Security Concerns, Political Considerations
By Mark R. Levin

I have to address another knee-jerk defender talking point that I thought was so obviously flawed it didn’t require a response. Yes, the UAE is our ally now in the war on terrorism. For that we are grateful. And there are many ways to reward such support short of running various aspects of certain U.S. ports. I note that Joseph Stalin was our ally during WWII. Nonetheless, I can’t imagine FDR would have agreed to allow Stalin to have anything to do with our domestic ports in recognition of our alliance. Great Britain was also our ally during WWII. It’s our ally today. It was our ally before WWII. It was our ally before and after 9/11. So, of course there’s no objection to a private British company, with a long and solid record of operating ports, operating U.S. terminals/ports.

The truth is that we still know precious little about the security arrangements in this deal. The administration says the Coast Guard and Customs, not the UAE, will handle security; the administration also says that the UAE-run company has agreed to enhanced security requirements. Maybe the knee-jerk defenders can sort this out for the rest of us since it makes no sense to me. What we do know is that according to the deputy secretary of the Treasury, the truncated secret committee review did not include a national-security investigation, which he argued was “discretionary.”

My hope is that Congress, the administration, and the UAE will agree to much enhanced security requirements (i.e., something more than leaving it up to the Coast Guard and Customs) and greater control over the company’s operations by U.S. personnel along the lines that my friend Michael Ledeen suggests on The Corner. Congress must also change its own pre-9/11 law which created this situation in the first place. It must overhaul the secret process it set-up to approve such deals, at least where national security assets are involved in foreign purchases. No, Congress should not undertake executive branch functions. Besides, there are simply too many demagogues in Congress to make such a direct congressional review workable. But Congress, in consultation with the president, could create the equivalent of an SEC, but with a security expertise. And there can certainly be more public transparency in the review process without revealing a foreign company’s critical proprietary information. It’s done everyday where U.S. companies purchase U.S. companies. If these improvements are made, they won’t be thanks to the knee-jerk defenders of the current secret deal, who arrogantly claim to know more than the rest of us when, in fact, they, like the detractors, know very little.

I don’t much care what the anti-Patriot Act, anti-NSA intercept program, anti-military tribunals, anti-detention Left — i.e., the likes of Chuck Schumer — think about any of this, nor should the president. They’re motivated by politics, their hate for the president, and pressure from union bosses. I don’t much care what the isolationists think about any of this, nor should the president. You can begin to see some movement by the administration and certain members of Congress toward some kind of resolution. But there are legitimate issues and serious concerns shared by a large majority of Americans that must be effectively addressed. And if they’re not, then the deal will likely die, and should.