Recent news indicates that an UAE-ports-type-deal is not permissible when the issue is Bush’s personal safety. In fact, not even a contract with companies from 2 of Bush’s closest foreign allies is appropriate. However, when the issue is protecting individual Americans, Bush does not see any threat to our safety or to any national security interests in the UAE ports deal. If it is not good enough for Bush, why is it good enough for the rest of us?
It was reported yesterday that the White House is “quietly pushing a Dubai company” to “significantly restructure” the US ports deal by hooking up with an American company. The suggested restructuring should be similar to the Marine One contract in which a “British-and Italian-owned AgustaWestland had to take on Maryland-based Lockheed Martin to win the contract to build the President’s helicopter last year.” The added benefit for the Bush administration is that the financial beneficiary of such restructuring may be Halliburton, which is supposed to be “the U.S. company best equipped to partner with DP World.”
The Marine One contract for Bush’s helicopters was subject to a “buy America” clause in the Pentagon’s bidding requirements. Briefly, the Buy American Act (BAA) was passed by Congress in 1933 during the economic depression to stimulate the economy. This law requires that all goods purchased with public money be a “domestic end product” of the US, including at least 50% US content. The BAA is generally required in military or intelligence contracts of noncommercial items.
In the case of Marine One, there were 2 primary bidders: Sikorsky, an American company who had been building these helicopters for 50 years, and AgustaWestland, a British-Italian joint venture. To meet the “buy America” requirements, the British/Italian company partnered with Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter. Many believed that the Pentagon chose the British/Italian venture to reward 2 of Bush’s biggest Iraq war allies.
The fact that a “buy America” clause is generally required in military or intelligence contracts of noncommercial items indicates a per se rule that simply excludes wholly owned foreign companies from such contracts. It does not matter which country is involved in the transaction. No question of whether the country is friend or foe is addressed. The presumption is that the nature of certain military and intelligence assets are of such vital national security interests that there is no need to investigate or review the question of national security. There is just this inherent risk associated with awarding the contract to wholly owned foreign companies.
For this reason, some members of Congress have argued since the Dept. of Homeland Security was created that its procurements
and critical infrastructure, such as ports, should similarly be subject to “Buy America” requirements. This approach would be consistent with the position of the Bush administration that the entire US is a “battlefield” in the “war on terror.” And, it would be consistent with Bush’s statements that more civilian Americans are likely to be killed in this “war on terror” than American troops.
Bush just can’t have it both ways in this “war on terror.” Granted the president’s safety is a national security interest in war or peace. But, if the entire US is a battlefield, then certainly critical infrastructure that has even been predicted as a possible terrorist scenario used to kill thousands of Americans is also a national security interest. Bush can’t argue that opposition to the UAE ports deal is discriminatory or protectionism, but a requirement to preclude a wholly owned foreign company from building his helicopters is not. Both are discriminatory, both are protectionism, but national security interests prevail when protection is provided to Bush. Bush can’t argue that the UAE is our ally in the “war on terror,” when BAA requirements precluded companies from 2 of Bush’s closest, unequivocal war allies, Britain and Italy. Bush can’t argue that there are no national security interests at stake when ports are critical infrastructure. If the country is in a state of war sufficient to continually trump our civil rights under the pretext of protecting us, then it should equally trump corporate interests in “free” trade agreements that the business community fears will be adversely affected if the UAE ports deal is stopped. Whether you support or oppose the ports deal, we need fair rules to be consistently applied in this “war on terror.” The problem is that Bush’s rhetoric on the “war on terror” keeps coming back to bite him.
