Free-trading Away America's Security (D Sirota)

[katty]

Free-trading Away America's Security

excerpt:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/24/EDGU9GJEBP1.DTL&hw=sirota&sn=001&sc=1000

Free trade is all about allowing corporations to move capital wherever they please, without regard to the labor, human rights, environmental and -- yes -- security consequences of those moves. Nixing the Emirates port-security deal could set a new precedent, whereby our government would include security precautions in its trade policy and more aggressively regulate commerce based on those precautions.

That shift would create a new standard that could impede the as-yet uninhibited quest for profits. Put another way, trade policy would become not quite as free as big Business would like. Such a precedent would have global implications.

Suddenly, the public might want Congress to re-evaluate corporate subsidies with an eye to security. We might see a push, for instance, to rescind the billions in taxpayer-backed loans Congress provided last year to Westinghouse to build nuclear power facilities in China. The public might demand stricter security standards governing technology transfers and ownership privileges in future trade accords. Again, these moves are basic steps to protect our country -- but they would get in the way of companies who have eyes only for the bottom line.

This is why the president threatened his veto. His reflexes are trained to defend the corporate interests that bankrolled his political career.

[emulatorloo]

1. Excellent piece/supplementary reading "Business as Usual" Bush family/UAE

I saw Sirota on Countdown making this argument. . .it is always about $$$$$ for Bushco

Kicking and Nominating for greatest, and adding this piece from Joe Conason on Bush Family's 20 year ties with the UAE:

Good one page summary, well worth reading, just out in Salon (I sat thru the commercial) -- found it linked in a DU thread that's sinking like a stone.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/02/24/ports_controversy/print.html

<snip>

Business as usual

Bush's strong support of the Dubai ports deal isn't so surprising in light of his family's many financial ties to Arab sheikdoms.
By Joe Conason

Feb. 24, 2006 | To hear George W. Bush urge calm upon the nation is a refreshing change from his administration's habitual encouragement of fear for political advantage. No more color-coded terror alerts, election-timed warnings or partisan-tinged posturing will emanate from the White House, or at least not until Dubai Ports World has safely completed its takeover of several major American shipping terminals. The president's shift in tone is as remarkable as his threat to use his first veto in five years to protect the Dubai deal in the face of bipartisan congressional opposition.

But Bush's passionate defense of the United Arab Emirates and the ports deal inevitably raises questions -- not only about the due diligence of his administration in this instance but about his and his family's long-standing ties to the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, and specifically to the UAE's rulers. His insinuation that skepticism is equivalent to bigotry cannot deflect such concerns, which first arose in the months after the 9/11 attacks.

<snip>

DU thread HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x192864

[katty]

2. yes, 2 good ones