"Trust, but Verify"
The biggest controversy of the week (maybe the month! ... maybe the year!) is the acquisition of P&O (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company) by Dubai Ports World. The issue's controversy comes down to national security. Dubai Ports World is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates.
The Seattle Times carried a story by Dick Polman that observes,"According to a bipartisan congressional letter of protest sent to the Bush administration on Thursday, money for the Sept 11 hijackers was routed primarily though the UAE banking system, and the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components into Iran and North Korea." Indeed, two of the 9/11 hijackers had passports showing the United Arab Emirates as their home.
As of right now, I believe that these accusations can be refuted. It is important to make a distinction between the people of a country and the government of a country. Nuradin M. Abdi was an American indicted for providing material support to Al Qaeda. His trial may acquit him, but the American government (obviously) did not condone such an action. Much in the same way, the nexus of banking in the Middle East, the illegal smuggling, and the terrorists all reflect individuals within the UAE, not the government (and the Dubai Ports World) itself. Certainly a government is made up of people, but the people and religious leaders in the United Arab Emirates do not support terrorism.
As the President pointed out, "After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The UAE remains a partner in the global war on terrorism. As General Peter Pace said, "In everything that we have asked and worked with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."
It even turns out the security role proper is not part of the Dubai deal. As the National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said, "This transaction has been incorrectly reported as being about port security or port ownership. No. It is about managing port operations. Port security remains the shared responsibility of local port authorities, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Department, the Coast Guard and others." Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations says, "Among the many problems at American ports, who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."
It is also true that the UAE intends to "'maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements.' … DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel."
Many political commentators have speculated that the United States is trying to get on the UAE's good side in order to help ensure a reliable base of operations in the Middle East … possibly against Iran? Having a friend in the Middle East isn't a bad thing … so if the security checks out, there is every reason to enact this policy.
One final point that bears addressing is the Democratic position. For a party that decries racial profiling in airports, isn't it a twist to profile a whole country?
Then there's Hillary Clinton. "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments,” Clinton said, in a statement posted to her web site. "I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments.”
Isolationism isn't a good idea in general, but this bill is especially backwards considering the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations notes, " But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies."
To begin to wrap up, perception can be in some ways more important than reality. In this issue it looks like the President is not as concerned about security as the Democrats. It looks like he is handing over security to a foreign power. It looks like there was not enough review. It looks like there was no information flow in the government. In this political "hot potato" issue, the President and the administration have to fight an uphill battle to look credible, informed, and concerned about security.
In conclusion, it seems that there is some justified reasons to proceed with this deal. It is also obvious that there are some large security issues that need to be discussed. Security is apparently already a problem, Dubai or no Dubai. We ought to sit down and consider the facts as a nation. If that involves putting a 45-day moratorium on the deal, so be it. No politicking, just a real discussion about the concerns of millions of Americans. President Ronald Reagan's statement on the USSR aptly applies to this situation: "Trust, but verify."
The Seattle Times carried a story by Dick Polman that observes,"According to a bipartisan congressional letter of protest sent to the Bush administration on Thursday, money for the Sept 11 hijackers was routed primarily though the UAE banking system, and the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components into Iran and North Korea." Indeed, two of the 9/11 hijackers had passports showing the United Arab Emirates as their home.
As of right now, I believe that these accusations can be refuted. It is important to make a distinction between the people of a country and the government of a country. Nuradin M. Abdi was an American indicted for providing material support to Al Qaeda. His trial may acquit him, but the American government (obviously) did not condone such an action. Much in the same way, the nexus of banking in the Middle East, the illegal smuggling, and the terrorists all reflect individuals within the UAE, not the government (and the Dubai Ports World) itself. Certainly a government is made up of people, but the people and religious leaders in the United Arab Emirates do not support terrorism.
As the President pointed out, "After the attacks in London on July the 7th, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The UAE remains a partner in the global war on terrorism. As General Peter Pace said, "In everything that we have asked and worked with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners."
It even turns out the security role proper is not part of the Dubai deal. As the National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said, "This transaction has been incorrectly reported as being about port security or port ownership. No. It is about managing port operations. Port security remains the shared responsibility of local port authorities, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Department, the Coast Guard and others." Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations says, "Among the many problems at American ports, who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."
It is also true that the UAE intends to "'maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements.' … DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel."
Many political commentators have speculated that the United States is trying to get on the UAE's good side in order to help ensure a reliable base of operations in the Middle East … possibly against Iran? Having a friend in the Middle East isn't a bad thing … so if the security checks out, there is every reason to enact this policy.
One final point that bears addressing is the Democratic position. For a party that decries racial profiling in airports, isn't it a twist to profile a whole country?
Then there's Hillary Clinton. "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments,” Clinton said, in a statement posted to her web site. "I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments.”
Isolationism isn't a good idea in general, but this bill is especially backwards considering the fact that the Council on Foreign Relations notes, " But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies."
To begin to wrap up, perception can be in some ways more important than reality. In this issue it looks like the President is not as concerned about security as the Democrats. It looks like he is handing over security to a foreign power. It looks like there was not enough review. It looks like there was no information flow in the government. In this political "hot potato" issue, the President and the administration have to fight an uphill battle to look credible, informed, and concerned about security.
In conclusion, it seems that there is some justified reasons to proceed with this deal. It is also obvious that there are some large security issues that need to be discussed. Security is apparently already a problem, Dubai or no Dubai. We ought to sit down and consider the facts as a nation. If that involves putting a 45-day moratorium on the deal, so be it. No politicking, just a real discussion about the concerns of millions of Americans. President Ronald Reagan's statement on the USSR aptly applies to this situation: "Trust, but verify."
posted by Matt Pitchford at 17:38
1 Comments:
Great summary of the situation. That really helped me grasp the basics, and see what the left is saying about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home