Free Trading Away America's Security
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-02-24 14:38. Media
San Francisco Chronicle - February 24, 2006
By David Sirota
AT FIRST glance, it seems strange that President Bush threatened to use the first veto of his presidency to defend the right of the United Arab Emirates to manage six major U.S. ports.
It was certainly an extraordinary move. Bush, who bills himself as "tough" on terrorism, went to bat for the United Arab Emirates against the wishes of his own security experts and his own Republican colleagues in Congress, who noted that the Emirates has known ties to the Sept. 11 terrorists and Osama bin Laden. Why?
As an explanation, Bush publicly pointed to the merits of foreign investment. Foreign investment, of course, can be positive when it fuels the domestic economy but when it comes to America's ports, the extra security precaution of mandating American ownership and control far outweigh the economic benefits of foreign investment by a country such as the United Arab Emirates.
In 1999, Emirates officials were happily commiserating with bin Laden in Afghanistan. According to the Sept. 11 commission, these officials also provided "one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world." This, at the same time as the Emirates rejected U.S. requests to crack down on terrorist financing. Today, the State Department's Web site about the Emirates notes the serious anti-American threats there.
So again, why? Because this is about far more than just one deal with one company or one country.
lots more (great info) at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/8202