In spite of everything, I don't think Dubai management poses any greater threat to our security than, say, the Bush administration does. The scrutiny each container has to go through before it even gets loaded on a ship bringing it to the US is pretty daunting. Once it arrives here, it goes through checks and double-checks by layers of management, not to mention teams of American longshoremen.
So the most interesting thing about the port flap is the split it's caused between President and Republican leaders in Congress. Something else is going on and I don't think it has much to do with port security. Do we just want to keep our lives simple by regarding all Arabs -- maybe all foreigners -- as potentially dangerous? Is this about Americans awakening to the reality that we are part of a huge world of transport and trade, not a separate kingdom? How much of the veto threat is simply Bush, once again, asserting his damn right to do as he damn well pleases without any goddamn compromise with lesser branches of government?
Maureen Dowd prefers simple suspicion of Arabs:
...The American people can be forgiven if they're confused about what it means in the Arab world to be a U.S. ally. Is it a nation that helps us sometimes but also addicts us to oil and then jacks up the price, refuses to recognize Israel, denies women basic rights, tolerates radical anti-American clerics, looks the other way when its citizens burn down embassies and consulates over cartoons, and often turns a blind eye when it comes to hunting down terrorists in its midst?
Today's New York Times editorial presents an America in which corporate interests always outweigh the interests and security of the individual American citizens.
...There is nothing in the Homeland Security Department's record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.
The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests. It has not imposed reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants, one of the nation's greatest points of vulnerability, or on the transport of toxic materials. The ports deal is another decision that has made the corporations involved happy, and has made ordinary Americans worry about whether they are being adequately protected.
Stephen Flynn, a maritime specialist with the Council on Foreign Relations and (I think) a former Coast Guard officer who has been much quoted in the past couple of days, offers a bit of realism to a Washington Post reporter:
"What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it?" Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts."
NPR had a couple of good stories on how ports are run this morning. A close look at Port Newark's management of security can be heard here.
Comments