Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

In Washington, Chertoff said DP World should not be excluded from operating the U.S. ports just because it is based in the UAE. DP World would not be responsible for cargo screening, which is performed by the Department of Homeland Security, but the port operator would handle security for cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.

So a state-owned company would be hiring security personnel. Note that the Committee on Foreign Investments did not investigate the hiring practices that would be involved.

2.  A foreign government should not operate U.S. ports.


This is not a foreign company problem. As I've explained before, our port security has long been entrusted to foreign companies because, well, those are the top companies in the world. This is a problem of sovereignty.

As Senator Menendez put it on Lou Dobbs:

DOBBS: And DP is a United Arab Emirates-owned company. It is a state-owned company. And at the same time, we're hearing charges of racism. In this case, Islamophobia is the way one particularly, in my opinion, clumsy craftsman expressed himself on this. How do you react to those kinds of charges?

MENENDEZ: Well, first of all, I don't believe that the ports of the nation should ultimately be in the hands of any foreign government, first and foremost.

Menendez then went on to describe his view on why this particular foreign government raises some concerns.  I'm not going to address those issues in this diary, since they've been debated to death. Nor will I focus on whether DP World is "secure" enough to control our ports. Based on the information that's out there, I'm quite positive it is. It has all its international certifications and has been at the forefront of cooperating in our maritime security programs. For me at least, the central issue isn't one of competence. It's whether we want to set a precedent of having foreign control over our territory. Regardless of the fact that control is subject to U.S. regulation, let's just focus on the fact that a government in a foreign country thousands of miles away (a non-democratic government at that) will be operating our ports.  

This isn't an Arab issue. It's a question of whether a foreign government should have such a high stake in our security. How much of our security will we place in the hands of foreign governments? The Chinese government already holds our economic security in its hands, since it's the single largest purchaser of U.S. debt.  Will we let ouselves be placed in such a precarious position when it comes to our physical security as well?

Bipartisan opposition to the deal is not surprising;  this isn't the first time there's been outrage from both sides of the aisle about entrusting our national security to a foreign government. In 2005, members of Congress strongly opposed a bid between mega oil companies CNOOC and Chevron.  A large part of that opposition was that the Chinese government owned 70% of the shares in CNOOC.  Last year, the House passed a bill nearly unanimously prohibiting the sale of Chevron to the state-owned company on national security grounds. Forty-one members of Congress wrote to President Bush decrying the possible deal.  Opposition to the deal was so strong, CNOOC withdrew its bid.  Unlike China, who bluntly told Congress to back off, the UAE royal family has sent a delegation to the U.S. to dissuade members of Congress from opposing the deal.

Also, unlike CNOOC, DP World actually reports to the head of the Dubai government. I'd love to do a breakdown of DP World management, but unfortunately, there's just not that much information out there. Suffice it to say that, being an international company, DP World does have diverse management. But that does not detract from the stark reality that the CEO of DP World works directly for the Crown Prince of Dubai.

This brings me to another point.  DHS Secretary Chertoff spent Sunday morning assuring the American people that security safeguards were in place. But he refused to disclose what these safeguards and processes were, contending the information was "classified." Yet, obviously, DP World was informed of such measures if they are to comply with them. If the security measures are so sensitive as to be classified from the American people, why should a foreign government be privy to them?

Enemy or ally, no foreign government should control our ports. Even if that government acts in a managerial capacity rather than actually securing those ports, principles of sovereignty demand the only government that should be able to control our borders is that of the United States of America.