NYT:The Dubai Ports Deal

[cal04]

President Bush is not doing any favors for America's Arab allies with his attitude toward the deal that would put a Dubai state-owned company in control of operations at terminals within six American ports. The administration initially stonewalled Congress when lawmakers demanded more information. Now that the company, Dubai Ports World, has wisely agreed to a 45-day review of potential security risks, the White House seems to feel that all it's required to do is lobby recalcitrant Republicans and "educate" the public about the rightness of the original decision. The president can't get away with his usual "trust me" mantra now that Congress and the public have emphatically declared they don't believe that the administration's key committee in approving the takeover exercised appropriate care.

Legitimate security questions have been raised that can be answered only by a genuinely fresh evaluation whose scope and results are transmitted to Congress and to a perplexed public as well. At this point there is little hard evidence that Dubai Ports World is especially vulnerable to infiltration by terrorists or lax on security. The company's home country, United Arab Emirates, has rightly been blistered in the past for taking inadequate steps to close down terrorist financing and stop a renegade Pakistani scientist from shipping nuclear technology to rogue nations. But in recent years, the country seems to have cooperated with American efforts in the war on terror, and it was one of the first to join American efforts to check containers abroad for dangerous weapons before they are loaded onto ships headed for the United States.

That doesn't mean Congress is being irrational in wanting a closer look. The deal was approved by an obscure committee of second-level officials. The committee is headed by a Treasury official whose department focuses on promoting trade rather than on security requirements. When concerns were raised, they were never flagged for higher-ups. And the committee itself may never have been warned that the Coast Guard was initially worried that gaps in intelligence made it impossible to assess the potential threat of terrorist operations through the Dubai company.

There are also unverified reports of other misgivings among committee members that were somehow ironed out behind the scenes. If the new review does nothing else, it needs to inject greater transparency into this whole process. The president's supporters keep attempting to brand all resistance to the deal as anti-Arab, but if the controversy is treated correctly, it should provide new security benchmarks that could be applied to any company that wishes to manage American ports. (The Coast Guard expressed concerns about intelligence even when a British company held the terminal contract.) A serious inquiry could also provide a basis for ensuring that port security, a notoriously weak spot in the nation's defenses against terrorism, is actually enhanced. The deal's opponents ought to use this opportunity to negotiate for additional, and much needed, financing for that purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/opinion/02thu1.html?hp

[aquart]

1. American port security must not be the business of foreign nations.

And I include Britain. What a wakeup call! They outsourced access to our nation while screaming they had to listen to all our communications to keep us safe.

I was stunned to read Dubai was buying control of our ports from Britain. Stunned.

[napi21]

2. That's exactly what Howard Dean said to Wolfe today.

Wolfe asked him specificaly if he included the current Brit control in his statement that no foreign entity should control our ports. Dean said YES...this should be all in the US.

[Erika]

3. W is being pre 9/11 on this issue

He cannot hide the fact that two of the 9/11 bombers were from the UAE. Why run the risk.