Dubai Ports controversy: Irrational fear, your ship has come in

Love the oil, hate the ships

The hysteria regarding the proposed acquisition (now delayed, but still moving forward) by Dubai Ports World (DPW) of fabled British-based port operator P&O is notable for the lack of facts behind it. The deal has turned US politics on its head – conservatives who formerly pleaded with us to “trust the President” have turned on him, and liberals are dabbling in racial fearmongering that would be alarming if applied to other groups. Is the furor really about security? Well, not really. Full responsibility for security at US ports and of the cargo that arrives is – and will continue to be – under the jursidiction of the Department of Homeland Security. As bad as the security situation is, it was just as bad the day before the ports deal was announced. “Much more needs to be done,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in a statement on the ports. “This includes increasing inspections of containers, improving intelligence, providing federal funding based on risk, and bolstering the physical security of our ports.” While true, these factors have little to do with the ownership of the port operator. “The terminal operators do not run security,” explained the head of Philadelphia’s port. “That is managed by a combination of the U.S. Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and Customer and Border Protection” (limiting terrorist infiltrators at DPW to attempts at sneaking bombs onto consolidated balance sheets). So is it about foreign involvement in US port operations? Again, not really. Nearly 80% of US ports are managed by foreign companies, who proved long ago that they can manage ports more efficiently – and profitably – than their US counterparts. Nobody seemed to mind before, and – more importantly – foreign management of ports was never considered an obstacle to improving our port security. Probing further still yields few clues (and evidence) for the vehement opposition. For all the protests – Democrat and Republican, congressional and local – there is very little explanation of how the DPW deal actually impacts port security. Part of this is due to ignorance of the complexities of global trade and its multi-layered jurisdictions, which is why some are simply calling for an extended review. Some opponents trot out a dubious rationale – DPW’s state-owned status, the UAE’s former recognition of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and that terrorist funding has passed through Dubai banks. But when pushed further for an explanation of exactly how the deal makes us less safe, more vociferous opponents mince no words. “In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates,” says (former) Bush supporter and congresswoman Sue Myrick, “not just no, but HELL NO!” One of the benchmarks of the Bush administration is “free trade fundamentalism” (the US and UAE are on the verge of signing a free trade agreement), and if there’s one thing we’ve learned about George W. Bush over the past five years, it’s that he’s one of the most stubborn political leaders of the last few decades – which means that the homefront battle on this issue has only just begun.

Shahed Amanullah is editor-in-chief of altmuslim.com.