Don't Buy Dubai?
Why Dubai? journalists are asking. Why are the Bushites so intent on this deal to turn over significant elements of key U.S. ports to a Dubai corporation owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates?
Meanwhile, Bushites and even some on the left are hinting---or coming right out and saying---that the opposition to this deal is not only misguided but racist, or at least xenophobic.
Are they right? Sure, some of it is racist and xenophobic. And some of it is just wanting to take care of your own. For there are distinctions to be made here. Seeing the world as Us versus Them is often destructive, self-destructive and perhaps above all, inaccurate. It's most dangerous when unconscious, but also when irrational. It leads to hate, fear and violence, and the fevers of war.
But there is something real here. First of all, the impulse to protect American ports in a time of supposed particular danger by keeping them under American control is common sense---the sense of the commons. While the practical effects of such a deal can be debated, this impulse leads to another.
In discussing this the other day, a friend told me how he had just gotten a new American Express card and had a question about one of its benefits. He called American Express to ask about it, and was answered from India. It made him angry.
Is this irrational? Not exactly. Because the export of jobs to other countries is having a big effect on Americans, particularly young people just graduating from college with loads of loan debt, who can't find the kind of entry level tech world jobs that have gone to India and elsewhere. New statistics show that the U.S. average family income declined 2.3% from 2001 to 2004; even though the already rich did better, the lower 40% brought the average down. Wages went down an average of 6% in the period. From 1998-2001 income went up 17.5%.
Certainly the export of jobs is not solely responsible. But neither is it irrelevant. So is Dubai a symbolic expression of this kind of dissatisfaction? Maybe, maybe not, but at least one analyst believes it is related in the real world.
David Sirota says the Dubai deal is part of a Bushite attempt to establish free trade agreements with UAE---in talks ongoing right now-- like they have with China. Sirota points out that the government pushed for a loan to allow Brits to sell nuclear technology to China, despite security concerns, with help from Congressional free traders who "made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the US-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many US jobs."
Others who may or may not support so-called free trade recognize that Dubya hearts Dubai because they're his kind of people--super-rich global corporations, that is--and that trumps national security any old time. But it is worth everyone considering that others are connecting the dots a little differently, and however the Beltway crowd rationalizes it, they're dealing with more and more people living elsewhere with the jobs that used to go to their children, spouses, neighbors and friends. And themselves.
Fearing unreal threats, and reacting irrationally and unconsciously to difference is one thing. But taking care of your own is another. It's the survival reason, and it's powerful. So powerful that it can get out of control and become xenophobia and racism. But let's not confuse them.
UPDATE: Rassmussen's poll shows overwhelming opposition to the Dubai deal. All of 17% of those surveyed thought the deal should be completed.
On Turning 73 in 2019: Living Hope
-
*This is the second of two posts from June 2019, on the occasion of my 73rd
birthday. Both are about how the future looks at that time in the world,
and f...
5 days ago
1 comment:
I was surprised to read the other day that the port in question isn't run by Americans even now. It's run by some British company. So, it's not really anything new having a foreign company control the port.
Whether we want an Arab country controlling it is another question althogether but, as has been pointed out, it would mostly be a change in upper level management. The same people would likely still be working at the lower levels and they might well be American, Mexican or from anywhere.
Post a Comment