Port flap reeks of posturing
Could it be that George Bush is actually correct in the blowup over handing management of portions of key American ports to a company owned by a Muslim Arab nation? Could it be that his outraged critics are wrong? Could be.
It’s not easy to defend Bush; he’s such a fumble foot and stubborn in the bargain. The fact that his outraged critics include the Republican leaders of the Senate and House as well as Democrats doesn’t make it any easier. But a closer look suggests Bush is right.
His congressional critics, especially Republicans, have been stampeded by fear – fear of terrorism, yes, but also fear that an angry and no longer friendly electorate awaits them in November – into demagoguing the issue.
Admittedly, the port deal looks like a cockamamie idea at first glance. A secret government agency gave the green light to the sale of a British company currently managing parts of six American ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, home to at least two of the Sept. 11 attackers. Bush didn’t have a clue about the deal until a few days ago. Now he’s threatening to use his first veto if Congress attempts to block the sale or bar the UAE company.
It’s not as goofy as it seems.
For starters, this high-dudgeon congressional outrage about outsourcing port management to foreigners is a bit belated, if not hypocritical. Most of our major ports have been managed by foreign firms for years, and for some time now we’ve relied on foreign port operators to inspect cargo headed for U.S. ports. By one account, 24 of the top 25 port management firms are foreign-owned.
The sale in question isn’t even really news. It has been reported in the financial press for months. The uproar in Congress has all the earmarks of hysteria fueled by ignorance and political pandering. Nothing new there.
The worry cited by Bush’s critics is that port security will suffer under Dubai Ports World, the UAE-based company. But experts inside and outside the Bush administration insist that Dubai Ports’ role in security would be peripheral. Its principal responsibility would be to attract traffic to its ports from around the globe, supervise the transfer of cargo to truck and rail carriers, and provide overall management and administration. The U.S. Coast Guard would still provide basic harbor and port security, and U.S. Customs would handle the screening of container traffic, perhaps the most sensitive aspect of port security. American unions would still have the major say in who works the docks.
In other words, very little would change.
But aren’t the UAE and Dubai, the emirate that is its business heart, susceptible to infiltration by terrorists? That’s always a fear. But not all Arab nations are equally susceptible to Islamist infiltration or hostile to U.S. interests. As Bush spokesmen point out, the UAE has been more accommodating than most, providing port facilities for U.S. naval vessels and a home for an American air base. Much of the equipment for U.S. troops in the Middle East has moved through its port. The UAE has a deep stake in the global economy and needs a working relationship with Washington.
Bush’s point that blocking the UAE company on spurious grounds would send exactly the wrong signal to friendly Arab nations makes sense.
Critics make much of the fact that money for al-Qaida terrorists has been laundered through the UAE. In fairness, it should also be noted that two key al-Qaida operatives have been apprehended by UAE authorities, including the organizer of the attack on the USS Cole.
What’s involved here is not so much security as politics, specifically the impact of Bush’s plummeting popularity.
Pollsters say the country has lost confidence and trust in Bush. So have congressional Republicans, it develops. Until now, the GOP masters on Capitol Hill have been willing to ignore Bush’s slumping polls. But no longer.
Endorsing an Arab-based company as ports manager in a time of Islamist terrorism would involve significant risk in an election year that does not look promising for the GOP. And Republicans are not willing to do it – not unless Bush can make a stronger case.
Bush has made hay against Democrats on the issue of national security. Now, in a nice turn of the screw, it’s Bush who finds himself on the wrong end of the security issue.