Bush’s Port Atrocity?

There are two things about this controversy that bug me. One of them is that the press is actually providing misleading information, the other is the failure of so many to seek any pertinent facts before opening their mouths to demagogue.

The question has become: Can we allow a Foreign Arab government, with terrorist ties, to takeover our ports? Reading the headlines and listening to the news I can understand how people would be led to believe that this is somehow the issue. Frankly our news media is a disgrace because this argument is entirely specious.

I can find no evidence whatsoever that any port will be taken over-- nor can I find any evidence whatsoever that any US ports are being sold! It is an argument without basis.

Dems Attack Port Takeover By Arabs

Republicans are just as wrong on this issue as Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, who are actually introducing a bill to outlaw any foreign owned or 'foreign controlled' companies from purchasing any American port operations ever. A move that they think will be great public relations but which is foolish policy.

"Our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism. They are both vulnerable targets for attack and venues for smuggling and human trafficking," Menendez said. "We wouldn’t turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can’t afford to turn our ports over to one either."

"Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments," Clinton said. "I will be working with Senator Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments." clinton.senate.gov

Some points:

1. Dubai will not take over or buy any ports in the United States. None.

   Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.

   P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany. cbsnews.com
   

2. There are companies owned by foreign governments in existing ports now.
   

   "Among key companies that could be barred from operating US container terminals are China Shipping, the state-owned Chinese line, which has a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles, and APL, a line based in Oakland, California, and owned by Singapore's state-owned NOL," and "There are a number of major state-owned shipping lines that have terminals in the US," Davidson notes.

   Further, "The law would prevent DP World, which is owned by the emirate of Dubai, from making any future investments but also lock out permanently Singapore's PSA, the world number three container port operator by capacity, owned by the Singaporean government. DP World will become the world number four through the P&O takeover but will be only just behind PSA and Denmark's APM Terminals."

   Finally: "Without DP World and PSA, the US would be further cut off from the influence of the world's largest, most efficient container port operators. Hong Kong's Hutchison Ports, the world number one, already refuses to invest in the US because its executives are skeptical of how the container ports industry is organized." The Dubai Ports Issue is Really Wal-Mart and Toyota All Over Again!
   

3. No Security will be put in the hands of a foreign government.
   

   Companies like P&O don't provide security at the ports. The US Coast Guard and Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement do. For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo.
   

   But P&O has no responsibility for security. "We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard," says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. "That won't change no matter who is operating the terminal."

   P&O is not commenting on the political uproar over the deal. But a source within the company worries that the media and politicians are misrepresenting the arrangements. Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.

   "I've never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly," says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. "It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building." csmonitor.com
   

4. Arab's can't be trusted to operate a business in the US?
   

   Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that although the company is state-owned, several members of its top management are Americans -- including its general counsel, a senior vice president and its outgoing chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, who is a former U.S. Navy officer.

    ..."What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it?" Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts." washingtonpost.com
   

Incredibly, not only is ignorance (and I mean that in the least condescending meaning of the term) rampant here, but I'd like to point out that some Democrats who have called Bush and neocons everything from racists to fearmongers are now claiming that Arab's can't be trusted to own a company doing business in one tiny part of a port facility.

There is little basis here for denying the Dubai company from operating at US ports except for ignorance and prejudice. To say that this UAE company, which operates ports worldwide, cannot be trusted because of a "nexus to terror," especially when it comes from the left, is straining credulity.

Washington's bout with Islamophobia also ignores the reality of Dubai's future direction. A metropolis already, it is rapidly becoming the prototype city-state that could serve as an important example for the future in Muslim societies bedeviled by high unemployment, low literacy rates, bad trade policies, and authoritarian political structures. It is managed and led by a cadre of young, highly educated Arab and Muslim professionals who seek to transform the world's stereotype of Islam by developing and running businesses transparently, with integrity and with an increasingly democratic and accountable corporate culture. Reaction to the Dubai deal is un-American

Lack of facts and a partisan axe = jump the gun

Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.

The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.

The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports. Odds are higher that you'll be wounded interfering with a congressman providing soundbites than by something smuggled into a port terminal leased by Dubai Ports World.

But please: let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And what's wrong with a little Arab-bashing anyway? In Defence of Dubai

Some more reading resources:
Some facts about the Port Deal (CFR)
In Defense Of Dubai
Good for America
Un-American
Security Programs, Unions Would Stay at Ports

* Title blatantly lifted from the comments of Mister Magoo

[H]egemonic Word count: 1452

Powered By: BackLinkr

 

---