Are Our Ports At Risk?

AP Wire | 02/11/2006 | UAE company poised to oversee six U.S. ports

I first learned of this matter from Edward Copeland's blog, "Copeland Institute for Lower Learning":

"WASHINGTON - A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism."

While the UAE is a fairly friendly government, it, like almost all of the Arabian/Persian Gulf countries, allows any citizen of a gulf state to freely travel across its borders. There have been Yemeni, Omani, and Saudi citizens with links to Al Qaeda, or other militant Islamic groups, that cross into the UAE and conduct business--both legal and illegal business.

"The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia."

This is a prime example of a flaw in our security against terrosism and infiltration of our borders. While we should remain a free economy and open society, we cannot allow our ports to go unguarded. We need a system of security at our ports that inlcudes background checks of all workers at our ports, especially those from other countries--all the more so if there is a significant risk of infiltration of terrorist activity.

"DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 'thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection,' the company said in a statement to The Associated Press."

In all likelihood, DP World is a reputable company, But reputable companies have made mistakes before, especially in the area of security. In this case, the security risk is looming large on the horizon because we do not have effective security and/or defense plans in place. The US Coast Guard and the US Naval Reserves used to have a system known as Maritime Defense Zones (MARDEZ) for Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coastlines, but that system was all but abandoned back in the mid-1990s. Even then, there was minimal security for open ports where large quantities of foreign shipping occurs. If we are serious about our efforts to defend our nation from terrorist attacks, then we need to tighten the first and second layers of security at our ports, especially those ports where chemicals and fuels are handled. Additionally, if the port operations are going to be handled by foreign entities, then we need a federal security presence watching these operations.

"The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security. The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI concluded."

Anyone else just a little concerned that these are the same folks that were in charge of national security before 9-11, in charge of the warrantless surveillance programs, and exactly the people that President Bush and his administration have ignored in the past? Anyone else concerned that the UAE has been a launching pad and financial base for terrorists un the past?

"Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat whose district includes the New York port, urged the administration to consider the sale carefully. 'America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties.'"

Amen, Senator Schumer! And it does sound like we are on the verge of doing just that... selling our national security to the highest bidder.

"Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America."

Are we back to cronyism and appointments based upon allegiance, influence and access to the Bush administration?

"Shipping experts noted that many of the world's largest port companies are not based in the U.S., and they pointed to DP World's strong economic interest in operating ports securely and efficiently. 'Does this pose a national security risk? I think that's pushing the envelope,' said Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. 'It's not impossible to imagine one could develop an internal conspiracy, but I'd have to assign it a very low probability.'"

Flynn seems to have adequate credentials: http://www.cfr.org/bios/3301/stephen_e_flynn.html He also seems to see many of the same holes in our security that others see.

No matter what happens in terms of the DP World acquisition, we need to take better steps to protect our ports.