Port Problems
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On TerrorismLawmakers on both sides of the aisle yesterday threatened a congressional investigation of a deal to give control of six U.S. seaports to an Arab company, while one key Republican said the Bush administration’s security reassurances were not adequate.[...]
The classified deal would let Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates run ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami. London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which had been running the six ports, was bought last week by the government-owned DPW.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who appeared on “Fox News Sunday” with Mr. Bayh, called the deal “tone-deaf politically at this point in our history” and agreed that “we certainly should investigate it.”
I’d certainly be more comfortable with a company from the US running our ports, especially given how vulnerable they are and how much we AREN’T protecting them.
Thoughts?
This entry was posted on Monday, February 20th, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:04 am
London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
That’s what I don’t get. The ports are being run by a foreign company now. What you object to is a Muslim company controling the ports. If a German company wanted to purchase P&O, I doubt anyone would be denoucing it, even though most of the 9/11 hijackers planned for it in Hamburg.
February 21st, 2006 at 2:13 am
Well, Germany doesn’t knowingly harbor terrorists. The UAE has. In fact, some of the terrorists made their way into the US through the UAE. So yes, there are MASSIVE differences and playing the relativism game here doesn’t fit.
Moreover, I want the US to control our own ports. Are we to believe that there are no companies in the US that are up for the job?
February 21st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Unless you think that the businesspeople at the top eschalon of this company are looking to do us harm, I don’t see what it matters either way. I don’t see how an American company brings any more security. Either way, they’re in it for the money, and they’re subject to the same laws on how things need to be screened. The people doing the grunt work are going to be the same people - Americans. This strikes me more as protectionism, xenophobia, and politics, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
February 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 am
I agree with LJ on this. I’d prefer matters of national security were always handled internally, but we can’t keep a Muslim company from running just for being Muslim.
However, I find the Bush Admin’s defense of the deal disingenuous… if they didn’t have ties to the company at hand I’m certain they’d be singing another tune.
Regardless, I welcome Bush’s first real act that could counter the rising bigotry against Muslims in this country.
February 22nd, 2006 at 1:51 am
If a nuclear weapon were to be smuggled into the country, realistically, I can’t think of any reason the port system would be trusted by terrorists unless they had someone on the inside. To me, that’s a sufficiently compelling reason to block the sale.
We would never outsource our missle manufacturing to Cuba, so why is something as critical to national security as the borders themselves any different?
This isn’t an issue of free trade or property rights or anything of the sort. It’s an issue of survival in the face of one of the greatest threats the United States may ever face. It’s important that we take at least some precautions.
February 22nd, 2006 at 7:13 am
I think Tom Ridge said it best “we need more transparency” here. The company is owned by the government of UAE. The same country that recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government and helped Khan develop the nuclear blackmarket. Even if this is deemed a safe transaction, we still need to have stronger port security. Only 5% of imported cargo is inspected. The technology is out there but there it’s not politically sexy enough to garner attention.