Economy Needs Foreign Investments

Democrats decry whatever the Bush Administration does and once again are pretending to be something they are not--sincere and wise. Of course, several strong issues exist that Americans should rightfully question the president on and demand change for, but this Port Security issue is not one.

For those who do not yet know, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) received approval of a transaction by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency body that was established in 1975 to evaluate the national security implications of foreign acquisitions.

The transaction encompasses the purchase of six U.S. seaports for $6.8 billion by the UAE-based Dubai Ports World from another foreign company, the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Irwin M. Stelzer, director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, paraphrased the president by saying the UAE “has arrested several key al Qaeda operatives, welcomed visits by American naval vessels, provided landing rights for U.S. aircraft at its strategically located airport, and cooperated in the inspection of cargoes headed for American ports.”

Furthermore, Thomas L. Friedman, columnist of the New York Times, wrote, “Many U.S. ports are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.”

He added, “The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of ships, making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in the most cost-effective manner.”

America has a long history of welcoming foreign investment and ownership to her shores. So why is this an issue?

The Associate Press stated, only 25 such investigations have been conducted “among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the [CFIUS] since 1988.” What makes this issue this time different than the overwhelming majority of these transactions?

With literally no security risk, the answers to these questions are very simple and unbelievably sad: race and nationality as well as Democrats (and some Republicans) needing to appear tough in an election year. The opposition to this port transaction only cares about its own well-being, not America’s

As I remember Democrats are against racial profiling--criticizing the President when someone of Arab background or appearance is stopped and questioned, even if his or her coat is extraordinarily heavy.

Friedman stated, “If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.” So, I am not the only person that sees the race connection.

Friedman wrote, “As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling--looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do--if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road--we will take the rest of the world with us.”

In conclusion, just because a business is located in an Arab country or any other country should not hinder that company from investing in America. America’s economy thrives because of foreign investments and at the same time the American economy drives the Global economy. Therefore, if we stop supporting foreign investments, we hurt the world at large as well as ourselves.


Here is week Six. I liked it, but I feel I used Thomas L. Friedman a little too much. So far I find it scary if the American people follow the Democrats on this political war against the President: where he says something and they have to say the opposite. To stop investments based solely on race and nationality is asinine.