I am dismayed and deeply perturbed by the response on here and other places to the Dubai Ports World (DPW) deal. It seems to me that many of the complaints regarding this deal are based on ignorance and racism, and not on any real objective analysis of how best to secure our country. Let us examine both the reasons for and against Dubai Ports World operating six ports in the United States.
For:
1.) Dubai Ports World is a world leader in port operations
2.) Dubai Port World is not a new company, it has worked closely with the United States for many years
3.) The United Arab Emirates is a major partner in the War on Terrorism
4.) Over the last few decades Dubai Ports World has consistently met the expectations and standards of the United States federal government
5.) The Coast Guard and the United States customs authorities, not Dubai Ports World, are still responsible for checking incoming cargo, passengers, and crews as well as for planning and maintaining port security.
6.) Dubai Ports World operates ports in Singapore and the Middle East, in addition to other strategic locations around the world. It would be in our best interest to foster cooperation with a company that operates such ports because it is at these ports where terrorists will try to load a weapon for delivery to U.S. Terrorists will not try to sneak a weapon on a boat in New York for delivery elsewhere in the United States. They will sneak a weapon on a boat in Singapore for delivery to a U.S. port. Our goal needs to be to stop terrorists abroad from sneaking bombs onto boats and to locate these bombs if they reach our ports. Working with a company like Dubai Ports World, which operates in strategic points around the world, seems to make the most sense if that is our goal.
Against:
1.) They are a state-owned company and two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE.
2.) The UAE is located in the Middle East, which should immediately put up red flags
3.) Our ports should not be controlled by a foreign company
Of the arguments against letting Dubai Ports World operate in the U.S., only the third point is worthy of any answer. The first two are blatant examples of racism and xenophobia. DPW, if given the contract, has a reputation to uphold and as such has a stake in adequately securing our ports. If they let an attack happen, they would lose most of their business. In addition, if we give out contracts only to companies in places where terrorists do not come from, then our available selections will be minimal. There is no evidence that UAE sponsors terrorism, only that two 9/11 terrorists were from there. This should exclude them; just as Richard Reid's (the shoe bomber) British citizenship did not exclude Britain from having the contract.
There is some validity to the argument that we should not let any foreign country operate our ports. However, this is only a valid argument if there is a U.S. company that can perform as well as DPW. So far, I have seen no evidence that there exists such a company. In addition, this would be a valid point if the government itself could handle the functions that they want DPW to handle. I have read no one advocating this position or believing that the government has the potential to handle the tasks of DPW.
My main point in advocating for the DPW deal is that it is strategically smart. While we must recognize the need to secure our ports, we must also recognize that we need to work with countries and companies that are securing ports where it makes the most sense for terrorists to sneak on a weapon of mass destruction. Terrorists will not be sneaking bombs on a boat in one U.S. port for delivery to another domestic port. If this was the case, then maybe we could handle our own security. Since this is not the case, we must foster relationships with foreign countries and companies that secure strategic points of interest.
In short, we need to ask the question, does giving the contract to DPW increase, decrease, or sustain our current level of security. I think the answer to that question is that since it fosters a cooperative strategic relationship it increases our current level of security. The next question to ask then is if we get this same level of security if we contract out a domestic company or let the government handle it. In my opinion, the answer to that question is no because it gives us no ties to other strategic ports and there is no evidence that a U.S. company or the government can operate to the level of DPW. This means to me that all of this fuss needs to end and we need to realize the benefits of a contract with DPW.