It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea

For a political junkie, the Dubai ports debacle has been a bit like the movie “Pulp Fiction”—just one freaky story inside another, unfolding at a rapid pace and leading to an unexpected ending that made no darn sense and yet was really quite satisfying emotionally. I give it two thumbs way up.

Unfortunately for the President, he played the part of “Marcellus Wallace” in “Port Fiction.” He talked tough at the start of the whole thing, but really took it hard in the end. (Bada bing!) And along the way we got to see Chuck Schumer support racial profiling, Hillary Clinton claim to be concerned about national security, Lawrence Kudlow play the (Arab) race card, Fred Barnes complain that some conservatives were too cantankerous, and Rush Limbaugh congratulate his own audience for defeating him. Now that’s a movie that should have got an Oscar!

Two of the subplots really stood out in my mind though. One was how eagerly the disciples of “free” trade took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn’t be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I’m sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time.

Whatever their motivation, they came across as nothing less than petty and absurd. The restructuring of the world economy and the American legal landscape by the proponents of free trade over the last two decades has been nothing short of a revolution—and it was all made possible, ultimately, by the votes of the fly-over country conservatives with whom Kudlow and company have shared a big tent for so long.

And yet at the first sign of hesitation or reluctance to indulge further on mom and pop’s part, the free trade faithful turned on them with epithets and disdain. According to some pinstriped pundits, the most open nation on earth, at the most internationalist time in its history, is suddenly and dismissively labeled “xenophobic,” “isolationist,” “protectionist,” “nativist,” “racist” and “ignorant” of the fact that world is global, or some such insight. Given 99% of everything they want, some free traders turned petulantly on their enablers over the 1% they didn’t get.

This behavior is very familiar to anyone who has small children. You can take them to the park, the mall, the museum, a game, an arcade, an ice cream shop, McDonald’s and Chuck E Cheese’s, then after spending the whole day and $200 on them, you tell them it’s time to go home and they explode into tears and theatrics while flopping about on the floor calling you “a meanie,” which is like “xenophobic,” but without the overeducated pretense.

And what was the tone-deaf expectation behind conservatives of any stripe, pin or otherwise, playing the race card in an internal political debate? Perhaps, like an abused child who grows up to be a child abuser, the name callers thought that they might get the same sort of instant capitulation from their base that they are used to giving to Democrats and the media when they themselves are accused of racism—or of just having used the word “niggardly” in a college essay once.

Way to solidify the base! Why not just say that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party," or "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people"? When some in the party start sounding like Howard Dean while bashing the rest of it, it could be time to take a deep breath.

The second subplot that really stood out to me, is how clueless many in the Republican Party are to the true source of public misgiving about the port deal. This does not bode well for avoiding a repeat of the debacle in the near future. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the average voter does not normally concern himself with the minutiae of cargo management and port personnel. So why the big opinion all of a sudden over Dubai Ports World?

Well, in my opinion this is sort of like an argument in a marriage. It may have started over a specific incident, but it’s really about something else and has been building for a long time.

This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct—economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better.

But the problem is that all nations are more than just economic systems. They are each somebody’s home. And each has a culture, and a language, and a set of common ideals that they want protected—even more than they want another 0.3% added to next year’s GDP. Some things matter more than the economic opportunity cost we pay for having them. The American Revolution, for example, was bad for the economy while it was under way. But that was not really the point of the whole thing, was it?

The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power—both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the “inevitable” rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, “Stop!

They’re saying “OK, we’ve tried it your way and it never seems to end. No amount of globalization, tolerance, equalization, outsourcing, internationalism, interventionism, human smuggling, and security risk is ever enough. There is always a push for more—even before the last round has proven itself wise or foolish. Treaty piles upon treaty, migration upon migration, integration upon integration. Now people want a break and a reassessment. They’re not sure they are against it all. They’re just no longer sure they’re still for it.

It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream. They are sick of every street corner and parking lot being filled with criminal aliens waiting to work off the books and outside the laws that are applied so enthusiastically to actual Americans. They are sick of pressing “1” for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday.

They are sick of hearing that America is just an economic opportunity zone and not a distinct nation, a culture—their home. They are sick of being told that human beings are interchangeable parts, that the nation-state is passé, that there are some jobs that Americans just won’t do, that there are some contracts that Americans just won’t bid, and that any cost that cannot be measured in money cannot be very important. They are sick of having the world purposely knit together in a tighter tangle everyday and then being told we are so entangled that America must now run the whole world and solve all its problems. And they are sick of being called ignorant and racist and xenophobic just for having the temerity to raise questions when abstract trade theory conflicts with their common sense.

And they want a break. They want some breathing room and some limits; and they don’t want to hear elitist children cry themselves hoarse after all they’ve been given already.

If absolute globalization really is inevitable, it doesn’t need such a vociferous lobby. It will happen at its own organic pace. Trying to force it prematurely will just cause a backlash here and abroad—as it already has from Van Nuys to Venezuela to Vladivostok.

And if it is not inevitable, then it needs to be justified beyond the boardroom and the lecture hall. It may not be something that everyone wants to pay the costs of, whatever benefits it may bring to our bank accounts and stock exchanges.

Soon, Congress will consider a new illegal immigration bill. Failure to acknowledge the new mood in the country could break the Republican Party.

Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Mondays. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com.

You need to read the US State Dept view of the UAE and their travel advisories.
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/46610.htm

U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2005 (snips)

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES (TIER 3)(worst of tier1,2,3)

The Government of the U.A.E. does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. Despite sustained engagement from the U.S. Government, NGOs, and international organizations over the last two years, the U.A.E. Government has failed to take significant action to address its trafficking problems and to protect victims.

the U.A.E. made minimal efforts to prosecute traffickers. Despite the ongoing trafficking and exploitation of thousands of children as camel jockeys and women in sexual servitude, the government made insufficient efforts in 2004 to criminally prosecute and punish anyone behind these forms of trafficking.

The U.A.E. Government’s efforts to prosecute crimes relating to trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation were equally disappointing.

U.A.E. labor laws and, as such, many are vulnerable to serious exploitation that constitutes involuntary servitude, a severe form of trafficking.

_______-

As for Hamas and other terrorist organizations supported by the UAE, read on.

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
February 24, 2006

[snip] There are many important differences. To begin with, a private company based in the U.K. a Western democracy with troops fighting along with U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contrasts sharply with the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS, which President Bush calls “a terrorist organization.”

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".

The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.

Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.

For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.

Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.

According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.

The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.

On February 15, 2005, the HAMAS website reported on funds transferred from HAI to two HAMAS front organizations in the West Bank, IQRA and Rifdah, which Israel had outlawed. And last July, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Khan Younis in Gaza was arrested as he returned from the UAE, for often transferring funds of as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza HAMAS branch. The suicide bombing and attacks, including one mortar attack on Gush Katif, caused the death of 44 Israeli civilians and dozens of injuries.

The UAE support of HAMAS is in line with the agenda promoted by the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think-tank, was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan and Roger Garaudy and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the war in Iraq on "radical Zionist and right-wing Christian" influence.

Although UAE foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the Emirates have been and remain a “strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism,” its continuing support of HAMAS and other Islamist organizations contradict his statement. This legitimately raises concerns about trusting U.S. ports to UAE management.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21413

An error like that almost has to be purposeful.

Look at my tagline. What have you done to unify Americans today? What message did the President's veto threat send to Americans? And, whenever someone disagrees with your position on a given issue, are they automatically thrown into the DUmp?

Nearly all the posters on your side of this particular debate have backed themselves into a corner where they have no argument so they fling accusations at those who disagree with them.

You and everyone who supported DPW, with the exception of Cbolt, have purposely ignored the information re CFIUS. The evidence there is that the Committee did not follow the procedure as mandated by law in the Exon Florio provision.

The evidence supports that they were "rubber-stamping" the deal. That is not good enough in a POST 9/11 AMERICA. And it should not have been good enough for President Bush.

Ya'll are going on fear, and something darker.

In addition to examining the structure and procedures of CFIUS as a basis for refusing this transaction and asking for a "time out," we have every reason to be reluctant to "trust" a Middle East monarchy (Dubai) that is a member of a federation of emirates (UAE) that supported the Taliban, funneled funds for Al Qaeda, that oppposes the existence of Israel and that joins the boycott against Denmark in protest of cartoons.

All of this exists in the context of the War on Terror, which should be the most important issue for all true Americans.

I am very aware of how progressive modern day Dubai appears to be, how it is a free trade zone and entertainment destination. I am aware that women do not have to wear burkas. I am aware that Trump is building a huge sparkling development in Dubai. I am aware that, theoretically, business stands apart from politics. However, I am not willing to have a short memory and, when it comes to their government-owned company buying the operation of 6 of our ports, I say No, Thank You.

The difference in this debate, what has crossed over the line, is that we opponents are being attacked for our loyalty to America and we are being called names that are usually buzz words of the Left. I suggest that you re-consider who you are railing at and remember who the really enemy is, because soon he will come knocking at your door. How's that for "fear and something darker?"

You need to read the US State Dept view of the UAE and their travel advisories.

They have a crime problem, yes. Not terrorist related.

And that article you posted didn't mention one single bit of evidence. But made unsubstantiated claims like, "the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS,". With no evidence to back that up!? The Hamas press report said the UAE helped rebuild houses and gave to charities. Yet you claim without evidence that the UAE "continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers"??? And on, and on. You claim aid to families and such to be evidence that the UAE is a terrorist state, for goodness' sake!

That's the point, here, to me.

None of that is evidence to suggest that the UAE govt, or the DPW management, have ever or would ever enganger our ports.

You don't like some of the politics of that country, I get it. So you're accusing them of being terrorists without proof.

It's all quite clear.

Now forgive me if I remain a conservative, and go where the evidence takes me. And the evidence we have today shows that the UAE has been a steadfast ally of the US.

You make policy decisions based on whatever criteria you want, as is your right.

I'll stick with using evidence as the basis of my opinions.

The evidence there is that the Committee did not follow the procedure as mandated by law in the Exon Florio provision.

I thought the law said that if there is any reason to believe the deal is unsafe, then a 45 day investigation is required. There was no evidence that this deal was unsafe, so no investigation was triggered. One was demanded anyway, and agreed to, then the Congress made it clear they did *not* care about the law and wanted the deal killed without an investigation.

Your side was the one flaunting this law, by freaking out about a deal with no evidence to suggest there was a problem. "It's not the evidence that matters but the nature of the allegations", so to speak.

I suggest that you re-consider who you are railing at and remember who the really enemy is, because soon he will come knocking at your door.

If you're going to insist that the UAE are enemies and not allies with absolutely no proof to that end, then I *know* who the real enemy is.

You fell for a MSM/D party trick. The same trick they *alwasy* pull -- use the MSM lies to whip people into a frenzy ("Bush to Sell US Ports to Arabs"), then use public opinion polls as an excuse for legislation allowing the govt more power, in this case to intervene in a private business deal.

All the evidence points to UAE being a steadfast ally of the US at this time. You chose to ignore that evidence, fine, that's your right. Ds have been making policy decisions based on 'feelings' for years, that is absolutely your right.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.