Patronized by the Post

Yesterday, the Washington Post offered mockery about the latest sinking of the United Arab Emirates' port deal: "Happy Now?" The editors cast the issue in terms of race, politics, and fear-mongering, as if any economic deal should be pursued and allowed. As if the laws of economics, unfettered and unrestrained, solves problems and the disregard of those superior laws creates issues we will regret as a nation - economically, politically, and socially.

As a disappointed, paternal reprimand, this posture mimics the squeal of our times: trust me, I know better than you do. Where is discernment? Where is analysis? Or why is it always assumed that "economics" is good and "politics" is bad? The politics of Senators Clinton or Schumer aside (although the politicians from the previously attacked state of New York must have a unique perspective), Dubai Ports World is owned by a country not a person or disparate share holders. What "economic self interest" is served when a country makes political shifts? Don't the rules of the game falter? When a business is the arm of a government, its motives and interests are tied to their political system by definition (which is not to assume that it does not occur in our so-called "free market" system as well).

Why should it matter? Well, this country has a dubious past in relation to commonly accepted U.S. political postures. Their political body recognized the Taliban when they ran Afghanistan; they deny the state of Israel; nuclear weapons easily travelled through their port from Pakistan; their banks have been directly linked to terrorist money laundering from the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Yet, editors of the article want us to ignore these elements of reality. We are to believe that the business of managing U. S. ports has nothing to do with the politics of the United Arab Emirates. It may be quite true today, although unproven because it was not investigated, but what of tomorrow? Whose interests would be served if fundamentalist Muslims run the country? Of course, some would say this would never happen. Economics would preclude politics. The business has nothing to do with the country.

Yet there was a time when some contemporary issues initially observed in the article were believed impossible in this country: Congress refusing to provide administrative oversight; fiscal irresponsibility; the torture and abuse of detainees in the name of the people of the United States; illegal wiretapping of citizenry. So why would the "Posts'" paternal overseers ignore the very truths they present? Economics and business deals pretend to operate in a land of opportunity disconnected from politics or society.

Economics, politics, and the social structure are intimately intertwined. They do not exist separate from one another in a stand-alone world only occasionally touching when some rotation happens to collide with another's path. As countries, we determine the mix and hue of the composite of each of these. Which foot do we put forward first? If Muslim countries decide not to do business with the U.S. based on the outcome of this deal, we should ask whether they were ever our friends, not whether they might, now, be afraid to take the risk of friendship. What kind of a friend have we been to other countries historically aligned with us like France? The only country we can clearly claim friendship with today is Great Britain - the very country the French helped us revolt against.

As a diverse and massive country, we can not be afraid of people because of their nationality or religion. Neither can we ignore history or relationships within governments and business. Using bigotry and fear-based emotionalism to make or break a business deal smacks of partisanship and collusion. But typically, as economic players, we make choices based on our self interest. I shop at stores that promote good service, quality products, and treat their employees well. That is my choice. A similar choice was made by Dubai Ports World, when challenged by Lou Dobbs over the management deal. They tried to force CNN to silence Dobbs who was challenging the idea of foreign ownership of port management. Their choice. Just like their choice to boycott Israel.

Personally, my hackles went up when President Bush vowed to veto any legislation against the port sale to the UAE. It would be his first veto after years of exorbitant spending and corporate pandering. I distrusted the sale immediately, and I still do. My choice. I have no reason to trust this administration. I was willing to wait for the 45 day mandatory investigation of foreign ownership that was originally waved by political "friends," but obviously the country and company were not willing to undergo the scrutiny. So be it.

Just don't partronize me by pretending this was a simple economic deal politically mishandled. Economics demands discernment. Values matter.