The DP World takeover of P&O wasn't a secret before the Bush administration gave it its stamp of approval. The bidding war between DP World and another company, PSA, were well-publicized. But the revelation that the Bush administration approved of the deal shocked both sides of the aisle. In response, some on both the left and the right
go too far in their opposition:
Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, said she would support legislation to block foreign companies from buying port facilities.
"I'm going to support legislation to say `No more, no way.' We have to have American companies running our own ports ... Our infrastructure is at risk," she said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Um, as much as I'd love to slap a "Made in America" label on our port security, Boxer's sweeping proposal simply does not reflect the reality of the maritime industry. In 2004, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime, met to discuss the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for our maritime security (pdf). One of the panelists was Stephen Flynn, former Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard:
Mr. FLYNN. Well, really, I want to very much echo the 9/11 Commission's message about reaching out to the private sector. This has been a particularly difficult issue in the maritime arena, because so much of the maritime industry is actually owned by foreign companies. You know, there is no major container line in the United States, outside of Matson Line, that does Jones Act kind of activity. The American Presidential Line is now owned by the Singaporans; Sealand is now owned by Maersk A.P. Mueller. So when you are talking about securedness, you cannot talk about it by just reaching out to domestic players.
And in case you're wondering about who, in 2004, controlled U.S. ports:
There is Hutchison Port Holdings, which moved 41 million TUs last year. Next, PSA, Port of Singapore, International, which moved 19.5 million. Then you have PNO Ports, a British-based-- they moved about 16; and then you have AP Moller Ports, a Dane company, that moved 13.5 million. HPH is run by a Brit. So two Brits, a Singaporean and a Dane.
Instead of employing a knee-jerk reaction akin to isolationism (not that I'm accusing Boxer of that, but that's one of the strongest reactions I've seen), opposition to the Dubai deal should reflect the realities of the situation. Senators Menedez and Clinton have the more practical proposal. Their legislation would ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments to operate our ports.
Now, let me make it clear. The government of Singapore has an interest in PSA, Port of Singapore, which does operate various U.S. ports. Its interest is via Temasek Holdings, a Singapore government investment agency. But I think it's one thing to have an investment interest in a company and quite another to have the foreign state controlling the company. One of main criticisms of the Dubai deal centers on sovereignty. The CEO of DP World is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, who works directly for the Crown Prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. For all the U.S. regulations DP World will have to follow, for all the safety it may be able to guarantee us, the fact remains a foreign government will hold our physical and economic safety in its hands.
Unlike Singapore, this is a government that formally recognized the Taliban. One of the emirates in the UAE was essentially the center for al-Qaeda's illegal financial dealings, with hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing from the UAE to the 9/11 hijackers. (For a comprehensive list of UAE-9/11 links, click here). On the one hand, Bush never fails to remind us of the 9/11 hijackers, and on the other hand, he wants America to forget that some of those hijackers were UAE nationals. Of course, no one is implicating the government that controls DP World as having been aware or facilitating these connections. The truth is that since 9/11, that government has dramatically clamped down on terrorism and suspicious financial dealings within its borders.
But how can a President who so readily invokes 9/11 be so quick to forget its lessons? The review of DP World was incomplete, at least incomplete to satisfy the public uneasiness about having this foreign nation--with so many ties to the darkest of days--securing the lives of millions of Americans. The President has spent so much PR money and effort scaring Americans into thinking terrorists will strike again, that he has now boxed himself in when he desires to give DP World a stake in our national security. No matter how trustworthy that company is, Americans are simply not comfortable with having a Middle eastern country control our ports. It may be irrational, but that is a political reality the President must deal with.
The company itself may be adequately qualified for the job, but there are other considerations which must be wieghed. Just a couple years ago, our embassy in Abu Dhabi was shutdown to a terrorist threat. What happens if DP World, because of its new interest in the United States, becomes a target? What will occur if those 6 ports have to be shut down because of a terrorist threat? As Commander Flynn explained, even a two-week shutdown of U.S. ports "will collapse the global trade system." It's all speculation, of course, but these factors merit serious consideration and a robust public debate before we hand our security over to this company.
What is unquestionably one of the most important decisions about our national security was made by the same cabal that has long ago lost our trust on such matters. The decision was made in secret, without a full investigation and without the input of those who will be most affected by this deal. If this administration has the temerity to invoke 9/11 at every press conference and speech, then let it show us that why we can feel trust a foreign government to prevent another such attack.
Comments are closed on this story.