I’m with Kevin Drum on this port deal–on the face of it there really doesn’t seem to be a real problem, but I also feel like I am missing something. Drum makes a nice list of the obvious main issues.
The notion that because 9/11 highjackers came from the UAE means that we can never do business with a UAE-based company seems odd, to be honest.
Of course, the overall situation is such that it helps highlight the fact that we really have no clue how to make the ports secure.
The LAT‘s editorial page weighs in:
The problem is that blocking the Dubai deal wouldn’t do a thing to change any of that. It only provides members of Congress an opportunity to talk tough and pander to the terrorism-rattled xenophobe in us all.Dubai Ports World, like the foreign companies that already run the majority of key U.S. ports — including 80% of the terminals in Los Angeles — does not own the points of entry. It is a contractor that coordinates logistics. And most important, it’s not in charge of security. Port operators work with U.S. security officials (port police, the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security) in charge of preventing terrorism.
The NYT op/ed page takes Congress’ side, pointing more to process than to the actually issue, however:
Congress is right to resist the ports deal, in which the company, Dubai Ports World, would take over the British company now running these operations. The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country’s control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department’s record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation’s greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.
The WSJ see politics by Frist and the Democrats and sides with Bush.
February 22nd, 2024 at 11:32 am
I share the concern that Congress may get into this issue for the wrong reasons–xenophobia, anti-Arab bias, etc. But this is not just a “UAE-based” company. It is a state-owned company. By a state that was one of only three in the world to recognize the Taliban “government” (along with our other “good allies” Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). And then there is the murky process (as noted by the NYT) by which this was approved–a rather typical and distubring MO of this administration.
So, Bush backed down, in the face of almost certain defeat, from making a torture ban the first bill he ever saw that he wanted to veto. Will a review or overturning of the selling of port management to the UAE be his first veto?
Either potential veto would be quite teling about this administration’s real priorities.
February 22nd, 2024 at 2:18 pm
It is all quite fascinating.
Based on what I know, I would favor the proposal to put the move on hold and then have further, deeper investigation. If Bush vetoes such a bill, it would be rather interesting, to say the least.
February 24th, 2024 at 9:35 am
Putting aside the actual question of whether this sale is consistent with our current national security priorities — a significant issue, and one about which I have some doubts, but am willing to be convinced either way — what strikes me is the complete and utter incompetence with which the issue has been handled by the White House p.r. machine. Even assuming that the sale is the best thing to ever happen to this country, the reality is that the public at large (and quite a few of its Congressional representatives) don’t know that, and don’t know why it’s good, and don’t know why it’s safe (assuming it is), but do know that they’ve seem planes crash into skyscrapers and for the past 4.5 years have heard doomsday predictions about nuclear weapons being smuggled into our insecure port facilities by Arabs. Ignoring the public concerns, even if unfounded, is nothing short of . . . well, words fail me. Once again, the Bush administration has failed to make its case, even when it may be right.