Posturing Over Ports

David Corn

March 01, 2006

David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). Read his blog at  http://www.davidcorn.com.

It's an Arab thing .

There is certainly reason to pause over the nearly consummated sale of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World. The sale would place a company controlled by the ruling family of the United Arab Emirates in charge of the operations at six ports in the United States. Questions about why the U.S. is outsourcing the management of critical facilities to any foreign firm, particularly one quasi-owned by a foreign government, are legitimate. But this debate—at least as far as ports go—ended before it could begin. A Chinese firm, for instance, owns a port terminal in Los Angeles, and the deal that led to that arrangement did not cause Democrats and Republicans to stampede before television cameras.

It's the Arab connection that has prompted the recent hysteria. True, two of the hijackers came from the UAE and money for the attack flowed through banks there. But 9/11 hijackers also came from Hamburg, and no congressional leader would scream if a German firm obtained a contract to run a U.S. port. Several hijackers spent time in Florida; no one blames that state for what happened.

Yes, that's a bit glib. But when there's so much yelling about the Dubai Ports World deal and not much about other security issues, one is justified in suspecting that jingoism and demagoguery are driving the story more than sincere concern. For starters, there’s apparently no evidence of the UAE government's direct ties to 9/11. The critics of the DPW deal open themselves to charges of hypocrisy—particularly the Republican opponents of the ports handover—because they have not raised similar fusses about security issues that are probably more consequential than the ownership of the company managing operations at these U.S. ports. Furthermore, these critics are overlooking a not-so-easy-to-exploit reason for questioning the transaction.

The UAE is an autocracy that affords its residents few, if any, guaranteed rights. Human Rights Watch reports  that the UAE

does not hold elections for any public office, and political participation is limited to the ruling family in each emirate. The government has not signed most international human rights and labor rights treaties. Migrant workers, comprising nearly 90 percent of the workforce in the private sector, are particularly vulnerable to serious human rights violations.

If it is the United States' mission and obligation to spread democracy and freedom across the globe, as George W. Bush insists, should it be doing significant business with autocrats? Just last Friday, Bush defended the war in Iraq by saying, "Our freedom agenda is based on a clear premise: the security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations." Dubai Ports World is controlled by a government that does not allow its people to govern themselves. What message does Washington send if it opens its arms to corporate entities run by such rulers? And think of how a deal like this will increase the wealth— and, thus, the power—of these non-democrats? Of course, if you say goodbye to DPW on these grounds, you would—to be consistent—have to do the same with Chinese firms, Saudi companies, and the like. Bush was willing to invade a country to spread democracy (or so he says now that it's clear there were no WMDs in Iraq), but ostracizing anti-democratic regimes by saying no to their business? That apparently would be going too far.

As for the volume of the Dubai outcry, let’s compare it to the sound and fury (or lack thereof) that has accompanied other security issues. Much of the media coverage of the ports deal has pointed out that the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress have been funding port security at about one-tenth the level the Coast Guard and ports experts claim is needed to render American ports secure. But how many populist-minded Republican members of Congress (or conservative commentators) have reached for their pitchforks over this outrageous situation?

And what about chemical plants? A terrorist strike on one of the 100-plus most sensitive chemical facilities would release toxic chemicals that, according to the EPA, could potentially threaten 1 million people. In October 2002, Tom Ridge, then homeland security czar, wrote a letter to the editor of The Washington Post  with then-EPA director Christine Todd Whitman, calling for mandatory government security regulations at these facilities. "Voluntary efforts alone are not sufficient to provide the level of assurance Americans deserve," they argued. Yet three and a half years later, there are still no compulsory security guidelines for these plants—thanks largely to the lobbying efforts of the chemical industry and the Bush administration's responsiveness to these efforts. Where's the hullabaloo over that?

The same question can be asked about another security initiative killed by industry—screening of checked baggage on domestic flights. When you fly within the United States, your carry-on bags are X-rayed and inspected, but not necessarily the bags you check. That's a loophole a not-so-clever terrorist could take advantage of. When the airlines fought against mandatory inspections of checked baggage and the security regulation was shot down, there was nary a peep from congressional Republicans and their media pals. The Bush administration has also been slow to make good on the Nunn-Lugar program that was set up to help Russia decommission nuclear weapons and keep track of nuclear material and nuclear scientists. Given a choice between better fences at ports and fewer loose nukes, I'd go for the latter—though call me a dreamer for believing we can do both.

Democrats have tried in the past —though not much recently—to turn these matters into political issues and, by and large, failed—see John Kerry. But Republican leaders haven't been bothered by these security shortfalls.

Let's not let the down-with-Dubai Democrats off the hook. It took little in the way of guts to try to out-screech Bush on national security by decrying this great sellout of America to the Arabs. Yet when it comes to saying something about the Iraq war, many leading Democrats remain MIA. Few are bird-dogging Bush as he keeps trying to sell the war in Iraq on phony terms. Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, rushed to denounce the port deal, but not too many Dems—beyond the predictable progressives—have been as vociferous in discussing the Iraq war. Are they afraid of challenging Bush's reality-free assertions about the war for fear they would have to voice their own view on what ought to be done in Iraq? That's too much of a commitment —and too tough a challenge —for many Dems.

The strategy appears to be this: It's Bush's war; let him (and his GOP friends) own it and drown in it. This may make political sense: don't get in the way of a commander in chief who may be losing a war. But there does seem to be a disconnect between the Democratic din over Dubai Ports World and the party's not-so-loud response to events in Iraq. Congressional Democrats will soon have to vote for the $72.4 billion in emergency spending Bush is requesting for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be cruel to begrudge the Democrats the chance to turn the tables and use this opportunity to accuse Bush of being weak on national security. After all, during the 2002 campaign, Bush said that Democrats literally did not care about the national security of the American people. Bu Democrats ought not to confuse scoring political points during this episode with the real progress the party must make to win in November.

By all means, Ds and Rs should take a hard look at the Dubai deal and review the wisdom of allowing foreign firms to operate critical U.S. facilities. But enough with the selective outrage. That's not going to make any American safer—except perhaps a politician running for reelection.