The international economic and political arena could not, perhaps, be more hostile environment, with recent riots and barriers to free trade and globalization. While cartoons originally published in a Danish newspaper of the Prophet Mohammad (May Peace Be Upon Him – PBUH) may have been authorized for publication based on freedom of expression, I feel freedom should have certain, legitimate boundaries and limits should be confined within the parameters of respect, understanding and appreciation of other cultures, ethnicities and religions. Had the cartoons not depicted disrespectful images of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the fury and outrage of Muslims around the world would not have been invoked and the riots would not have taken place.
Furthermore, in recent weeks there has been much speculation with respect to Dubai Port World’s (DPWorld’s) takeover of the U.K.’s P&O that also manages five ports in the United States, including ports in California, New Jersey/New York and Miami, Florida. After much debate and opposition by members of the U.S. Congress, DPWorld decided to disinvest in U.S. based ports by handing over management and ownership to a U.S. entity. The biggest loser in the short-term is definitely the Bush administration, particularly, because they have been trying to create a Middle East free trade zone modeled on NAFTA that would extend trade privileges with the United States to countries from North Africa all the way to Iraq by 2013. Creating barriers to free trade and ownership for the United Arab Emirates only worsened the chance of any such model being resembled.
The United Arab Emirates is the third largest exporter of crude oil in the Middle East, and though much of their petro-funds do not directly flow into the United States, through investment purchases in China and Japan, these petro-funds flow into the United States as these nations trade Emirati petro-funds for U.S. Government Treasury bonds. Has the United States forgotten that? Moreover, in the twenty-first century, many business models and business activities are based on globalization. While the United States and many other European nations encourage globalization, by creating barriers to entry and blocking trade, how are other nations and business corporations in such nations supposed to practice globalization? In Europe for example, there was much resistance to Indian Steel Tycoon, Laxmi Mittal’s Mittal Steel Company’s bid over European steel company: Arcelor. Do capitalism, global competition and free trade zones have to be in line with the U.S. and Europe’s comfort zones?
If the United States is genuinely worried about cross-border terrorism (with respect to DPWorld and port operations and control in the United States), is that not a concern for the Department of Homeland Security, and not DPWorld? Furthermore, the United States, at present, is at a record high with burgeoning budget and trade deficits, much of which is financed by cash inflows from direct and indirect foreign investments. If Congress is truly concerned with cross-border terrorism, security and ownership of U.S. assets by foreign nations and nationals, then Congress should also have analyzed the consequences of their burgeoning budget deficit, record high levels of Government Spending (ruler’s syndrome) and subsequent financing of their debt. Economic conditions (budget and trade deficits) have worsened for the United States, to the extent that it now fears the loss of control and ownership of their assets. Had the United States maintained a tighter control with respect to Government Spending and not run into such a huge budget-deficit, perhaps, today the United States would not even have to be worried about foreign ownership of their assets. In short, many nations across the globe, such as, the United Arab Emirates and India have strong reasons, resources, financial health and long term plans to succeed, on economic, financial and political frontiers. Their objectives and plans, or beliefs, should not have to be totally in line with foreign U.S. and European policies, they should be allowed to pursue their business and economic pursuits.Letters to the Editor are statements of opinion submitted by members of the university community and do not represent the views of The Scribe or its publisher.
Submit Letters/Comments to scribe@bridgeport.edu