Over the past few months we’ve been treated to a number of
government spectacles that have been very instructive about the
nature of our elected representatives. Remember the NSA “domestic
wiretapping” flap? Immediately upon the disclosure of this program,
top Democrats like Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, and Nancy Pelosi were
all over the news, admitting that they didn’t know all the facts,
but, nonetheless pronouncing with grave satisfaction that the
program was “illegal” and an example of the President’s “arrogance”
and belief that he was “above the law.” Now with the Dubai Ports
deal, you had both Democrats and Republicans, again, woefully
ignorant of the facts (but well tuned into the domestic politics of
the issue), making hysterical and ludicrous claims that the deal
would put Arabs in charge of port security, that we would be
“selling” our ports, and even that the deal infringed on our
“sovereignty.” What should we think of people who call press
conferences and issue bombastic statements before they know what
they are talking about?
As people who have been paying attention over the past week
know, the pending purchase of P&O, which now operates six U.S.
port facilities, by Dubai Ports World (owned by the United Arab
Emirates), has nothing to do with handing port security or customs
inspections over to a foreign company or country. Dubai Ports World
will be managing the transportation of cargo on and off of ships.
This is not a “sale” of our ports, but merely a change in the
ownership of the company that manages some port facilities.
Moreover, the current operator, P&O, is already a foreign
(British) company. And far from being “suspect,” Dubai Ports World
is a well-respected company operating ports in 15 countries and has
been thoroughly vetted by the CIA. It has passed muster with the
U.S. Navy for years, operating the most active port-of-call for the
U.S. Navy outside of the United States, which happens to be in the
United Arab Emirates. The proposed acquisition of P&O by DPW
was reviewed and unanimously approved by a multi-agency federal
panel, including the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security.
The concern that with Dubai Ports World taking over ownership of
the former British P&O, hordes of potentially shady Arabs will
be running things at our ports is, to put it bluntly, ludicrous.
These same ports are not currently overrun by Brits. If one takes
time to look around any of the Toyota or Honda plants in Ohio or
Kentucky, one won’t find bunches of Japanese. Dubai Ports World has
announced that the current management teams at the U.S. ports in
question will remain the same — as one would expect. And the fact
is that if Dubai Ports World wants to transfer an Arab member of
its management team to some U.S. port, that person will come under
the scrutiny of U.S. immigration officials — just as would other
Arab immigrants, some of whom, no doubt, are currently working at
various American port facilities operated by American, or non-Arab
foreign companies. But then, perhaps, Hillary Clinton will follow
the logic of her outrage and introduce legislation to make it
illegal for any Arab, or better yet, any Muslim to work at a U.S.
port — or with the U.S. Customs Service, or the U.S. Coast
Guard.
It is true that two of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers hailed from
the UAE. This fact, however, was probably not overlooked during the
previous investigation, and simply to jump from this fact to the
conclusion that companies from the UAE should not be allowed to
operate in the United States is a logical non sequitur. The “shoe
bomber” Richard Reid, and the terrorists who struck London’s
transportation system last year, were British citizens. We know
some people with al Qaeda links are American citizens. If al Qaeda
really saw any benefit to infiltrating a port operating company it
could just as easily infiltrate a British company like P&O or
an American company. So far, however, there is no evidence to
suggest that al Qaeda or any related terrorist organization has
ever made such an attempt, probably because the value of such an
infiltration would be of such limited value as to make it not worth
the effort.
The government of the UAE has been a strong — perhaps the
strongest — ally of the United States in the Gulf area. Indeed,
one might argue that the UAE has been more supportive of the United
States’ military efforts in the Middle East over the past several
years than has, say, Dick Durbin or Ted Kennedy. As the
administration has correctly noted, nixing this deal simply because
the UAE is an Arab country would not only be a slap in the face to
the UAE, but an insult to all of our allies in the region.
If you believe that all the facts will come out in congressional
hearings, and that our representatives will then come to informed
and considered conclusions based on the facts, then you probably
didn’t watch the hearings on the NSA program, or on Hurricane
Katrina, or the confirmation hearings for Sam Alito. Remember, the
halls of Congress are not filled with statesmen; they are filled
with John Kerrys, Ted Kennedys, and Chuck Hagels. The demanded
hearings on the Dubai Ports World deal will not be used by many in
Congress to learn the facts (which, for many, are immaterial), but
to make speeches.
There is no doubt that we can and should improve border
security, and not just at our ports. But this is a separate issue
from the Dubai Ports World transaction. Our opportunistic
politicians would rather fulminate over the non-issue of Dubai
Ports than tackle some of the more politically contentious security
issues, particularly along our land borders.
With all the political posturing, from members of both parties,
it is comforting to see that President Bush has the guts to stand
up for what is right, and what serves the ultimate interests of the
United States — even if that stand makes him vulnerable to
short-sighted and ill-informed domestic opinion. This particular
virtue of the President has come out loud and clear during this
controversy. But what has also come out loud and clear is the
administration’s lack of political adroitness. The White House’s
representative on the panel that examined this proposed deal should
have recognized that this could become a political issue, and
advised the administration to lay out all the facts and analyses
directly and privately to congressional leaders instead of leaving
that to the press. No doubt, this would not have prevented some of
the politically motivated screaming, but at least it might have
kept Lindsey Graham from making a fool of himself.
Many Republicans may eventually be persuaded by the facts
(combined with pressure from a Republican administration) to drop
their opposition and any congressional attempt to kill the deal
will likely not have sufficient support to override a veto (should
it come to that). But Democrats will not be persuaded, regardless
of any hearings. The Democrats want an issue. So the party that was
apoplectic about the NSA not obtaining warrants before listening in
on calls into the country from al Qaeda members will choose to show
how dedicated it is to national security by steadfastly opposing a
deal with no real national security implications. It will be the
Democrats (along with some populist Republicans) who will play the
xenophobia card for all it is worth in a bid for political gain.
They will be more interested in playing to the crowd than in acting
like responsible leaders.
