Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold.
Some members of Congress, exhibiting post-9/11 jingoism and paranoia, are pressuring the Bush administration to reconsider its decision to allow Dubai Ports World, an Arab company, to take over operations at six U.S. ports. The approval should stand.
Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and, more importantly, a Congressman from an area near two of the ports that will be operated by Dubai Ports World, expressed this xenophobic view about Dubai’s acquisition of the British company that is currently operating the ports: “In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company.”
Why? Because two of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country in which the company is based. Yet the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was allowed to operate the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans, despite Richard Reid’s (the infamous “shoe bomber”) British citizenship. And American companies are permitted to operate some U.S. ports despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and other U.S. citizens are convicted or accused terrorists. For that matter, how do we know that even an American company running the ports would be immune from terrorist infiltration?
In fact, since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, Dubai Ports World might even have a stronger interest in operating safe and secure ports than companies from other nations. Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold. If a terrorist incident occurred in one of its ports, the company would probably lose more business worldwide than a non-Arabic company would under the same circumstances.
The company should be evaluated on its qualifications to operate the ports, not on McCarthy-like litmus tests for Arabs or the UAE. Besides, although Dubai Ports World will operate the ports, U.S. federal and local authorities will remain in charge of security.
Members of Congress such as Congressman King and New York Senator Charles E. Schumer certainly get points with their New York constituents for defending the nation against the onslaught by “Arab terrorists,” and perhaps trying to protect U.S. companies from foreign competition as well.
But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United States — in spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners.
After 9/11, U.S. authorities incarcerated and questioned people based on their Arabic nationalities and Islamic religion. The vast majority of them had no connection to terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. This was widely perceived to have been an overreaction. Yet more than four years after 9/11, this racial and ethnic profiling has now moved from individuals to businesses. The Bush administration was right to insist that no security threat emanated from a routine business purchase of a British firm by an Arab company. The politicians should quit posturing and move on to more important issues.
Maybe so but I’d feel better if the Danish were operating the ports instead.
Leave it to a professor to call common sense crazy. With 999 out of 1000 terrorist attacks being Muslim in origin it is not jingoism or paranoia it is common sense. Until Muslims can prove unequivocally that they are against terrorism it is shear stupidity to trust them. The Muslims are xenophobic of everyone not Muslim, and even xenophobic of other Muslims. Muslims are non-Muslimophobic. And, it was the Muslim jihad that brought the dark ages to the Western world and hundreds of years ago they sold all the slaves to the Western world and still sell slaves in Africa.
Statement: Let us not forget that the British used violence in order to gain control of New York and Newark in 1776 (attacking and burning New York City – our first capital after the revolution), Philadelphia in 1777 (attacking our capital during the revolution), Baltimore in 1813 (attacking our current capital and burning the president’s mansion now known as the white house) and New Orleans in 1814.
Questions: 1. Which Benedict Arnold in our government is responsible for selling control over our ports to the British in the first place?
2. How can associates of our original enemy be conspiring with associates of our current enemy over the sovereignty of our ports?
Follow-up statement: I think I smell a rat at the bottom of all this. A democrat!
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Eland more. My only problem has been the secrecy surrounding the whole deal. I appreciate the Administration’s concerns and their need to keep sensitive information out of the headlines of the NYT; however, dropping a bomb (if you’ll excuse the expression) like this on the public has resulted in a huge information vacuum that’s being filled with understand, post 9/11 emotions. Maybe if the Bush team had softened the blow by giving anyone (the Congress, news media, or how about Bush himself!) a “heads up” that the deal was in the works, and then followed up with some hard info for us to digest and debate, the country, and our friends in Washington, wouldn’t be in such a panic over something we all know almost nothing about.
Professionally speaking, as a media critic, I simply want the media to accurately relay BOTH sides of the story and have passionate voices on both sides air their opinions on shows like “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” Eland is one such voice, and the media would do well to get him to appear on TV to defend his viewpoint.
On to my personal viewpoint, I lean in Eland’s direction, although I’m probably a bit more in favor of caution and a little less secrecy.
Let’s look at it rationally. There are three principal reasons one could object to Emirati ownership:
1) Profits would be funneled to terrorists
2) UAE ownership would put otherwise unauthorized terror suspects in sensitive port security operations
3) UAE ownership would lead to terrorists gaining knowledge of DHS security protocols.
I think the most rational fear here is #1, but the obvious question is IF this is demonstrably true, it would be a cause for war against the UAE, and hence not a rational decision for the Emirati government to make. Additionally, if that were demonstrably true, the assets could be seized and a new bid opened for another company, with the government operating the port in trust in the meantime.
Fears #2 and #3 are overblown in my personal opinion. Most operations on American soil will still be done by American citizens, particularly blue collar, unionized, patriotic Americans. Essentially American suits will staff the offices and blue collars will work the docks, as the case has been previously with British ownership. The British profit-takers pretty much pay the bills and reap the profit. The same is true of many American divisions of foreign corporations (Nokia, Nissan, Honda, etc.)
But let’s say for a moment you ONLY had Americans in and around seaport operations. You can still have people selling out secrets to shady characters for money, or blackmailed for information. American ownership in port operation doesn’t guard against that.
To be extra cautious, you could demand only natural-born citizens work in seaports, and that they have security clearances and background checks done by DHS or the NSA. But to do so would dramatically raise costs and produce staffing shortages in US ports. Some port facilities, particularly military ones, may require high levels of security clearance, but most port ops (operating cranes, offloading ships, driving trucks, operating forklifts) do not need that level of security scrutiny.
In the second to the last paragraph, I think it’s Mr. Eland’s logic that’s flawed. So, because we are already vulnerable, we should make ourselves more vulnerable? It’s ok to make another whole in the armor because the armor already has some wholes in it? Not all the article was bad, but that section was rediculous.
George Tenent testified that in the late 90′s an air strike on a terrorist training camp, where OBL was know to be, was called off because one of the UAE royal families was at this camp. Why were they at a terrorist training camp? How many times did they meet with OBL? What did they talk about? Do they know where he is now?
I wonder how many questions I can come up with that Scott McClellan probably has no idea how to answer? 50? 100?
We also find that Dubai Ports asks employees to work one day a month for free, to donate proceeds to their favorite Palastinian charity. Is Hamas a charity? How many of these “donations” killed children on busses. How many of these donations have killed our sons and daughters in the deserts of Iraq and Afganistan? If Dubai Ports makes money from the use of our “sovereign” territory , will any of the money they make from me be used to kill children and our soldiers?
I wonder how many questions I can come up with that Scott McClellan probably doesn’t want to answer? 50? 100?
I disagree with everything Eland and Shepard have said. This may be hard to believe, but I trust the British more than I’ll ever trust any Arab.
But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United States — in spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners.
Yes, all Arab companies should be kept a poles length until the war is over. No flawed logic here.
Yes, any airline coming from an Arab country should be forced to land in a very secure location. Passengers on these planes should heavily scrutinized and searched. No flawed logic here either.
I especially liked the xenophobe slur. “Oh no, people aren’t actually concerned about homeland security, It must be a mental disorder”.
Bush handed the Democrats an issue on a silver platter. Watch the GOP cover their asses to override his promised veto. Even though I voted for her, I’ll have no problem walking for the Democratic challenger to my Republican representative if she fails to vote for the blockage of this deal.
Oh yeah! Dig this: every Arab should be racially profiled. All student visa’s from Arab countries should be recinded and these people removed. Any Arab immigrants that are here, regardless of status, should be sent immediately back to their country of origin.
We should make it clear that civil people make civil society. After the West wins this war (which certainly won’t happen if there is no border security), only then will Muslims be allowed back into the fold.
Until then, Muslims and their f*#ked up religion get my single-finger, “blue-collar” salute.
A kneejerk racist and xenophobic attitude. Nice to see such views oozing out of the floorboards.
People forget that the ports will be still be controlled by the local port authorities.
Some people never let facts get in the way of their opinions.
So Ms. Witney,
Maybe after you answer my questions (which follow), you will be able to answer the hundred more I have.
Why were they at a terrorist training camp? How many times did they meet with OBL? What did they talk about? Do they know where he is now? Is Hamas a charity? How many of these “donations” killed children on busses. How many of these donations have killed our sons and daughters in the deserts of Iraq and Afganistan? If Dubai Ports makes money from the use of our “sovereign” territory , will any of the money they make from me be used to kill children and our soldiers? Are most terrorists Muslim? Can you assure me that the money made by the UAE off of our ports won’t go terrorists with the blessing of Dubai Ports? Why shouldn’t I trust the Brits over the Arabs? Is border security important for national defense? Are our borders and ports secure now?
Your race-baiting will fall on deaf eyes.
I want to know why no U.S. company wants the job. Rush Limbaugh is blaming the unions of the port authority not being worth the hassle of any U.S. company wanting the job, but that just doesn’t make sense to little ol’ me. Why wouldn’t a company (Haliburton) want this job? To me, this is the deeper question. We can say we trust the Brits or other European countries, but regardless who has the contract, do we feel as safe as we could with a U.S. company? The answer for me is no. What responsibility does any foreign country owe the U.S.? The honest answer is ” No more than any other country.” This being true we need a company with roots at home to take this opportunity. Who knows, it may begin a windfall of Americans taking pride in American companies again. Here’s a thought, maybe this is like our immigration problem, “If the UAE aren’t allowed this type of work than it won’t get done, and the economy will come to a stand still and I am just a rascist right wing pig for not wanting a company to better themselves.” The sad thing is I am not talking about picking produce in the sun all day, this is about national security, oh I forgot; so is the immigration problem.
I have to give Bush credit, he has me thinking all those “He’s too arrogant to admit a mistake,” comments making sense. I never thought I could agree with a liberal. What a sad day.
To the “Plumber”,
I will humour you. The main point is an Arab company having an interest in US ports. Your initial questions have no bearing on this.
“If Dubai Ports makes money from the use of our “sovereign” territory , will any of the money they make from me be used to kill children and our soldiers?”
Directly? None. Indirectly? How far do you want to take it? If a shareholder of a company received money in the form of a dividend, and then uses that money for an illegal activity that can cause harm to someone – who is responsible? The shareholder or the company? Such an approach could ensnare many companies.
You then meander again with questions not related to the deal. However this one is interesting:
“Why shouldn’t I trust the Brits over the Arabs?”
A better question would be, why would you trust control of an asset regarded as an “strategic asset” to any foreign controlled entity? Surely a foreign sovereign nation will always put there interests first? (however in the case of ports, the local port authority still maintains control)
Next are two questions, which are important, but not really related to the port issue, since control remains with the local authority.
“Is border security important for national defense?”
Yes. Common sense dictates this.
“Are our borders and ports secure now?”
Judging by the numbers of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs entering the US, the answer would have to be no. (note I am from the UK)
Your last statement is a gem.
“Your race-baiting will fall on deaf eyes.”
Who is the one mentioning race/religion as justification? You could of argued the issue without any need to mention them. If you are concerned about outside control of US assets, perhaps you should ask why no US company submitted a bid (I do not know if any did), perhaps you should also ask why politicians – if they regard this as an issue of security – have not clarified rules over ownership of “strategic assets”?
I hope my replies clarify things enough for you.
Leigh,
Your right. I have no reason to distrust Islam or Muslims. I’ll remember that next time I draw a cartoon of Muhammad. I suppose I’ll just have to live with the moniker: kneejerk racist.
Was a UAE royal family meeting OBL at a terrorist training camp in ’98 or ’99? Is DPW in Dubai a hub for the shipment of nuclear equiptment and materials to Iran? How do you know that none of the money a state-owned company doesn’t go directly into the hands of Hamas?
Oh wait, those questions have nothing to do with this deal.
Michelle Malkin is all over this. When you get tired of not answering my questions, jump on over to her site to not answer hers.
An answer is an answer even if you do not agree with it.
I was amused at the link on your site to http://www.pressforprogress.com. Your true feelings or Google having a joke?
Never heard of them.