More ridiculous controversy over P&O purchase

Well, the political firestorm over the sale of P&O to Dubai Ports World (DP World) has not abated, but at least some of the correct facts are coming out. The Washington Post has a story detailing the resulting security situation at U.S. ports if the deal goes through. Nothing would change from now except the owners of the leases of the parts of the docks. The head of the North American operations of P&O pointed out that "the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions--an arangement he said would remain in effect". The article describes the situation at ports across the country:

"Terminal operators typically lease facilities from a local port authority and are responsible for attracting shipping lines to use their terminal, where there main task is to move the thousands of containers that come in and out onto the right vessels, rail cars or trucks. In the process, they must main security at the facility, with the government providing backup and oversight." (italics added)

While there are legitimate concerns over port security, they are not really the same issue as the ownership of the port terminals. Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations puts it into perspective,

"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? 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"

That is the appropriate reaction, but the NY Times editorial board seems to disagree and sides with Congressional xenophobes and fear-mongers from both parties. However, it does raise the issue that has been missing from the debate: the administration's slovenly pandering to corporate interests:

"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."

Again, while adding an interesting perspective to the debate, the NY Times returns to the fallacy that a change in foreign company control over the port terminals will affect security. It is from this non-truth that the xenophobia and protectionism come from. The LA Times takes a much more realistic view calling the proposed legislation a "bipartisan hissy fit" that "provides members of Congress an opportunity to talk tough and pander to the terrorism-rattled xenophobe in us all". The latter point is explored in a Reuters article detailing how Bush's fear mongering brought this conflict upon himself. A Washington Post editorial agrees with the LA Times and uses much of the information presented in the article on the controversy quoted above. The article closes with the contradiction between the supposed Republican neo-conservative platform and opposition to the P&O purchase:

"Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of 'democracy promotion' in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation"