Domestic Ports and Terrorism Controversy

The political repercussions of the attempted takeover of several ports along the eastern coast of the United States by DP World have been far-reaching and in no short supply. The issue of transferring ownership of the ports has exploded on the national and regional scenes for one clear reason: The company is based in Dubai, which is in the United Arab Emirates. The controversy surrounding the ports deals cannot be attributed to one factor; the enormous political backlash stems from a very complex and fragile situation in U.S. foreign policy.

Members of both major political parties were outraged immediately after hearing of President George W. Bush's intent to consent to the Dubai World takeover of "some terminal operations" in ports across the eastern coast of the country (Sanger 1). Their indignation only intensified after the president made perfectly clear his decision to veto any attempt to block the takeover in the senate: "...if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto," Bush said at a news conference (VandeHei 1). This uproar by politicians - even those in Bush's own party - seemed to be a revelation of the substantial concerns held by many about letting a United Arab Emirates-based country have significant control of security operations in America. The past links of terrorist activity, although indirect, were enough to convince throngs of powerful figures that the business takeover posed a significant threat to the safety of Americans. American security is an issue that has no room for compromising, government officials were quick to point out.

The reactions of American citizens, as portrayed by the media, were equally intense. No news program on the east coast let its half- or full-hour time slot expire without the interview of several port workers or nearby residents expressing their outrage. The issue seemed to epitomize everything the American people disliked about the administration and its dealings with foreign nations. Americans and their leaders quickly seized the opportunity to express their frustration with the government through the ports controversy.

The administration, at the onset, did not allow itself to be influenced by the public and political outrage. Bush continued to threaten a veto on any legislation passed by the recently united Congress. Eventually, after his own party's majority leader in Congress called for a delay and investigation into the take over, Bush acknowledged the need for careful scrutiny into the DB World's operation; however, he did not waver from his initial stance on the issue, believing that a Middle-Eastern-owned company posed no bigger threat than the London-based one that had previously held control of the ports. On February 26, the administration approved a 45-day-long inspection of security concerns surrounding the deal; many members of Congress, though, feel as if this decision came too late (AP 1).

The Dubai-based company has not resisted the probing in the slightest; it has, in fact, encouraged investigation and made all of its facilities available to the inspection. The reasoning behind this stance is shrewd; the choice of whether to approve the takeover or not will, at least at first, be left entirely up to President Bush (Sanger 1). It can be argued, then, that DB World is not as transparent and friendly a company as it is attempted to be in the public's eyes; it is merely allowing the decision to be made by someone who is an adamant supporter of the deal. The potential downside to this investigation is clear: No matter what evidence is found against DB World, the fate of the deal will be in the hands of someone who may not listen. The decision may ultimately be solely a business-motivated one.

The potential benefits of the 45-day investigation, too, are significant, and were likely kept in mind of DB World when it allowed the investigation. Much of the fear held by the public stems from the company being a foreign and unknown one. The ownership of the terminals' operations was previously held by another foreign company; this one, though, was based in London. The concern of Americans is not, really, based on the fact that the new company is located in a foreign land, it is that the new company is located in a threatening foreign land. If the investigators come to the conclusion that the company poses no threat, perhaps it can shed the image of the UAE as "a bazaar for terrorist nations" (AP 1). Any glaring problems in security or management can potentially be discovered through the inspection, too; making the deal safer for all involved if it does indeed go through.

I consider the ports deal to be one that has a few faults. The first is that, given the extensive mentioning of the UAE in connection with terrorist activities in the past, the approval of the takeover appears to be done in a sneaky way. Trying to pull off the takeover without substantial assurance of its harmlessness and sufficient evidence clearly harmed the administration in the public's eyes. The reaction coming from Bush's camp - one that seemed to consist of playing dumb and being unable to see any possible difference between a UAE-based and London-based company holding control of the ports - was one that appears insincere. In reality, I think the issue is garnering too much of a reaction from the public and political officials; the Republican opposition seems to be motivated by the unpopular current state of the White House-it seems like they are merely hopping on the bandwagon to earn some future support from voters. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

WORKS CITED

The Associated Press. "U.S. Is Reviewing Second Dubai-Owned Company." New York Times 2 March 2006.

Sanger, David E. "Review of Port Deal Will Leave Decision to Bush." New York Times 27 February 2006.

VandeHei, Jim and Weisman, Jonathan. "Bush Threatens Veto Against Bid To Stop Port Deal." Washington Post 22 February 2006.