Scott O’Hara – 2/21/06

This page was last updated on February 25, 2006.

Don’t sacrifice our security; Scott O’Hara; Beaver County Times; February 21, 2006.

I originally opposed the Dubai deal but I must admit it was mostly a knee-jerk reaction. As I’m learning more about the details, I’m changing my opinion. You can’t see it, but this critique has changed quite a bit since I wrote the first draft earlier this week. I’m critiquing Mr. O’Hara’s letter to add some information and correct some misconceptions. The issues surrounding the port deal are more complex than we’re hearing about in most coverage.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“A company in the United Arab Emirates is slated to take significant control over operations at six U.S. ports.”

[RWC] The company, Dubai Ports World (DP World), is purchasing the U.K. company (P&O) currently handling cargo terminal – not port – operations. This company already handles cargo terminals operations around the world, including in Australia, Europe, and Red China.

“What? I can’t believe I’m seeing and hearing this in the news. Furthermore, I can’t believe that the current administration does not see a problem with this. Well I do, and here it is:”

[RWC] According to all reports, the administration is following the rules for approving the deal set down by Congress.

“No foreign power should have control over American ports, especially one that still considers the Taliban the rightful government of Afghanistan, does not recognize the right of Israel to exist and had two of its citizens involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

[RWC] Regarding “No foreign power should have control over American ports,” the current company handling cargo terminal operations at these ports is a U.K. company. Maersk, a Danish company, also handles some U.S. terminal operations. The Red China government handles some cargo terminal operations for some West Coast ports. It’s my understanding no U.S. companies provide this service anywhere in the world.

“Through this deal, the company based in the UAE will gain significant insight into the layout and security of our ports that can easily be passed to terrorists. The deal is estimated at roughly $6 billion.”

[RWC] This is true regardless of who owns the company performing cargo terminal operations.

“Even if it were $600 billion, it should never be allowed to happen. We should not sacrifice our security for economic profit. The seriousness of this matter cannot be overstated and has far-reaching implications for our future.”

[RWC] I’m not sure where the “economic profit” comes from. The only profit – if any – would accrue to the current owner (P&O) of the company handling cargo terminal operations. To the best of my knowledge, none goes to the U.S.

“For the most part, I have supported the administration’s policies in the war on terrorism and to be aggressive and to take the fight to ruthless killers who have no regard for human life, behead their captives and envision a greater Islamic extremist Middle East.

“However, it should be Homeland Security 101 to not turn over control of our ports to any nation, especially the UAE.”

[RWC] The company handling cargo terminal operations is not itself responsible for port security. Port security will continue to be handled by the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and Customs.

“Finally, a bill is about to be introduced to stop the sale. Hopefully, it will succeed.

“It will be a sad day in America and serve to weaken our nation if the UAE is allowed to control our ports.”

[RWC] The deal doesn’t give the UAE control over our ports. It only makes DP World operator of some of the cargo terminal facilities. The local port authorities (Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, et cetera) retain control over the ports.