Recently, I was asked to justify my position to sign a petition challenging the Bush Administration’s efforts to approve Dubai Ports World’s purchase of the British P&O. The company controls operations at six significant American ports including Baltimore, New York, and New Orleans. The petition started during Mayor Martin O’Malley’s gubernatorial campaign in Maryland. In Baltimore, he is one of the most respected Democrats involved in security efforts. In particular, his programs to protect the defenseless port have attracted a lof of support. He is as actively pro-security and pro-liberty as a Democrat can be, and he admirably articulated his vision and plan to protect all of America’s ports at the National Press Club. In short, he represents the new wave of candidates, both state and national, that Democrats must put forth. Dubai Ports World is a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates. The details of the UAE’s previous interaction with terrorists are troubling to anyone concerned – especially the revelation that their country is one that laundered funds that aiding 9/11 hijackers. Hypocritically, the Bush Administration supports racial profiling, but wants entrust American ports to a nation tainted with terrorist ties. Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Pete King of New York have proposed we allow a bipartisan team of congressional officials to review all of the pertinent facts and data. When our own intelligence indicates that the UAE might pose a threat, why not take this action? Tom Friedman’s column “War of the Worlds,” in The New York Times makes a persuasive case to end what he considers the “nonsense” over the port issue. But his “taking the high road” approach and blindly accepting the UAE’s involvement in our port transaction, is a flawed policy. Friedman is correct on many levels: we must resolve global divisions with diplomacy, and focus on visible cultural and religious tensions, reflected in the recent Muslim protests against the infamous Prophet Mohammad cartoon. Unfortunately, his thoughts have been ignored completely by the Bush Administration. The President’s continued “bring it on approach” has exacerbated the situation in Iraq and the hightened animosity between the U.S. and the Middle East. But because of the current climate of terrorism, and the recent set of F grades released by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, Friedman’s ideas would jeopardize the security of American ports. In the final analysis, the underlying question concerns the competence of this administration. How can Americans have faith in the Administration’s so-called “thorough investigation” of the transaction? Can we trust Donald Rumsfeld, whose predictions about the war were about as wrong as possible? Or the 9/11 National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice? Might citizens lend a hand to incapable Mr. Chertoff or disgraced FEMA chief Michael Brown, who together handled the Hurricane Katrina fallout with such dignity, for competent national security policies? It acutally turns out the Department of Homeland security was initially against this proposal! Indeed, the entire predicament is difficult to fully comprehend and even more so to resolve. As Maureen Dowd writes in a recent op-ed entitled “G.O.P. to W.: You’re Nuts,” the facts about our ports are frightening. First, our ports couldn’t be more vulnerable (already we only screen 20% of our imports for any biological, chemical, or nuclear substances). Second, nations like China practically own our ports, given our enormous trade deficit, projected at more than a trillion dollars. It’s a frightening dilemma that should concern everybody, even if you did not sign Mayor O’Malley’s petition.
