Port Security II

The Dubai Ports Deal Fiasco: Is Globalization to Blame?

Recently the Dubai Ports deal has garnered a large amount of attention from diverse people ranging from reporter Lou Dobbs to law makers like Hillary Clinton.  Besides the obvious concerns about security this recent event is another example of the debate over the big G.  Globalization has been present throughout history, but it is only in the past two decades has Globalization gained prominence.  So what is globalization, and why does it cause so much friction in society?

According to Jan Aart Scholte, in his book Globalization: A Critical Introduction, globalization is a process which allows connections and interactions between peoples to exist regardless of the physical-territorial-places the person might currently be located.  Scholte’s goes on to say that globalization contributes to a “proliferation of social connections that are…detached from a territorial logic,” (p 47) as results of two factors.  The first factor-compression of the world; leads to the second factor-interactions that transcend the boundaries of the territorial state.  Scholte observes that the space separating people is becoming smaller.  In the past technology like the printing press and centralized governments gave rise to the creation of a national community; technology today has given rise to a quicker and a greater connectiveness building the global community.  The advent of the satellite, internet, and jet plane all has decreased the significance of space and time allowing for the process of globalization.  It is the process of globalization which allows for events like the Dubai Ports deal.  The opportunity cost of large distances has shrunk making lower operating costs a larger factor than the company’s physical location.  But this phenomenon is not new.  Today it is common to see events like outsourcing tech support service jobs. Similarly outsourcing of manufacturing is becoming a main stay as super ocean transporters, GPS and RF tracking tags, and supply chains have pushed the process of globalization allowing for the growth of outsourcing.  In these examples of outsourcing are labeled free trade not a national security threat.

The process of globalization also contributes to the dichotomy between reaction towards the Ports Deal and other forms of outsourcing.  In other industries adaptation and innovation became solutions.  Employees moved to sectors not readily exportable; corporations reconsidered cost cutting measures.  Despite initial opposition, there was eventually acceptance and then innovation.  However, with port operations the main focus is the perceived threat to national security.  The reaction to the Dubai Ports is in many ways like agricultural subsidies for security reasons.  This perception of a foreign threat is a direct result of globalization.  While globalization has allowed McDonalds to proliferate globally it also allows cultures to retain autonomy outside its historical territorial bounds.  This notion seems to hold true for the many unassimilated Muslim population in Europe causing a negative perception in the West of the Islamic culture.

Whether these perceived threats are real or not globalization can create friction.  Acting in two ways globalization allows for the existence of these events, and globalization can contribute to resentment and distrust.  Perhaps it is this perception which triggered a negative response to foreign ownership of ports only after an Arab nation took over the ports. Regardless of accuracy, globalization helps perpetuate the changing perceptions of different cultures and peoples causing friction in the social fabric of nation states trying to reconcile the old notions of national sovereignty with the new dynamics brought on by globalization.