Some object to foreign ownership of a U.S. port in general. They believe that America is putting its port security up for sale by letting any foreign company manage its port operations. Yet our ports are already managed by foreigners from China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Europe and no American company is large or efficient enough to fill their shoes, should they all be banned from America, as Hillary Clinton has recommended. But that reaction is also unnecessary: As The New York Times put in a Feb. 23 article, "most experts seem to agree … [T]he gaping holes in security at American ports have little to do with the nationality of who is running them."
Other opponents make a more nuanced argument, arguing that foreign ownership is generally acceptable, but that the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) is an exception to that rule because of its supposed terrorist ties. They point to the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were born there. But weren't the London bus bombers born and raised in Great Britain? Didn't the 9/11 perpetrators also live in Germany for years before they came to the U.S.? It is unfair to implicate friendly Middle Eastern countries using "guilt by association."
DP World has instituted several security policies that would protect America. American workers would still unload cargo, the U.S. government would perform a background check on every DP employee and the U.S. coast guard, not the U.A.E., would still be in charge of security. Lest you think that terrorists at the administrative level can influence DP World, the Chief Operating Officer of the company is American-born and the company's administrative staff is widely respected in the shipping industry. DP World is a distinguished company, not a sketchy terrorist outfit.
So why are so many in Washington in a dither over the deal? Some are genuinely concerned about national security, to be sure. But there are other reasons that I can detect. Some harbor xenophobic tendencies and detest any increasing foreign participation in America's economy. For example, CNN's Lou Dobbs, a strong vocal opponent of the port sales, also regularly takes pot shots at Mexican immigrants and China.
Others are motivated by blind fear. This is largely President Bush's fault: He has cultivated a culture of fear since 9/11, and the lack of nuance in his foreign policy ("Bin Laden, Hussain, what's the difference?") has left too many Americans unable and unwilling to differentiate between friendly and unfriendly Islamic countries.
Some aim to score cheap political points. Protectionists try to insulate American workers and companies from foreign competition. Several small American port operators are upset because they lost the bid to a more efficient foreign rival. They realize that they can play the 9/11 card, and try to convince Congress that foreign companies are a threat to our national security-thus staving off economic competition.
Democrats also want to damage the president by highlighting the fact that the Bush Administration hasn't done enough to protect our ports. They are correct about Bush's lack of interest in port security, but the Democrats are jeopardizing our relationship with a key Arab ally with their political attack. I don't claim that those protesting Democrats are the first to turn national security into a blunt political instrument by manipulating facts. In fact, Republicans did exactly the same thing in the 2002 Congressional elections. But such behavior is wrong now, just as it was then.
As America debates the ports sale, much more than politics or even the safety of America's ports is at stake. America's image among our allies in the Arab world, including the U.A.E., Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait and others will depend on how we settle this issue. Currently, many U.S. naval vessels reside in the U.A.E., and U.S. soldiers on leave from Iraq rest within the country. If America blocks one of the U.A.E.'s companies from doing business in the United States, we will essentially be saying to the U.A.E., "We're willing to use your country as a base to fight terrorists, but we're too scared to trade with you." Such a slap in the face would certainly lead to less military cooperation from Dubai, and could only leave America more vulnerable than it is now. If we want our ports to be safer, experts have long agreed on the best path: Set aside more money for port security, but ignore the nationality of the country that manages the port.
Buchman can be reached at jlbuchman@amherst.edu