Controversy over port security deal rings hollow

THOSE OF YOU who are frequent readers of my column will no doubt be surprised to read the following words in this space.  I agree with President Bush.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not making a wholesale endorsement of the Administration’s policies. Yet there is an issue that’s made the President and I finally see eye-to-eye.

I’m talking about the story that emerged over the weekend that the Bush Administration has decided to allow a company called Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to manage security at six of the nation’s major ports, including New York, New Jersey and New Orleans.

Both Republicans and Democrats have jumped on the announcement, accusing the White House of outsourcing national security.

Even the President’s usual allies in Congress are balking at the plan. Senate majority leader Bill Frist called for a delay to the plan’s implementation to allow time for legislative review.

Representative Peter King (R-New York), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has introduced a bill that blocks the deal for a limited period.

According to CNN, King said the UAE “has had unusual ties to al Qaeda in the past,” and called the Administration’s actions “totally unacceptable after 9/11.”

The Republican governors of New York and Maryland have indicated they may go so far as to cancel their contracts with the company that currrently manages their ports.

For his part, President Bush vowed on Tuesday to use the first veto of his tenure to block a Congressional resolution barring the takeover.

I’m not a big fan of outsourcing. American jobs should stay in the U.S. as much as possible – and American corporations have an obligation to protect jobs here. If you’re going to do business in this country (or any country, for that matter) you have an ethical obligation to pay your taxes and provide jobs for the locals, even if they can be outsourced for less money elsewhere.

The interesting thing about this story is that the port security in question has already been outsourced.

In fact, the government isn’t hiring the Middle Eastern company that’s about to takeover security operations – it’s simply allowing the takeover of the British company that’s already been doing the same thing.

The problem here seems to be that the foreign company is based in the Middle East rather than Europe.

Rep. King may be right that the UAE has a relationship with al Qaeda. After all, two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the country and, according to the Sept. 11 Commission’s report, may have received support from individuals there.

BUT DO AMERICAN politicians really think that because a company is based in the Middle East it will intentionally weaken America’s port security? That would first of all be a very bad business move for a country (or even a single company) that relies almost exclusively on trade for its high standard of living and the money that keeps the ruling class wealthy and in control.

Most of the UAE’s wealth comes from its natural reserves of oil and natural gas – it’s highly unlikely that many of the wealthy that control the country’s corporations would be willing to jeopardize its entire future to attack its biggest trading partner.

Any support the Sept. 11 hijackers recieved most likely came from individuals, not the rulers or government. Extremists and terrorists operate everywhere, not just the Middle East.

In addition, it’s unlikely that citizens of the UAE will actually ever be patrolling American ports. The company will more likely take control of the conglomerate’s financial and executive administration and merely continue to hire the local American workers who do the jobs now.

“I don’t understand why it’s OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we’ve determined security is not an issue,” President Bush told reporters on Tuesday.

So if there is no national security threat from this sale, why are our politicians from both parties so keen on attacking it? The answer is that it’s an election year and, as polls continue to show, the American public is still largely obsessed with security nearly five years after the last major terrorist attack on the country.

Security issues are by far the Republican Party’s biggest strength at the ballot box and they’re no doubt worried that this issue could erode their relatively strong position. Because of this, I’m surprised the White House has been so politically tone-deaf in the past few days.

Many Americans no doubt think it improper that a Middle Eastern company is taking over essential security operations within the country.

Despite how irrational and, dare I say it, bigoted this position is, it makes a certain degree of sense.

The Democrats, for their part, are simply trying to torpedo the Administration’s plans in order to embarrass it before the elections later this year.

I’m not a big fan of the Administration’s policies on most issues. At the same time, this controversy is an entirely manufactured one – and so I’ve become perhaps George Bush’s most unlikely ally, at least for today.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>