In the world of pure economics, the sale of US ports to Dubai makes perfect sense. That is because only economic motivations matter. Dubai could own the ports, operate them for profit if possible, and sell them to somebody else if they found a better place to put their money.

The trouble is that economics is not the total of human motivations.

The 9/11 hijackers were not driven by economic motives. Nor was the Soviet Union during the Reagan era. Neither are the Saudis, who are using their massive oil wealth to export Wahhabi ideology around the world, thereby arousing hostility to their regime in the US and Europe. Yet they keep pushing Wahhabi imperialism even after 9/11.

It is therefore not wrong to ask the question, "Would Ronald Reagan have consented to selling US ports to the USSR, which was driven by an imperialist ideology rather than simple economics?"

The question answers itself. Reagan opposed Jimmy Carter's policy of giving away the Panama Canal. Today the Chinese own both ends of the Canal. Will they ever move against US Navy transit through the Canal?

We don't know. It is certainly easier today to sabotage ships going through the Canal than it was when the US owned the Canal Zone.

Is Dubai like the Soviets during the height of Communist imperialism? The Sheikhs are devout Wahhabis. It would be nice to think that they will become another Switzerland, mainly interested in economics. But we don't know that.

The Sheikhs of Dubai have more than economic motives, just as Islamic immigrants streaming into Europe have more than economic motives.

They are pursuing imperialism through emigration. When Muammar Khadafi surrendered his secret nuclear program after the Iraq invasion, he said that in time, Muslim immigration would conquer the world in due time.

We cannot forget that the virus of Muslim extremism travels on the Internet, on trade relations, and by immigration. Economics isn't everything.

James Lewis    3 09 06