National Security Rationale for Dubai / UAE Deal
| By ACDC - Feb 24th, 2006 at 12:12 am EST |
I'll be the first to admit that the administration isn't handling this very well and there could very well be something fishier in all of this. However, from a strict national security perspective, there's no reason to delay or reject this deal. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that shooting this down will increase rather than decrease the likelihood of terrorism against American citizens.
Why? Imagine if you're a Muslim Arab in the Middle East right now. The past few weeks have filled with uproar over blasphemous cartoons poking fun at your faith. The West describes this as "free speech." Meanwhile, a holocaust denier is jailed. Add to that all of your normal complaints about the West (e.g. Iraq, U.S. troops, Gitmo, etc.). Now you have the United States, obstensibly the champion of free trade, blocking the sale of U.S. ports to Dupai Ports World (DPW). Meanwhile, no such objections were raised when similar deals were made with the British, the Singaporeans and the Chinese. Note that the latter two are also state-owned. All this despite the fact that the UAE is described as an ally in the war on terror and even donated $100 million for Katrina relief. Not exactly a good way to win allies, is it?
Given that, the burden of proof is on the critics of the deal to show why DPW shouldn't be allowed to go ahead with this. And by burden of proof, I mean a doomsday scenario on how this will enable a terrorist attack. I'll list these attacks and responses after the flip. I'll also try to update based on any comments I get.
The law requires a 45-day investigation of these sort of things by CFIUS
The text in question can be found here:
This obviously depends on whether you view the deal as a national security concern, and since the law provides no clear standard for interpreting what is or is not a national security concern, this leaves it at the discretion of the CFIUS, which, in a prior 30-day investigation, found no reason to extend it. You may disagree with that, but under current law, it's a difficult case, legally at least, to make.
My main concern with the "investigation" argument is that it doesn't really say anything. A fair amount of its supporters are people who want to see the deal go down, regardless of the investgion's results, and as such, will try to nitpick and nudge the report to support this end. There are some things worth looking into, but they're not national security concerns (see below).
Dubai will be in charge of US port security
False. The Coast Guard and US Borders and Customs will still be in charge -- just like they are at every other port operated by a foreign company. This page on the Port of Los Angeles is a good example of how this works. All DPW controls are some terminals within those ports, not even the entire port itself. The threat this poses is about equivalent to them having their own terminal in an airport, which they do.
Dubai could use this deal to sneak in terrorists!
Wouldn't it be easier to do so through the US-Mexican border?
By purchasing these ports, Dubai could gain knowledge of our port system and use that knowledge to launch a terrorist attack
Or they could just ask any of hundreds of ship captains. Or get a job at a port. This stuff isn't classified you know. If you were really interested in finding holes in the port security system, all you have to do is visit the Progress Report.
Dubai will be in charge of handling US military equipment
Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Stuff a rocket in their pants while they're unloading it and hope no one is counting? Likewise, if they chose to shut down a U.S. port during a national security crisis, does anyone doubt that the U.S. government would force it back open? "Emergency powers" exist for a reason. Besides, If the UAE wanted to disrupt the flow of military equipment, they could've done so a long time ago. Dubai serves as a staging ground for American forces and a transit point for forces entering Iraq. Regardless of whether DPW owns those ports or not, our national security is dependent on UAE cooperation.
Dubai and the UAE has links to al-Qaeda, recognized the Taliban, etc.
The "evidence" for this, as I understand it, is that the royal family of the UAE once met with Osama bin Laden, went on hunting trips in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and was one of three nations to recognize the Taliban. That's evidence for contact, but it's not proof that al-Qaeda and the UAE are actively cooperating. Most Middle Eastern governments probably have some contact with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Israeli Mossad and the CIA likely also have "contacts". None of these imply cooperation -- for all we know, it could simply mean that the UAE was interested in real estate development in Afghanistan.
This was all pre-9/11. Contrast this to post-9/11, and you'll see that UAE-American cooperation in fighting terrorism has steadily improved. Whatever earlier criticisms, the UAE has now done more to improve American national security than, say, China, and yet there's no uproar over their operations with the West Coast ports and New York. Given the current level of cooperation, you can't hold possible contacts in the past against them. After all, we funded Osama and the precursors to al-Qaeda, the mujahideen, in their fight against the Soviets and shook hands with Saddam. People change their minds and 9/11 was one hell of a mind-changing event.
There are terrorists in the UAE, terrorist money flowed through UAE banks, etc.
In the words of Las Vegas Review Journal:
Dubai is a haven for criminal activity because of lax legal enforcement, thereby indicating it will disregard port safety in America
Except DPW will be operating ports in the United States, under American laws, and with American law enforcement. Sure, DPW has its fair share of unsavory types, but so does every port city, especially one with 73.9% of its population being non-nationals. But are we holding open borders and a non-authoritarian regime against them? Would you block a Mexican company from operating in the US on the grounds that Mexico fails to prevent drugs and illegal immigrants from crossing the border? Or would you confiscate the ports operated by the Chinese because the Chinese have an issue with counterfeit goods? I doubt it.
Likewise, just because you can form an al-Qaeda cell in Dubai doesn't mean you get a get-out-walking-through-the-metal-detector card now that Dubai operates a port in the U.S. DPW operates ports in Australia, Hong Kong, China, Germany, Romania, and India, some of whom probably have cause for concern regarding terrorism, and yet none of them have complained about a jump in crime following DPW purcahses.
The UAE let nuclear materials pass through Dubai to places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea
This is a reference to the discovery of the A.Q. Khan network. The network operated until about 2001.Following this discovery, the UAE was the first Middle Eastern member of the Container Security Initiative. This places U.S. Customs Agents in Dubai to make sure that unwanted goods don't even get on U.S. bound ships in the first place. So if there are problems like this in the future, it's not Dubai's fault. It's ours.
On another note, one consequence of the A.Q. Khan investigation was a thorough examination of possible front companies operating in Dubai. Given the size of DPW, if it was involved in anything sketchy, the Khan investigation would have revealed it already.
The UAE is encouraging Islamic fundamentalism
Not really. They're not building madrassas or anything like that. The UAE was recently praised for progress in freedom of religion. For commercial and criminal law, they have a secular court system.
The UAE is another one of those evil Middle Eastern countries that suppress their people
Well, they are a monarchy and they have human rights issue--but compared to other countries in the Middle East, they're not even worth mentioning in the same breath. Dubai, especially, has an economy based mostly on trade. The UAE is trying to move away from dependence on a oil-based economy. They employ many Westerners in their operations and are working to modernize their political system. It's okay to be a Christian in the UAE.
Our concerns aren't UAE specific. No foreign company at all should be able to have control of the entry ways in and out of America
Well, no one really controls an entire "port." They simply operate a terminal, like the United or Delta or Lufthansa terminal in an airport. Things going in and out of those terminals are still subject to port authorities (think metal detectors at airports). The worst DPW could do is shut down the terminals they operate. That would suck, but not that bad since other terminals would still remain open. And financially, there's no point.
Outsourcing will cost American jobs
Not actually national security in the narrow sense, but I thought I'd address it. You're selling frm the British to Dubai. Not exactly any lost Americans jobs in that is there? You should also consider that either way, it's American workers with an American union doing the actual work. That's much cheaper than importing over boatloads of workers from the UAE.
There are a lot of irregularities in this deal
I'll grant you that. I am curious why certain normal safeguards for this sort of thing (e.g. requiring business records be kept in the US for subpoena purposes, designating an American citizen as a contact for legal concerns) were not followed. Yet I can't see how any of these pose national security concerns. At worst, they might be hiding some Enron-style hijinks. More likely, given that they're willing to revise those safeguards, I think the process was simply rushed. Another possibility is some confusion from the British side of the deal since technically, DPW is buying a British company and the American port terminals are only an added bonus. In any case, the issue is easily remedied and certainly not cause for an uproar abut American safety.
Other Thoughts
If anything, allowing this deal through will ultimately encourage the UAE to help fight terrorism. The UAE is a mostly secular state. DPW is a corporation out to make a profit. Collectively, neither of them have an interest in allowing terrorism to flourish and certinaly neither of them want to see international trade slowed down because of a terrorist attack. By increasing Dubai's interest in America, it spreads the cost of collective security across more players. That's what globalization means for security. As the world becomes more interconnected, security becomes less about states vs. states and more about how states can cooperate together to reduce mutual security threats. Ultimately, these global trends do more to increase international security than some unlikely doomsday scenario (I still haven't heard a realistic possibility) wuld do to decrease it. On a related note, I recommend reading Faiz's take on this.
[Cross-posted at DemApples]
Why? Imagine if you're a Muslim Arab in the Middle East right now. The past few weeks have filled with uproar over blasphemous cartoons poking fun at your faith. The West describes this as "free speech." Meanwhile, a holocaust denier is jailed. Add to that all of your normal complaints about the West (e.g. Iraq, U.S. troops, Gitmo, etc.). Now you have the United States, obstensibly the champion of free trade, blocking the sale of U.S. ports to Dupai Ports World (DPW). Meanwhile, no such objections were raised when similar deals were made with the British, the Singaporeans and the Chinese. Note that the latter two are also state-owned. All this despite the fact that the UAE is described as an ally in the war on terror and even donated $100 million for Katrina relief. Not exactly a good way to win allies, is it?
Given that, the burden of proof is on the critics of the deal to show why DPW shouldn't be allowed to go ahead with this. And by burden of proof, I mean a doomsday scenario on how this will enable a terrorist attack. I'll list these attacks and responses after the flip. I'll also try to update based on any comments I get.
The law requires a 45-day investigation of these sort of things by CFIUS
The text in question can be found here:
The President or the President's designee shall make an investigation, as described in subsection (a), in any instance in which an entity controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government seeks to engage in any merger, acquisition, or takeover which could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States.
This obviously depends on whether you view the deal as a national security concern, and since the law provides no clear standard for interpreting what is or is not a national security concern, this leaves it at the discretion of the CFIUS, which, in a prior 30-day investigation, found no reason to extend it. You may disagree with that, but under current law, it's a difficult case, legally at least, to make.
My main concern with the "investigation" argument is that it doesn't really say anything. A fair amount of its supporters are people who want to see the deal go down, regardless of the investgion's results, and as such, will try to nitpick and nudge the report to support this end. There are some things worth looking into, but they're not national security concerns (see below).
Dubai will be in charge of US port security
False. The Coast Guard and US Borders and Customs will still be in charge -- just like they are at every other port operated by a foreign company. This page on the Port of Los Angeles is a good example of how this works. All DPW controls are some terminals within those ports, not even the entire port itself. The threat this poses is about equivalent to them having their own terminal in an airport, which they do.
Dubai could use this deal to sneak in terrorists!
Wouldn't it be easier to do so through the US-Mexican border?
By purchasing these ports, Dubai could gain knowledge of our port system and use that knowledge to launch a terrorist attack
Or they could just ask any of hundreds of ship captains. Or get a job at a port. This stuff isn't classified you know. If you were really interested in finding holes in the port security system, all you have to do is visit the Progress Report.
Dubai will be in charge of handling US military equipment
Honestly, what do you expect them to do? Stuff a rocket in their pants while they're unloading it and hope no one is counting? Likewise, if they chose to shut down a U.S. port during a national security crisis, does anyone doubt that the U.S. government would force it back open? "Emergency powers" exist for a reason. Besides, If the UAE wanted to disrupt the flow of military equipment, they could've done so a long time ago. Dubai serves as a staging ground for American forces and a transit point for forces entering Iraq. Regardless of whether DPW owns those ports or not, our national security is dependent on UAE cooperation.
Dubai and the UAE has links to al-Qaeda, recognized the Taliban, etc.
The "evidence" for this, as I understand it, is that the royal family of the UAE once met with Osama bin Laden, went on hunting trips in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and was one of three nations to recognize the Taliban. That's evidence for contact, but it's not proof that al-Qaeda and the UAE are actively cooperating. Most Middle Eastern governments probably have some contact with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Israeli Mossad and the CIA likely also have "contacts". None of these imply cooperation -- for all we know, it could simply mean that the UAE was interested in real estate development in Afghanistan.
This was all pre-9/11. Contrast this to post-9/11, and you'll see that UAE-American cooperation in fighting terrorism has steadily improved. Whatever earlier criticisms, the UAE has now done more to improve American national security than, say, China, and yet there's no uproar over their operations with the West Coast ports and New York. Given the current level of cooperation, you can't hold possible contacts in the past against them. After all, we funded Osama and the precursors to al-Qaeda, the mujahideen, in their fight against the Soviets and shook hands with Saddam. People change their minds and 9/11 was one hell of a mind-changing event.
There are terrorists in the UAE, terrorist money flowed through UAE banks, etc.
In the words of Las Vegas Review Journal:
Critics complain two of the Sept. 11 terrorists hailed from the UAE, that money to finance terror activities has flowed through UAE banks, and that the UAE took the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli war of 1973.
Well, yes. Terrorists have also opened bank accounts in the United States and Germany, and the British Army once burned Washington. [...] Great Britain, being a nation with precepts of religious freedom similar to our own (despite that little problem William Penn ran into), has even produced a fair number of terrorists who have blown up subways and buses there. Heck, one even tried to blow up his own shoe while flying across the Atlantic.
Dubai is a haven for criminal activity because of lax legal enforcement, thereby indicating it will disregard port safety in America
Except DPW will be operating ports in the United States, under American laws, and with American law enforcement. Sure, DPW has its fair share of unsavory types, but so does every port city, especially one with 73.9% of its population being non-nationals. But are we holding open borders and a non-authoritarian regime against them? Would you block a Mexican company from operating in the US on the grounds that Mexico fails to prevent drugs and illegal immigrants from crossing the border? Or would you confiscate the ports operated by the Chinese because the Chinese have an issue with counterfeit goods? I doubt it.
Likewise, just because you can form an al-Qaeda cell in Dubai doesn't mean you get a get-out-walking-through-the-metal-detector card now that Dubai operates a port in the U.S. DPW operates ports in Australia, Hong Kong, China, Germany, Romania, and India, some of whom probably have cause for concern regarding terrorism, and yet none of them have complained about a jump in crime following DPW purcahses.
The UAE let nuclear materials pass through Dubai to places like Libya, Iran, and North Korea
This is a reference to the discovery of the A.Q. Khan network. The network operated until about 2001.Following this discovery, the UAE was the first Middle Eastern member of the Container Security Initiative. This places U.S. Customs Agents in Dubai to make sure that unwanted goods don't even get on U.S. bound ships in the first place. So if there are problems like this in the future, it's not Dubai's fault. It's ours.
On another note, one consequence of the A.Q. Khan investigation was a thorough examination of possible front companies operating in Dubai. Given the size of DPW, if it was involved in anything sketchy, the Khan investigation would have revealed it already.
The UAE is encouraging Islamic fundamentalism
Not really. They're not building madrassas or anything like that. The UAE was recently praised for progress in freedom of religion. For commercial and criminal law, they have a secular court system.
The UAE is another one of those evil Middle Eastern countries that suppress their people
Well, they are a monarchy and they have human rights issue--but compared to other countries in the Middle East, they're not even worth mentioning in the same breath. Dubai, especially, has an economy based mostly on trade. The UAE is trying to move away from dependence on a oil-based economy. They employ many Westerners in their operations and are working to modernize their political system. It's okay to be a Christian in the UAE.
Our concerns aren't UAE specific. No foreign company at all should be able to have control of the entry ways in and out of America
Well, no one really controls an entire "port." They simply operate a terminal, like the United or Delta or Lufthansa terminal in an airport. Things going in and out of those terminals are still subject to port authorities (think metal detectors at airports). The worst DPW could do is shut down the terminals they operate. That would suck, but not that bad since other terminals would still remain open. And financially, there's no point.
Outsourcing will cost American jobs
Not actually national security in the narrow sense, but I thought I'd address it. You're selling frm the British to Dubai. Not exactly any lost Americans jobs in that is there? You should also consider that either way, it's American workers with an American union doing the actual work. That's much cheaper than importing over boatloads of workers from the UAE.
There are a lot of irregularities in this deal
I'll grant you that. I am curious why certain normal safeguards for this sort of thing (e.g. requiring business records be kept in the US for subpoena purposes, designating an American citizen as a contact for legal concerns) were not followed. Yet I can't see how any of these pose national security concerns. At worst, they might be hiding some Enron-style hijinks. More likely, given that they're willing to revise those safeguards, I think the process was simply rushed. Another possibility is some confusion from the British side of the deal since technically, DPW is buying a British company and the American port terminals are only an added bonus. In any case, the issue is easily remedied and certainly not cause for an uproar abut American safety.
Other Thoughts
If anything, allowing this deal through will ultimately encourage the UAE to help fight terrorism. The UAE is a mostly secular state. DPW is a corporation out to make a profit. Collectively, neither of them have an interest in allowing terrorism to flourish and certinaly neither of them want to see international trade slowed down because of a terrorist attack. By increasing Dubai's interest in America, it spreads the cost of collective security across more players. That's what globalization means for security. As the world becomes more interconnected, security becomes less about states vs. states and more about how states can cooperate together to reduce mutual security threats. Ultimately, these global trends do more to increase international security than some unlikely doomsday scenario (I still haven't heard a realistic possibility) wuld do to decrease it. On a related note, I recommend reading Faiz's take on this.
[Cross-posted at DemApples]
!
Comments are closed for this post.
I agree that there are national security reasons to support this deal, but you will never, ever convince me that CFIUS found our national security is not hindered by this sale, since the statutory chair of CFIUS (Treas. Secretary John Snow) and at least one of its ex officio members, the Secretary of Defense, have both said that they did not know of this deal until after it was "approved".
There's no way that the statute requiring CFIUS to investigate this sale was complied with if the chair of CFIUS was unaware the deal was happening. Further, there's no harm in allowing Congress time to investigate this deal itself--even DP World is lobbying for a Congressional investigation.
Let's actually investigate the implications of this sale, and once an actual investigation has been completed we'll talk. In all likelihood the national security concerns will be allayed by such an investigation.
What's more, it is essential that the Defense Secretary actually investigate this deal as it has a direct impact on the transport of military materiel to the combat theatre in Iraq. Even if we were to disregard the pre-9/11 record of the UAE concerning terrorism and weapons proliferation (see my comment on the other thread about the FAS analysis), the potential implications to the current conflict need to be investigated.
And regardless of how this investigation turns out, I think we can all agree that the current status of port security in the US is inadequate and must be addressed by the President and Congress ASAP.
TMH
Anyhow, my main issue with following CFIUS in this case is:
1) The fact that many members of Congress have presumed DPW to be guilty throws into question the fairness of such an investigation
2) Congress is inherently biased in any such investigations. They may have economic incentives connected with their districts that influence their decision (i.e. base closings). While these may be worth considering, they are irrelevant to a national security concern .
3) No investigation was required of other foreign operators of port terminals.
4) There is no reason to assume that DPW is any different from China Shipping in terms of a security risk.
5) The entire debate now resolves around legal technicalities rather than the substance of the deal in the first place. That's sure sign thing the case is weak.
You seem to be missing the main point about CFIUS. Clearly, if the chair (John Snow) and now TWO members of the committee (Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Chertoff) have said they didn't know about the deal until after it was supposedly approved, then there hasn't been an actual, in-depth investigation that will satisfy either the law or the public. You can't possibly be certain that this deal won't affect national security until there's been a detailed investigation. Unfortunately, with the unqualified endorsements that Rumsfeld and Chertoff have been making despite their complete ignorance of the deal itself, we cannot trust them to conduct a review of this deal. The only recourse we have is to let the Congress take charge of this investigation.
Furthermore, we now have a report from UPI that the ports deal is actually for substantially more than six terminals. How, if we don't even know the extent of the deal, can you assume its implications have been thoroughly investigated? Link
(note how that article says the CFIUS unanimously approved the deal in January--remind me again how that could be if three members of the council, including the chairman, never knew about it? We need to look into the operations of that group as well)
DPW is fine with a delay. Congress is fine with a delay. The people are demanding a delay. Why are you so hell-bent on not investigating a deal that clearly hasn't been checked with any rigor? That strikes me as somewhat reckless.