WITH NEARLY 12,500 miles of coastline and 300 ports, including more than a dozen major ports such as New York City and Hampton Roads, the United States faces an extremely difficult task in ensuring the safety of its borders. As such, the United States, as with many countries throughout the world, leases terminal operations for many of these ports to foreign companies -- for example Dubai World, a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates whose recent purchase of U.S. terminals from the British firm P&O has raised concerns from a number of Congressional leaders. While there is certainly nothing wrong with additional oversight, it must be remembered that the U.S. is not handing control over its security to questionable groups. Instead, the purchase is just a recognition that from time to time it is best to bring in experts who can supplement our existing network.
Currently, Congressional leaders are working with the Bush administration to broker one such deal that has raised a number of red flags for many involved. The question is whether the British firm P&O should be allowed to transfer control of terminals at six major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates. Though the deal has passed a mandatory 30-day review, Dubai World and P&O have now voluntarily requested an additional 45-day review to alleviate concerns over the $6.8 billion sale.
The major concern over the transfer is an obvious one: it will allowing a company owned directly by the United Arab Emirates to run these terminals compromise U.S. national security? As The New York Times reports, the Jebel Ali port in Dubai itself -- the 11th largest container port in the world -- is both a model of efficiency and a cause for concern. Though the port utilizes miles of fencing, armed patrols and detectors designed to pick up on radiation emissions from nuclear materials, this may not be enough to ensure the port's security. As The New York Times notes, "the scanning devices, for example, can check only a small fraction of the millions of containers that flow through [the port] every year."
The concerns brought up by U.S. officials are two-fold: first, containers leaving foreign terminals for the U.S. and second containers arriving through U.S. terminals. At both ends of the process there is room for error and for a terrorist or weapon to slip into the United States. The problem is that the necessary equipment is incredibly expensive, containers may be routed incorrectly or not scanned properly and that the massive flow through these facilities makes perfect security nearly impossible. On top of that, there has been concern that giving control of U.S. terminals to Dubai World would turn them into "Terrorist Gateways."
While there is nothing wrong with additional oversight from the optional 45-day review, there is no reason to worry that Dubai World will offer any less protection that P&O or a U.S.-owned firm. As the Heritage Foundation points out, the fact that these terminals will be owned by foreign companies is not an issue -- indeed, they are already foreign-owned. One of the hallmarks of globalization and the benefits of international trade is that we can outsource to a firm whose specialty this is and so relieve some of the strain from U.S. institutions.
On top of this, Dubai World will not control all or even a majority of the shipping terminals at these six ports. Regardless, Dubai World will still be required to follow standard security procedures and will be reliant on American employees at its U.S. terminals. In accordance with U.S. maritime law and the International Shipping and Port Security Code, "the Customs and Border Protection agency and the Coast Guard, not the owner of the port, conduct security screening on individuals and cargo that enter the port." Any major security problems, therefore, are and will continue to be at the U.S. end of the process.
Finally, there is the simple fact that the United Arab Emirates is not an enemy of the United States. On a practical note, the UAE will have over $6.8 billion invested in this deal from the start. What is more, as the Heritage Foundation points out "the UAE has provided unprecedented cooperation to the United States in the war on terrorism" and thus should be looked to as an ally.
Turning partial control of U.S. shipping terminals over to foreign companies who are experts in the field will in the long run only benefit the U.S. Certainly we should take a close look at such a deal before it is made and during the company's tenure, but it must be remembered that the deal is designed to supplement rather than replace U.S.-controlled security initiatives. Port security is and should be one of our most pressing national security concerns, but it never hurts to have the additional support of an expert in the field.
Allan Cruickshanks is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
