Rep Fosella: Fossella urged congressional hearings on the deal. "At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism."

Sen Chris Dodd (D-CT): ''Our ports are major potential terrorist targets," said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut. ''I strongly urge the administration to thoroughly investigate this acquisition."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): ''Handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror."

Rep Peter King (R-NY), House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, speaking of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) stated that "I am not convinced that the system that's used is satisfactory in a post-9/11 world. They just seem to do an analysis of what's known about the company -- is there anything known showing that they're a threat?" said King, who met with Baker and other administration officials yesterday. "To me, much more of an investigation is required. If someone was nominated for a sub-Cabinet post in this administration, they would get far more scrutiny than this company, which will be running major ports in this country."

Though it is staunchly defending the deal, the Bush Administration seems to have been caught off-guard both by resistance to the DPW take-over, if not by the bi-partisan nature of it:

Taken aback by the uproar, administration officials defended approval of the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a panel with representatives from 12 U.S. agencies that reviews foreign takeovers of U.S. companies or possible risks to national security.

"This company will be subject to any U.S. laws that apply to port security, and will be obliged to have a port security plan that we will review," Stewart A. Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said in a phone interview. "So if there's a falloff in compliance on security here in the United States, we're not completely lacking in ability to respond to that."

"We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures," Baker said. "Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a U.S. port, we've already lost. So we do a lot of screening abroad, and our general experience with this company has been positive."

Commentary

A few important themese emerge here. Recall that the the six cities where ports are to be controlled by DPW are New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. No surprise then that lawmakers whose states are home to or neighbor those cities are leading the charge.

Also worthy of note is Sen. Schumer's lame attempt to resurrect the even lamer anti-outsourcing rhetoric that faired so poorly in Kerry's 2004 failed presidential bid. I have a feeling it won't serve the Democratic party any better in this situation, not will it help underscore the important issues surrounding this deal.

One more thing about the outsourcing rhetoric I might add is this: I know who is partial to it and who thinks their interests are served by it the International Longshore and Warehouse Union...

John Kerry, ILWU’s choice for president: Kerry is very concerned about the outsourcing of American jobs. He has vowed to stop tax breaks to companies that send American jobs overseas and create tax incentives to keep good jobs at home. Kerry also advocates denying government contracts to companies that move offshore. The American labor movement, and the ILWU in particular, cannot survive another four years of George W. Bush and his band of megalomaniac advisors.

...and the AFL-CIO affiliated International Longshoremen's Association who is on record with its concerns about the impact of port security issues on its membership:

House Debates Port Security Issues (Summer 2002): While the ILA is fully on board in support of security measures to protect our ports against attacks by terrorists, we continue to insist those actions not infringe upon the individual liberties and privacy of our members.

" (Stephen) Flynn (maritime security analyst at New York-based Council on Foreign Relations) and others said even under foreign control, U.S. ports will continue to be run by unionized American employees. "You're not going have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks," Flynn said. "They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs. Most of them are Archie Bunker-kind of Americans."

Well Flynn has got that one right. There is no way in the world Archie Bunker has to worry about losing his job to Abu Bakr, Abu Bilal or Abu Anybody. One thing you quickly learn when moving to the UAE is that the nationals don't do the tough manual labor. What Archie Bunker might have to worry about is that DPW might not be as easy to negotiate with when contract renewal time comes around. But that's the nature of business and for that the unions have many options at their disposal

All this leaves me with the distinct impression that the US lawmakers aren't aware of how dependable an ally they have in the UAE. Call me cynical but my hunch is that the all-of-a-sudden concern about an Arab company running the ports is less out of bi-partisan concern over national security and more motivated by other factors. On the left-side we have lawmakers beholden to longshore unions and looking, as always, to score cheap political points against the President.

On the right are lawmakers holding grudges about who did and didn't do what in the period before and immediately after 9/11, who discount to heavily the current cooperation that is now being rendered, and who are, perhaps, a bit unnerved about the Mohammed cartoon-Danish boycott controversy. What both groups should recognize is that this hardly the time to be decreasing economic ties with any of the few friends we have in the region and putting at risk the prospect of further political and economic cooperation at time when it is most needed.

My other hunch is that someone is going to explain it all to the lawmakers pretty soon and that this story will blow over rather quickly. This is not the stuff of which a "gritty film-noir" or even a Michael Moore documentary is made.

Update I: One of my American University of Sharjah students, Nazia Moghul, who was raised in Dubai, has some thoughts about the P&O deal. You can find them on here blog, A Guiding Star.

Tags: uae | Dubai | united arab emirates |
cfius |

Links: Best of Me Symphony #136 | Conservative Cat | Rhymes with Right | The Liberal Wrong Wing | Bacon Bits | VotesWagon | Jo's Cafe | The Right Track | 3rd World County | Adam's Blog | Bloggin Out Loud | Blue Star Chronicles | Everyman Chronicles | Uncooperative Blogger | Freedom Watch | Samantha Burns | Gribbit | Don Surber |