The Dubai port deal fiasco

According to a major poll, Americans opposed the deal by an overwhelming 4 to 1 ratio, with 39 percent of Americans calling the deal a "major threat" to US security. It was quite amazing to be in the teapot amidst the tempest. Conservative and liberals who normally disagree -- and often strongly -- about how the Bush administration is fighting the War on Terrorism, did agree that Bush Jr. must have been out in the Texan sun too long when he agreed to the Dubai deal and expected it to be consummated without any trouble or opposition.

Actually, Bush was out to lunch again. He didn't know about the deal until it was brought to the public's attention. But then in his typical stubborn manner, he swaggered before the press and announced that he was pushing full steam ahead. He would not back down.

Bush did have some support. The powerful big business lobby was behind the deal. But, of course, Big Business would be in favour of selling the Statue of Liberty to Communist China in the name its new religion -- globalization -- if it could make a buck.

Some prominent politicians backed the deal. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Bob Dole, for example. Carter, bless his kind heart, must have been at that same lunch Bush attended. Slick Willie, on the other hand, had credibility problems, since he recently gave two speeches in Dubai for $250,000 a pop.

Meanwhile, Dole was going to make a bundle as a high powered lobbyist who was going to try to persuade Congress of the deal's merits. Some of the prominent conservative columnists who have been quite happy to have the Bush administration force American style democracy and Western values upon the Arab world, were now whining that opposing the Dubai deal was equivalent to Arab bashing. As the great Irish playwright Oscar Wilde might have said: Screaming xenophobia where more important issues need to be addressed is the last refuge of the unimaginative. In other words, the Bush apologists were more content in trying to shoot the messengers rather than critique the message.

The fact was that the Dubai port fiasco was marine security version of the Bush administration's handling of the Katrina disaster. Many Americans were stunned and even shocked to learn that the process of turning over port security to foreigners has been going on for awhile, that all the country's major ports are controlled by foreigners, and that a mysterious committee had made the port deal decision in secret.

The ideological hypocrisy of the proposed deal was quite evident. Bush would use the name of Karl Marx in vain before he would allow the US government to be -- heavens to mercy -- responsible for the country's port security. But here we had the Bush administration championing a deal that would make his nemesis Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez nod in approval -- a state-owned company operating some of our more important and security vulnerable ports.

There is no doubt that the failed Dubai port deal is one of the major blunders of the Bush administration. This is saying something, given the many blunders committed by the Bush administration, from the Iraq War to relations with other countries to disaster response. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader had it right when he called the Bush

administration "incompetent." Of course, that's something I've been writing about in this column for three years.

Remarkably, Bush's lack of diplomatic skill has broken up the governing Republican Congress coalition. As the respected American newspaper columnist David Broder pointed out: "The harmony that prevailed during most of Bush's tenure -- the deference a Republican-controlled Congress has generally shown to his wishes -- disappeared. Even the normal circumspection with which congressional Republicans treat the White House withered in the unexpected heat of this dispute."

And the botched deal added to the average American's growing lack of confidence in Bush's leadership. The polls show that Bush's job appeal is at its lowest point during his tenure. Many more Americans now realize that the would-be Emperor isn't wearing any clothes when it comes to national security. That's bad enough. But more disturbing -- there has been little real discussion and no action on how to really protect our ports, where only three percent of the cargo is checked for security reasons.

Daily Star columnist is Ron Chepesiuk is a Visiting Professor of Journalism at Chittagong University and a Research Associate at the National Defence College.