The controversy over the proposed sale of U.S. port facilities to a government-owned company of the United Arab Emirates was, in large part, political theater. The deal was a gift issue in election season: It allowed members of Congress to demonstrate their commitment to U.S. security and U.S. jobs. Theatrics notwithstanding, the fracas has highlighted the vital role that ports play in commerce and the protectionist impulses that still hamper completely free and fair trade. On Thursday, the Dubai company said it would pull out of the ports' deal.
Last month's announcement that D.P. World, a company owned by the UAE government, would buy six U.S. port facilities unleashed a political firestorm in the United States. Critics first charged that foreigners should not control vital U.S. infrastructure. When it was pointed out that D.P. World was buying from a British-owned company, the focus of complaints shifted to D.P. World's owners, a government that has been accused of turning a blind eye to terrorist activity. Critics argued that the new owners would not be as vigilant as its predecessors, or as a U.S.-owned company would be.
Since any owner, while running the port, would have to not only comply with U.S. laws and regulations but also subject itself to oversight by U.S. authorities, the security argument does not make sense. In fact, the contretemps is best explained as Congress' attempt to make political hay ahead of midterm elections next fall. For Democrats, the deal was a chance to outflank a president who has relentlessly -- and with great success -- used the national security club to beat them down since Sept. 11, 2001. For Republicans, the deal was an opportunity to distance themselves from a president whose popularity ratings are plunging.