George W. Bush must explain to the American people that Dubai Ports World has no role in providing security for the ports.
The idea that several U.S. ports are to be managed by a company based in the United Arab Emirates has gone over about as well as Bode Miller on the downhill slopes of Turin.
Now that there is a cooling off period in place, there is hope that this whole thing will just go away. But Americans are not about to let their security go away. President Bush must take it upon himself to explain to the American people why Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of these ports is in the national interest.
Specifically, President Bush must go on national television and make three points.
First, President Bush must convince the American people that the United Arab Emirates is our friend and not our foe. He must reassure Americans that a government that once supported the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has turned over a new leaf. Without compromising national security, President Bush must cite specific examples of how the UAE has helped America’s War on Terror. It is insufficient for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to refer to the UAE as “a good partner…a stalwart partner,” as she did in Saudi Arabia last week. How has the UAE been a good and stalwart partner? What have they done to help us? If the UAE has indeed been a good and stalwart partner, it is the President and not the Secretary of State who needs to edify and enlighten us as to why this is the case.
Second, the President must convince the American people of the merits of Dubai Ports World. He must communicate to Americans the reasons the Department of the Treasury saw fit to approve their takeover of some of our ports from British owned P&O. The President must demonstrate why this is the company best suited to manage our ports. The President must make the American people aware of Dubai Ports World’s successes in other parts of the world. He also must highlight any awards that have been bestowed upon them by their industry and by business journals and publications. President Bush must convince the American people that Dubais Port World is in America to do business, not to cause trouble.
Third, and most importantly, President Bush must convince the American people that port security is under the jurisdiction of and enforced by Americans through U.S. Customs and the Department of Homeland Security. The Commander-in-Chief must tell the American people that Dubai Ports World has no role in providing security for the ports. Jay Leno would have the American people believe that Dubai Ports World (and by extension the UAE) would be in charge of the security of our ports. If Americans have these perceptions this takeover will not be viable. He must tell the American people what steps U.S. Customs and the Department of Homeland Security have taken and will continue to take to ensure the safety of our ports. If these departments and agencies have been responsible for thwarting potential terrorist attacks on our ports, these achievements must also be highlighted.
The American people must have confidence that our ports will be in safe hands under the helm of Dubai Ports World. They must have confidence that the United Arab Emirates is our friend and not our foe. They must have confidence that Dubai Ports World is a stellar company that can run our ports more efficiently than anyone else. They must have confidence that our government and only our government will be in charge of the security of our ports.
If the President fails to convey this message to the American people then they might take it upon themselves to elect Democrats in record numbers this November. It explains why many Republicans, such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, have so vigorously opposed this takeover. If President Bush insists on this deal going through without having sufficiently explained why this is in America’s best interests, then President Bush will spend the last two years of his Presidency having the War on Terror and all of his other initiatives thwarted by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Aaron,
All you say is right up to a point. However, it ignores one security point and several aspects of dealing with a country that straddles the terror fence. Before going into that, it should be further clarified Dubai will not be running our ports. They will only have management responsibility for operating some terminals in each of the six ports. That still provides considerable opportunity for terrorist and those who are sympathetic to them.
Although Dubai will not have actual security responsibility, our enforcement of port security is historically pretty lax. Hillary Clinton has it right when she pointed out only a percentage of ship cargos are ever inspected and verified against manifests. This was already noted and criticized prior to the Dubai deal and has yet to be rectified. Even with tight security, verifying cargo containers contain only those materials described in manifests is a virtual impossibility. I have no doubt the Coast Guard and port security will do the best job they can with the assets they have, but introducing access to a country with suspect sympathies will, at the minimum mean we must beef up our inspection process. We need to do that in either case, but Dubai, regardless of their good deeds to date, represent a much higher risk than most countries managing terminals in our ports. It has been pointed out (I forget where) that Dubai ships already have access to our ports, that 30% of port terminals are already operated by foreign corporations, and that the same applies to every international airport in the U.S. It further pointed out that a ship carrying a nuclear bomb or similar WMD need not dock to carry out its mission. Even so, combining ship access with terminal operation means we are further dependent on an over-extended security apparatus to assure what comes in remains non-threatening.
As for airports, they are a risk but much less than ship facilities. Air transports are much smaller than ships and have fewer spaces in which to hide undocumented cargos. Passenger planes have even less space in which to hide things, but are more chaotic to screen. Our airport security is better than pre-9/11, but still far from adequate. Ship cargo holds with their containerized loading and stowage are even more chaotic than passenger planes and far more voluminous than air cargo planes. Unlike airports, there are relatively few observers in a seaport. This means a terrorist will be freer to insert or remove materials. Having terminal operations in the hands of country like Dubai will mean some employees (primarily managers) will be from the UAE and will be in a position to hide some of this activity. Port facilities are strewn with thousands of containers at any one time, with millions of containers moving through them each year. If airports are still a sieve for terrorists, they are hardly a good supporting argument for allowing greater port access to a dubious ally.
CBS columnist Dick Meyer and Charles Wolfson (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml) inform us that “State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates”, and that this is a high measure of confidence. Regarding security, they believe “that has everything to do with adequate funding and proper management at the relevant agencies”. In other words, security is our problem and not that of any foreign corporation that is a de facto extension of its government operating in our ports. They are technically correct in both points, but wrong in their conclusions which belittle the risks and support a Dubai deal. It would take astronomical funding to secure all our ports, leaving less funding for other things like fighting terrorists. The question is not whether Dubai is outright hostile; the question is: why take that chance.
We seem hung up on being “fair” to an Arab corporation and government who have shown good faith up to a point (and more than most), but falls short of complete commitment to anti-terrorism. Tommy Franks (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/221135.shtml?s=ic) calls Dubai a friend; and, as CENTCOM before and during the Iraq War, he got to know key UAE leaders. However, as CENTCOM, Franks had only a few Muslim countries from which to pick “friends”, making this a relative statement. The UAE (of which Dubai is part) does indeed allow us access their ports and services our naval vessels, yet limits where we can go, how we can behave, and proscribes any expression of Christian or Jewish identity in-country. Because of Muslim sensitivity regarding the Hijaz (Saudi holy places), the UAE has an openness, modernity and shared interest that is less real than imagined. The UAE still boycotts Israel, supports HAMAS and other terrorists and has persistent ties to Al Qaeda. The UAE consists of seven semi-independent sheikdoms (Dubai being one) that operate as a confederation. UAE leadership may be sincere in the their support and anti-terrorist sentiments, but have done little to go after terrorists within their boundaries, and terrorist still move freely in and out of that country. Furthermore, the UAE has done little to assist in tracking Al Qaeda money transfers or seize terrorist funds in UAE banks. This adds up to a country that supports our fight superficially, yet isn’t sincere of our objectives. They know, as we do, that ground troops alone will not bring terrorist to heel; and as long as they can hide out among them, our job remains incomplete.
The middle-east has a long history of being misinterpreted, and it wouldn’t be the first time we credited them more than reality and common-sense will grant. We do want to encourage the UAE to stay aboard with us; but, emphasis should be on their good faith, not ours. The UAE has been party to terrorism and has much to atone for. They don’t see it that way, but that has always been part of the problem. If we have to trade our security for access to their ports in order to keep up our operations, then we may have put our head in a noose of our own making.