http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Comment_and_Analysis/10024747.html
First it was P&O and now the Doncasters Group. The US phobia over the potential security risks in the two Dubai acquisitions exposes the Americans' typical approach towards free trade and globalisation. When things work out in their favour these are sanctified tenets that nobody can touch. But when it involves American interests, free trade is just a matter of convenience.
The acquisition of Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World at a cost of $6.8 billion is, of course, a milestone in the company's history. But the change of management hardly makes a difference on the ground at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans, the security-sensitivity of which has led to the political storm in the US.
For all practical purposes, the ports will continue to be staffed by the Americans. The overall control of security will be vested with the US Customs, the Coast Guard, and other authorities, and not the terminal operators. Further, the US officials have secured assurances from DP World that it would follow their security orders and allow access to records. According to reports, this was done in the middle of January, when the whole issue was subjected to a review.
Hue and cry
So, the hue and cry would seem to be no more than a card that the US politicians are playing to get mileage on the domestic turf. The huge international implications of this move are, however, not lost on the world. The attitude of the Americans actually exposes the depths of protectionist tendencies in the US. They have no problems with the billions of dollars that the Arabs hold in treasuries and other dollar-denominated assets in the US. But they don't want the Arabs to directly own anything.
Not just the Arabs, the Americans apparently cannot relish the idea of their strategic assets getting into the hands of anyone, for that matter. Last year, the China National Offshore Corporation's bid for Unocal met with rather the same results. A concerted round of China bashing even prompted the Chinese government to intervene and pull the plug on the move so that the Americans were not discomforted.
US politicians argue that the port deal is a political issue concerning national security and that overrides all other considerations free trade, globalisation or whatever. But the big question is whether the Americans are prepared to leave such political issues aside when they negotiate free trade deals with Gulf countries.
Sensitive sector
The US negotiators have put great pressure on the Gulf countries to open up the economy, including the sensitive government procurement sector, in the interest of global free trade and have not hesitated to include political components such as the reforms agenda in the trade negotiations. The Gulf countries, in turn, must insist on excluding the politically sensitive issues such as the agency law and restrictions on ownership of land and other assets by foreigners from the purview of the trade negotiations.
For instance, the Gulf countries with their peculiar demographic situation need to protect their domestic populations from unrestricted entry of immigrants, whether as investors, owners of land and properties or as workers. These are issues that affect the national identity of the local populations. As highly politically sensitive issues, these must therefore be placed above any trade negotiations. The US Trade Department has no right to complain about restrictive land and company ownership regulations in the GCC countries.
In this respect, the stand taken by Egypt that trade negotiations with the US can be launched only if Washington stops attaching political strings to the deal deserves special attention. Trade negotiations must be held on the basis of issues concerning trade and investment and nothing else, the Egyptian foreign trade minister declared at a joint press conference with a senior official. Cairo's stand must not only be applauded, it is worthy of emulation too.
First it was P&O and now the Doncasters Group. The US phobia over the potential security risks in the two Dubai acquisitions exposes the Americans' typical approach towards free trade and globalisation. When things work out in their favour these are sanctified tenets that nobody can touch. But when it involves American interests, free trade is just a matter of convenience.
The acquisition of Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World at a cost of $6.8 billion is, of course, a milestone in the company's history. But the change of management hardly makes a difference on the ground at the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans, the security-sensitivity of which has led to the political storm in the US.
For all practical purposes, the ports will continue to be staffed by the Americans. The overall control of security will be vested with the US Customs, the Coast Guard, and other authorities, and not the terminal operators. Further, the US officials have secured assurances from DP World that it would follow their security orders and allow access to records. According to reports, this was done in the middle of January, when the whole issue was subjected to a review.
Hue and cry
So, the hue and cry would seem to be no more than a card that the US politicians are playing to get mileage on the domestic turf. The huge international implications of this move are, however, not lost on the world. The attitude of the Americans actually exposes the depths of protectionist tendencies in the US. They have no problems with the billions of dollars that the Arabs hold in treasuries and other dollar-denominated assets in the US. But they don't want the Arabs to directly own anything.
Not just the Arabs, the Americans apparently cannot relish the idea of their strategic assets getting into the hands of anyone, for that matter. Last year, the China National Offshore Corporation's bid for Unocal met with rather the same results. A concerted round of China bashing even prompted the Chinese government to intervene and pull the plug on the move so that the Americans were not discomforted.
US politicians argue that the port deal is a political issue concerning national security and that overrides all other considerations free trade, globalisation or whatever. But the big question is whether the Americans are prepared to leave such political issues aside when they negotiate free trade deals with Gulf countries.
Sensitive sector
The US negotiators have put great pressure on the Gulf countries to open up the economy, including the sensitive government procurement sector, in the interest of global free trade and have not hesitated to include political components such as the reforms agenda in the trade negotiations. The Gulf countries, in turn, must insist on excluding the politically sensitive issues such as the agency law and restrictions on ownership of land and other assets by foreigners from the purview of the trade negotiations.
For instance, the Gulf countries with their peculiar demographic situation need to protect their domestic populations from unrestricted entry of immigrants, whether as investors, owners of land and properties or as workers. These are issues that affect the national identity of the local populations. As highly politically sensitive issues, these must therefore be placed above any trade negotiations. The US Trade Department has no right to complain about restrictive land and company ownership regulations in the GCC countries.
In this respect, the stand taken by Egypt that trade negotiations with the US can be launched only if Washington stops attaching political strings to the deal deserves special attention. Trade negotiations must be held on the basis of issues concerning trade and investment and nothing else, the Egyptian foreign trade minister declared at a joint press conference with a senior official. Cairo's stand must not only be applauded, it is worthy of emulation too.
