In November 2004, with a big smile on my face, my vote went for George W. Bush. I had many reasons for doing this, but chief among them was because he was the stronger of the two candidates to lead an effective War on Terrorism. September 11 showed us that we need to fight the enemy on their turf before they bring the war to us. We need eternal vigilance, which is why the War on Terrorism is considered to be a permanent war. I cast away my vote, but not my sense of vigilance. It’s thriving, but so is my sense of moral outrage. When the Dubai Ports controversy hit the news, I was outraged, like most others.
This controversy in the United States involves public concerns about the purchase of port management, operations of six U.S. seaports from the existing company, a British firm, to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. The deal was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment and approved.
The story surfaced last week, and Congress voiced concerns and outright opposition to such a deal, selling out to a foreign nation, especially one that two 9/11 hijackers came from. Legislation was introduced to block the deal. While the idea of England already owning and operating port management made some nervous, the Dubai deal made British ownership look like a picnic! On Feb. 22, President Bush shocked many in our country when he announced that he would veto any legislation to block the deal to secure the takeover.
There you have it. The same leader who claimed just one month ago at his State of the Union address to protect Americans, champion Homeland Security and maintain an effective War on Terror, has exercised an about-face, declaring his support for the sale of American port management to the United Arab Emirates, where a terrorist network called Al-Quaeda thrives.
Upon hearing this, I thought, “what is this man smoking?” He may as well veto anything that has “America’s safety” on it. Bush went on to say, “It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.” Well, what type of signal is it sending to Americans, the people he took an oath to protect?
Turning over control to the UAE makes America even more vulnerable to a terrorist attack than before. It’s one of the worst decisions ever made by our government and its leader. Any resolve Bush had for effective homeland security just went out the window with this deal. It’s a recipe for disaster, and from my perspective, an insult to anything and everything that is “conservative.”
Strangely enough, Republican and Democrat leaders have come together on the issue. Senators Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton are actually on the same side, both opposing this disturbing move by the Bush Administration.
Unfortunately, bigotry always finds a way into the opposition, and some individuals probably are out there feeding a hysteria of “The Arabs are coming, the Arabs are coming.” We’ll have to deal with it and confront it as it comes, but its mere presence doesn’t discredit the position that the sale of our ports wrong.
The mainstream argument against the sale of our ports to a foreign nation is not motivated by bigotry at all but from patriotism and those wanting to keep this nation safe, even if it means ticking off a few “allies and friends” in the Middle East. National security is an area where Americans come first. That’s the patriotism I thought George W. Bush stood for. I was wrong.
The most recent headlines indicated that the UAE firm is delaying the takeover in wake of American public outrage. That’s not good enough. The takeover should be stopped altogether. Congress needs to do something right for a change and pass the bill halting this move, let George W. Bush veto it, and have it overridden by over 400 votes, which it is sure to get.
In the spirit of patriotism, loving my own Arab heritage but my country more, wanting it to be safe, I dissent completely from George W. Bush’s policy.
Anthony Maalouf is a senior majoring in political science with a minor in Spanish.