The Dubai Deal and Those Things Not Said

What the bid of Dubai Ports (DP) World is: a $6.8 billion proposal to take control of the management of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans, from the British-based P&O navigation company.

What the bid of DP World is not: a $6.8 billion proposal to take control of the security of these ports.

Though a port management company's professional standards, transparency, and access to visas and work permits directly relate to U.S. port security, primary responsibility for this security lies with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Coast Guard and Customs and Border Patrol. DP World or P&O, this responsibility will not change.

Over the past several days, I've cringed while Democrats trying to win national security points and Republicans trying to distance themselves from an unpopular President have offered up the oversimplified sound-byte that the DP World deal would outsource U.S. port security. This is factually problematic.

In response, Chairman John Warner and Ranking Member Carl Levin of the Senate Armed Services Committee should be commended for holding an emergency briefing about the particular issue at hand: whether an enterprise of a foreign nation -- the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- ought be allowed to operate U.S. ports.

Both Warner and Levin recognize the importance of getting the facts out about this now controversial issue before rhetoric renders informed debate useless. The briefing revealed the following:

The Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS), an inter-agency group chaired by the Department of Treasury and including the Departments of Commerce, State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, spent over 90 days reviewing the DP World -- P&O Co. transaction. Both DP World and P&O were extremely cooperative with this oversight, providing information and access weeks before official deadlines.

Armed with this knowledge, the assertion that approval for the DP World transaction was rushed through CFIUS seems like a stretch. And from the perspective of transparency, DP World voluntarily agreed to additional, non-standard oversight and checks when security concerns were raised back in January by Stewart Baker, the DHS representative to CFIUS. The company has now agreed to an additional 45-day review to weather the storm in Congress.

All in all, this emergency Senate briefing was an early success in getting the facts out. I can only hope that follow up briefings on Capitol Hill this week will be as fact-based and substantive. Still, one good day on C-SPAN does not settle the current misinformation wars being fought over the DP World-P&O transaction.

Perhaps the second most concerning misclaim being floated about the DP World deal is that it was conducted in secrecy. Let's put this one to the LexisNexis test. What do we find?

On October 31, 2005, the Wall Street Journal, the Independent, and the Guardian covered DP World's initial takeover bid of P&O for the first time. Coverage continued from that day forward.

The point here and from the emergency Senate briefing is that, as informed citizens, in debating American national security our first constituency must be the truth. This priority necessitates that before we form or even voice an opinion on an unfamiliar topic (like, for many of us, port security) it is important to first digest the facts. Sadly, this seems not to have happened thus far on the DP World deal. But the debate is not over and I think we can do better.

As for my two cents on the transaction, it is measured.

I agree with many critics that because DP World is not a private corporation, but state-run, heightened scrutiny of its bid to manage U.S. ports is absolutely justified. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether an enterprise of a foreign nation ought gain management holding of U.S. ports in the first place.

Such a heightened level of scrutiny only becomes more understandable when considering that, pre 9/11, the UAE cooperated with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and A.Q. Khan's nuclear black market. But public scrutiny does not justify public hysteria and time is not at a stand still.

To the UAE's credit, after September 11, 2001 and in response to President Bush's far too black-and-white declaration of, "Either you're with us or against us," the Emirates renounced its relationship with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others. It has since become our most reliable Arab ally in the Middle East. At any one time, about 7,700 American troops are stationed in the UAE.

Moreover, P.J. Crowley, domestic security expert at the Center for American Progress, and Steve Flynn, port security guru at the Council on Foreign Relations, do not see the DP World purchase as a threat. They point out that because of the way U.S. ports are operated, the transaction would not alter security procedures or the makeup of the unionized workforce on the ground. Is the deal much ado about nothing?

Not exactly. The job of improving U.S. national security both at home and abroad is a complex chess match of carrots and sticks. In this never-ending match, if Dubai's DP World wins the multi-billion dollar management of six U.S. ports, our ally will be swallowing the mother of all carrots for improved cooperation with the U.S. in fighting our enemies and improving our security. How so?

By investing in the control of six U.S. ports, the safety and prosperity of these ports becomes a $6.8 billion priority of the UAE. Beyond pacifying American strategic concerns in the Middle East, with the DP World deal Dubai would gain a vested state interest in American security. Any attack coming through one of these six U.S. ports would stand to cripple not only our economy, but would erase billions of dollars of UAE state assets.

Money talks and stronger bilateral cooperation with the UAE (a nation in a region where the U.S. is running out of mutual interests other than oil to build upon) may be a blessing in this domestic firestorm of political opportunism.

All of this said, I think it is encouraging that the Dubai deal has indirectly focused a much needed spotlight on the Bush administration's failures to secure our ports and larger maritime security network. Democrats should responsibly seize public attention on the issue of port and maritime security to pressure the President and Republican-controlled Congress to enact real change. Over four years after 9/11, Republican inaction has sustained America's profound maritime insecurity.

At the very same time, I think the national hysteria over the Dubai deal can serve as a reminder to Americans that we should be wary of allowing our justified post-9/11 fears to drown out careful thought and prudent debate.