On The Waterfront, II

The NY Times has four stories and a guest op-ed on the  Dubai Ports Word debacle, but is the deal a national security problem?  Who knows?

Marlon Brando fans will like this detail from Patrick McGeehan's "Work at Terminals Untouched by Firestorm of Security Debate":

The vast majority of workers who unload the big ships and send the containers on their way will be the same, whoever runs the place. At the Port of New York and New Jersey, as at other big American ports, the heavy lifting is done by members of the International Longshoremen's Association who are not employees of P & O Ports or its competitors.

...All but one of the terminal operators are tenants of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and are responsible for maintaining security on the property they rent. They are required by federal law to file their plans for controlling access to their facilities with the United States Coast Guard, which has jurisdiction over port facilities.

The ports in the New York area have an additional layer of screening that is unique, port officials said. As a vestige of the investigations into the corruption that pervaded the waterfront in the early 1950's, the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, a bistate police agency, conducts background checks on every worker who comes into contact with cargo, said Thomas De Maria, executive director of the commission.

"The major concern is will this company bring in its own workers," Mr. De Maria said. "That's not a concern in New York and New Jersey, because of the waterfront commission. We are the gatekeepers."

Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse found some reassuring experts:

Panel Saw No Security Issue in Port Contract, Officials Say     

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The Bush administration decided last month that a deal to hand over operations at major American ports to a government-owned company in Dubai did not involve national security and so did not require a more lengthy review, administration officials said Wednesday.

The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt. The group included officials from 12 departments and agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, State and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Kimmitt said that the company, Dubai Ports World, had been thoroughly investigated by the administration, including by intelligence agencies, and that on Jan. 17 the panel members unanimously approved the transfer.

"None of them objected to the deal proceeding on national security grounds," he said.

They also cite a GAO study (56 page .pdf):

In September, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said the Treasury Department, as head of the interagency committee that reviews such deals, had used an overly narrow definition of national security threats because it wanted to encourage foreign investment.

David Sanger wrote about a "Big Problem, Dubai Deal or Not".  His first expert quote is reassuring:

Among the many problems at American ports, said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations, "who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom."

His second is not:

Some independent experts, like Dr. Irwin Redlener of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, warn of the risk that "a lot of critical information about the movement of cargo is now accessible to new owners."

His third expert is just scary:

"I'm not worried about who is running the New York port," a senior inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency said, insisting he could not be named because the agency's work is considered confidential. "I'm worried about what arrives at the New York port."

David Cloud provides background on the US - Emirates relationship.

Hassan M. Fattah tells us that "Dubai Sees Bias Behind Storm".

And, pulling out all stops, the Times even provides a guest op-ed from Superman (in his day job):

Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack."

 

OK, we will accept his credentials.  An excerpt:

It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.

Leaving us where?  As an aside, let me praise the Times coverage - this is clearly a New York story, so extensive coverage was inevitable.  However, the reporters do seem to be as baffled as the rest of (excluding the Times editors, of course.)

That said, let's reprise the Times editorial and see what it is they are calling for:

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Representative Peter King, a New York Republican, are introducing a bill that would put the decision on hold and require closer examination of the proposal. The bill would ultimately give Congress the final say.

The Schumer-King bill takes the right approach, and members of Congress from both parties should rally around it. Rather than using his first veto on such a wrongheaded cause, President Bush should make the bill unnecessary by acting on his own to undo the ports deal.

Who can argue with more study?  Contra the Times, my theory is that Congress will prefer not to have the final say - that would make them accountable for the result, which is never a Congressional objective.

MORE:  Mark Coffey is attempting to capture the spirit of my theorem.

Comments

[reliapundit]

I've been monitoring the MSM coveage of the Port Brouhaha, and they CONSTANTLY refer to it as a CRISIS because Bush approved, "transfer of control of six of our largest ports to a foreign country."

This is such a BIG LIE that there's really only one word for it: BULLSHIT.

Here' are the FACTS:

(1) According to DHS testimony at today's Senate Armed Services CommitteeBriefing, the six ports in question have 829 TERMINALS - each LEASED by the LOCAL Port Authority to PRIVATE COMPANIES.

(2) These private companies ALREADY INCLUDE FOREIGN COMPANIES.

(3) P&O leases 24 of these 829 terminals, and ONLY these TERMINALS will now come under the corporate control of a corporation in part owned by Dubai - which is inarguably one of our very best allies in the LONG WAR.

(4) Our PORT SECURITY has NOTHING/ZERO/ZILCH/NADA/BUPKUS to do with who off-loads/on-loads containers in the terminals in our ports, and stores them and lades them on trucks.

Ports are owned by the locatities (like the NY/NJ Port Authority) - and they stay owned by them. The US Coast Guard and DHS are in charge of security of these prorts, and they stay in charge.

According to DHS, EVERY (as in 100%) container is screened before it is LOADED ON TO A SHIP HEADED HERE, and by the end of the year 80% of all containers will be checked for radiation and/or X-rayed.

This FORWARD-BASED security is what's essential to PREVENTING a terrorist from getting a container into our ports - and not checking cargo once it's in the port -THAT WOULD BE TOO LATE.

Dubai Port World ALREADY FULLY COOPERATES with this process.

The CFIUS Committeee was UNANIMOUS in determining that this transfer of leases (for only 24/829 terminals) from a British company to a holding company in poart owned by our ALLY Dubai presents NO SECURITY CONCERNS. This was UNANIMOUS; the CIA and DNI, FBI and DIA AND EVERY SINGLE INTELL' ASSET IN EVERY DEPARTMENT - Treasury, State, and DOJ and DHS ALL AGREED.

THEREFORE: This brouhaha is either PURE BS or simple DEMOGUERY. Take your pick.

Bush is right. Hillary, Schumer and Michelle Malkin are totally WRONG

If the MSM got the FACTS out - instead of merely repeating the BS - REPEATING THE BIG LIE, over-and-over, then the public would quickly agree.

[Lew Clark]

Bravo reliapundit for shedding more light on this "tempest in a teapot". And since inspections must be done at port of exit, shouldn't we turn back all oil tankers from OPEC countries and all container ships from China? Because we know we can't trust those people. Come on Hillary and Chuck, get that bill before congress before it's too late.

[SteveMG]

Reliapundit:
Excellent summary, thanks.

Your key point needs repeating: The terminals (not the damned ports) at six ports will be leased to a company owned by the UAE. They will not be owned or purchased. These are publicly-owned terminals. As I understand it, they cannot under existing law be sold.

That's it. Ports and terminals are two different things.

No ports are going be run by the UAE. No security of the ports will be done by the UAE.

Some of the terminals where the ships load and unload their cargo will be operated by a company owned by the UAE.

SMG

[kim]

Truly, the problem of security remains identical no matter who runs the freight handling.
==========================================

[noah]

SMG...thankfully I read the thread before making the same point. The hearing today was very useful in clearing up a lot of crap. Reminds me of Sen. Simpson's coinage of "crap, confusion, controversy" with regard to the MSM. How can they get stuff so wrong all the time 24/7/365?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Powerline posted an e-mail from the Bush Admin spelling out some of the specifics too:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013223.php

Btw, there might be more jihadists living in England than in the UAE. Isn't that where Richard Reed was from.

[noah]

And why can't the Senators, Congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. take a little time to familiarize themselves with the facts before shooting their mouths off?

[PeterUK]

Where did the planes for 9/11 come from,it might be better checking container traffice across the borders with Canada and Mexico.

[JM Hanes]

noah

"And why can't the Senators, Congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. take a little time to familiarize themselves with the facts before shooting their mouths off?"

Because in the daily sprint for the cameras, you'll never cross the finish line first that way.

[noah]

Despite all the derisive catcalls from members of the "Cult" that Bush was a tone deaf loser on this one, I now think he's going to end up looking pretty good.

[maryrose]

Noah;
All your points are excellent and right on target. Reliapundit; thank you for separating the wheat frm the chaff or in modern terms the facts from B.S.

[Lew Clark]

Just watched the NewsHour and it was all like what's being said here. Boy did that go from "Chicken Little" to "Emily LaTella" in a few short days.

[JM Hanes]

NEWSFLASH:

Motion to dismiss Libby case includes the argument that the appointment of Fitzgerald was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Wow! It may well go down in flames, but boy, it looks like the fireworks, and surprises, may be worth watching for after all.

(per Olberman, of all people, who was only onscreen chez moi because I hadn't gotten around to changing channels)

[Specter]

The Brouhaha was caused by politicians this time - so busy running to get the first say in they did not bother to check facts. But that is the way politics goes nowadays - everything is a photo-op to keep their names as top-of-mind-recall for their constituents. Pure marketing.

What's curious is why the MSM didn't bother to dig for details - isn't that what they keep telling us they do.....

Thanks for the facts reliapundit. This is what I have been waiting for to make up my mind...

[JM Hanes]

Am I the only one? This whole port brouhaha positively overwhelms me with ennui.

[Cecil Turner]

I'm still a bit nonplussed by the ports deal. I agree the security ramifications are not earthshaking, and think the first Sanger quote hit it dead on: "who owns the management contract ranks near the very bottom." However, port security is very near the top of our national security concerns, and in the coming years--as nuclear weapons proliferate--that concern will only become more critical. Hence it doesn't make sense to open any possible vulnerabiity there (and while the IAEA one looks like moonshine, the cargo movement information does not). I think it makes sense to look at the tradeoffs if the deal is kiboshed; and at the least, more study is warranted.

[Rider]

Just imagine if a Democrat president - say President Clinton (either one) - had approved this deal. Ha ha ha ha ha! You guys would be frothing at the mouth and working the rugs over with your molars.

[SteveMG]

Rider:
You guys would be frothing at the mouth and working the rugs over with your molars

And you guys would be accusing us of racism, xenophobia and nativism.

Granted, you folks on the left do that anyway (and still claim that unlike us, you're non-judgmental); but the volume would be slightly higher.

Care to add anything of substance to this discussion?

SMG

[danking70]

And that would be wrong too based on what I've seen so far?

I can't wait for someone like Joe Biden make an over-long speech about how this is not about racism and how some of his best friends are Muslim. Which Committee will hear this issue?

By the end of this we may see an increase in the President's approval ratings with a commensurate decrease for Congress and Dems in particular.

[danking70]

Where in the hell that first question mark come from?

[Jim Rockford]

The deal is dead.

Downside to any Congress critter who does not vote to kill this deal: a. Campaign ads showing seething Muslims burning the American Flag overlayed onto icons like the Statue of Liberty and ports; b. a nuked American city.

Upside: GWB likes you. Like I said the deal is dead.

Which is a good thing, and hopefully GWB will pay a heavy political price and Dems find some steel in their backbone. Bush needs to learn fire burns and it's not wise to put your hand in it. Unless he suffers he will NEVER learn.

UAE's princelings went hunting with Bin Laden after the 98 Embassy bombings, that got a Clinton missile attack called off before the Cole. They've already had their slack cut. UAE has an opaque, tribalistic autocracy which is as clear as mud. They fund and/or transit AQ Khan's nuclear network, Iran's nuke program, nuke tech for South Africa, Al Qaeda's finances, 2 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, various terrorist groups operate their openly, and they are committed to the destruction of Israel and their Princelings whipped up Cartoon Jihad like the rest of tyrannical Muslim regimes.

UAE OWNS DPW. That means that the Princelings who go hunting with bin Laden and in at least one instance tipped him off to an attack by the US will be running the operational control of ports including vetting workers.

It's insane and an open invitation to bin Laden to smuggle an Iranian nuke or three into the US for explosion in NYC or DC.

I would hope that Congress does the right thing and formally censures GWB. For sheer stupidity if nothing else he deserves it.

Yes the UAE like Pakistan can be a sometimes useful ally. I also would not trust the government which is run by princelings who hang with bin Laden in ANY sensitive operations of the US.

[JM Hanes]

JR

"Bush needs to learn fire burns and it's not wise to put your hand in it. Unless he suffers he will NEVER learn"

Silly psycho-babble has spoiled far better arguments than the ones you're making.

[kim]

Who are you going to trust to run these facilities?

There's stuff to move. Let 'em get busy.
===========================================

[kim]

And I hope it loses Michigan for the Demagogues. Muslims are human, after all, and can smell hypocrisy from the cradle.
=======================================

[kim]

The licentiousness of it all! It appears that Maguire's First Law mandates promiscuous bedfellowing.
========================================

[noah]

CNBC...had crawlers last night still proclaiming the imminent takeover of 6 ports. Sort of like the Plame outing...memes are hard to kill.

[Leonidas]

The UAE is a valuable ally in the war on terror. To stop this deal sends the wrong message. It tells arab countries that we're too xenophobic to trust them no matter what they do.

And for Democrats to complain is just too rich. After Clinton basically gave the Chinese military secrets in return for campaign donations.

[Gary Maxwell]

Does it seem very political unwise for Carl Levin with a juge ME population in the Dearborn area to be making such a public fuss about Arabs owning a company doing business in the US? What am I missing here? I would think the face person to be someone like Dodd or Kennedy. I am sure there is logic here, but I dont see it.

[larwyn]

Saudi Shipping Company “Controls” 9 US Ports

Hope someone jumps on this for use
at next hearing - really makes the Schummy and Hillary more foolish.

That is to say the Saudis "control" these ports as much as the UAE’s Dubai Ports World ever will.But it’s funny that our one party media hasn’t mentioned this Saudi-owned company, NSCSA, or its operation in even more ports than the UAE will have a berth.Maybe the press don’t know about them, as the company’s only been around since 1979. And of course the longshoremen’s and DNC’s press releases, which they regurgitate verbatim, haven’t mentioned them:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia/

Year of Incorporation: 1979
Owners: Government of Saudi Arabia, Saudi individuals and establishments
Head Office: Riyadh, KSA

The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA) was established in 1979 to meet the transportation needs of Importers and Exporters in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East.
By 1983, NSCSA has established itself as a combination Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro), Container and Breakbulk carrier, operating 8 fully owned vessels. It had become one of the world's largest Ro-Ro operators, offering liner services linking the Middle East with North America, the Far East and Europe.
In 1991, NSCSA (America) Inc., was established to serve as the General Agent in North America for the Liner Service between U.S., Canada and the Middle East/India Subcontinent/East Mediterranean regions.
NSCSA specializes in Project, Heavy Lift and Ro-Ro cargoes, as well as containers.
In 1997, NSCSA began service between North America and Italy, Greece and Turkey. Our mission is two-fold: to establish close working relationships with our customers, and to offer them the most secure, most .....

Click here: Company Profile http://www.nscsaamerica.com/profile.htm#NSCSA%20Value%20Added%20Servic%20es