Coast Guard Noted “Intelligence Gaps” in Reviewing DPW Port Deal

Just when the Bush administration thought it might have the port sale fire under control, the US Coast Guard revealed that it had raised national security concerns about the sale back in December. A classified briefing to assuage senatorial worries about the Dubai Port World purchase failed. Indeed, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), chairwoman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the briefing left her, “more convinced than ever that the process [by which the sale was reviewed] was truly flawed.”

The Coast Guard, which is responsible for security within America’s territorial waters, reviewed the sale and made an intelligence assessment of the sale dated December 13, 2005. It read, “There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that preclude” the completion of a thorough threat assessment of the merger. And it said, “The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities.”

However, a month later, according to the Washington Post, the “Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which reviewed the DP World deal, was unanimous in its position that no concerns had emerged to trigger the 45-day national security review required by the law that established the panel.” Senator Collins came as close as politely possible to calling that bovine excrement. “Given the red-flag questions that the Coast Guard raised, very serious questions about operations, personnel and foreign influence, how could there not have been the 45-day investigation that's clearly required by law?” she asked.

At the request of DPW, showing far greater political sense than the White House, there will be a 45-day review now. That means that just as Americans are filing their taxes in six weeks, their government will tell them that it’s perfectly fine for a company owned by the United Arab Emirates to operate terminals at some US ports. The president then has 15 days to decide what he will do (hint: he won’t reject this deal). Democrats are salivating at the thought of this self-inflicted Republican wound bleeding for another two months.

This White House doesn’t do its homework, and it doesn’t feel compelled to get the informed acquiescence of Congress. It leads and expects to be followed. After five years of bungling, the GOP leaders on Capitol Hill fear re-election is a problem if they follow the president here. Since September 11, 2001, he has said that national security is his top priority. When a business deal that his free trade policies engendered ran up against a perceived security issue, he backed the business deal.

The fact is certain functions should never be given over to foreign interests no matter how much “economic sense” it may make. If the security of the nation is really an issue (and this journal believes that it is) the debate should not be whether an Arab company should buy these operations from a British one, but rather whether the private sector should be operating these terminals at all. If America truly fears weapons coming into the country through its ports, maybe the military is the appropriate tool to operate the ports. Which is more important, keeping a container of plutonium out, or making sure a container of blue jeans can come in cheaply?

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home