Port Security Humbug--WaPo (Supports Ports Giveaway)

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101575.html?referrer=email


Wednesday, February 22, 2006; Page A14


"YOU KNOW THERE'S something suspicious going on when multiple members of Congress -- House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, future presidential candidates of all stripes -- spontaneously unite around an issue that none of them had known existed a week earlier. That appears to be what happened last weekend after politicians awoke to the fairly stale news that the London-based P&O navigation company, which has long managed the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, had been taken over by Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called the deal "tone-deaf politically at this point in our history." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called for the White House to put a hold on the purchase. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) seconded him, implying that Arab owners posed a major security threat -- as did everyone from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) to Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).

At stake -- in theory -- is the question of whether we should "outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot "outsource major port security," because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn't change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about "foreign-based" companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai.


None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal was long in the making, that it had been reported on extensively in the financial press, and that it went through normal security clearance procedures, including approval from a foreign investment committee that contains officials from the departments of Treasury, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, among other agencies. Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We'd like to remind them, as they've apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.

Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation."


Well now, I don't know about Congress, but I think the American people are finally getting a clue about "The most basic goals of contemporary U.S.foreign policy", and they don't like them one bit!

[Dhalgren]

1. In another post I said that Bush was going to be presented as

a rational, non-bigoted, "man of the world" and all of his critics would be presented as "racists", "Arab-o-phobes", and "small-minded". More and more "points-talkers" are coming out with "this is a tempest in a teapot" editorials. This is going to die a swift death...

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I agree. Not one person I've seen...

gassing on about this deal has the foggiest notion what a terminal operator does.

Except the manager of Port Newark, who said in an interview there will be no problem-- that's the guy who runs the whole port, and has been dealing with terminal operators for a long time. Even the Chinese one at Newark. I'm not sure, but I think Maher is the only domestic operator out of the seven terminals there.

The US has been outsourcing everything involving shipping for years now, and even though it still probably has the largest tonnage in the world, you wouldn't know it from the flags they fly. Tonnage is operated cheaper under foreign flags, and terminal operations are a drag for most US companies that insist on earnings growth and high investment returns. Foreign capital returns better on this sort of drudgery operation, and the rest of the world has been buying our port operations for years.

So, this is how we "win the hearts and minds" of the Middle East, is it? Accuse every Arab of being a terrorist?

I haven't seen this sort of hysteria since the Communist witch hunts.

[Demeter]

3. You Have to Look At the Politics

It isn't that the facts are in dispute, but the meaning of the facts is only skin deep. Just as Monica was a sorry excuse for an impeachment, so too may be this; but on the other hand, Monica was the best that they could come up with. Once the Impeachment box is open, there's lots of solid high crime, misdemeanors, and treason that will finally see the light of political debate. If you want to make the omlette, this may be one of the broken eggs.

It's ironic, but fitting, that double-dealing will trip itself up, no matter which party is doing it.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Yeah, I know, this is a great bandwagon...

for everyone to jump on.

And, it gives Shrub's Republican enemies the best thing they have yet to beat him up with.

So, why do I (almost alone) despise this hysteria? Because, like with Monica, we are all selling our souls for a quick political win.

No one has been able to touch him on the real nasties he's pulled off, so we go after this bullshit issue and hope it inflames the masses. Great, but there will be fallout, not only in the Middle East where they now have more reasons to distrust us, but with ourselves, where we still haven't gotten over the poisons of building bullshit cases against Nixon and Clinton.

We hated Nixon and Bush like they hated Clinton and none of us saw any legitimacy to our chosen hated President. So everyone tried to find a case that had legs, and when the smoke cleared, the already remote chances of having a proper government became even more remote when mired in hatred and the total lack of any form of governance or statesmanship, or even common decency, throughout it all.

It just makes me sick to see it, even as I can't help revelling in any trouble Shrub finds himself in. I suppose I'm as guilty as everyone else for feeling that way. Just as I was guilty for hating Nixon just for being Nixon.

We are not the better for all of this-- when the smoke clears, the idea is to have a slightly better world, not more strife.