Ports and security
I'll admit that I don't really have the most articulate argument in defense of my opposition to the recent sale of several U.S. ports to Dubai World Ports, but that's OK. My basic feeling is that I simply don't think it's good policy for any foreign company - private or state-owned - to be in charge of the operations of any U.S. port.
And that goes for the fact that a British firm oversaw the same ports in question prior the transaction. Actually, I'm a little perplexed I didn't already know this.
I'm all for free trade and improving relations with all the countries in the world, particularly in the Middle East, but I'm just not comfortable with the notion that a foreign entity is responsible for the managerial operations of our point-of-entry locations, particularly during a time in which U.S. port security has come under fire from members of both parties.
If anything, we should probably do a better job with regard to security and then ponder allowing foreign companies the right to manage our ports.
And that goes for the fact that a British firm oversaw the same ports in question prior the transaction. Actually, I'm a little perplexed I didn't already know this.
I'm all for free trade and improving relations with all the countries in the world, particularly in the Middle East, but I'm just not comfortable with the notion that a foreign entity is responsible for the managerial operations of our point-of-entry locations, particularly during a time in which U.S. port security has come under fire from members of both parties.
If anything, we should probably do a better job with regard to security and then ponder allowing foreign companies the right to manage our ports.
posted by Jmac at 7:30 PM
4 Comments:
Tell you what. I'll get behind this one when Bush decides to outsource Secret Service operations to the fine folks in Dubai. Or London, or anywhere. I'm sure that the private sector could handle those much more cheaply, too.
But security and management are separate things, JMac. You say yourself, let's make security better, then maybe worry about such-and-such. Yes, let's. But this has nothing to do with what company is managing the day-to-day commerce operations of the ports.
Also, I just don't think you can separate "free trade" and "management of point-of-entry locations." Point-of-entry to the local economy is part of free trade.
But, by the same token, it's impossible to separate 'point-of-entry locations' from national security, isn't it? Even if the majority of security operations are handled by the U.S., you still have a foreign company overseeing the actual port, controlling what's coming and what's going. While I agree this is perfectly fine 99 percent of the time, it just takes the one percent where it fails miserably to make us all take note.
So, again, I do say let's increase security since, according to most reports, our port security methods do need to be ramped up. So considering our security efforts are somewhat lacking anyway, why would we even put ourself in what could be a tenuous situation?
I'm open to reasonable arguments on allowing foreign companies the ability to manage the ports - and you make some good ones Xon - but I still say if we're serious about security, then let's postpone the deal until we enhance and/or overhaul our port security methods.
Well, given that these ports are heavily dominated by union labor, good luck getting any real "ramped up" security protocols put in place. But I digress...
I'm not sure how this issue can be resolved. The two positions are utterly inconistent, and both can be reasonable. I am genuinely surprised, though, that so many seem to be falling on one side of the fence, instead of a more even distribution of opinions.
Post a Comment
<< Home