These are very sound arguments and ones I find very persuasive, but after digging into the issue more I think the whole affair is more complicated than it seems. ThinkProgress has some great stuff on this issue as well. First, it seems as though our great ally, the UAE, may have been meeting with Bin Laden as late as 1999. Certainly the UAE has been a great ally of late but we have to be incredibly suspect of the any goverment that has been willing to take any meetings with Bin Laden in the last 10 years. By 1999 it was well known in the international community that Bin Laden was no good. This hardly qualifies the UAE as above the fray of Middle Eastern countries that put up blinders when dealing with known terrorists and it certainly doesn’t seem to support the idea that the UAE is an ally we can count on without question. Again, this doesn’t put the UAE in bed with terrorists but it cetainly should have us pause and question whether the country’s latest stand is on terrorism has more to do with money than a firm disagreement with ideology.
The second complication in this matter is whether the United States conducted the investigation within the bounds of the law. The applicable statute, amended in 1993, requires a mandatory 45 day investigation into this type of sale after the initial 30 day investigation. Here is what the law says:
Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the “Exon-Florio provision”) to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
(1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
(2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security.
Certainly both subsections 1 and 2 apply and therefore further investigation needs to happen. The Bush Administration has offered no reason as to why the second investigation has not occurred.
I agree with the sentiment that is starting to spread that we might be too quick to judge this deal because an Arab country and company are involved. However, the reality is we are currently engaged in a very deadly war in the Middle Eastern region, many countries in that region, including the UAE, have long histories of supporting or at least being neutral to terrorists. If the Bush Administration conducts a full investigation, as required by law, and finds no reason to deny the contract other than the fact that the home office is in Dubai then wholeheartedly agree with those pushing for the deal to continue. However, it is naive to think that those managing ports have nothing whatsoever to do with security. At the very minimum they will have intimate knowledge of the security operations and in a system that is already vulernable. If we proceed with caution and the appropriate degree of scrutiny now we won’t be complaining about connecting the dots later.
