The Tyranny of They; Inside the Port Controversy

Very nice article.

From the beginning, I've tried to point out to people that it's really not a big deal, Dubai's an amazing city, the UAE does alright -- it just looks so horrible to have this come out without some sort of discussion before the fact with the affected ports, municipalities, and politicians. It's just such inept politics.

Americans will have to get used to this more and more, as the dollar falls and foreign debt contiues to skyrocket. Buying American properties will only become even more of a good idea. (To a certain point, anyway...)

Welcome to the global economy!

Two terrorists involved in the Oklahoma City bombings were from the United States of America.

Perhaps we could reduce the risk of terror by refusing to trade with ourselves?

The rise of xenophobia in our nation is most regrettable.

The Statue of Liberty is inscribed with the following:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

When we use nationality or religion as a factor on who can come and go or who can own what, we are forgetting ourselves.

What an excellently convincing article! You've obviously done some extensive research on this, and you've presented us with clear and concrete facts to support your opinion.

We will have to face our fear of foreign cultures at some point. Rather than repeat our abhorrent behavior regarding other peoples we did not understand (and therefore treated poorly) - Native America and the African slave trade come to mind - perhaps we've grown enough to vie for a symbiotic relationship.

Certainly we can't afford to lose out on the economic benefits, but less so can we afford to show fear in the face of the unknown and further foster more prejudice. Mr. Hewitt, you are dead-on in your philosophy.

One small correction I just noticed now: it's United Arab Emirates, not United Arabs Emirate.

Nice article, Jeff.

An excellent article by all accounts, though I can't say I agree with you.

I understand the hypocrisy of saying that we're ok with the British owning the ports, but not ok with the UAE. We shouldn't hold a forward thinking, pro-America, pro-Buisness country to a higher standard just because they happen to be a Muslim state in the Mid-East. You're right -- and that is completely and totally wrong.

But the brouhaha over all this does highlight other issues.

I, for one, am not ok with the idea of national security being in foreign hands.

I don't think we should rely upon other countries to manage our ports
I don't think we should rely upon other countries to provide our food supply
I don't think we should rely upon other countries to protect our shores.

I've nothing against the UAE. Personally, I think that it was a bad move to allow a British company to control the ports.* Certain interests are too vital to the security of a country to be trusted to any other power -- no matter how friendly, how trustworthy, how peaceful that country might be.

Economic efficiency is the modern God of the Global Economy. It is a powerful god and worthy of a great deal of deference, but the sacrifice of national security -- indeed some might say national sovereignty to that god is too much to ask.

* I am prepared to cut Britain a little slack here. Unlike every other country in the world, Britain has spent the last few centuries protecting the freedom of the seas, even for their enemies. Even so, I am disinclined to trust even the most trustworthy of nations in a matter such as this.

Outstanding analysis and right on the mark regarding port security and how the administration and Congress have absolutely dropped the ball on this. We pad around in our stocking feet at airports because one moron once loaded his Nikes with explosive, but Lord knows how many containers get floated in and trucked off into the middle of our country without any inspection at all. In this case, Pogo was right: "we have met the enemy and he is us."

KillFile,

Apparently you didn't read the article, security at the ports is still handled (however ineptly by the USCG). The docks are still going to be manned by American union workers. So basically you are just upset over the profit for managing the port to go somewhere else other then to a US company. Well I guess we should have all of our companies pull out of a all foriegn investment then? Out national security is in the hands of every single International airport in the world. How are we supposed to handle our national security without either cutting off all communication, trade, and tranportation with the rest of the world, or trying to work together toward the greater good.

Savoy35:

You mischaracterize my assessment. If the UAE corporation in question gains control of the ports they are entitled to the same classified security briefings as all other port owners from DHS. Moreover, they acquire the real and undeniable power to make serious decisions which could impact - in the long run - the ability of those ports to function properly.

I am in no way impugning the reliability or, or peaceful intentions of UAE - but this is a decision in which the American people are at least justly paranoid.

As to the question of airports - yes, we do run minor risks from international air traffic. However, it is a diffuse risk and one which is spread out over thousands of airports around the world instead of concentrated in a small number of ports.

KillFile,

Could you post a reference for the statement...

Moreover, they acquire the real and undeniable power to make serious decisions which could impact - in the long run - the ability of those ports to function properly.

I am not questioning your integrity. I am simply unaware of this dynamic in the discussion.

Thanks,
--Adam

I'm not sure what you mean by a reference... do you want US code detailing the rights of a property owner or a business owner to shut down or alter operations? The ports become an asset of a corporation which is, for the most part, outside of the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

As a corporate asset it is ultimately up to the owner how the day to day operations of the port are handled. While the owner can't alter the way we handle customs - what happens if the owner order port operations to cease?

What happens when the port owner decided not to service vessels sailing under specific flags for whatever reason?

Admittedly these operations would be against the financial interests of the port owner but what kind of a position does that place the US government in? The ports continued functionality is a matter of national security. The ports could be nationalized and seized by the Federal Government, but doing so would constitute the seizure of foreign property which is of dubious constitutionality to say nothing of the possible international consequences.

Killfile,

What happens when the port owner decided not to service vessels sailing under specific flags for whatever reason?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't such action constitute discrimination? Wouldn't legal action be the natural recourse to over come such action? It seems plausible such a case could be couched in terms friendly to standing on the same legislation passed to ensure fair and equal treatment of individuals.

I really have to question you here. I don't have a reference to hand, but perhaps you do.

The ports could be nationalized and seized by the Federal Government, but doing so would constitute the seizure of foreign property which is of dubious constitutionality to say nothing of the possible international consequences.

As I understand it, the only "foreign soil" in America is that belonging to an Embassy. Even beyond that, the laws of Eminent Domain would surly cover any government action to seize and reopen ports.

Thank you for taking the time to reply back and answer my questions.
--Adam

All of the ports will still belong to the existing authorities. For example, the Port of Baltimore will still be owned by Maryland, and the final word on operations at the port will come from Annapolis. I believe that Dubai Ports World would simply be given a contract: they would own nothing. Besides, foreigners owning land in the US do not add that land to the territory of their home country; the city, state, and national authorities would still have jurisdiction.

On the other hand, there are reports that Dubai Ports World enforces the trade embargo with Israel. This, along with the gentle authoritarianism practiced by the rulers of the UAE (censorship, hereditary rule), eliminates, for me, any sense of entitlement on the part of the UAE. The recently agreed-upon delay should be used to closely investigate DPW.

@AdamLenda

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't such action constitute discrimination? Wouldn't legal action be the natural recourse to over come such action? It seems plausible such a case could be couched in terms friendly to standing on the same legislation passed to ensure fair and equal treatment of individuals.

Unfortunately the specifics of this case involve a government-owned corporation taking over management so legal recourse would be tricky. Here is a pretty comprehensive look at the UAE's history with equal treatment and overview of their government.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41734.htm

If the ultimate ownership does in-fact reside with Annapolis, New Orleans, etc and does not specifically pass to a foreign corporation -- then I'm fine with it.

But I don't see how that would work.

Somehow I've confused a few of you. I never meant (and I don't think I said) that if DPW took over the ports that the ports themselves (as in the physical land upon which they rest) would become the sovereign soil of the UAE. What I meant (and thought I said) was that if DPW takes over the ports, the docks, facilities, lifts, cranes, buildings, equipment -- basically everything that differentiates a Port from any other bit of shoreline -- would be the property of DPW.

If DPW, due to a shift in corporate policy, a shift in UAE's government, or just a shift in local or global politics decides to start taking marching orders from the UAE's government we risk the use of an American Port as a pawn of a foreign government.

As I said earlier, there is little that the US can do to enforce its laws and rules upon a foreign corporation backed by the power of a foreign government.

I am in no way impugning the reliability or, or peaceful intentions of UAE - but this is a decision in which the American people are at least justly paranoid

I agree the American people are at least justly paranoid, but mostly because the American public has heard a lot of propaganda about "Islamo-Fascist," especially from right-wing radio. The Administration has often used the lack of public understanding about the Middle East in justification for its foreign policy. What percentage of Americans believed there was a link between Saddam and Bin Laden? I can't recall the exact percentage, but I know it was more than 50%. Part of the reason for such confusion is the constant linking of September 11 to current policy in the Middle East. Its hard to play both sides of the fence when emotional responses to the attacks of 9-11 are are exploited for support of the Iraq War, the march to war in Syria and Iran, and support of Israel's occupation of Palestine. Dumbing down the media has its consequences and in this case Dubai is a victim of America's learned paranoia towards the Middle East.

While I agree this is the best post on this topic I would take exception to the following.

Jeff Hewitt writes:

While port personnel will be overwhelmingly staffed with American citizens, the deal will increase the number of ships entering our waters from Dubai. These ships will be crewed by UAE expatriates, many of whom will be emigrates from areas of terrorist activities. Certainly, it would not be inconceivable under current port conditions for terrorist operatives to gain access to our country by way of these ports...

There is no evidence a management company, which DP World would be, would direct more ships into US ports whose origin was Dubai. This flies in the face of efficient movement of goods for import and export. In short it "ain't" gonna happen. Moreover "UAE expatriates" won't be on these ships. Shipping companies hire and fire workers not port management companies. Finally, are you aware that all ships and containers with an origin of Dubai are inspected by US customs and Homeland Security in Dubai?

Killfile writes:

I, for one, am not ok with the idea of national security being in foreign hands.

I don't think we should rely upon other countries to manage our ports
I don't think we should rely upon other countries to provide our food supply
I don't think we should rely upon other countries to protect our shores.

Point one: I assume you would halt all foreign management of ports. In that case who would you suggest do the job, name me one US company that is not only capable but has the finances to do the job (and assume the P&O contract), that DP World is capable of. Secondly, I also assume you would cancel the DP World contract for a terminal in the Houston Shipping Channel, where they have operated for years with no problems. It would also mean the APL terminals manageded by Singapore and the ports manageded by China would also be handed over to this "near mythical" US company to operate. As an aside: Question, why are many of those that are opposed to this deal in Congress also some the same people that approved the sale of 80 F-16 fighter jets to the UAE? Jets that are more capable than what our own Air Force flys.

Point2: Not rely on "other countries to provide our food supply?" What kind of isolationist, misguided nonsense is that! To believe that you have no concept of what the international market is about and risk a trade war to end all trade wars if taken to it's logical conclusion. (i.e. no foreign food in equals retaliation in the form of no US food stuffs being exported.)

Point 3: What countires would that be? Which one will we be relying on "to protect our shores?"

@Full Throttle

Question, why are many of those that are opposed to this deal in Congress also some the same people that approved the sale of 80 F-16 fighter jets to the UAE? Jets that are more capable than what our own Air Force flys.

Do you know who approved the sale of 80 F-16 fighters to the UAE? I'm sure the American people would like to know who is selling weapons and technologies to the middle-east. I know I would, at least I'd like to ask them why.

Where can I vote for best columnist on Newsvine? Jeff Hewitt's the man. Well written, though out, articulate.

billybobjoe writes:

@Full Throttle

Question, why are many of those that are opposed to this deal in Congress also some the same people that approved the sale of 80 F-16 fighter jets to the UAE? Jets that are more capable than what our own Air Force flys.

Do you know who approved the sale of 80 F-16 fighters to the UAE?

Do I have to do all the work? The info is readily available in the Senate and House of Reps site. Surely if interested you can do that much.

Jeff Hewitt writes:

@ Full Throttle

Admittedly, I am drawing on knowledge of shipping operations from a Merchant Marine captain who is an acquaintance of mine. His explanation indicated that the staffing of ship's crew tends to be a revolving door, especially in lesser skilled jobs. Upon consideration, my logic may be off here, as it's based on information I cannot verify.

True it is a "revolving door, that's the nature of the business. Crew sign on for anywhere from a single trip to many months under one contract. But it is my understanding most if not all hiring is done via labor unions and the shipping companies themselves. (I see if I can find a ref)

Here is a fact sheet from the Port of Houston Authority that deals specifically with the Proposed Acquisition of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World.

One note on an item mentioned in the fact sheet. The Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) is a pilot program of the Dept of Homeland Security, Houston is not on the list as one of the 34 sites using it.

I also don't know if this program is fully funded, which of course would fall in the hands of those crying about under-funded national security measures. HELLO Congress - care to comment, or continue to point fingers at the WH.

BTW, many have used very small percentage figures in describing the number of containers that are screened upon entry to the US. The Democrats, and some Republicans, use the figure of either 2% or 5% that are screened. In short the figure is a total misrepresentation (to be kind) of the facts. The number screened is actually 100%. "of the shipments that pose a risk" before they enter the US.

Granted what and who is determined to be a risk is debatable, but those using the "2% myth" are making a political statement and nothing more.

I'm curious when the UK based company gained control of the ports, what security review they went under, and then especially if the UK got control pre-9/11, then what the relevant legislation for oversight of said contracts is. If the UK based company underwent a 45 day review or if legislation was subsequently passed that such a thing should happen, then it would certainly be appropriate to follow that guideline.

Full Throttle:

Point one: I assume you would halt all foreign management of ports.

Frankly yes. I regard US ports as a powerful economic tool and one that can be used against the United States if the controller of those ports so desires. The small number of major ports itself is a magnifier for this implication. I don't presume to know who, off the top of my head, could manage US ports - but it is my understanding that the Port of New York, for example, is managed by a US company. I find your suggestion that there does not exist a single company in the world under US management with the capital to manage our ports. If that is indeed the case than our economic power in this world is short lived.

F-16 fighter jets to the UAE? Jets that are more capable than what our own Air Force flys.

The F-16 Falcon is a piece of 1970s vintage hardware -- deadly to be sure, but far and away inferior to the F22-A Raptors that form the tip of the Air Force's fighter wings today. A study by the UK's DERA showed the F22 Raptor to be the most effective air superiority fighter in the world -- bar none.

Point2: Not rely on "other countries to provide our food supply?" What kind of isolationist, misguided nonsense is that!

It is the lessons of history and politics. The United States is not, at this point in her history, dependent on any other nation for its food supply. Indeed, we are the largest corn and grain exporter in the world. That said, I shouldn't have to tell you that the world would be a very different place indeed if the US had been reliant on Germany for its food supply in 1941.

There is a difference between trading foodstuffs with another country and depending on them to feed your nation. Japan, for example, is in a position where it is unable to feed itself. Subject to a naval blockade Japan would starve. Australia has been able to extract extremely favorable trade agreements with Japan thanks to its ability to feed Japan with minimal transport costs. A non-independent food supply is a security risk of the greatest magnitude -- and there is nothing isolationist about that.