The Security of Our Ports
February 22, 2006
At first, when I heard about the possibility that we might outsource the operations of some key American ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, I was mystified by the brouhaha. I saw the reaction as racist and xenophobic, and I really believed that the White House was right on this one.
But as I thought on it more, I realized that I’d feel safer if American companies were being run by Americans. It’s not that I think foreigners categorically can’t do the job - but nobody has more of an incentive to defend the United States of America than Americans.
I think Maureen Dowd (subscription required) got it right today when she wrote, “maybe it’s corporate racial profiling, but I don’t want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.”
Unlike Dowd, I don’t care that this company may have links to the 9/11 attacks. After all, a lack of terrorist links shouldn’t mean that a company is qualified to guard something so critical to national security. It’s really a simple equation: American ports should be run by American companies. Because there’s no way that I trust this White House to do a good job of overseeing anyone else.
Again, I think Dowd said it best:
Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.
So call me a xenophobe. Call me racist against Arabs. I don’t care. And for the record, I don’t object for a second to Arab-Americans running our ports. Just not foreigners. Not when American lives are on the line.
On the ports issue, this administration should be doing more - not less - to maintain our national security.
NOT xenophobe. Pragmatic. Your argument, …nobody has more of an incentive to defend the interests of America than Americans… is specifically about shared fate. Translate “America” to customers. Make the deliverable something besides rent-a-cops, say telecomm services or retail clothing or medical care. More “Local” (flexy definition) is more accountable because of shared fate. The bigger the provider, the smaller piece of their market puzzle you occupy, the less they are forced to care. The more local they are, the more necessary it is for mnagement to accept the fact that mgmt might have to look you in the face because you can drop in on them, that you know people in common.
The magic of Market in anchored in shared fate. I don’t think your point is xenophobic at all. The gravitational field of each party’s interests are not naturally drawn together. Like buying health care from a doc who works in a state where Docs are exempt from malpractice suits, the Doc has less Unseen Hand self-interest in doing a good job.
ONE MORE BIG FACTOR
The security contractor is actually a part of the UAE’s government. ¿How much sense does it make to privatize an essential function if what you plan to do with it is contract it out with another gov’t? I suggest you would be uncomfortable if that gov’t was the gov’t of Spain or Germany (you have Spanish and German names, so I’m using those as examples) or Switzerland or Canada or Costa Rica. It’s pretty much irrelevant “which”; it’s the lack of shared fate in the transaction tht makes this contract toxic and inefficient.
FURTHER
does it make sense to do it with a gov’t (one of only a small handful) that was allied with your worst real enemy…the Talibaptist regime of Afghanistan that was the home base for the 911 attacks? UAE now says that’s all in the past — okay, but does it make sense to turn over our national security to their gov’t? Uh…no.
Vaya con carne,
el jefe
We all make a mistake if we allow this to become a xenophobic issue. It isn’t about the ports being controlled by Arabs - although clearly that’s what has draw much of the attention - it is that American ports are not being controlled by Americans.
The more we hear about this - that Bush for example was as clueless about it as he’s been about so many other things - the more it is clear this administration has completely dropped the ball on defending our ports of entry.
After all their talk about a “post 9/11″ world, it is literally business as usual for Bush and his cronies. In a post 9/11 world, American ports should be managed by American companies.
Of course, you then have the issue of those American companies outsourcing work to non-Americans, but that’s another problem.
I just find it amusing at how much this issue has flipped partisan politics on it’s head. Hannity and Rush don’t agree… even my wife and I don’t agree. It’s just nice to see the world in something other than blue and red for a change!