Customary Practice

I don't know completely what to think about the falderal concerning the six US ports to be managed by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates that has just acquired Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that currently runs the ports of Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia. (You can read more about the reaction, and the entrance of two Republican governors objecting to this, at the WaPo.) Granted, Dubai has a shaky recent history with terrorism (even going so far as to recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistant). But is that justification enough to deny this business exchange? Two bloggers have some thoughts. First, Soj over at Daily Kos notes (mistakenly using DWP for Dubai Ports World):

DWP also operates terminals and/or ports in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Romania, Germany, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Djibouti, India and Saudi Arabia. Notice anything odd about those countries? There have never been any international terrorist incidents in any of them. If DWP was such a terrorist-lovin' company, why haven't their sprung their hordes of Qur'an-wavin' suicide bombers on all those other despicable, capitalist, western imperialist nations?

The reason of course is that DWP will no more "control" or "own" the six ports in the United States than it does in Romania or Australia. Let's review exactly what these companies do.

The ports (in America) are all owned by the local governments, whether in Baltimore or Miami. They didn't belong to P&O and they won't belong to DWP. The title on the deed down in the courthouse will still show the owner to be the local American government. Not only that, but as an international port of entry into the United States, the American government has full sovereignty and jurisdiction over all cargo and vessels entering the said ports. This means that there will be Customs and Border Protection (formerly U.S. Customs Service) agents working there. American law enforcement at all levels will have the same jurisdiction over these ports as they did six months ago when the British company operated them.

But John Nichols over at The Nation brings up an even larger question over this deal:

The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.

The problem is that it that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of operational control of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.

[...]

In the era when the federal government sees "homeland security" as a slogan rather than a responsibility, allowing the nation's working waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work. It is no secret that federal authorities have failed to mandate, let alone implement, basic port security measures. But this is not merely a federal failure; it is, as well, a private-sector failure. The private firms that control so many of the nation's ports have not begun to set up a solid system for watrerfront security in the more than four years since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

[...]

There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.

First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.

Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.

Got an update on the flip...

: : : : : : : : : :

Andrew Leonard (of Salon's How the World Works blog) received an urgent email from Democrats for America's Future regarding PortGate that he took offense to:

"BUSH LEAVES PORTS OPEN TO ATTACK." "The White House is scheming to outsource management of America's six largest ports -- including two that account for 40 percent of the cargo needed for the war in Iraq. And to which foreigners is President Bush so eager to turn over control of our biggest and most security-sensitive ports? ... Why, the United Arab Emirates, of course!"

Wow -- what a bonanza: transparently stupid and racist to boot! With Democrats like these, who needs terrorists bent on destroying the American way of life? We're more than capable of undermining everything we supposedly stand for, right here at home.

[...]

There's been a lot of dumb rhetoric about the sale: Contrary to what politicians are saying, the United Arab Emirates company will not "own" or be running security at the ports. Nearly all American ports are already operated by foreign companies, Dubai Ports World has a sterling reputation around the world, and it just happens to be run by a senior staff that includes a bunch of, guess what, Americans.

But heck, sure, security at U.S. ports is an issue, and we could probably could do a lot more to oversee them effectively. But that's a completely separate argument from the blatant fear-mongering, racist-baiting and flat-out misinformation that Democrats for America's Future is committing.

First, George W. Bush is not "scheming" to outsource anything. Operation of these ports was already in foreign hands, and the purchase of a British company by a United Arab Emirates company is hardly a result of malign White House maneuvers. Meanwhile, as Time magazine notes, the International Longshoremen's Association workers who currently offload ships at the U.S. ports will continue to do so, regardless of who has the contracts to run the ports.

But much worse, the spectacle of Democrats joining in a chorus that attempts to paint Bush as weak on security because, horror of horrors, he isn't stopping an Arab-owned company from operating ports in the U.S. is pathetic and embarrassing. Dubai's ties to 9/11 are extremely weak. Engagement of this kind with moderate Arab countries is exactly what this world needs more of. Instead, in their attempt to score political points against Bush, these bozos are telling all Arabs everywhere that we don't trust you and will treat you as the ultimate boogeyman.

Robert Reich, James Carville and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend are among the members of the board of directors of Democrats for America's Future. They should know better.

Not sure about Carville, but Reich should definitely know better.