Bush administration proposes farming out port security to dangerous Chinese firm

Back in February 2006 AD, president Bush ignited a firestorm of criticism when he approved the sale of several US port operations to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In spite of the fact that the UAE is a longstanding and firm ally of our country, public outrage over turning over much of our port security to an Arab entity quashed the deal. It was shabby treatment of a friendly country, but it is a good idea to keep our port security in domestic hands.

It would be natural for Americans to expect that this experience combined with his historically low approval rating would make the president wary of public opinion concerning port security. No such luck. This president seems determined to risk all – national security and sovereignty, even his own popularity and that of his political party – to gratify his commitment to internationalism. Meddling in the affairs of other nations isn't enough for Mr. Bush; he has to invite them to meddle in ours as well.

The latest example of the administration's apparent national security death wish is the president's proposal of a company to screen cargo bound for the US for nuclear devices and materials at the Freeport Container Terminal in the Bahamas. If Mr. Bush has his way, this exclusive concession would go to the Communist Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa. This is the same company that controls shipping through the Panama Canal. The government of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) has a history of using facilities of companies owned by its citizens to support its military. Hutchison would be no exception.

What risks are associated with using Hutchison and the PRC to fulfill a vital national security role for the US? In a hearing before the US Senate on Hutchison's control of the Panama Canal, the late Admiral Thomas Moorer (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) made it clear that he regarded Hutchison as an arm of the PRC's army, the PLA. PLA leaders have threatened to nuke the US west coast if we intervene to save our ally the Republic of China on Taiwan in the event of a PRC invasion. The PLA has forced down a US reconnaissance aircraft over international waters. Perhaps most revealing of all, here is a quote from one of my own columns shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks:

"For example, immediately after September 11 Beijing Television produced a 'documentary' called Attack America. It alternates between views of Godzilla reaping destruction in New York, and scenes from the terrorist attacks. The narrator makes the point pretty clear: 'This is the America the whole world has wanted to see. Blood debts have been repaid in blood. America has bombed other countries and used its hegemony to deny the natural rights of others without paying the price. Who until now has dared to avenge the hurts inflicted by unaccountable Americans?'"

In short, the PRC is still a mortal enemy of our country. Why would we want to trust them to ensure that no nuclear weapons or materials are shipped into our territory through the Bahamas? They are more likely to introduce such contraband than to screen it out.

I'm sorry to have to say that this action of President Bush goes beyond stupidity and into the realm of treason. I believe that it is an impeachable offense; even more so, in fact, than the apparent bribery and other crimes of the previous president.

Americans should be outraged at this proposal. They should demand that Congress prohibit the use of foreign entities, especially strategic enemies such as the PRC, to perform national security roles. Congress should investigate this proposal and consider impeaching the president who made it.