The WSJ On The Ports: Much Ado About Nothing
The Wall Street Journal:
Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we’re wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn’t done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.
Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to “a foreign-based company”; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.
Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port “security” to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There’s a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. “Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. “The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.”
…As for the Democrats, we suppose this is a two-fer: They have a rare opportunity to get to the right of the GOP on national security, and they can play to their union, anti-foreign investment base as well. At a news conference in front of New York harbor, Senator Chuck Schumer said allowing the Arab company to manage ports “is a homeland security accident waiting to happen.” Hillary Clinton is also along for this political ride.
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for “hearts and minds” now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it’s terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That’s all sure to play well on al Jazeera.
Yesterday Mr. Bush defended his decision to allow the investment to go ahead, and he threatened what would be his first veto if Congress tries to block it. We hope this time he means it.
I’ve seen nothing so far to change my initial impression…I remain singularly unconcerned about this deal…
UPDATE 8:21 a.m.: Further solidifying my stance in favor of the deal, the Times is against it:
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.
…and the Washington Post is for it:
You know there’s something suspicious going on when multiple members of Congress — House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, future presidential candidates of all stripes — spontaneously unite around an issue that none of them had known existed a week earlier. That appears to be what happened last weekend after politicians awoke to the fairly stale news that the London-based P&O navigation company, which has long managed the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, had been taken over by Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates.
…None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal was long in the making, that it had been reported on extensively in the financial press, and that it went through normal security clearance procedures, including approval from a foreign investment committee that contains officials from the departments of Treasury, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, among other agencies. Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We’d like to remind them, as they’ve apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.
The distinction that the editorial fails to make is that Dubai Ports World isn’t just a foreign-based company; it’s a state-owned company. I don’t know that that’s necessarily enough to make me throw up my hands in panic over the deal, but in the interests of full disclosure, that piece of information certainly ought to be there.
For one, I know you’re being coy, but to say that part of your stance hinges on knee-jerk disagreement with the Times is a bit troubling to me.
And again, what the Post excerpt fails to take into account (purposely, it seems) is that this isn’t a company based in the UAE. It’s a company owned and operated by the UAE.
I hear ya…but the UAE is not on the State Department list of terrorist-sponsoring nations…I don’t see, legally, how we can make a defensible objection in the land of the (supposed) free market…this smells like something the EU would do…
There are, however, legitimate concerns of UAE banks having channeled funds for al Qaeda. I’m not saying that it necessarily has to be stopped or that it’s going to destroy our nation or anything alarmist like that. Only that I can’t see the point in not letting it go through a little bit more vetting, by Congress, just so that everybody can be comfortable with it.
If it’s something to which there’s an initial knee-jerk resistance, and the President is confident, then shouldn’t some further independent investigation yield the same opinion? I can’t see how it wouldn’t be a political winner for the President to let Congress take a look at it. They’re sated on a lot of fronts, since they’ve been starving for some oversight on ANYTHING for a while, if everything’s on the up and up (as I suspect it is), the deal gets confirmed, and Bush gets the points for reaching out to our Arab brethren.
I agree with Fargus that it warrants some more investigation. There’s more than a whiff of “You can’t trust them Ay-rabs” to some of the kneejerk opposition to the deal, and so I can understand the administration getting a bit testy about that. But I think forcing Congress to do its job and actually investigate, rather than make grandstanding speeches, would be good for finding out how much of the opposition is based on rational worries and how much is based on hysteria.
Maybe so…I’m not passionately for the deal, but I’m certainly not convinced that it warrants this kind of a reaction…Fargus might be on to something, with the political strategy, but this is an administration, for better or worse, that likes to stick to its guns when backed into a corner, so I would be surprised if Bush backs down, unless the heat gets up to Harriet Miers level…has George Will editorialized yet? How about Krauthammer?…
Actually the US government has given money to the PLO, so clearly our government supports terrorism, mkaing them unfit to deal with port security.
Fargus-
Dubai Ports World is not owned by the government of the U.A.E. but rather majority-owned by the Emir of Dubai. Unlike most of its neighbors, Dubai gets less than ten percent of its GDP from oil, with the large majority coming from its role as a regional commercial center and transportation hub — something that requires a high degree of confidence in a stable rule of law without arbitrary government interference, much less terrorist entanglements in their business. One significant abuse of security (assuming such were even possible) by Dubai Ports, and the Emir of Dubai would lose everything that he’s built.
It’s been reported that in exchange for signing off on this deal, we’ve been given expanded cooperation in searching cargo containers being shipped to the U.S. in foreign ports that are run by Dubai Ports (the third largest port management company in the world). Doesn’t it seem like that’s a good thing?
Re: banks — of course, Al Qaeda used banks in Dubai. Dubai’s banks are the Swiss banks of the middle east. What you should also note is how much Dubai has bent over backwards changing its banking secrecy laws to assist our investigators in the years after 9/11. Do we really want to tell them now that all of that assistance has gained them exactly nothing?
The more I learn, the more I wonder what those so strongly against this deal are thinking. Which brings me to my final point: The glaring difference between the two sides in this debate.
Supporting this deal, we have all of the financial press (from the liberal Financial Times and The Economist to the conservative Wall Street Journal) who have been watching this deal and thinking about it for the past year. Also supporting this deal, we have the Administration which has held extensive classified hearings to consider in detail the security aspects of the acquisition.
Opposing this deal, we have lots of political commentators and politicians who have just heard of this deal last week, and keep getting the basic details wrong (the first headlines were that we were selling our ports to Saudi Arabia, or something like that). They think that they are being moderate by simply calling for hearings to investigate — because if they don’t know anything about the deal, surely no one else possibly could know what they’re talking about!
Look. When I first heard the one clause version of this issue (state-owned Arab company to take over operations of several of our ports) I reacted just as you did: it sounded like a bad idea and I wanted to know more. But, you don’t need Congressional hearings in order to find out more (in fact they are far more likely to obscure matters — how much did you learn about Justice Alito in his hearings??) — you just need ‘google’.
I think the ports controversy is useful because it is drawing attention to port security in general. Regardless of whether or not the contract is withdrawn, the funding to adequately protect the ports is well short of what is necessary:
http://www.forbes.com/home/logistics/2006/02/22/dubai-port-merger-cx_rm_0222dubai.html
This is something which is ignored in the Journal editorial, which instead prefers to launch a partisan attack:
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for “hearts and minds” now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.?
(Whenever administration policy is attacked, the Journal invariably portrays it as a partisan conflict, implying that there is no merit to the argument, which is made for partisan gain. As Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert, among many others, have criticized the administration on this issue, it’s hard to see why the Journal whines about Democrats)
Guantanamo must be closed because it’s terrible PR,
(The Journal distorts the Democrats’ position – Guantanamo must be closed because it is abhorrent to hold people indefinitely without charge, not because it is a PR mess)
wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal,
(Dead wrong: nobody is suggesting that we shouldn’t wiretap Al Qaeda in the US – only that surveillance should follow the law – the Journal must think that if they repeat this theme enough people will conclude that it is true)
and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq,
(the Journal wants to stay in Iraq forever? Of course we need to withdraw from Iraq – the question is when and how)
but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen.
(Would the Journal object if Saudis were put in charge? Recognizing that Iran is not an Arab country, would they object if the Iranians ran the show?)
That’s all sure to play well on al Jazeera.
(If the Journal was truly concerned with what plays well on Al Jazeera, why do they dismiss Gitmo and Abu Ghraib as insignificant?)
V.S.O.P. Port
(Very Safe Orating Politicians) And the beat goes on, Reps and Dems alike blaring the claxon “we’re all gonna diiieeeeee” because of this ports deal. . . yet another media-made hysteria fed by political opportunism. Seems that people who actually…