The Tragic Treatment of the UAE Ports Deal

February 24, 2006: The recent controversy over the acquisition of the British firm Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, by Dubai Ports World, a state-run company in the United Arab Emirates, has been largely a matter of heat opposed to light. This is largely because of a number of myths that have quickly circulated throughout the blogosphere. These myths have led to a lot of controversy that has cast one of the strongest American allies in the Persian Gulf in a poor light that is undeserved.

First, a look at the United Arab Emirates is in order. This is a country that has been a long-standing ally of the United States since 1971. The UAE was part of the coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991, and also has supported the United States in the war on terror (including, among other things, providing access to a deep-water berth that can accommodate aircraft carriers, use of a training facility for air-to-air training facility, airfields, and logistics support). It is a country that has proven largely inhospitable to al-Qaeda (instead, the focus is on business), sent forces to Afghanistan to protect the construction of a hospital that they donated and built, and also has sent humanitarian assistance to Iraq while also providing a location for training Iraqi police. In 2002, the UAE also captured a major al-Qaeda figure, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was involved in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and handed him over to the United States despite threats from the terrorist organization. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the UAE donated $100 million for the relief efforts. Both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace have described the relationship the United States has with United Arab Emirates as "very close" and "superb". It would be interesting to know what sort of information Michelle Malkin has that would override the judgment of Rumsfeld and Pace. Her characterization of the United Arab Emirates as "demonstrably unreliable" is not just factually challenged, it is slap in the face to the strongest ally the United States has in the Persian Gulf.

One of the other things that has been ignored in the anti-UAE diatribes from Malkin is the fact that the United Arab Emirates is a Middle Eastern country where religious tolerance is the rule. The UAE's constitution guarantees freedom of religion (albeit it declares Islam as the official religion), and largely permits religious freedom. In 2003, the UAE shut down the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, which was publishing material that promoted anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Second, nothing will really change at the ports, particularly with regards to security. Security will remain the province of the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. In another fact ignored by the scare campaign, the UAE has the only port in the Middle East that is part of the Container Security Initiative. Dubai Ports World has also agreed to mandatory participation in other programs to improve security and to prevent the illegal shipment of nuclear materials, and will also provide documents on internal operations on demand and has agreed to cooperate in future investigations. The deal was also scrutinized by the intelligence community, which found no problems. The only thing that changes hands is who owns the company that will handle the day-to-day operations (often performed by American longshoremen – usually unionized). Dubai Ports World also bought out the port operations of CSX in 2004 – with no real issues.

Third, several claims have been made regarding connections to 9/11, specifically the fact that two of the hijackers were from the UAE. First, none of the critics have any proof that either the government of the UAE or Dubai Ports World was involved in the attack. By the standard of these critics, the United Kingdom would be held responsible for Richard Reid, or Germany would be responsible for the Hamburg cell that planned the attack. Second, the United Arab Emirates have stepped up efforts to make money laundering less easy after Dubai was used as a financial conduit for the attacks (again, there is no proof that the UAE or DPW were active participants in the laundering). It should also be noted that at least two Americans have worked with al-Qaeda (Johnny Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla) as well.

The last thing to consider is that in the day and age of the Internet, this debate is not staying inside the United States. Past irresponsible comments (like those by Senator Richard Durbin concerning Guantanamo Bay) have spread across the world very quickly. The scurrilous comments directed at the United Arab Emirates by Michelle Malkin have the potential to assist al-Qaeda recruiting in that country, and thus do more damage than the port deal would have done.

"Incidentally, he was not opposed to the port deal per se but the fact that president seemed uninformed of something so vitally important.
What's your take??"

I think the problem is the premise that this is something so vitally important. Maybe this analogy will help. Imagine that the contract for running airport operations at three major airports is up for bid. All that means is the administrative requirements for running will change hands. But the FAA will still run the control towers and set (and enforce) all the rules and regulations for all flying operations there. The TSA will still be responsible for passenger security operations and screening baggage. And the aircraft flying into the airport will still have to comply with FAA/ICAO regulations. In other words, the security and regulations involved in airport operations haven't changed a bit, regardless of who is responsible for running the airport. What has changed? The folks responsible for the very big job of maintaining the infrastructure and running support operations of a very large airport. Everything from selecting which restaurants will be able to operate within the terminals to keeping the runways clear of snow.
Now why should the President of the United States have an immediate requirement to know whose job that is? He is responsible for security operations. But those aren't changing. What is changing are the shoe clerks who keep the place operating.

Who Secures The Ports:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): CBP’s mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States by eliminating potential threats before they arrive at our borders and ports.

CBP uses intelligence and a risk-based strategy to screen information on 100% of cargo before it is loaded onto vessels destined for the United States. All cargo that is identified as high risk is inspected, either at the foreign port or upon arrival into the U.S.

Coast Guard: The Coast Guard routinely inspects and assesses the security of U.S. ports in accordance with the Maritime Transportation and Security Act and the Ports and Waterways Security Act. Every regulated U.S. port facility is required to establish and implement a comprehensive security plan that outlines procedures for controlling access to the facility, verifying credentials of port workers, inspecting cargo for tampering, designating security responsibilities, training, and reporting of all breaches of security or suspicious activity, among other security measures. Working closely with local port authorities and law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard regularly reviews, approves, assesses and inspects these plans and facilities to ensure compliance. Terminal Operator: Whether a person or a corporation, the terminal operator is responsible for operating its particular terminal within the port. The terminal operator is responsible for the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices. The cranes they use may be their own, or they may lease them from the port authority.

Port Authority: An entity of a local, state or national government that owns, manages and maintains the physical infrastructure of a port (seaport, airport or bus terminal) to include wharf, docks, piers, transit sheds, loading equipment and warehouses.

Ports often provide additional security for their facilities.

The role of the Port Authority is to facilitate and expand the movement of cargo through the port, provide facilities and services that are competitive, safe and commercially viable. The Port manages marine navigation and safety issues within port boundaries and develops marine-related businesses on the lands that it owns or manages.

A Layered Defense:

Screening and Inspection: CBP screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S.- using intelligence and cutting edge technologies. CBP inspects all high-risk cargo.

CSI (Container Security Initiative): Enables CBP, in working with host government Customs Services, to examine high-risk maritime containerized cargo at foreign seaports, before they are loaded on board vessels destined for the United States. In addition to the current 42 foreign ports participating in CSI, many more ports are in the planning stages. By the end of 2006, the number is expected to grow to 50 ports, covering 90% of transpacific maritime containerized cargo shipped to the U.S.

24-Hour Rule: Under this requirement, manifest information must be provided 24 hours prior to the sea container being loaded onto the vessel in the foreign port. CBP may deny the loading of high-risk cargo while the vessel is still overseas.

C-TPAT (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism): CBP created a public-private and international partnership with nearly 5,800 businesses (over 10,000 have applied) including most of the largest U.S. importers -- the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). C-TPAT, CBP and partner companies are working together to improve baseline security standards for supply chain and container security. (We review the security practices of not only the company shipping the goods, but also the companies that provided them with any services.)

Use of Cutting-Edge Technology: CBP is currently utilizing large-scale X-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices to screen cargo. Presently, CBP operates over 680 radiation portal monitors at our nation’s ports (including 181 radiation portal monitors at seaports), utilizes over 170 large scale non-intrusive inspection devices to examine cargo, and has issued 12,400 hand-held radiation detection devices. The President’s FY 2007 budget requests $157 million to secure next-generation detection equipment at our ports of entry. Also, over 600 canine detection teams, who are capable of identifying narcotics, bulk currency, human beings, explosives, agricultural pests, and chemical weapons are deployed at our ports of entry.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.