Bush and Dubai: Is This Being Tough on Terrorism?
The debate over the administration's decision to bless a $6.8 billion dollar port security bill intensified this morning, with Homeland Security Chief Chertoff defending the deal. I'd like first to provide some background on the deal which is receiving little attention from critics of the takeover. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, a U.K. company, currently controls the U.S. ports in question. Those ports are located in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It's the fourth largest port company in the world. The shareholders of that company agreed to the deal, in which Dubai Ports World (DP World) would pay $6.8 billion to take over that company. (DP world has since announced it will take out a loan to finance the cash deal). The Bush administration gave the green light to the deal. This deal makes DP World the third largest port operator in the world. Before the deal, it was the seventh largest.
Port security is the neglected middle child of our national security debate. Only some 5% of containers coming into the U.S. are inspected. According to 2004 figures, in the three years after 9/11, we spent about $500 million on port security. That's what we spend every 3 days in Iraq. The Coast Gaurd has estimated it needs about $5.6 billion to make our ports "minimally secure"--meaning having locks on gates, security cameras, basic access control, etc. The Bush administration has barely even begun to fund that. So when we finally get the chance to have a public debate on port security, we should make sure it's an informed one and one aimed at best securing the safety of the American people.
Now, let me make it clear. The government of Singapore has an interest in PSA, Port of Singapore, which does operate various U.S. ports. Its interest is via Temasek Holdings, a Singapore government investment agency. But I think it's one thing to have an investment interest in a company and quite another to have the foreign state controlling the company. One of main criticisms of the Dubai deal centers on sovereignty. The CEO of DP World is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, who works directly for the Crown Prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. For all the U.S. regulations DP World will have to follow, for all the safety it may be able to guarantee us, the fact remains a foreign government will hold our physical and economic safety in its hands.
Unlike Singapore, this is a government that formally recognized the Taliban. One of the emirates in the UAE was essentially the center for al-Qaeda's illegal financial dealings, with hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing from the UAE to the 9/11 hijackers. (For a comprehensive list of UAE-9/11 links, click here). On the one hand, Bush never fails to remind us of the 9/11 hijackers, and on the other hand, he wants America to forget that some of those hijackers were UAE nationals. Of course, no one is implicating the government that controls DP World as having been aware or facilitating these connections. The truth is that since 9/11, that government has dramatically clamped down on terrorism and suspicious financial dealings within its borders.
But how can a President who so readily invokes 9/11 be so quick to forget its lessons? The review of DP World was incomplete, at least incomplete to satisfy the public uneasiness about having this foreign nation--with so many ties to the darkest of days--securing the lives of millions of Americans. The President has spent so much PR money and effort scaring Americans into thinking terrorists will strike again, that he has now boxed himself in when he desires to give DP World a stake in our national security. No matter how trustworthy that company is, Americans are simply not comfortable with having a Middle eastern country control our ports. It may be irrational, but that is a political reality the President must deal with.
The company itself may be adequately qualified for the job, but there are other considerations which must be wieghed. Just a couple years ago, our embassy in Abu Dhabi was shutdown to a terrorist threat. What happens if DP World, because of its new interest in the United States, becomes a target? What will occur if those 6 ports have to be shut down because of a terrorist threat? As Commander Flynn explained, even a two-week shutdown of U.S. ports "will collapse the global trade system." It's all speculation, of course, but these factors merit serious consideration and a robust public debate before we hand our security over to this company.
What is unquestionably one of the most important decisions about our national security was made by the same cabal that has long ago lost our trust on such matters. The decision was made in secret, without a full investigation and without the input of those who will be most affected by this deal. If this administration has the temerity to invoke 9/11 at every press conference and speech, then let it show us that why we can feel trust a foreign government to prevent another such attack.
Port security is the neglected middle child of our national security debate. Only some 5% of containers coming into the U.S. are inspected. According to 2004 figures, in the three years after 9/11, we spent about $500 million on port security. That's what we spend every 3 days in Iraq. The Coast Gaurd has estimated it needs about $5.6 billion to make our ports "minimally secure"--meaning having locks on gates, security cameras, basic access control, etc. The Bush administration has barely even begun to fund that. So when we finally get the chance to have a public debate on port security, we should make sure it's an informed one and one aimed at best securing the safety of the American people.
Now, let me make it clear. The government of Singapore has an interest in PSA, Port of Singapore, which does operate various U.S. ports. Its interest is via Temasek Holdings, a Singapore government investment agency. But I think it's one thing to have an investment interest in a company and quite another to have the foreign state controlling the company. One of main criticisms of the Dubai deal centers on sovereignty. The CEO of DP World is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, who works directly for the Crown Prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. For all the U.S. regulations DP World will have to follow, for all the safety it may be able to guarantee us, the fact remains a foreign government will hold our physical and economic safety in its hands.
Unlike Singapore, this is a government that formally recognized the Taliban. One of the emirates in the UAE was essentially the center for al-Qaeda's illegal financial dealings, with hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing from the UAE to the 9/11 hijackers. (For a comprehensive list of UAE-9/11 links, click here). On the one hand, Bush never fails to remind us of the 9/11 hijackers, and on the other hand, he wants America to forget that some of those hijackers were UAE nationals. Of course, no one is implicating the government that controls DP World as having been aware or facilitating these connections. The truth is that since 9/11, that government has dramatically clamped down on terrorism and suspicious financial dealings within its borders.
But how can a President who so readily invokes 9/11 be so quick to forget its lessons? The review of DP World was incomplete, at least incomplete to satisfy the public uneasiness about having this foreign nation--with so many ties to the darkest of days--securing the lives of millions of Americans. The President has spent so much PR money and effort scaring Americans into thinking terrorists will strike again, that he has now boxed himself in when he desires to give DP World a stake in our national security. No matter how trustworthy that company is, Americans are simply not comfortable with having a Middle eastern country control our ports. It may be irrational, but that is a political reality the President must deal with.
The company itself may be adequately qualified for the job, but there are other considerations which must be wieghed. Just a couple years ago, our embassy in Abu Dhabi was shutdown to a terrorist threat. What happens if DP World, because of its new interest in the United States, becomes a target? What will occur if those 6 ports have to be shut down because of a terrorist threat? As Commander Flynn explained, even a two-week shutdown of U.S. ports "will collapse the global trade system." It's all speculation, of course, but these factors merit serious consideration and a robust public debate before we hand our security over to this company.
What is unquestionably one of the most important decisions about our national security was made by the same cabal that has long ago lost our trust on such matters. The decision was made in secret, without a full investigation and without the input of those who will be most affected by this deal. If this administration has the temerity to invoke 9/11 at every press conference and speech, then let it show us that why we can feel trust a foreign government to prevent another such attack.
posted by Coleman Investments, LLC at 4:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home