The recent announcement that an Arab company, Dubai Ports World (DP), is scheduled to gain control of 18 US ports has ignited a furor on Capitol Hill. Critics of the deal accuse the President of sacrificing domestic security; President Bush has accused the critics of lightly veiled racism.

The vast majority of US ports are owned by foreign companies. The US Coast Guard and Customs maintain control of security issues, but allow more established shipping companies to control the administrative details. Most countries outsource management of ports, which includes the movement of ships, cargo, and money, to reputable companies. The recent deal that will soon give DP the lease and management duties of ports is not specific to the US; DP recently bought the British owned Peninsular and Oriental Stream Navigation Company, for $7 billion, and will take control of all their many ports throughout the world.

The debate that has ensued is one of the most nuanced and bipartisan to occur recently. The debaters are not simply falling into line - many Republicans and Democrats are opposing members of their own party. Many high profile Republicans, such as Bill Frist (R-TN) and Dennis Hasert (R-Ill), usually staunch Bush supporters, have come out in strong opposition to the deal. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) have proposed a bill that would ban all foreign management of ports. But some high profile publications, such as The Economist, and the Los Angeles Times, have announced their support for the transfer.

Opponents cite the problem of security as their main concern. While Dubai and the United Arab Emirates have been an ally of the US, the UAE produced two of the 9/11 terrorists, and has funded known terrorist groups. While the state-owned DP will have control only of the management of the ports, many are afraid that items intended for terrorism may more easily pass through the already permeable borders.

Supporters counter this concern by reemphasizing that total control of security is held by the US. Granted, security at the ports has always been very shallow – a very small minority of the massive amount of goods are scanned. All agree that the inspections must become more thorough. Supporters also accuse the opponents of pan-Arab racism, and maintain that the US needs an ally in the Muslim world, and should not send another arguably anti-Arab message to the world by declining the deal.

President Bush has already announced that he will veto any bills that will blockade the passage of this deal. But 67% of polled Americans, as well as many members of his Congress, have stated their opposition. It is yet to be seen whose opinion will lean towards a compromise.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on March 2, 2006