Congress Opposes Outsourcing Port Operations to Arab Nation

The Bush administration seems quite content to let Dubai Ports World take over operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. .The government of the United Arab Emirates (which owns DP World) is more or less in America’s camp in the war on terror, but to a great many, America ought not to outsource its security operations to anyone. Vladimir Ilych Lenin always said the capitalists would sell the Bolsheviks the rope by which the capitalists would be hanged. This appears to be the same story with a different customer.

The whole thing comes about because DP World bought P&O from its shareholders, and P&O (the British Peninsula and Oriental Steamship Company, founded in 1837) happens to run these ports for the US. The deal is economically good the DP World and for P&O, but America was not consulted about its concerns. That has many upset including Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., a US partner of P&O which is suing to stop the deal from going through.

The Bush administration’s line was set out by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, “There was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely.” It might have been nice if the review hadn’t been classified, and it might have been even better if the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (owner of the World Trade Center site) had been included. Let it never be said that the Bush White House ever stopped a business deal from going through, however. Heimatschutzminister Michael Chertoff, the man whose Department of Homeland Security handled the drowning of New Orleans so well last year, says this will be fine for US security. Talk about-pre 9/11 thinking.

Nonetheless, Congress is waking up to the fact that it just plain looks bad going into the 2006 elections. The GOP only beats the Democrats on the issue of national security. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) has 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.” Hanging in the air was the clause, “especially an Arab one.” His Senate colleague, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), said, “It is ridiculous to say you’re taking secret steps to make sure that it’s OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, [to] take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop.”

In the spirit of bipartisanship, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) told Fox News, “It’s unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history. Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now." Meanwhile, Congressman Peter King (R-NY), former (one believes) supporter of the terrorists in the IRA, said, “how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaeda or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?”

UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan told Reuters, “I understand the debate in the US on the issue of P&O and Dubai Ports but we would like to emphasize that we have been a strong ally of the US in combating terrorism and will remain so.” With all due respect to His Excellency, no one is asking whether the UAE can be trusted. Instead, the question is, why doesn’t the Bush administration want Americans running American security at America’s ports?

The Danish flag appears here as a protest against the violence being done to the free press of that country and elsewhere by those offended by some cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be unto him. A perceived insult is not an excuse for intimidation and violence, even in the name of the Creator. One cannot insult God, only small-minded men who falsely claim to speak for Him. © 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