World Tribune.com


Back to business as usual in New York City; But does it matter with whom?


See the John Metzler archive

By John Metzler
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Friday, February 24, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — There’s a political storm brewing off New York harbor — and the Ports of Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The roiling waves of charges and allegations have bedeviled the Bush Administration over a deal allowing management of some of America’s most important seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates. Threats to national security are primarily cited by a strong bipartisan coalition of Congressional Republicans and Democrats who are striving to stop the deal. Gale force political winds churn the waters.

Speaking from dry land but literally from the shadows of the former World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, let me offer some sober thoughts on this politically tainted piece of foreign investment.

Indeed many American ports have been run by foreign firms. For example, it was only when the venerable British owned Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company (P&O) was sold to the state-owned Dubai Ports World based in the United Arab Emirates did the political waves stir. Dubai International who bought P&O for $6.7 billion is a major port management player and no doubt a quality firm. Few dispute this and this is likely the reason the deal went pro forma through the complicated labyrinth of Washington committees vetting foreign investment.

The usually “Can Do” Treasury and Commerce Department types, are only happy to approve a mega deal. And usually why not? But the bureaucratic maze with its characteristic secrecy kept Congress and the Administration out of the loop on an agreement which any novice should have seen as a political red flag.

During Bill Clinton’s Administration a similar such deal was in the works which would have allowed COSCO the maritime container shipping firm from the People’s Republic of China have control over terminal facilities in the Port of Long Beach California. The fact that the PRC company would be leasing part of a closed U.S. Navy base was sleazy even by Clintonian standards and was stopped by Congress.

New York politicos have described the Dubai deal as outsourcing U.S. port security to the Arabs. Now Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) running for reelection, has outflanked the White House from the right sounding like a southern conservative. New York Governor George Pataki and Congressman Peter King (R-NY) have joined the fray along with a host of big names from Capitol Hill such as Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who have opposed the Administration.

The central theme in the opposition rests with security and the fears that terrorists can slip containers with a nuclear device or chemical weapons cargo into these ports as the scrutiny will somehow be less or in complicity with the bad guys. These perceptions may be correct and let’s face it — political perceptions often overrule reason.

Dubai is an exceedingly prosperous and polyglot city situated in the United Arab Emirates. The government is not Islamic fundamentalist and has helped the U.S. in the war on terror. Nonetheless extremists operate covertly; two of the September 11th hijackers came from there. Likewise the UAE has done “favors” for neighboring Iran.

As to the argument that blocking Dubai International from U.S. ports is being painted as “anti-Arab racism” is not so much the case. As in most Persian Gulf states the actual Arab population is in a minority and the country is actually run by a kaleidoscope of expatriates. The professional classes are Palestinian and British and most of the workers are Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Philippine. The banks are fluid in cash and don’t ask too many questions about its sources. Dubai I’m told is a fabulous modern city, a bit like the old Beirut without the good French cuisine.

The real argument is national security and the stunning lack of transparency in the planned turnover. That’s the issue Congress and the Administration must address — the Who, What, Where, How and Why’s of the deal so that informed politicians may make rational decisions free from the fear factor. So what’s the rush? Let’s take our time.

Here in New York — especially in lower Manhattan we live in post September 11th era. Thus Emotion does play a strong role here, as it should. Our vulnerabilities are obvious.

As it currently stands, the message being sent to New Yorkers, especially the people whose families personally suffered on September 11th, is that we are back to business as usual. And somehow it doesn’t really matter whom we are doing business with.


John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.