On the Ports Flap

I’ve not written about outsourcing US port management to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. There’s a reason: I don’t write on subjects about which I have little or no knowledge. Well, hardly ever, anyway. And I’ve not taken the time to read the arguments and counter-arguments on this decision. But I will say this: it certainly feels wrong to outsource management of the majority of our largest ports to an Arab nation. Lileks has a Screedblog up today on this subject, and he says, in part:

It’s remarkably tone deaf. It’s possible that the Administration did some quiet polling, and asked the question “How much Arab control over American ports are you comfortable with,” and misinterpreted stunned silence as assent. It’s possible the Administration believed that this would be seen as outreach, an act of faith to solidify a Key Ally, and didn’t think there’d be much hubbub – but if that’s the case, it’s the best example of the Bubble Theory I’ve heard, and I’ve not heard much convincing evidence. Until now. The average American’s reaction to handing port control over to the UAE is instinctively negative, and for good reason. There are two basic reactions: We can’t do this ourselves? and We should trust them, why?

I suppose I’m “an average American,” because James sums up my reaction very well. I realize the Brits ran these ports previously, and I realize the purchase of P&O (the British port management company) is a completely legal and above-board transaction, supposedly vetted by all The Powers That Be in the US government. I don’t know the details of the vetting process, I don’t know exactly who participated, and I don’t know how long it took. What I DO know is the Republican congressional leadership and the Democrats are in agreement: this is a bad idea. When those folks are in agreement on something, anything, it should make one take notice.

I watched a segment on this issue on PBS’ The News Hour last night. I wasn’t particularly impressed with the fact the administration sent some minor functionary like the Third Assistant Under-Secretary of the Treasury (not an exact title, obviously) to explain its position. And the explanation certainly wasn’t convincing; at least I remain unconvinced. On the other hand, the arguments put forth by the spokesman for the anti- crowd (a Democratic congressman) seemed jingoistic to me. The truth is somewhere in between, I suppose.

I understand one option the administration has would be to put this transaction on hold for a period of time and allow Congress to review the decision. I think that would be a wise move on Bush’s part. His immediate threat of a veto in the face of proposed legislation to block this transaction is NOT wise, it’s arrogant. And the LAST thing Bush needs right now is further evidence to support the Democrats’ argument that he and his administration are both arrogant and power-mad.