Are Ports the last Straw?
Asks Jack Cafferty on CNN
Jack gets into the administration over the UAE's port take over. Dennis Hastert and many other Republicans have come out against this plan.
Jack Cafferty:
"Wolf, this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back, this deal to sell control of six US ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates. There are now actually Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors telling the White House "you're not gonna do this." And it's about time. No one has said "no" to this administration on anything that matters in a very long time. Well this matters. It matters a lot. If this deal is allowed to go through, we deserve whatever we get.
A country with ties to terrorists will have a presence at six critical doorways to our country. And if anyone thinks that the terrorists, in time, won't figure out how to exploit that, then we're all done. Nothing's happened yet, mind you, but if our elected representatives don't do everything in their power to stop this thing, each of us should vow to work tirelessly to see that they are removed from public office. We're at a crossroads - which way will we choose?Here's the question: What should be done to stop a deal that would allow an Arab company to run US Ports?
WRAP UP
The administration is now facing what clearly is shaping up as bipartisan opposition to an Arab company controlling some major U.S. ports as opposition grows in Congress, talk shows publicize and blast it, and weblogs cover and expand the controversy.There seem to be several aspects of it
The security aspect. Is it possible or easier for an Al Qaeda member to infiltrate into the staff of a company based in Dubai? It so, how? If not, why not (the latter may have to be answered in closed session in Congress).
The sovereignty aspect: There isn't an American company that can do it? Or several companies?
The political aspect: So Republicans are going to go into election year 2006 as their party's bigwigs on Pennsylvania Avenue turn over control of U.S. ports to a company based in an Arab country? In terms of the Hollywood "high concept" (easily recognizable imagery), this move will take the administration's national security imagery down a few notches since many Republicans oppose the move. After years of warnings voiced in many quarters that the ports are dangerously insecure, this won't be something for GOPers to point to in their campaigns to say "See? We fixed the problem! We're letting an Arab country's company take care of security for us!!"News reports show opposition snowballing, right down the line:The New York Times notes that some key Republican governors are opposing the move:
The Republican governors of New York and Maryland on Monday joined the growing chorus of criticism of an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports. Both raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore."I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in a statement.Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract.The company is defending itself:
Pushing back, officials of Dubai Ports World defended the federal government's speedy approval of its takeover, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades.The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president.The Bush administration — so far, at least — is handling this uproar like it has handled many of its policies that were not well-received or lacked consensus: its saying its decision is final, although the sale doesn't close until March 2.Fox News reports resistance growing within the GOP in Congress as well:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly-minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates."We are very concerned about it and that it could threaten our national security," one senior House Republican leadership aide told FOX News late Monday. Another senior aide said: "Most indications point to leadership flexing muscle against this transaction."EVEN WORSE is this report from Knight Ridder newspapers — which says that the approval of the plan was literally shoved through by the Department of Homeland Security — without seeking the approval of "senior analysts" in that department, who do NOT like it:
The Bush administration gave control of six crucial ports to a Sept. 11-linked Arab nation after a flimsy investigation and with weak guarantees the company in charge can stop Osama bin Laden from infiltrating, the House homeland security chairman said."There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it's all procedural and relies entirely on good faith," Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., told the New York Daily News. "There's nothing those conditions ... nothing that assures us they're not hiring someone with bin Laden."The firm, Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirate of Dubai, cut a $6.8 billion deal last week to buy control of the ports - including Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark, N.J.'s, giant container port - from a British firm.A source with knowledge of the purchase echoed the chairman, telling The News that while Department of Homeland Security administrators rubber-stamped it, senior analysts at the agency were never told, and they don't like it now. News of the sale, approved by a secretive multi-agency panel headed by the Treasury Department, has sparked a growing outcry from both political parties."It's unbelievably tone-deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, (which) vows to destroy Israel," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday."Hearings on the deal have been called for this week in Congress, and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y, and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., have proposed a law to ban such takeovers.Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., demanded that President Bush personally intervene.And what if Bush intervenes?It would indicate once again that there is shockingly lax management in this administration — that the President had to jump in and nix something self-evidently controversial in its mechanics due to the location of the company and disastrous in terms of political imagery for an administration that argues security will be tightened up relentlessly on its watch. This policy decision was "rubber stamped?" A national security issue? In the Department of Homeland Security?And what if the decision isn't reversed? Will the GOPers and talk show hosts still upset about it remain upset or will some of them quickly change their view once it's clear the White House is sticking by it and then go after critics who still raising the issue?But is this an actual REAL potential security threat? That's the lingering question — and Time Magazine concludes that the answer is "no":
Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey plan to hold hearings on the issue next week, and are seeking legislation banning companies controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port facilities. Menendez alleged that the UAE has a "serious and dubious history… as a transit point for terrorism." And in response to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff's insistence that the administration made a rigorous check — without disclosing details — of the security implications of the deal, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said "It's ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's okay for a nation that has ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations."But to call the United Arab Emirates a country "tied to 9/11" by virtue of the fact that one of the hijackers was born there and others transited through it is akin to attaching the same label to Britain (where shoe-bomber Richard Reid was born) or Germany (where a number of the 9/11 conspirators were based for a time). Dubai's port has a reputation for being one of the best run in the Middle East, says Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. And Dubai Ports World, which is a relatively new venture launched by the government of Dubai in 1999, has a number of Americans well known in the shipping industry in its senior leadership.Time notes that the company operates ports all over the world and that Dubai has been at the forefront of port security issues:
"It's [the company's] not exactly a shadow organization for al-Qaeda," says Flynn. Dubai, in fact, was one of the first Middle Eastern countries to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, which places U.S. customs agents in overseas ports to begin the screening process from a U.S.-bound cargo's point of departure.Time further notes that 80 percent of the terminals in the port of Los Angeles are run by foreign owned companies. It also points out that DPW would inherit old contracts, not get new ones, and now "own" the ports. The magazine concludes:
Dubai Ports World's acquisition of P&O is unlikely to affect the security situation at the six U.S. ports in question. As Flynn points out, the relevant question is not who owns the port, but what security arrangements are in place to prevent it being used as a point of entry for hostile elements. And right now on that front, U.S. ports across the board could use some work.Bottom line: By not bringing Congress into the decision or at least reaching out to senior members of its own party and the opposition, the administration has stirred up a hornet's nest of bipartisan opposition. Security is at issue here but also the consequences of a self-defeating, non-consensual political style.What you see is "hubris" at work - on automatic pilot.UPDATE: The Financial Times says the "paranoia" about the Dubai ports is needless and says more about the U.S. and U.S. politics than anything else:
The current furore in Washington about the takeover of P&O, the UK-based ports operator, by Dubai Ports World says more about the United States Congress than the United Arab Emirates. The bluster about national security conceals one of the uglier faces of US protectionism - the one with the slightly racist tinge...First, the deal has been vetted by an inter-agency committee. And ports, in any case, are in one of the most highly regulated sectors in the US. What matters is how they are managed, not who owns them.Second, leading Dubai companies such as DP World bring with them certain advantages. They habitually: spend money to make money; headhunt the best professionals (in DP World that includes top Americans); and produce high rates of growth. The ambitious new $15bn aerospace enterprise Dubai announced this week will be built around that formula.Third, the honourable senators might get this purchase in perspective by pondering the extent to which the Gulf allies they so distrust already own vast quantities of US assets, as well as dollar assets held offshore. For Abu Dhabi alone, a 1 percentage point move in US interest rates now means more than a $10 per barrel swing in the price of oil. Do the math.UPDATE II: Senate Majority Leader is urging that this decision be placed on hold "for more extensive review." (We assume he means on hold for a decision BEFORE the 2006 Congressional elections...). Our bet: that argument probably won't work. Those who are criticizing it clearly are asking for the deal to be nixed.A CROSS SECTION OF VARYING
VIEWS:Michelle Malkin, The Heretik, PC540, Pam's House Blend, Marc Rust, Americablog (in a short but very blunt post), Blogs of War, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Sundries Shack, The Glittering Eye, Sister Toldjah, Firedog Lake, The Astute Blogger, Michigan Conservative, Shakespeare's sister here and here, The Tao of Politics, The Strata-sphere (urges people to take a deep breath), The Democratic Daily Blog, The RCP Blog, Just To The Left, The SoCo, Middle Earth Journal (which says "follow the money), Intoxination, The War In Context, Daily Kos, La Shawn Barber, Pundit Guy, Centerfield
No comments:
Post a Comment