Foreign Control of U.S. Port Terminals, Feb. 22, 2006 · U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have balked at a deal to give DP World, a state-owned firm in Dubai, control over several U.S. port terminal operations. Citing national security concerns, some Democratic and Republican members of Congress are pushing for legislation to delay the deal. President Bush supports the deal and says he will veto any attempt to block it. Read a sampling of opinion on the growing controversy:


Port Security Humbug

Washington Post Editorial Board

The Washington Post

February 21, 2006

Finally, we're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of 'democracy promotion' in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States?

Much Ado over DP World

Mohammed A. R. Galadari

The Khaleej Times (Dubai, U.A.E.)

February 20, 2006

If security is the issue, what no one is explaining is that DP World or Dubai will have nothing at all to do with security aspects at these ports. It is a commercial deal, pure and simple. The works that the Dubai firm would do are in respect of management of the facilities in the US ports, among others around the globe. It has nothing to do with security. Security will be America's own job at those ports.

Ports' Security in Whose Hands?

by Cal Thomas (syndicated columnist)

The Miami Herald

February 22, 2006

The obvious question is: If it is dangerous for an Australian to travel to the UAE because of terrorism, isnít it even more dangerous for a company owned by UAE to own the rights to American ports where terror might be directly, or indirectly, imported?

Ports in a Storm

Baltimore Sun Editorial Board

The Baltimore Sun

February 21, 2006

Potentially lost in this uproar is a clear understanding of what a stevedoring firm such as P&O does. For the record, its employees do not touch cargo. They aren't in charge of port security. They do not oversee shipping manifests. Stevedores are the middle managers who tell longshoremen when and where to unload cargo. That's pretty much it. In Baltimore, P&O employees are local people, most with extensive port experience, who help manage container operations at the Seagirt and, to a lesser extent, Dundalk marine terminals.

The President and the Ports

New York Times Editorial Board

The New York Times

February 22, 2006

The Bush administration has followed a disturbing pattern in its approach to the war on terror. It has been perpetually willing to sacrifice individual rights in favor of security. But it has been loath to do the same thing when it comes to business interests.

Bush Must Say No to Ports Deal

by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) in

The Philadelphia Inquirer

February 22, 2006

If our ports are not protected, then, truthfully, neither are we. While the United Arab Emirates has been an ally over the last few years, it certainly has ties to Islamic fascism, and trusting that it will remain on our side in the war on terror is not a risk that I am willing to take.


Letters to the Editor: We'd like to know what you think about the commentaries on this page. Send us your thoughts. Please include your full name and hometown.



E-mail this pagePrint this page

About Differences of Opinion

Read a sampling of opinions from U.S. publications about issues of the day.


Questions & Comments:

Send us your thoughts. »


NPR thanks our sponsors

Become an NPR sponsor

Browse Topics



PBS logo