[Mb-civic] A Port In the Storm over Dubai

[Michael Butler]

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

February 28, 2006
Op-Ed Contributors
A Port in the Storm Over Dubai
By STEPHEN E. FLYNN and JAMES M. LOY

THE political firestorm surrounding the takeover of five American container
terminals by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates company, is a
political distraction, but in many ways a welcome one. Americans are finally
taking port security seriously.

Ports are the on- and offramps to global markets, and they belong to a
worldwide system operated by many different private and public entities.
Since the United States cannot own and control all of that system, we must
work with our trade partners and foreign companies to ensure its security. A
major step in that direction would be to construct a comprehensive global
container inspection system that scans the contents of every single
container destined for America's waterfront before it leaves a port ‹ rather
than scanning just the tiny percentage we do now.

This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Since January 2005, every container
entering the truck gates of two of the world's busiest container terminals,
in Hong Kong, has passed through scanning and radiation detection devices.
Images of the containers' contents are then stored on computers so that they
can be scrutinized by American or other customs authorities almost in real
time. Customs inspectors can then issue orders not to load a container that
worries them.

The Department of Homeland Security has greeted this private-sector
initiative with only tepid interest. But the Dubai deal provides an
opportunity to adopt a system like the one in Hong Kong globally. Washington
should embrace Dubai Ports World's offer to provide additional guarantees to
protect the five American terminals it wants to run. The company should
agree to install scanning and radiation detection equipment at the entry
gates of its 41 terminals in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, North America
and South America within the next two years.

By making this commitment, the company could address head-on the anxiety of
American lawmakers, governors and port city mayors that is fueling the
uproar. The 45-day review period that has recently been agreed upon provides
the breathing room to work out the details. Congress and the White House
should appropriate the necessary funds to allay the concerns of the severely
strained Customs and Border Protection agency, which, burdened by old and
frail information systems, may worry that it can't tap the revolutionary
potential of such a comprehensive inspection approach.

Hutchison Port Holdings, a Hong Kong-based company that is the world's
largest container terminal operator, would probably join Dubai Ports World
in putting Hong Kong-style inspection systems in place within its 42 ports.
Hutchison's chief executive, John Meredith, is an outspoken advocate for
improving container security and has championed the Hong Kong pilot program,
which runs in one of its terminals.

Hutchison Port Holdings along with PSA Singapore Terminals, Dubai Ports
World and Denmark's APM Terminals handle nearly eight out of every 10
containers destined for the United States. If they agreed to impose a common
security fee of roughly $20 per container, similar to what passengers are
now used to paying when they purchase airline tickets, they could recover
the cost of installing and operating this system worldwide. This, in turn,
would furnish a powerful deterrent for terrorists who might be tempted to
convert the ubiquitous cargo container into a poor man's missile.

There is already a bipartisan bill that the White House and Congress could
embrace to advance this effort. The GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security bill,
co-sponsored by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Patty
Murray, Democrat of Washington, provides incentives for American importers
to accept the modest fees associated with a global container inspection
system. The bill would also establish minimum security standards and
encourages the tracking and monitoring of containers throughout the supply
chain.

Moreover, it would create joint operations centers within American ports to
ensure that, should there be a terrorist incident or a heightened level of
threat, the ports will respond in a coordinated, measured way that will
allow the flow of commerce to resume when appropriate.

A global regime for container security will require oversight. Congress
should require that the security plans developed by importers be
independently audited. It should also provide the Department of Homeland
Security with adequate Customs and Coast Guard inspectors to audit these
auditors. Today Customs has only 80 inspectors to monitor the compliance of
the 5,800 importers who have vowed to secure their goods as they travel from
factories to ship terminals. To assess worldwide compliance with the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, the Coast Guard has just
20 inspectors ‹ roughly the size of the average passenger screening team at
an airport security checkpoint.

Congress and the White House should step back from the brink of political
fratricide over the Dubai deal. Certainly it is necessary and appropriate to
closely examine any transaction that involves a foreign government having an
ownership interest in critical United States assets. But the 45-day security
review will provide a chance to work through those issues.

At the end of the day, America's port security challenge is not about who is
in charge of our waterfront. The real issue is that we are relying on
commercial companies largely to police themselves. Both Congress and the
White House should embrace a framework of "trust but verify," in President
Ronald Reagan's phrase, based on real standards and real oversight. When it
comes to the flow of goods around the planet, we need to know what's in the
box.

Stephen E. Flynn is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and
a retired Coast Guard officer. James M. Loy is a former deputy secretary of
homeland security and commandant of the Coast Guard.

    * Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
    * Home
    * Privacy Policy
    * Search
    * Corrections
    * XML
    * Help
    * Contact Us
    * Work for Us
    * Site Map
    * Back to Top