US wants to re-possess foreign-owned terminals

Is their response xenophobic?
TERRY HUTSON
HAVING SUCCEEDED in repelling Arab interests (in the form of DP World) from taking over six American ports, US legislators now want to dispossess other foreign-owned port operators. A week after DP World threw in the towel and said it would sell its American interests, an influential US legislator announced he intended introducing another bill forcing all foreign owners of American port operations to sell up and go within five years. David Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wants a bill listing all military and non-military entities as ‘key points’ critical to the national defence. Port terminals fall under this category and if the law is passed these entities may only be owned and operated by genuine US companies. Critics have described the US reaction to the sale of six terminals as nothing less than xenophobic and hypocritical while Arab observers have noted that President Bush hasn’t lived up to his promise of vetoing any legislation. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius referred to the matter as “the great congressional mobilisation to save America’s ports from the dreaded hand of Dubai.” ”And the idea that by purchasing the British company that has been managing six US ports, Dubai Ports World is somehow opening the door to terrorism is, frankly, racist,” he wrote. “The worst thing that could happen to the United States, paradoxically, would be for Arab and other foreign investors to take us at our xenophobic word and decide that America doesn’t really want foreign investment. If they pulled out their money, US financial markets would plummet in a crash that might make 1929 look like a sleigh ride.” Other American critics point out that when US protectionism cannot be secured by economic argument, it suddenly becomes justified on national security lines.