The Unions, the Senators, and the Ports
Several days ago, in a post entitled Port Authority, I opined that the influence of labor unions accounted for the sudden and dramatic concern of New York and New Jersey senators for port security:
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.
No surprise then that today I found an article from the New York area paper, NewsDay, entitled "Senators, teamsters and longshoremen protest port takeover by Arab company". The article begins as follows:
About 200 teamsters and longshoremen joined three U.S. senators at Port Newark to protest the sale of some American port operations to a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates. New Jersey's two U.S. senators, Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said the deal would compromise the safety of the United States and port workers.
The first of the those two sentences is, it seems, factual. The second, however, is remarkable - remarkable both for its duplicity and mendacity. It is duplicitous because decieves by pretending to entertain one set of intentions while acting under the influence of another. That only three elected officials who could bother to show up were Democrats underscores the nakedly partisan agenda of the ones who did- to undercut the credibility of the President on national security, an act which in and of itself jeopardizes national security.
The sentence is mendacious because of its last three words- and port workers. Although I don't believe that Dubai Ports World represents a threat of any kind to national security, I don't mind that many people feel they need reassuring on this. But how is it that the security of port workers is compromised? Do the senators and the dock workers really believe they have something to fear from DPWs takeover? Unfortunately the senators never tells us. Instead they merely rehash the "the Dubai deal is bad for the national security" meme, and unconvincingly at that.
"Our message is very clear, that the ports of the United States are part of the critical infrastructure that are a big part of security and they should not be in the operational hands of a foreign government," Menendez said.Schumer said he plans to introduce legislation Monday to block the deal pending the 45-day review and to require congressional approval before DP World can conduct business in the United States.
Lautenberg said he would introduce legislation this week that would require the Department of Homeland Security to review changes of ownership of a terminal operator within a port of the United States for security problems. "Don't let them tell you that it's just a transfer of title. Baloney," Lautenberg said. "We wouldn't transfer the title to the devil, and we're not going to transfer it to Dubai."
Even more telling, though much less demagogic, were remarks by Harold Daggett, president of a local longshoremen's union, who evinced his concern for the security of the containers. Showing that he has mastered the obvious, he added "You can't check every one of them." When, Harold, was this not the case and how, Harold, will this change if DPW takes over the ports of Newark? Is it your opinion that the deal with DPW should be held up or cancelled because every container coming through the port can't be inspected? And, finally, how does any of that affect your safety as a longshoremen?
The only answer I can see is that a phrase was elided from the second sentence of the first paragraph. Although it reads this way:
New Jersey's two U.S. senators, Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said the deal would compromise the safety of the United States and port workers.
Maybe it is supposed to read this way:
New Jersey's two U.S. senators, Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said the deal would compromise the safety of the United States and [job security of] port workers.
Or maybe, just maybe, "safety" was used in place of "job security" and "senators" was elided. If so, the sentence was supposed to have read this way:
New Jersey's two U.S. senators, Democrats Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer D-N.Y., said the deal would compromise the [job security] of the United States [senators] and port workers.
If so, then we have a perfect alignment of interests among familiar bedfellows. And there's no surprise at all in that. There is one lingering question however: Where was Senator Clinton (D-NY)?
See also: Port Authority and Port Authority II: Torrents of Arabia
Update: The Jawa Report has an interesting post aksing what Senator Hillary Clinton knew about the involvement of her husband, ex-President Bill Clinton's involvement in the Dubai Ports World deal and when she knew it.
Tags: Tags: uae | Dubai | united arab emirates |
cfius | dubai ports
Links: Don Surber | Conservative Cat | Outside the Beltway | Blue Star Chronicles | Adam's Blog | The Liberal Wrong Wing | Third World Country | Freedom Watch | Jo's Cafe | Basil's Blog | Carnival of the Trackbacks 53 |
Comments
http://www.nscsaamerica.com/marine_term.htm
That is a list of ports with terminals already being operated by Saudi Arabia, including one at Port Newark.
Posted by: B Moe | March 4, 2006 8:10 PM
It beggars belief that unions would argue that the deal compromises security when union workers have generally been against the type of automation that would improve security and allow better checking of containers. That and union actions shutting down ports have caused measurable economic damage.
Posted by: myrick | March 2, 2006 7:38 AM