Fear may be the most powerful force to influence the everyday decisions of men and nations. In fact, as Thomas Hobbes suggested in "Leviathan," fear is rational and necessary to the principle of self-preservation. Setting aside all other Machiavellian philosophical musings on the necessity of using fear to rule a nation, it is important to note the effect that anxiety may have on politics and the economic market of a nation.
For example, the proposed takeover of the British international port operator P&O by the Dubai-based goliath DP World has caused much furor and panic in the halls of what is usually a semi-reasonable institution: Congress.
As DP World is based in and owned by the emirate of Dubai within the United Arab Emirates, it is considered by many to be an Arab, or Islamic, company - an evaluation that is somewhat founded geographically, but is actually more complicated.
Based on this somewhat superficial evaluation, members of Congress are currently seeking to block the deal, which is supported by President Bush, because of the security risk of allowing an Arab country to control the ports of Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia.
For all of the Islamophobia caused by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the war in Afghanistan, the bombing of the USS Cole and, most recently, the election of Hamas to control the Palestinian Authority, the fear of DP World by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress - such as Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert - seems overblown.
Consider first the arguments by Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton of New York. In rejecting the deal, they note that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from the UAE and that Dubai was a shipping locale for Abdul Qadeer Kahn.
Kahn was dubbed "The Merchant of Menace" in a 2005 Time Magazine cover story that tells of a man who gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb and sold nuclear secrets to many rogue countries. Dubai, apparently, has also been implicated in money-laundering linked to al-Qaeda. Thus, the homeland security concerns of the deal are obvious.
On the other hand, President Bush has assured Congress and the American people that several national security agencies have scrutinized and accepted the deal. While Americans have little confidence in these security agencies due to the 9/11 Commission Report and subsequent failures of the government, other safeguards are in place.
One of the two most important of these safeguards provides that Dubai will not own the ports, and thus the government, in the form of the Coast-Guard, customs and immigration officials, will remain fully responsible for security. Again, one cannot forget that the American public's confidence in these organizations is limited.
The other important safeguard is that the UAE remains a member of America's Container Security Initiative, which allows American customs officials to inspect containers before they are placed en route to the United States. While this initiative is currently limited due to budgetary constraints, by increasing its efficacy, the United States would most certainly be able to improve its national security.
While politicians have almost exclusively been discussing the homeland security considerations of the deal, the economic impact is just as, if not more, important. The effect of the deal, in simple terms, would be for a state-owned port operating company, DP World, to take over a private firm based in another country, P&O, and thereby take control of the operations of six ports within a third country.
The deal is quite simply an international corporate takeover. The difficulty in accepting the deal, however, lies with the fact that DP World is based in an Arab country and that the company is state-owned. While the first obstacle has already been discussed in terms of political and security concerns, the second makes for a bitter reality.
The United States has very rarely favored state-owned businesses except in times of war.
Even today, Americans do not enjoy the idea of the government controlling a business that could otherwise be made private. They especially dislike foreign state-owned businesses.
Last year, for example, a takeover bid by the Chinese state-owned oil firm CNOOC for the American company Unocal fell through when the deal was confronted with American political backlash.
Americans took great offense at the prospect of selling an American company, especially one producing a natural resource as essential as oil, to a Chinese-owned company.
Because the United States has one of the freest markets in the world, Americans, for the most part, want it to remain that way. Thus the sale of P&O to DP World comes as an assault on those relatively laissez-faire values.
While most politicians are rightfully asking to delay approval of the deal in order to more thoroughly assess the security ramifications, the fact remains that although we, as Americans, do not like the agreement, our government, at least according to our values, should remain hands off.
