WASHINGTON — The firestorm over the proposed lease of certain
U.S. port facilities to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the
government of the United Arab Emirates, raises several chilling
questions. None has anything to do with the deal itself. It was
approved in accordance with the same law and procedures followed in
more than 1,500 prior cases where national security implications
were assessed.
But to be extra certain, and to atone for its political
maladroitness in failing to keep key congressional leaders in the
loop, the Bush administration has instituted a full 45-day review
by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS). Its outcome should be honored.
The chilling questions have more to do with the proclivity of
certain politicians to exploit understandable American anxieties
about security for their own political purposes. Do members of
Congress have legitimate reasons to question the administration’s
efforts at protecting the homeland? Do they really believe the
administration would subordinate national security concerns to
other considerations? Have they no faith in an oversight process
they themselves authored?
If the answer is “yes” to any of those, Americans need to hear
why. Credible evidence that our security has been systematically
compromised might shatter a covenant we take for granted. Despite
any doubts and misgivings many of us may have about government’s
capacity to do things well, and regardless of our affinity,
indifference, or disaffection for the Bush administration, most of
us believe that the administration views national security as its
paramount responsibility.
The same goes for any administration. Failure to honor the
sanctity of that foremost responsibility would constitute the worst
breach of trust between the people and their government. That is
why we deserve to see evidence when a public official asserts or
implies such a breach.
Referring to certain pledges made by DPW to make policymakers
more comfortable with the deal, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
asserted that the company’s “promise isn’t worth the paper on which
it is written.” Why? The comment implies that Sen. Menendez has
credible evidence that this company is untrustworthy. What is that
evidence? And what are the national security implications?
Congressional detractors who have no evidence or who would
answer “no” are guilty of exploiting fears or of knowing too little
about port security to even begin to question the efficacy of
CFIUS’s endorsement of the deal. The website of Sen. Charles
Schumer (D-NY) claims, “Next week control of the Port of New York
and New Jersey will be handed over to Dubai Ports World…” That is
patently false. Control of the ports, including security functions,
has been and will remain the domain of the U.S. Coast Guard and the
Department of Homeland Security.
To speak from a position of authority without understanding port
security operations is reckless and misleading. Such demagoguery is
worthy of stern rebuke, particularly considering the potential
collateral damage caused by the hysteria.
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S MIDDLE EAST policy, which some argue has
been an utter failure, consists of carrots to complement the more
familiar sticks. The carrots include access to the U.S. market
through bilateral free trade agreements. The United States has
agreements with Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman, and is in the
process of completing a deal with the UAE. None of the Arab free
trade agreement partners participates in the Arab boycott of
Israel. Bahrain turned its back on the boycott right after signing
the agreement. The UAE would likely follow suit.
Encouraging moderate Arab states to remain moderate and to
embrace capitalism and other western institutions is the quiet
success of the administration’s Middle East policy.
It is also threatened by reflexive political opportunism that is
driving the furor over the port deal.
Maybe a debate about CFIUS, its processes, and the possibility
of involving key members of Congress in decision-making is
warranted. Maybe Arab investment should be held to a higher
security standard than that of other would-be acquisitions. Maybe
it already is.
Regardless, it is imperative that Congress and the
administration get on the same page about the purpose and operation
of CFIUS. As the world economy becomes even more integrated, we
should expect to see more foreign acquisitions, particularly if the
dollar depreciates, as many in Congress advocate. A cheaper dollar
makes hard U.S. assets more attractive to foreign buyers. Let’s not
impede that important process with rules that are perceived as
arbitrary and capricious.
Granted, matters of national security trump matters of commerce.
If U.S. security would be legitimately compromised by some
commercial transaction, that transaction must be prevented. So far,
the investigation into the ports deal has produced no credible
reasons to intervene.
