by David Sirota
Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.
How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.
The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:
"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."
Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a U.S. taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the U.S.-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many U.S. jobs.
There is no better proof that our government takes its orders from corporate interests than these kinds of moves. That's what this UAE deal is all about - the mixture of the right-wing's goal of privatizing all government services (even post 9/11 port security!) with the political Establishment's desire to make sure Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy supersedes everything. This is where the culture of corruption meets national security policy - and, more specifically, where the unbridled corruption of on-the-take politicians are weakening America's security.
The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major U.S. security scandal with the same country we are simultaneously negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal.
Contributors
Links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(1766)
-
▼
February
(99)
- Bush's Carnival Tricks
- Why the Dubai port deal is dangerous to America
- Violence in Iraq, despair back home
- Bush and the Truthiness Taliban
- Somewhat Ironic, No?
- For Inspiration
- The President and the Ports
- John McCain: Any Port in a Storm
- Conspiracy 101
- Cheney and the Late Night Comics
- Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response t...
- Bush, Rats & a Sinking Ship
- GOP Says Bush Critics Hate America - Look Who's Ha...
- The Boy Who Cried Wolf
- They've Gotten The White House Talking Points
- The names have been changed to protect the guilty
- Fw: Nuclear Weapons: Oppose a Bad Nuclear Deal wit...
- White House/UAE "secret agreement"
- Destroying the Clean Water Act
- U.S. terror fears, stoked by Bush, now bite him
- Iraq's 9/11, or a step toward civil war?
- "Big Brother" watching e-mail, computer data: US r...
- The Dirty Little Secret Behind the UAE Port Securi...
- Our God is Better than Your God!! Or Wait Till you...
- Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
- A Test for the New Justices
- Cheers and Jeers
- At Duke's place, bribery was on the menu
- On the Waterfront: Time to Give Ports Back to the ...
- The Mensch Gap - New York TimesThe New York TimesF...
- The dying scandal that keeps growing
- After Neoconservatism
- Don't Punish the Palestinians
- Permanent Bases In Iraq
- Bush's Policies Don't Promote Growth
- What It Means To Be A Republican
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Can Cheney be his own Declassification Machine?
- Judge Orders Spying Documents Released
- DeWine: "We don't want to have any kind of debate ...
- Rx for GOP doom
- In the Mideast, the Third Way Is a Myth
- Cheney's got a girlfriend
- Cheney, "A Beer or Two," and A Gun
- Leaders Lead
- Shoot first, avoid questions later
- Even the Right Say's It's Wrong
- Let the Whitewashing Begin
- If It's Sunday, It's Conservative
- Dream On, Condi
- So Who's Really Full of B(uck) S(hot)?
- U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Comp...
- Was Cheney Drunk?
- Bush in the GOP Crosshairs
- Rumsfeld and Cheney Revive Their 70's Terror Playbook
- With no word from Cheney, "The Daily Show" stands in
- Not a Laughing Matter
- Democrat Questions Cheney's Role In Leak
- American Bar Association To Oppose Domestic Spying
- Senators: Cheney Should Be Probed In Leak
- Katrina Report Spreads Blame
- Laura Bush: Hillary's Criticism is Out of Bounds
- The Trust Gap
- Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?
- White House Debuts Iraq War Infomercial
- The Beginning of the End?
- Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq Intelli...
- Bush's Propaganda Alert: Code Red
- Wiretaps fail to make dent in terror war
- The Parent Trap - New York TimesThe New York Times...
- Lieberman's Lapdog Act Not Playing Well
- Gonzales Says "Just Trust Us"
- On the President's Warrantless Wiretapping Program
- Fw: Traumatic Brain Injury Program Is Zero-Funded ...
- The Real Bush Energy Plan
- Burn, Baby, Burn - New York TimesThe New York Time...
- Fw: Federal Budget Choices: State Security or Huma...
- Is George Bush Opening Your Mail?
- Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee
- Spying, torture - - is it all hypothetical?
- Bush Team: Again, Not Too Bright
- Joint Chiefs wield mighty pen
- The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
- A 9/11 Conspirator in King Bush's Court?
- Last Gasp of a Lame Duck
- Iraq war is costing $100,000 per minute
- Fw: Walmart
- A Boehner in the Henhouse
- Iraq, NIger, And The CIA
- Life in the New Amerika
- Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mide...
- What Really Happened
- 9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the Hard Questions
- Money for nothing, chicks for free
- Kucinich Blasts Bush's State of the Union
- Is the World Safer Today?
- Bush on spying, or the "duty to speak with candor"...
- Same old song
- Illegal wiretaps could've prevented 9-11? Not quit...
-
▼
February
(99)
No comments:
Post a Comment