March 23, 2006 Issue                                               

©2006 The Chestnut Hill Local

Opinion

Who pays the cost of port security?
by JIM FOSTER

The information explosion arising from the announced United Arab Emirates purchase of American Port facilities was long overdue. Security experts and politicians of all stripes have been hiding from the port security issue since 9/11 and unfortunately the mainstream press has helped them by avoiding expanded investigation into an issue of clear vulnerability.

Ratcheting up airport security, while necessary now, presumes the world terror network is a one-trick-pony; but we know differently. Madrid, London and elsewhere have already confirmed that, as well as the little-known fact that Al-Quiada owns a number of merchant ships that are false flagged through other third world countries.

A wealth of information regarding international shipping methods, port ownership, logistics and security measures (or lack of them) will be detailed on news channels, press reports and downloaded across this country for the next several weeks as the Dubai deal has become the trip wire. It has opened a Pandora’s Box of shortcomings and set off reactionary political behavior, but it was way overdue

The larger question is not when are we going to inspect every container that is destined for our shores, but who is going to pay for that inspection and all related costs to maintain security on international commercial transactions? My conclusion is that there is only one answer: All costs related to doing business in the United States must be borne by the company benefiting from the sale. Not one dime of taxpayer dollars should fund this inspection process, as those would be direct subsidies to selected companies and individuals.

Guaranteeing the security of shipments to this country is now a cost of doing business in the post 911 world and must be included in some form of direct tariff to that effect that accompanies each container we receive. Of course explaining that to the citizenry has been something no businessman or politician wanted to touch as everyone knows that will raise the cost of consumer goods and have an inflationary effect. You can’t buy votes with inflation, but charging the taxpayers for the multi-billion dollar outlay to upgrade the Coast Guard and customs process is completely unjustified, and we should have this issue resolved right now while it is front and center. Of course, spreading the costs through new taxation to all Americans has the same inflationary effect, but is clearly unfair redistribution.

Arguing that it will be far too expensive to follow the individual inspection process begs the question; it is the only fair and responsible solution. We existed as a country with much more stringent regulations on international trade itself and with critical scrutiny of international monetary exchanges; something now largely abandoned. If analysis of those additional costs, along with production in a foreign location, brings a company to the conclusion that it is cheaper to make it here and sell it here, that is 21st century reality. Welcome to the level playing field.