Mudville Gazette

February 27, 2006

Listing to Port

Greyhawk

Pushback from an ignored but potentially injured third-party in the port deal-the UK:

The great Indian writer Khushwant Singh once penned a poignant story called Karma, about the plight of Indian elites under British colonialism. The protagonist, Sir Mohan Lal, wants only to be accepted as a gentleman. Impeccably dressed in his Savile Row suit and Balliol tie, brandishing a copy of The Times, he proudly takes his seat in the first-class compartment of a train - only to be accosted by a couple of drunken, loutish British soldiers who fling him out, seeing only a "wog".

Whether they realise it or not, most critics of the sale of P&O, the UK-based port operator that owns five terminals on the US east coast, to Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates government, are just replaying the scene with different accents.

The rest is subscription only, but here's a central point:

The causes of the furore are actually quite simple, and ugly. "Port management" sounds like something important, especially in the post-September 11 world, and many think it cannot be left to "wogs" - a reaction that has been encouraged by shameless politicians quick to recognise a chance for cheap demagoguery.

And here's the conclusion:

Given the situation's political realities, it makes sense to delay finalising the deal briefly. In fact, the crisis creates a perfect opportunity for the president to educate the Congress and the public on what globalisation means in practice, how it generally benefits Americans and the world at large, and how wrong it is to lump all Arabs, Muslims and Middle Easterners into a scary, undifferentiated mass. The administration could also take lessons about the importance of approaching homeland security seriously and the danger of playing with demagogic fire across the board.

Will any of this learning occur? If you think it will, I have a fantastic port to sell you.

The Financial Times has a hard time acknowledging that Bush is the voice of reason in this one. (The key for the anti-Bush crowd in this is to note the fact that he wasn't aware of the deal until afterwards - that might help diminish the distaste of arguing on "his side".)

But that makes two allies potentially alienated by the knee-jerk reaction to the ports deal - not to mention the clear message sent to other Arab countries.

Update:

The deck has truly been shuffled on this one, the metaphors thoroughly mixed, and strange bedfellows are discovering each other on every side of the fence.

In the New York Times Nicholas Kristof says

Even if you believe in racial profiling, you have to look beyond the profile. Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there. Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world — it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal — not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.
<...>
Suppose you were Osama bin Laden and wanted to set off a nuclear weapon or a "dirty bomb" in front of the U.S. Capitol. First you would bribe Russians with access to loosely secured nuclear materials.

Then you would ship them to the U.S. — but the key step would occur in the foreign port: hiding the materials in the shipping container of a well-known and trusted exporter. If the container were shipped out of Rotterdam and seemed to contain Lego toys, for example, U.S. customs officials (who are now also based abroad) might not bother to examine it.

So even if agents of Al Qaeda infiltrate Dubai Ports World, and some manage to get U.S. visas and be stationed in Newark, it's not clear that they could help the plot.

But ultimately he maintains his "D" cred:

Democrats have so many legitimate reasons to criticize President Bush — from ruining our nation's finances to despoiling American wilderness — that it's painful to see them scaremongering in just the way that Mr. Bush himself has.

The Financial Times piece above also takes that jab, as have numerous other commenters struggling to come to grips with the fact that they agree with the U.S. President on this one. Sez the FT: "The irony here is that in many respects the Bush administration is reaping what it sowed, having previously played politics with homeland security and the war on terrorism, having blurred distinctions in the Muslim world by conflating the unrelated struggles against al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.."

Again, were I wanting to support the deal but not the administration, I'd repeat that the President didn't know until after the deal was done - in other words, the right decision was made because he wasn't in on it.

Because he's already on record on that other issue:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)

I heard that right the first time. He was serious. And therein lies a clue for those who would be taken seriously on security issues: be serious.

And as for "campaigning on scare tactics", the last Presidential election was actually a referendum on gay marriage, remember?

Posted by Greyhawk at 05:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (14) |

Show Comments Here (14) |

Hide Comments

I wondered myself, if this is such a great thing?
I think of all the responses though, UAE has had the best one. They are willing to sit back and let this be reviewed. Even though it is a done deal. If only our congress can stop bickering, and using this as a weapon against Bush. It's not about bush, {he should have known but get over it} it's about working with foreign governments, business. Do we really want the world to see this type of bickering and childish behavior? America can't make up its mind.

Did you see where the ports really haven't got the best security to begin with? What was it like, 75% percent of what goes through is not inspected at all? Another lapse brought to the forefront.

Posted by Saoirse at February 27, 2006 06:49 PM

You have laid out the blueprint for al quiada's next attack - traitorous. But isn't it great us white guys are so smart, and able to climb into the terrorist brain.

Posted by lk at February 27, 2006 07:07 PM

"You have laid out the blueprint for al quiada's next attack"

Actually, Tom Clancy laid out the blueprint in "The Sum of All Fears". Instead of using Muslim Fascists, he used German Fascists instead.

Posted by Soldier's Dad at February 27, 2006 07:51 PM

Indeed, the entire Danish cartoon outrage was a ploy to get us to "buy Danish" in order that the influx of Lego products would overwhelm our ability to secure the ports.

Diabolique!

Posted by Greyhawk at February 27, 2006 08:12 PM

Why are we strip-searching old ladies at the airports when foreigners, who presumably could care less about our security, are running containers into our ports? It's impossible to believe that there are no American companies interested in this business, unless of course it's unprofitable. And if that's case, why would Dubai want it? How about they give us control of their oil fields first? Hey, we'll let them watch the meters. Wake up, America. You are being sold out.

Posted by Airhead at February 27, 2006 08:17 PM

Seems no one is worried about the British company who can lose a sale.

Posted by plainslow at February 27, 2006 09:16 PM

Oil fields, Airhead? Dubai exports only about 250k bd and their reserves are expected to be exhausted within 20 years.

Which is why they have been forced - fortunately for them - to diversify their economy.

Posted by MaryAnn at February 27, 2006 09:17 PM

Actually, Tom Clancy laid out the blueprint in "The Sum of All Fears". Instead of using Muslim Fascists, he used German Fascists instead.
Posted by Soldier's Dad at February 27, 2006 07:51 PM

In the book, it was Palestinians.

It was the movie producers who changed the terrorists to right-wing white guys -- a change that was made in the late 1990s.

In any case, the book was so bad (90% of it could have been cut) that I don't understand why anybody would have wanted to see the movie version anyway.

Posted by Nobody Important at February 27, 2006 09:19 PM

"Then you would ship them to the U.S. — but the key step would occur in the foreign port: hiding the materials in the shipping container of a well-known and trusted exporter."

This might be difficult; the trusted exporter is probably trusted for a reason. Another approach would be to exchange (at the U.S. end) the container from the trusted exporter and the container holding the contraband (changing the identification accordingly)..or, alternatively, switch the contents.

I'm not yet convinced by the argument that the terminal operator is not a factor in security, given that it has physical control of the cargo.

Posted by David Foster at February 27, 2006 09:34 PM

After watching Season 2 of The Wire, I think it doesn't matter who manages the docks. If you want to sneak something into the country, you just have to pay off a few dock workers.

Two things:

1) You mention that Bush didn't know about the port deal being accepted. I'm okay with that. It goes back to Bush's management technique: hire trusted (and hopefully intelligent) underlings who can impliment his Presidential agenda. He states the direction, they take care of the details.

2) I find it ironic that Halliburton is the only US company that could possibly handle running all of those US ports. They are a company big enough with the proper background to handle this sort of thing, not that they would necessarily do a good job. Imagine if they had been a third party in the bidding war between DPW and the Singapore(?) company. I imagine millions of heads exploding while trying to resolve that lesser-of-two-evils conundrum.

Posted by Xmas at February 27, 2006 11:08 PM

"Halliburton is the only US company that could possibly handle running all of those US ports"...I've seen this comment lots of places, but I don't think it's correct. If the existing P&O terminal operations were purchased, either all together or piecemeal, then the current people would stay there, along with their systems and procedures. Running the ports, in this sense, means knowing enough about the shipping industry, and having enough general management skill, to not screw things up. I think either FexEx or UPS could probably do it; most likely, so could a railroad which is heavily tied to import/export traffic.

Posted by David Foster at February 28, 2006 12:32 AM

I do not want US ports managed by a company controlled by the UAE royal family. Have you seen pictures of those guys? There are no girls, of course. The guys look a lot like hijackers, and one looks like Franco Harris.

Posted by lk at February 28, 2006 02:07 AM

Why did this get to be prejudice against Muslims (a religion, not a race..just sayin'). This is a war against infiltration, not armies. To win the enemy needs to infiltrate our country and blow stuff up. If they are working right smack dab inside of good places to blow up, which political side is going to make the best excuses after the explosion? Who cares? Let's just not have Muslim countries running major industries for now, we can always change our minds later.
This is not a private company. I don't know why people aren't more alarmed by that. You are putting a lot of trust in the future stability of a Muslim kingdom. There is a history of the US doing that in the region (Shah of Iran anyone?).
And what's all this business about hurting their feelings? Are we dealing with teenagers here? Cartoons hurt their feelings, western culture insults them, they boycott Israel so I guess Jews hurt their feelings. I know, let’s sell the Ports franchise to grownups (Can you imagine Tony Blair pouting about his feelings over a business deal?)
Let’s see the statements and activities of the royal family over the past few years, newsclips and video. How moderate or modern they are within the palace is the question, not the efficiency of the port operations. Every media reporter should be swarming to UAE, there is where the real story is. Americans are nice people, show us who these new “friends” are and we’ll embrace them soon enough. Until then, let’s just pass. No offense.

Posted by BETH MCNEELY at February 28, 2006 05:29 PM

Strange bedfellows? In politics? Who’d have thought? (www.niceideas.com)

More to the point:

Why be so concerned about who unloads the ship? Isn't getting the nuclear device into port "close enough"?

The US ports wouldn't be the only ports that Dubai Ports World runs. If the risk is that the paperwork can be changed internally to DPW to get a container off the ship in the US, couldn't the paperwork just as easily be changed to get it onto the ship? How does keeping DPW out of the US help that? (That risk isn't limited to DPW, either.)

Finally, according to the talking heads on the News Hour last night(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june06/portsafety_2-27.html), the greatest danger lies before the containers even get to the load-on port. What here addresses that risk? Nothing I can see.

Posted by David Neis at February 28, 2006 09:26 PM

Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(14) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)