In my other post on this subject, I came down squarely against allowing Dubai Ports World manage our ports. My main reason was that we should not allow other nations to have control over something so important to our sovereignty and security as our ports. Future conflicts of national interest between us and the nation running the ports could jeopardize us in ways we can't imagine. I was surprised to learn that other countries are already running some of our ports, including China, who I believe runs Seattle and Los Angeles among others.
Since then, there's been a lot more conversation about the UAE deal in particular and the management of the ports in general. This conversation is long overdue. Since 9/11, I've read articles now and then addressing concerns about the insecurity of our ports, but they never seemed to get any traction. Now the UAE deal is giving the ports issue traction in a big way.
Most of the conservatives I've heard--the ones who aren't intimately involved with national security--have spoken against the deal. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) came out against it. Laura Ingraham is against it. Hugh Hewitt spoke against it, saying he would oppose it until somebody satisfactorily addressed his concern about possible infiltration of Dubai Ports World by terrorists. He referenced DPW's job openings within the Dubai headquarters, where the new employees would have access to shipping data from the company's IT operations.
Since his initial post, though, Hugh Hewitt interviewed several people who are extremely intelligent and who are closer to either the security or the ports issue than he is. As a result of all these interviews, he has moved from being against the ports deal to being in favor of it. And I find myself drifting off in the same direction, now that I've heard most of the interviews on his radio show.
Radioblogger has the transcripts: Mark Steyn, Robert Kaplan, Austin Bay, Robert Ferrigno, Frank Gaffney, and US Coast Guard Admiral Craig Bone.
Chris Malott has a great post that opens with a quote from Dubai Ports World COO Ted Bilkey, showing concern over the American reaction to the deal and showing willingness to address our concern. Chris goes on to summarize the arguments against and in favor of giving UAE management of our ports:
My understanding is that their government has been an ally in the war on terror. Our naval vessels use their ports and our military aircraft use their airports. True, the government recognized the Taliban prior to 9/11 and two of the hijackers were from this country, but the UAE has since been one of the few friends that we have in the region.
Given these summarized points as well as Hugh Hewitt's guests and callers testifying to the steadfastness of the UAE as an ally and as an enemy of terrorism, I'm inclined to support the ports deal.
What the Bush Administration needs to do is address these specific concerns before the American people, instead of just saying, "Trust me on this."
1 comment:
Derek,
You're better informed on the subject than I am, but when it comes right down to it, I agree with your conclusion. American infrastructure needs to remain in American hands. Singapore runs some of our West Coast ports, China has an interest in some of the port operations (though I've heard that it isn't as significant an amount of control as either Singapore has or the UAE would have).
Don't we have any good ol' American companies that know how to run ports? What about Haliburton...?
Post a Comment