The uproar over a White House decision to allow the passage of a UAE port deal is pure hypocrisy from our politicians. The nation's lifeblood is controlled and dominated by corporate interests; the port deal only highlights the process.
Six of America's most important ports, including New York, could soon be run by a United Arab Emirates state-owned corporation, which purchased the management rights from a British firm. The controversy stems from the attacks of 9/11 because two of the hijackers were from the UAE, and those who planned the attacks used the country to funnel money for the operation. Now, a consortium of congressman, governors, and mayors are trying to stop the deal for national security purposes.
The problem isn't who owns the ports. The corporation that purchased the management rights, Dubai Ports World, has no ties to terrorism. It's beholden to no one but its shareholders, who seek maximum profits on their investments. There is no reason to believe the corporation would support terrorism, since it's bad for business.
The problem is our government's privatizing of our ports and refusal to secure them in the process. Since 9/11, only five percent of the cargo is checked coming into our seaports, which have had $560 million spent on their protection. By comparison, $18 billion has been spent on aviation security.
Democratic opposition to the UAE deal is understandable. Republicans have beaten them up on national security issues since 9/11, and now they see an opening. But the growing complaints by many Republican's are disingenuous at best. Politicians addicted to corporate profits and the global economies are crying wolf.
Take it back
Documents' reclassification evidence further shift to secrecy
A secret government program is pulling declassified documents from the National Archives and reclassifying them as top secret, which is just another example of the closed-door Bush administration pushing aside its citizens' right to information.
In 1995, Bill Clinton signed a declassification order that resulted in an onslaught of documents released to the public. Naturally, the CIA and other intelligence agencies objected. Then, beginning in 1999, some 55,000 previously declassified historical documents have been removed from public consumption, some of which are decades old, for national security purposes.
None of this should come as a surprise. Increased governmental secrecy in the name of security is an ongoing trend.
After Bush took office, an executive order that delayed the release of presidential papers (starting with Reagan's, which would have shed light on his father's role in the Iron-Contra scandal) was signed into place. In the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, a little-noticed provision bars most public access to birth certificates and death records for 70 to 100 years. This might not seem like much, and reporters and activists will mostly be affected, but when put in the overall context of government secrecy, it warrants concern.
The increased pace of documents being classified, coupled with the slowdown of documents being released under the Freedom of Information Act, is an ominous development. Although many will never use our nation's archives, historians and journalists depend on these documents to write our history. Access to the facts is crucial in keeping the public record honest and goes hand-in-hand with a free and democratic society.
