From the "Trust Us" Administration comes the word that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Treasury Secretary Snow, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and...
(the list is too long for an Intro)
comes the word that Port Security Issues "aren't" when considering a foreign government controlling operations at our ports. Issues of jurisdiction, document retention, implementation of security protocols, container inspections, transit security, and governmental involvement in the operations of any corporations charged with complying with US Maritime law are simply, non-issues.
Why do we care more for planes, which are relatively small transportation devices, than we care for boats and the trucks and trains that will carry the cargo brought here on boats?
There are many issues that set Dubai Ports apart from other off-shore corporations that operate transshipment facilities such as shipping terminals, rail transit warehouses and container storage, and air shipment facilities.
First is the matter of ownership:
No foreign corporations are allowed to operate airports or air shipping facilities. Period. Full stop.
Granted a Boeing exploding over a city, any city, would have more of a visual impact than the sinking of a ship somewhere in or near New York Harbor. It's one thing to have plane parts raining down on citizens, and another to have boat parts hitting the ocean floor.
Granted also, that the law forbids any foreign owned companies from operating air facilities because of security. Apparently there is some legal difference between shipping goods on trains, then trucks, then planes. At least when compared to shipping goods on trains, then trucks, then boats.
In fact it is a distinction without a difference.
We don't allow foreign corporations to operate air facilities because of security. Of course, in the run up to US involvement in WWII, there were many ships lost at sea in the transport of goods from New York Harbor to Portsmouth, England. Not so much air transport then, but the message was clear. Even if we weren't at war at the time, we made sure our ports were secure and operated by US corporations or the US government.
Dubai Ports is so much more than a foreign corporation. It is an arm of the UAE government. As such, it IS the UAE government that wants to operate a secure facility. This is, by the way, a function that neither the Brits nor the UAE could hope to perform if we were discussing LaGuardia.
So, it is not just a foreign corporation, it is a government controlling management of a large part of commerce, operating near heavily populated areas.
The British corporation that had been in charge of these same ports until the sale was announced (pursuant to a review in which Homeland Security alone objected to the agreement) was not an arm of the government of the United Kingdom.
As an arm of the UAE, Dubai Ports is subject to different rules for maintenance of records. As an arm of a sovereign government, their ready access to United States Courts is not assured. It is just the opposite. Our courts and law enforcement have much more ready access to corporations operating here than we do for governments operating here.
Port managers also implement the security protocols imposed by Customs and the Coast Guard. Compliance with these protocols by a foreign government is not a frequently litigated issue. It is quantitatively and qualitatively different from a foreign owned corporation in the same or similar circumstances.
We are assured this morning, based on the remarks of pundits and pols, that the deal will go through. Apparently these wise and witty commenters cannot see the difference between a foreign corporation and a foreign government. Application of corporate standards of compliance to a foreign government is simply not the same in US, Maritime or International law. The only presumption remaining is to look at the billions involved in the deal. And the focus of the "Security President".
Fran Townsend has made sure, review process or not, the deal is unimpeachable. It is right, true, good and good for America. Trust us, she says.
Charles Schumer (D,NY) however, gets it. There is a difference between private corporations and governments acting as corporations, as is the case with Dubai Ports. Dubai Ports is really nothing more than a "stage name" for the UAE. This time though, the play is on US soil involving US security. The port security affects food, finished goods, raw materials and commerce going in and out of the US on a scale not even close to the scale of air transport.
And I don't trust the "Let the transfer begin brigade". No matter how much President Bush claims that we should "trust", we don't. It isn't xenophobia. It is applying the same standards of security we apply to air transport to all other forms of transport.
Non-US companies aren't allowed to run airports becuase of the requirement that all security related facilities management must be readily accessible to the jurisdiction of the US Courts. A foreign government operating a port cannot provide these same assurances as can a US corporation.
Another reason for distrust of this proposed contract is that the pending contract with the UAE is yet another application of a double standard as Standard Operating Procedure. We will enforce the security rules for planes, but not for boats, trucks and trains.
Apparently, if you are confined to ground transport, living or working near ground transport, receiving goods from overseas, or even driving near container trucks hauling goods from these ports, your security is of secondary importance. Only the flying get top flight security, whether a passenger or a package.
Something is, as the saying goes, rotten in Copenhagen. Only the actual rot is not in Denmark. It is right here, in our back yards. Right where we keep those port to rail connections.