Truth About UAE Port Security Scandal Quietly Leaks Out

by David Sirota (story courtesy of ToniD)
The more you read about the UAE port security scandal, the more it becomes patently obvious this is about far more than just one deal with one company or one country. The harsh reaction from the Bush administration to the proposal to rescind the deal should be a red flag. This administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled administration in recent history, meaning its reactions are usually tied directly to the reactions of Corporate America. And the fact that the White House is ignoring its own security experts and reacting so negatively to Congress's opposition to the deal means this cuts to the much deeper issue of global trade policy - an issue that trumps all others for Big Money interests, even post-9/11 security.

In a previous post, I noted how the Bush administration is simultaneously negotiating a "free" trade agreement with the UAE - the country tied to the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. The administration was negotiating this deal at the very same time it tried to quietly slip this port security deal under the radar. It's not surprising few in the media or the political system have mentioned that simple fact - as I note in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, the political/media Establishment's devotion to "free" trade orthodoxy is well documented, and the Establishment's desire in this current scandal to make sure a discussion of trade policy never happens is obvious.

But as the coverage continues, the true motives of Bush's position are starting to slip out, almost inadvertently.

Look at the comment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Remember, he is the guy whose only job is to protect America. He's not supposed to be thinking about anything else. Yet, just a few days ago, he said about the UAE deal that "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system." Technically, of course, he's right - but the fact that the Homeland Security secretary is publicly lecturing Congress about the need to protect the "global trading system" and defending the UAE deal tells us a lot about how devoted to prioritizating the corporate agenda our government really is - even the government agencies whose only responsibilities are securing America.

Similarly, the New York Times today quotes a corporate consultant in London who says that Congress's concerns about a country tied to the 9/11 terrorists managing U.S. port security are "totally illogical." Why? Because, he says, "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."

There it is in all its glory: the Establishment publicly pushing the idea that absolutely nothing should matter - not even security concerns - other than preserving the mobility of capital. And that is ultimately what "free" trade is really all about - creating all sorts of restrictive, protectionist rules that corporate interests want (like patent/copyright protections), but making sure that capital can freely move all over the world, without regard to any labor, human rights, environmental and - yes - security concerns. It was GE CEO Jack Welch, the well-known "free" trader, who famously said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge."

And so any attempt to stop the UAE port security deal fundamentally threatens the Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy that says we must eliminate all barriers to trade - even those that protect national security. When you realize that, President Bush's threat to use the first veto of his presidency on the UAE port security issue suddenly becomes not so surprising. He is proudly defending what Jeff Faux calls "The Party of Davos" or John Perkins calls the "corporatocracy" - that is, the multinational interests who have bankrolled Bush's entire political career, and who desperately rely on the American government preserving a "free" trade system that subverts all other concerns to the corporate profit motive.

Again, the fact that this isn't being reported should not shock anyone. And you can rest assured that the usual cast of Establishment characters (including self-described "progressives") on the editorial pages and in Congress will soon begin a vehement defense of the "free" trade policies that created the rationale for this UAE port security deal and other shady business deals like it. Both parties have pushed this "free" trade nonsense over the last two decades, and both have been rewarded with huge piles of corporate cash. That bipartisan devotion to "free" trade largely continues to this day. Similarly, the major media in America are all owned by huge corporations with an interest in preserving the "free" trade system. But don't let the Establishment's silence on "free" trade's centrality in this scandal distract you. In America's corporate-owned political system, the truth is often found where things are quietest.