American Ports and Anti-Arab Prejudice

On February 13, a United Arab Emirates based firm called Dubai Ports World paid $6.8 billion for the British company P&O, which ran ports in six American cities. There has been vociferous opposition from American politicians, especially Democratic senator Chuck Schumer and Republican representative Pete King. Senator Hillary Clinton has called for legislation to prohibit the sale of port operations to foreign governments. Even the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, has asked for the president to take a second look at the deal. But why are these politicans opposed to the deal?

Critics of the deal protest that it will harm national security. Perhaps the most persuasive argument against the deal comes from columnist Charles Krauthammer, who commented that “as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial US ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations — and perhaps worse, about the holes in our security operations — to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al Qaeda types.”

However, what makes us so confident that American or British nationals wouldn’t pass on information to terrorists? Two of the 9/11 hijackers may have been from the UAE (United Arab Emirates), but all four of the London subway bombers were British citizens. Furthermore, the employees are likely to be unionized American citizens anyways, and any non-Americans would have to get a visa approved, which is no easy task these days.

The security in the ports would still be run by the Department of Homeland Security. Kim Peterson, the executive director of the Maritime Security Council, stated, “This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for US ports is a canard.” State Department spokesman Adam Ereli echoed her sentiments by adding, “Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports… What we’re talking about is the management of some port operations.”

It seems that most politicians are opposed to the deal because it makes them look strong on national security. However, there is no indication that allowing a publicly run UAE-based company would be dangerous to our security. The UAE is a key ally in the war on terrorism. The English publication the Economist has noted that “the United Arab Emirates is a member of America’s Container Security Initiative, which allows American customs officials to inspect cargo in foreign ports before it leaves for America.” David Ignatius of the Washington Post commented that “[Al Qaeda] accused the UAE leaders of working with the US government ‘in order to appease the Americans’ wishes which include: spying, persecution and detainments.’” Adam Ereli says that the UAE and America have a “strong and effective partnership from a counterterrorism point of view.”

The political opposition stems from fear and prejudice. Domestic point-scoring has triumphed common sense. In no way does the port deal endanger America. Let the experts in the bureaucracy determine the details of how our ports are run and not the politically motivated politicians in Congress. Even Krauthammer had to concede that DP World “manages ports in other countries without any such incidents.”