Opposition by US senators and congressmen to the proposed managing of some major ports in the US by the DP World, a UAE company, is steadily growing. And not withstanding some of the naivete shown by these lawmakers in comprehending their Middle East geography and history well, cries of “national security” and “9/11” are rising.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat from New York went so far as to state that “Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen.” Now Sen. Schumer knows very well that the US Coast Guard and US Customs are responsible for security at US ports, and not the port operator. Such phony outbursts by members of the US legislature are viewed by many in this region as a sign of growing “Arabphobia”. The UAE has been a model country in the region, more a Vegas for banking on profiteering rather than bunkering down in politics. It has no record of terrorist activities on its soil, and many Western businesses enjoy unrestricted freedom of trade.
The port company itself has recently emerged as victors of a bidding war in a $6.8 billion takeover deal that would grant them the right to operate 29 ports worldwide, six of them in the US. The UAE back in 2004 was the first country in the region to sign a pact with the US in preventing the use of sea-bound containers as part of efforts to fight terrorism. It has provided logistic support for some military operations in the region.
Citing concerns that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE is in itself moronic. Were the aircraft that crashed into the WTC from the UAE? Didn’t they take off from US airports? Weren’t they tracked by US radar? Shouldn’t the US block the entry of all Arab airlines flying into the USA, for fear that they may be carrying weapons of mass destruction? Or deny all Arabs entry into the country because the hijackers represented some of the Arab countries?
Should all cargo-bound containers from the Middle East be banned? All in the interest of national security?
The resistance to the acquisition by DP World certainly seems to be a mix of anti-Arab bigotry, politicking and protectionism. It is a congressional election year, and vulnerable politicians would exploit their voters’ fears to get re-elected. Arab-bashing is in appeal, and as James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute stated, “The slogan is, if it’s Arab, it’s bad. Hammer away.”
If that were the case, then it would indeed open a new bag of worms. Businesses here would be forced to consider their association with their American partners. Some may even suggest re-evaluating US fast food franchises here in the interest of national security, citing their cholesterol-laden menus. Or US produced road vehicles with their poor record in safety. Or allowing port facilities to be used by the coalition forces in the region? Just where would it stop?
President Bush has so far resisted all such calls for alarm from members of the legislature. To his credit, he has publicly stated his opposition to any attempts by US lawmakers to block the takeover deal, threatening to veto such an action if it were to pass. Changing owners in no way compromises the security of the United States, a spin steadily being broadcast over the American media.
He assuaged concerns by stating “if there was any chance this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward.” He added that such actions “send a terrible signal to friends around the world.” And he is absolutely spot-on on this one.
