Sound and Fury
Posted by John
Power Line
I reserved judgment on the UAE port controversy for quite a while, but it seems increasingly clear that this is one more in a long series of news stories where decibel level far exceeds substance. Much criticism of the "deal"--there actually isn't a deal, a company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates bought a British company that had contracts to administer facilities at six ports--consists of general criticisms of the UAE, as though companies headquartered in that country can only do business in America if the Emirates' record on terror-related issues is spotless. That strikes me as a complete non sequitur. More confirmed terrorists have come from Great Britain than the Emirates, but no one raised any objection to British control over port terminals.
And no one seems to care that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia already controls terminals at nine American ports. Or that China operates both ends of the Panama Canal.
Then we have news stories like this one:
<< "Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps" >>
The Associated Press begins breathlessly:
<<< Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations. >>>
Of course, if you continue reading, you find:
<<< The Bush administration said the Coast Guard's concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved. ***
The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised.
"The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed," the Coast Guard said. >>>
The issue, it seems to me, is whether there is any coherent theory as to why the corporate ownership of the company that controls a port terminal would have any security implications. The terminal operator isn't responsible for security; the Coast Guard, Customs Department and Department of Homeland Security are. It isn't clear that this change in corporate ownership will have any practical impact on the people working in the various port facilities.
In the Chicago Tribune, David Wagner, chief operating officer of the Port of New Orleans, said:
"People working on our docks for P&O [the British company
that was acquired by DP World] were the same as those
working for TTO and will
be the same for the next company. They are all
Americans." With respect to security, Wagner
said, "ownership by a Dubai company is 'not really a
relevant issue."
Maybe someone with real expertise in port management has offered a contrary view, but I haven't seen it.
Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit notes a change of postion on the part of Ms. Clinton. She is highly critical of the UAE port "deal":
<<< Now these choices reveal a disheartening pattern of the ideology, influence and incompetence that we have seen. And, they violate our values and our interests. Now, I don't claim that Democrats are always right but we are far more likely to make choices that reflect the values and advance the well being of the American people. >>>
But, Jim Hoft notes:
<<< After that "value violation" tirade, why did the media not asked Hillary about the Saudi run US ports?
As Sweetness and Light pointed out, the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA) already runs 9 ports here in the US!
And, it was back in 1997, when Hillary was serving as co-president, the Saudi owned shipping company (NSCSA) began service between North America and Italy, Greece and Turkey?
This just proves that the Clintons have evolved a long way since 1999 when they claimed that port control was "silly stuff".
Back in 1999 when Chinese owned Hutchinson-Whampoa, Ltd. took control of ports at both ends of the Panama Canal the Clinton White House scoffed at the security risks:
Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart dismissed the
Insight story about Chinese port control including the
Panama Canal and the surrounding controversy as "silly
stuff."
Chinese owned Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd. today owns 90% of Panama Ports Company. >>>
That was then, this is now; now, nothing matters except opportunities to score political points against the Bush administration.
PAUL concurs: As Tony Snow says, the hysterics of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress
"confirmed the Founder's view that the president, and not
the legislature, should handle national security matters."
The matter now will be re-opened for 45 days of study, during which period the administration will attempt to address the concerns of Congress. Given the importance, sensitivity, and complexity of the issue, this makes sense in theory. But given the importance, sensitivity, and complexity of the issue, is Congress capable of rational discourse and analysis?
UPDATE: A reader concurs:
<<< I have been involved in international insurance for nearly 30 yrs. now. Folks I know in shipping, in transportation, in international logistics (except for some rabid Democrats and Bush haters, but they don't count), all know that whichever company controls the port leases makes no difference. Port security is the responsibility of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and the Coast Guard. Labor is ILA (International Longshoreman's Assn).
Is security good? Not particularly, but changing the lease holders won't have any effect on security. The holes that are there today will still be there. Moreover, there are plenty of foreign companies on our ports since there is virtually no US shipping anymore.
So all the fuss about the UAE "buying our ports" and somehow compromising security is sound and fury signifying nothing. >>>
powerlineblog.com
sweetness-light.com
news.yahoo.com
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com |
