. Helping UAE grow its economy would inherently help other countries in the Middle East as well.
5. UAE, although having terrorists residing in their country, have assisted the U.S. in outing the terrorists that live there.
The benefits of allowing the UAE to manage our ports outweigh the costs.
What I find most compelling with this whole situation is that Democrats are caught in a catch-22 with this situation. Here's a party that has positioned itself against every Bush decision since his re-election in 2004. In a sense, they must tread lightly because of their past positions. For example, the Democrats are well known for being weak in the war on terror and have continually stated that Iraq and other Arab nations pose no threat to the U.S. They systematically claim that Hussein has no WMD's and that we're entering Iraq in vein. We apparently have nothing to fear, and all noted fear is Republican propaganda. Because of this, they cannot possibly state that they are concerned with port safety. It would be too hypocritical. However, if they don't acknowledge port safety, then they're still weak on national security.
If anything can be taken from this decision thus far, it is the fact that Bush has finally created a primarily bipartisan government. The only problem is that almost everyone seems to be against him. In the past I have supported President Bush on many of his decisions. I believe that liberating the people in Iraq from a senseless dictatorship and its terrorists is a worthy cause. Therefore, I was spellbound when the Bush administration initially announced that a country from the Middle East, a country geographically close to Iraq, would manage some of our ports. However, my initial reaction was an emotional reaction without all of the facts.
Ultimately, no foreign countries should be able to manage our ports. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to keep our homeland safe from terrorists and as Americans; we have a greater vested interest in regards to port security. However, that is not the current state of reality and that wouldn’t guarantee 100% safety anyway. The reality is that the U.S. has been working its way into a Global economy for several years and now we’re seeing the affects of such “climate” changes. This means that today, some of our ports, airports, product manufacturers, and many other entities are managed or owned by foreign organizations. In all fairness, if we’re opening our borders to one country, I do not think it’s right to close them to another unless that other country specifically participates in acts of terrorism. After reviewing the facts that are currently available to me, I've concluded that the UAE poses no threats to our shoreline.
Some have argued that a portion of the 9/11 highjackers were residents of the UAE. That in itself is a poor argument because we allowed British companies to manage these ports; a country that was itself bombed by three of its own Islamic citizens. Besides, whoever manages the operations of these ports will not be the entity responsible for security anyway. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Customs Officials will still be in charge of security. If one argues that we need to beef up security at the ports regardless of which country manages it, then I would agree with that idea since 85% of incoming cargo are unchecked.
Other than security, here are some important benefits of having the UAE as allies:
1. In 2003, the US and UAE together participated in $4.6 billion in trade while the U.S.'s portion of that amount was $3.5 billion.
2. The UAE gave the U.S. $100 million for hurricane Katrina efforts.
3. The UAE's country in itself lies to the south of Iran which would give our military good strategic position in the event that Iran attacks Israel.
4. The UAE has a bustling economy. Helping UAE grow its economy would inherently help other countries in the Middle East as well.
5. UAE, although having terrorists residing in their country, have assisted the U.S. in outing the terrorists that live there.
The benefits of allowing the UAE to manage our ports outweigh the costs.
What I find most compelling with this whole situation is that Democrats are caught in a catch-22 with this situation. Here's a party that has positioned itself against every Bush decision since his re-election in 2004. In a sense, they must tread lightly because of their past positions. For example, the Democrats are well known for being weak in the war on terror and have continually stated that Iraq and other Arab nations pose no threat to the U.S. They systematically claim that Hussein has no WMD's and that we're entering Iraq in vein. We apparently have nothing to fear, and all noted fear is Republican propaganda. Because of this, they cannot possibly state that they are concerned with port safety. It would be too hypocritical. However, if they don't acknowledge port safety, then they're still weak on national security.
posted by The Twilight Troll at 9:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home