StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

For many months, I’ve been concerned about infrastructure security and specifically the vulnerability of our Nation’s ports.  My concern and point of view was a general one.  Having not had the time to make alot of posts over the last week or so (because of my relocation), I’ve got the benefit of looking back as well as forward regarding the uproar over the Dubai Ports World controversy.

Two weeks ago, while acknowledging that there were differing points of view, I wrote that I felt that this deal was "sheer lunacy."  While I realize that there remain those who will take opposing points of view, I remain bemused as to how this can be seen as a "good" thing.

Steve Schippert of ThreatsWatch calls for the cooling off period, to breathe, before making the final decision…from both the approval or objection side of the argument.

On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve Security

After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There is absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite obviously a great deal of concern among the American public…[more]

Illustrating the divide over this issue, all you need to do is read the Washington Times (not the Washington Post) editorial from two weeks ago.

Arab-owned American ports?
TODAY’S EDITORIAL February 15, 2006
…The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn’t happen, Congress should take action. The country’s ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.

DPW, CFIUS - Why the Secrecy?
Some of the staunchest of Republicans in the Congress have spoken out against the deal to sell the management control over 6 U.S. ports to Dubai World Ports (DPW). Its not just the U.S. Senate delegation from New York that has spoken out! Even here, in this little microcosm of public opinion, both Republican and Democrat, both Conservative and Liberal, have spoken out, both for and against this decision.

But why the secrecy in the decision?

Chertoff unaware of ports deal until after OK
…Mr. Chertoff’s spokesman, Russ Knocke, told The Washington Times the issue rose no higher than the department’s assistant secretary for policy, Stewart Baker.

"[Chertoff] was not briefed up to this until after this story started appearing in the newspapers," Mr. Knocke said.

Mr. Chertoff is the third Cabinet official to acknowledge he did not know his agency had signed off on the plan as a member of the interagency Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). Both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow have publicly said they were unaware of the deal.

But Mr. Chertoff’s exclusion is more noteworthy because his department headed the CFIUS review and is in charge of security at all U.S. ports…

Again, remember that CFIUS is part of the Dept. of Treasury:

UAE…Friend or Foe?
Steve Emerson on the UAE (see a 9 minute interview)

My view is from that of a practitioner in homeland security, and from the stance of one who has a HLS position in a state in which there is a major port (but not where I live). All of this recognizes that GWB has vowed to veto any legislation aimed at blocking the deal to cede port management to Dubai Ports World.

1) there is a big difference between the ports being managed by a privately owned foreign corporation, and one which is totally owned by a foreign government.

2) port security (part of this nation’s critical infrastructure) has been the subject of frequent debate and comment and has been considered lacking by most if not all people knowledgeable about such things. And yes, I understand that DPW will be managing the ports, not providing security per se.

3) what are the assurances of hiring policies and security concerns relative to those employed by DPW? And yes, I know that ILU members will continue to be the primary workers on the docks.

4) where do you draw the line? Critical infrastructure is critical infrastructure. Will it be permissible for a foreign owned entity to manage oil refineries? How about nuclear facilities? And no, I cannot point to a situation in which DPW has dropped the ball.

Finally, Walid Phares writing on the Counterrorism Blog offers an in-depth analysis of the issue.  I believe that his post, A Jihad Window at the Emirates Gate? provides this as a final analysis (but you should read the entire post):

1. The general Terror threat to US port system has been and remain -regardless of the Dubai deal- about the capacity of Terrorists to strike inside the Harbors. But the specific potential threat emanating from the current crisis is different in nature: it is about an additional layer of terror risk that could be produced by a Jihadist breach via a commercial transaction.

2. A solution to the crisis is to examine the very specific matter of Jihadi penetration inside UAE and to evaluate it. If indeed the threat exist and could transplant itself to targets within the US, then measures has to be taken. In this case, these measures would include special legislation in the UAE and a testing period fot it. If the implementation of these measures is successful, the upgrade of the country conditions could be done, and hence a deal could be safe. If neither the measures are taken, nor they are successful, then logically, such deal would present national security hazards. (See interview on MSNBC)

I hope the extension granted by the company to the Administration will give all parties enough space to study how can the Jihadists play that game and how to disrupt it. Everything else, from money to politics, is less relevant.

IMO, this is a bad decision. It is a decision that the Bush Administration should reconsider. I won’t go into chapter and verse about the port and maritime security issues that I’ve dealt with and continue to be engaged in…

Consider this…first came the policy (still being debated) of immigration amnesty, and then there are the incursions by Mexican nationals into the United States. Now we cede control over ports to a company from Dubai, UAE. What follows? Can we live with this decision? Want to chance it?

Current Affairs, International Issues, National Security, Opinions