More commentary is coming out from officials and experts trying to minimize the public disgust at the deal.
The focus on the DP World deal overshadows more urgent vulnerabilities at U.S. ports, according to security specialists such as Veronique de Rugy, a homeland security analyst at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute and Joseph King, who was chief of the terrorism unit for U.S. Customs.
The U.S. should put more inspectors at overseas ports to examine cargo, de Rugy said. In the U.S., King said, the government for years has relied on private security companies that hire poorly trained, low-wage workers to guard ports.
"The federal government ceded it years ago as a cost savings," he said. |
As we discussed yesterday, the real challenge with securing our ports is inspecting what gets on the cargo ships. While inspecting more cargo containers once they arrive would be obviously beneficial, the potential plots for port attacks more often include ramming the vessel at full speed into the docks and detonating whatever device they have onboard. That to me seems far more likely than taking a chance on an inspection of a container with a bomb in it to be smuggled elsewhere.
De Rugy also said that terminal operators play a minor role in security. "They are middle managers who tell longshoremen where and when to unload cargo," she said. |
Again stuff we covered yesterday. David Brooks in the NYTimes takes it a step further in his op-ed piece, Kicking Arabs in the Teeth (membership required), arguing that fledgling democracies in the area deserve the chance to trusted. He also points out the negative spin Muslim media this will give this thanks to Senators on CSPAN. They'll try to make it Mohammed cartoons II.
There are good arguments here on both sides, and the president should lay everything out on the table for why this decision will stand even if it means his veto. Congress and the public deserve to know. But I'm leaning towards allowing the sale to go through, unless something remarkable is revealed about DB World or improprieties in the sale itself (ie personal friends making money because of the sale). If everything is on the level, then I think the sale ought to go forward. (Damn, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Jimmy Carter)
UPDATE @ 10:06AM: Another article that draws similar conclusions to David Brooks is this one from the AP/Seattle Times.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – To many in this booming financial center, the American backlash over Dubai running U.S. ports boils down to something simple — and ugly: "This is Arab-phobia," says one Arab security analyst. "I can see no other reason behind it."
As the U.S. secretary of state heads here for talks, many Arabs go further, saying the very basis of American policy toward the Middle East may be at stake: If the United States can't work with a moderate, friendly and socially liberal Arab ally like Dubai, it may not be able to work with any Arabs at all. |
I certainly don't think anti-Arab sentiment has anything to do with opposition to the sale, but that certainly won't stop the perception.
UPDATE 2 @10:56: BlackFive also comes out in favor of the deal.
The question before us is who exactly do we trust, obviously the Brits, as they had this gig, but who else? I can think of a few who immediately get crossed off, like Iran, Syria, North Korea, maybe Hugo Chavez' Venezuela. But where is the line, and what are the criteria?
Is it any country with more than 50% Muslims? What about the narco-states in South America? We don't have a coherent policy, but we have been making a whole lot of noise about not punishing the many for the actions of a few. We have said we believe most Muslims are decent folks and now we have a chance to prove it or not. If we have found no sufficient reason to intervene in this, then why does it matter that the country in question is Dubai? Do we now fear all Middle Eastern countries too much to do business with them?
And on a completely pragmatic tip, wouldn't it be nice to have a country there that owed us one for playing straight with them? We have already been told that Dubai has been very helpful in the financial dismantling of Al-Qaeda, and now we will repay them by saying "Yeah, but you're still Arabs and Muslims, thanks for your support." W has taken plenty of heat for diplomatic failings, slapping Dubai in the face for the crime of Operating While Arab would be a major mistake. We need Arab and Muslim partners who have a financial stake in ensuring the bad guys can't use our ports, and we can either gain some good will or help bin Laden's recruiters. |
Operating While Arab. I like that. Hope you don't mind if I borrow that one once and a while Jimbo.
UPDATE 3 @11:45AM: Counterterrorism Blog has contributors on both sides of the issue. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is for the deal...
First of all, after this sale, DP World won't suddenly become our only recourse for port security. There is in fact a layered set of security checks that operates independent of DP World. These checks include the following:
A 24-hour Manifest Rule that requires sea carriers to provide U.S. Customs with detailed descriptions of the contents of containers bound for the U.S. a full 24 hours before the container is loaded onto a vessel. This allows U.S. Customs officers to assess risks and scan the containers in overseas ports before they enter the U.S.
The Coast Guard remains responsible for port security regardless of who manages the ports, while Customs and Border Protection maintains responsibility for container and cargo security.
As containers enter the U.S., officers on the ground screen the containers using imaging and radiation detection technology.
These security procedures will not change even if DP World takes over port operations. Whether or not one believes that these security procedures are sufficient, the fact remains that we won't be left any worse off.
Just as the security procedures and those who are charged with carrying them out will remain the same, we are unlikely to witness a change in the composition of the workforce at the six ports that DP World would run. Robert Palaima, the president of Delaware River Stevedores, pointed out that when the British company P&O Steamship Navigation Co. ran the ports, there wasn't a sudden infusion of British workers. He doesn't expect that this will change once the partner is based in Dubai rather than Britain. (My colleague Victor Comras noted DP World's rapid expansion; this makes it more likely that they will simply use American employees.)
A third reason that security concerns are overblown is that DP World isn't exactly a fly-by-night operation that came out of nowhere to buy up P&O. Rather, it is a multi-billion-dollar operation that bought up the British company for a whopping $6.8 billion. DP World operates ports around the globe. If a terrorist attack came through one of its ports, its entire business could be shattered. That is a high price to pay, and means that DP World has at least the same kind of incentive that any other company would -- indeed, perhaps more of an incentive -- to ensure strong port security.
And a final consideration is the manner in which the administration has attempted to "push the borders out" over the past few years to guarantee better port security. Security screening has shifted to the port of origin, with checkpoints along the way to ensure the cargo's continued safety. This means that a significant portion of our port security is already handled by ports outside the U.S. Thus, it's not clear why the present port acquisition has caused more of an uproar than the expansion of DP World's operations into Europe, Latin America, East Asia and Australia. |
Douglas Farah against...
Viktor Bout, the world's largest illegal weapons dealer, made $50 million selling weapons to the Taliban, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. He continues to feed murder and mayhem across Africa by selling weapons to rogue regimes and nonstate actors. And he continues to maintain several dozen aircraft in UAE--one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Bout and 30 of his companies are designated by the U.S. Treasury Department and the United Nations Sanctions, meaning every country is bound to freeze the assets of those companies and individuals. Yet the UAE has made no move to go after Bout's aircraft, even though one of his designated companies, IRBIS, continues to fly openly, and has not even bothered to change its name. His aircraft sit on the runways of Sharjah, and his pilots continue to fly daily from there, including recent flights for the U.S. military and its contractors.
The United States, for the past EIGHT YEARS has been asking the UAE to crack down on Bout's illicit activities there, with no results. |
Both make good points, but I think Gartenstein-Ross more fully tackles UAE's rocky past, citing the positive things they've done for us like turning over the man who planned the USS Cole bombing and al Qaeda naval attack expert Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri. I'm still for the deal; we're taking the good with the bad on most relations with our Middle East allies: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, etc. UAE no worse, and perhaps better than those three. Plus strategic position a stone's throw from Iran and that they allow us to use naval and air bases there. It's tough to thumb our nose at that.
UPDATE 4 @ 3:07PM: Jason Coleman has the ultimate Dubai sales video. Check it out, it's nuts. |
