Last month it was announced that six U.S. ports would be turned over to a company based out of the United Arab Emirates. This has caused a firestorm in Washington, D.C., and President Bush has threatened to use his veto power for the first time if Congress attempts to block the transaction.
Opponents claim that the Bush administration did not give this deal its due diligence and that the administration is “outsourcing our security”. They warn against allowing an Arab country to run commercial operations of six of our ports. These critics come from both sides of the aisle. Finally, Congress has come to a bipartisan decision on something….and it is dead wrong. The Committee on Foreign Commerce (members of the State Dept., Homeland Security Dept., Congress, etc.) meticulously studied the implications of this deal and gave it the seal of approval. This is not something that just popped up on the president's desk and got a rubber stamp. The administration gave this deal as much or more attention than any similar deal.
The most frequent argument, that the administration is outsourcing security, shows a decisive lack of understanding of the situation. First of all, the security protocols will NOT change at all after the power shift. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Port Authority will still have the same command and control over the security situation that they have always had. However, this might not be a good thing, since less than 6% of all containers entering U.S. ports are searched anyway. In any event, both the port employees and the security situation will remain exactly the same. Dubai will control only the commercial operations of the ports.
Not many citizens realize that an astonishing 80% of our ports are under foreign control. A British company currently owns the six in question. Recall that this past summer’s London bombings were perpetrated by homegrown British terrorists. While no one complains about the “outsourcing” as it stands now, the idea of an Arab country joining in the market is making Washington crazy. The fact is that the Dubai is one of the best allies in the War on Terror that we have in that volatile region. Additionally, the U.A.E. is one of the few countries in the world to sign on to our Container Security Initiative (2005), meaning that their government requires all ports under their operation to comply with strict security measures from their end to foil international terrorist plots.
This brings me to an important point.
Anti-military leftists claim that the War on Terror should not be fought to capture capitol cities, but rather the hearts and minds of their residents. Fair enough. Now, explain to me how you are going to win the hearts and minds of Arabs when you all of a sudden raise hell because a Middle Eastern company is taking over a few ports in the U.S. that are already being run by a foreign country.
Are all Arabs terrorists? No, but by arguing against this deal so virulently, they will get the impression that Americans think they are, and that does not win ANY hearts or minds. Islamic radicals could have a field day with American resistance to this takeover. As the London bombings demonstrated, terrorists can come from anywhere, and if they want to exploit our ports, they can do it no matter who is in control of commercial operations.
If Congress wants to truly convince the American people that they are concerned about port security, then they need to take substantive actions to reinforce Coast Guard and Ports Authority standards and procedures. All the people are seeing now is an exercise in expedient sound byte politics.
The success of this deal could be a huge vote of confidence for a Middle Eastern ally in the War on Terror and likewise the Arab people as a whole. Unfortunately, American political ignorance is getting in the way.
Funny how those out to win the "hearts and minds" of the Arab people are the ones creating so much bias against them
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.uae.gov.ae/Government/ports.htm#Dubai%20Ports%20Authority
http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/press_releases/archives/2005_press_releases/0032005/03282005.xml
No comments:
Post a Comment