There has been a lot of talk, lately, about the security of our ports, as a Dubai-based company is soon to gain control of certain aspects of our container shipping and receiving structure. Concerns about foreign control of these shipping terminals seems rather late, as foreign control is exactly what we've had for years. What's happening is that the British company that has controlled the terminals is being purchased by a company based in Dubai. We're just seeing a transfer of control to a company in another country. More reasonable fears seem to be based in the fact that the company gaining control is in a Middle-Eastern country with potential ties to terrorism. Perhaps these ties are less potential and more actual.
Many of the ports from which containers may be shipped to our shores are already controlled by this Dubai-based company. I believe this is a long-term economic strategy on the part of Dubai to increase its non-oil income. This is a necessary step, as Dubai expects to run out of oil in the next 10 years. Dubai has been taking many steps to replace its oil income, spending billions to create a worldwide economic center and tourist destination. Many world-class hotels have been built, and some other amazing landmarks are being created, as well. Aside from the economic center, they are building a series of huge theme parks, archipelagos in the shape of huge palm trees and even one called The World. Dubai may well be the major tourist destination of the 21st Century.
The major question of the port deal is whether Dubai's control of the container shipping aspects of some of our major ports poses a major strategic threat to America. I do not believe this to be the case. I believe quite the opposite, that having Dubai involved in a major link of our economic chain actually increases our security.
Economics is the key to this analysis. Let's take a look at the feared threats in a bit more detail.
One fear is that having foreign control could have an adverse economic impact on the United States. I do not believe this to be the case. Whichever company controls the container shipping terminals in our ports, that company will create its income by processing ships full of cargo that arrive at, and leave those ports. In order to have a greater income, ships must be processed. Containers must be unloaded from arriving ships and their contents routed to rail and truck services for transport elsewhere in our country. Containers from within our country must be brought in by rail and truck, loaded on ships, and sent elsewhere in the world. That's the business being done at these terminals. Each container processed, and each ship docked, holds a specific dollar value of income for the company involved.
In order for this company to use their control of the ports to damage our economy, they would have to slow the processing of ships and containers. Dubai, in their transitional economic state, isn't trying to reduce their own income in order to hurt the rest of the world. In fact, they're trying to enhance the incomes of the rest of the world to create more customers for their own finance and tourist economy that they are building. It is in the best interest of Dubai to help America improve its own economy, because they can see front-end profits at the shipping terminals, and back-end profits at their theme parks as Americans gain more disposable income.
Why, then, would Dubai want to leverage their control over our ports to reduce the activity at those ports? It makes no sense. Dubai isn't becoming our economic adversary with this move. Instead, they are taking a direct step to make themselves America's economic ally. We could use a few more of those.
Another major fear is that Dubai, through its control of our container shipping facilities at these six major ports, could make us more vulnerable to terrorist threats. I'm not sure that this fear is well-founded, either.
Theoretically, the controlling company of the terminal could allow containers with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to enter America. These weapons, in the hands of terrorists, could be used against a variety of targets. Major targets would be governmental and economic sites. On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked both types of sites. Of those two, the more effective attack was on the economic location of the World Trade Center. For months after the attack, the US economy struggled to rebuild. The damage was done to our financial center, with collateral damage to our manufacturing base, personal incomes and employment.
One major economic target would be the ports themselves. Obviously, an attack on one of the major ports would do serious damage to the ability of the controlling corporation to make an income at that port. To attack one of those major ports would be to damage the economic state of Dubai itself. As self-destructive as Islam is, I doubt that Dubai is interested in cutting its own economic throat by allowing major destruction to its own economic assets. As a side-effect of such an attack, Dubai would likely lose control of other major US ports, as well as major ports it controls in other countries. This would not be a smart move.
So, we can assume that any weapons allowed into our country would not be destined for one of the major ports.
A nuclear weapon brought in through one of these ports may be used on a major city. New York would have to be marked off the list of potential targets, as Manhattan (the obvious target) would allow the blast radius to do great damage to the port in question. Likewise, attacks on the cities hosting the other five major ports would cause damage to the ports in question. An attack on Washington, DC would make more sense from a strategic standpoint. There again, though, some factors must be taken into account. For once, the attack would have to have a near perfect chance to succeed to be allowed. Any failure to detonate the weapon successfully would probably result in an investigation taking place, and the source port of the container would quickly be traced. The resulting scrutiny would probably result in a change of control over the port, and thus the loss of income for Dubai.
Chemical or biological weapons, unlike nuclear, do not vaporise themselves and their surroundings when used. Even if used successfully, the after-effect would include investigation, and the probable loss of control over the ports. Again, I don't believe Dubai wants to slit its own economic throat in this way.
No, I believe Dubai has an interest in making sure that NO NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) weapons make it through their ports. This is why they would cooperate with officials in ensuring that all containers entering our country go through already-existing controls and audits designed to prevent their use as weapons-transport.
In addition to the above, Dubai knows that a major attack on US soil will have adverse impact on the US economy. Such adversity would result in reductions in exports, as the manufacturing base takes a jolt. Likewise, imports would be harmed as personal incomes dipped and the need for imported goods reduced. Reductions in manufacturing means reductions in imported raw materials, as well. Such reductions will reduce the loads on the ports, and reduce the income to Dubai. On the back end, a hurting US economy means much less international travel, especially to tourist destination.
We are on the cusp of a major coup in international relations. By allowing this transfer of ownership to continue, we have the chance to turn the United Arab Emirates into a major economic ally of the United States. I think this is a good idea.
The long-term implications of such an economic alliance are great. In Middle-Eastern politics, UAE would be forced to argue against support of terrorist attacks on the United States. In order to safeguard their own economic well-being as their oil-based income dries up, UAE would become an example of how cooporation with the United States and the Western world is in the best interest of other Middle-Eastern states. As time passes, and UAE reaps the economic benefits of our alliance, other states would be forced to either stand with them and join the greater economic world, or fight them and invite the judgement of the rest of the world.
In the end, the rest of the Middle-Eastern and Islamic world will be forced to choose. Will they see this economic divide and follow the UAE to prosperity and membership in the greater world society, or will they divide the Middle-East against itself and weaken themselves?
Either way, the United States and the greater peaceful world benefits.
Thoughts?