Congressional Democrats finally found the courage to challenge the Bush
administration on a post-September 11, 2001, security issue - one they were
able to win. This came after they had proved themselves timid in
challenging the administration in its invasion and occupation of Iraq, the
initial passage of the Patriot Act, the bombing of Afghanistan, the detention
without due process and torture of thousands of detainees worldwide, and other
horrendous policies.
Unfortunately, they chose an issue of little real importance and decided to
appeal to popular racist and jingoistic sentiments by
raising exaggerated fears over the implications of a routine transfer of
ownership to a company that operates facilities at some terminals in six US
ports.
Though there were some legitimate concerns regarding security issues and the
Bush administration's handling of the situation (outlined below), the decision
to focus such disproportionate attention on the purchase of the British firm
Peninsular and Oriental (P&O) Steam Navigation Co by Dubai Ports World was
blown way out of proportion. As a result, DP World has announced it will
sell the segments of the P&O operations in the United States to an American
firm.
Even under the original agreement, ownership of the US ports would have
remained with state and local entities. Most port operations in the US are
currently run by foreign interests, including companies owned by the
governments of Singapore and China, with no apparent objections from Congress.
However, in a corporate version of racial profiling, a bipartisan group of
Capitol Hill lawmakers expressed outrage over the prospect that some port
operations would be managed by a company owned by an Arab government.
To make their case against allowing the company's new owners to continue
operations in the United States, opponents of Arab ownership distorted the
nature of the purchase. For example, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who
had no qualms about making false claims supporting the Bush administration's
contention that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons on the eve of
the US invasion, proved herself quite willing to make false claims against the
administration.
In a recent letter to her San Francisco constituents, the congresswoman
insisted, "The administration brokered a deal with Dubai Ports World to provide
port security at six major US ports." [1] In reality, the administration of
President George W Bush did not broker any deal with Dubai Ports World,
but merely approved the transfer of the company, which had already been
managing the operations of the port facilities, to a new owner.
More critical, DP World, like P&O, would have only been responsible for
managing normal port operations, such as the docking facilities, the cranes,
and the coordination with ground transportation of container shipment. The US
Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security would have continued to
"provide port security". Indeed, no port company determines or sets standards
for security in US ports, which - according to federal law - are solely
the purview of the US government.
The hyperbole of some Democrats has bordered on racism, with New Jersey Senator
Frank Lautenberg claiming that the transfer of title of operations at one of
Newark, New Jersey's four terminals constitutes an Arab "occupation", [2]
adding: "We wouldn't transfer the title to the devil; we're not going to
transfer it to Dubai." [3] In response to criticism of his comparison of the
Dubai government with Satan, Lautenberg defended his remarks by noting the
failure of the United Arab Emirates to support US policy toward Israel and
Iran. [4]
While Congress may have had concerns about the UAE owning a company in charge
of some port operations, it has had no qualms about supplying that government
with sophisticated armaments. If Congress had really been concerned that
the UAE was intent on doing harm to the US and its interests, it would have
made an effort to exercise its prerogative to block the more than US$2.5
billion in US arms sales made to that government over the past three years. [5]
However, Congress has apparently determined that protecting the enormous
profits enjoyed by US arms merchants by these arms transfers is of higher
priority.
The reaction by Congress appears not to have been solely prompted by public
outcry. Polls show far more Americans disapprove of companies owned by the
Chinese government managing US port operations than companies owned by friendly
Arab governments, [6] yet Congress has not raised similar concerns over the
ongoing management of the important Long Beach terminal in California by a
company owned by the People's Liberation Army.
While anti-Arab racism may indeed be part of what motivated Pelosi, Lautenberg
and other Democrats to make exaggerated assertions about potential terrorist
threats from the UAE government, the Bush administration has certainly made it
easy for them by making false and exaggerated claims of terrorist links to
other Arab governments, such as the absurd pre-invasion claim that the secular
Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had connections with al-Qaeda.
Such charges, along with more recent exaggerated claims regarding the Syrian
regime's ties to terrorism, have made all Arab governments suspect in the eyes
of the American public. President Bush is also in the tricky position of
insisting that Americans trust Arabs to manage port facilities while
distrusting them almost everywhere else, including those living in the US.
In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the administration rounded up
hundreds of law-abiding Arab-American immigrants and placed them in secret and
indefinite detention because of their ethnicity. After four and a half years of
fear-mongering about non-existent threats from Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab
world, it was hard for Congress and the public to trust Bush's assurances that
"people don't need to worry about security". [7]
Legitimate concerns
Despite the hyperbole, there were some legitimate concerns about the security
implications of the DP World ownership of the port management that the Bush
administration seems to have ignored.
For example, a suppressed coast guard assessment did raise concerns regarding
"many intelligence gaps" regarding the potential for DP World assets "to
support terrorist operations" that make it difficult to make an accurate threat
assessment of its potential control over port operations. [8]
In addition, given that the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act and other dubious
administration policies have been justified as a precautionary measure with
regards to what is at stake in the post-September 11 security environment, it
seems odd that the Bush administration did not bother even going through the
normal security review required for approving such transfers of ownership.
And, despite Bush's insistence that the UAE is an "ally partner in the war on
terror", [9] its record has been somewhat spotty. The UAE was the only
government besides Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to recognize the Taliban regime
when it ruled Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001.
Bush's former counter-terrorism chief Wayne Downing was quoted on MSNBC in
September 2003 as noting how Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktum, the UAE
defense minister and crown prince of Dubai, was among a number of wealthy and
influential Gulf Arabs who visited Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan for horseback
riding and hunting parties. [10]
Though there is no evidence to suggest that the government of the UAE or the
governments of any of its sheikhdoms have directly supported al-Qaeda, there
have been credible concerns that the UAE has not sufficiently investigated
money-laundering operations or private contributions in support of the
terrorist network.
Two of the September 11 hijackers were from the UAE and some of al-Qaeda's
financing has come through the Emirates. By contrast, none of the September 11
hijackers and none of al-Qaeda's financing appears to have come through
Saddam's Iraq, Iran or Syria, countries that have been targeted by the Bush
administration and congressional leaders of both parties as part of the "war on
terror".
The sale of P&O to DP World has also highlighted the issue of port
security, long seen as one of the most vulnerable areas for a potential attack
against the US by international terrorists. While the Bush administration has
spent hundreds of billions of dollars for wars against the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan, it has refused to spend more than $700 million of the estimated $7
billion needed to upgrade port security adequately. [11]
Only a small fraction of the containers arriving daily in US ports from
overseas are inspected by US Customs. Meanwhile, the US Coast Guard has
received little in the way of the additional funding needed to cover its
extended responsibilities to protect the country's 3,700 seaports and cargo
terminals.
The United States and the UAE
Despite such concerns, control of port operations at some US terminals by a
UAE-owned company is not a particularly significant threat to US national
security. But, then again, neither was Iraq, and that did not stop the Bush
administration from pretending it was so.
Why then did Bush take the politically risky step of playing down the security
concerns regarding DP World's operations of the terminals and initially defend
its right to do so in the face of such strong bipartisan opposition? Much of it
has to do with the role of the UAE as an ally in a strategically important
region.
The UAE - the only federal government in the Arab world - consists of seven
autocratic sheikhdoms. The two most important emirates are Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
Abu Dhabi is the largest of the seven and the source of most of UAE's oil
reserves, which are believed to be the fifth-biggest in the world. Unlike Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, the two other major oil-producing kingdoms on the Arabian
Peninsula, UAE has made a conscious decision to use its oil revenue to
diversify its economy.
This can be seen most impressively in the bustling port city-state of Dubai,
where DP World is based, along with a number of other important transnational
corporations. Dubai also serves as the second-largest air/sea hub in the world
and as an important economic and strategic asset to the US.
With the exception of Israel, no Middle Eastern county purchases as many US
goods and services as the UAE. US exports to that federation last year totaled
$8.5 billion. Contrasting with only $1.5 billion in imports, this has resulted
in a badly needed trade surplus of $7 billion for the US, currently struggling
with a record trade deficit overall. [12]
The UAE has also been a major purchaser of US arms, leading the entire world as
the recipient of US military hardware from 1997-2000 (when it was supporting
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan) with the purchase of $6.8 billion in
armaments. [13]
The UAE has been a long-standing US ally in the region and has been a major and
secure port of call for the US Navy. The UAE government supported the US-led
war against the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1991 and has provided major
logistical support for the US armed forces since then, though - as with the
vast majority of Arab governments - the UAE opposed the US invasion of Iraq in
2003.
Today, Dubai is a major transit point for military contractors, mercenaries,
contract workers and others bound to support US military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Then there is the issue of the connections between the Bush family and others
in his administration with the UAE. For example, the UAE government is a major
investor in the Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm for which
Bush's father served as a senior adviser.
The emir also responded generously to appeals by former president George H
W Bush for financial assistance for victims of Hurricane Katrina and for
donations to his presidential library.
The current president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received
substantial funding for his educational software company from UAE investors.
CSX, the rail and transport company chaired by John Snow before he became
President Bush's secretary of the Treasury, recently sold its foreign port
operations to DP World for more than $1 billion. David Sanborn, former director
of DP World's European and Latin American operations, was recently named by
Bush to head the US Maritime Administration, the agency that oversees US port
operations.
There are other embarrassing Republican connections to UAE as well. For
example, Robert Dole - the former Republican Senate leader, 1996 Republican
presidential nominee and husband of Senator Elizabeth Dole - has served as a
lobbyist for DP World.
In conclusion, despite disturbing examples of racism and jingoism that have
come to the fore in the debate over DP World's potential ownership of port
operations of some US terminals, the controversy provides opportunities for
critics of US foreign policy to raise some important questions regarding the
misplaced priorities of the Bush administration in countering the threat from
international terrorism, the dubious nature of some of America's Middle Eastern
allies, the ties of the Bush administration to big business and the impact of
globalization on the US economy.
[2] Ironically, Senator Lautenberg does not refer to the West Bank - seized by
Israeli forces in the 1967 war - as "occupied" by Israel, but claims they are
simply "disputed" territories.
[3] Transcript, "Democratic Members of the Senate Deliver Remarks on Port
Security at Rally", Congressional Quarterly, February 27, 2006.
[4] Robert Cohen, "Lautenberg Accused of Anti-Arab Racism", Star-Ledger, March
2, 2006.
Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus, visited
the United Arab Emirates in 1991-92 as a Joseph J Malone Fellow in Arab and
Islamic studies. He is a professor of politics at the University of San
Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the
Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
