These channels were following up on the calls made by the New York Senator Hillary Clinton and some others for Congressional intervention to stall the deal. These Senators want the matter reviewed and decided by a bipartisan committee. At another level, some of those who lost their family members in the Sept 11 incidents are also being prompted to move court with a view to obtaining a legal stay and block the deal. Some company in Miami is also taking legal recourse to keep the Dubai firm off the US.

TV anchormen, being journalists themselves, should know everything about the talk they are hosting. It will not do if they bring in experts from both sides for the debates. One expert says the US should not allow this, while another expert says, "There's nothing wrong, go ahead". But, those who guide the discussion must take the discussion on the right track. But, the problem in this case was that truth was not being projected.

For, 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.

To DP World's credit, there are no two opinions about the competence of the UAE firm to undertake a vast global operation of this kind. "It could be perfectly qualified to operate the ports around the world", admits none other than Senator Chuck Schumer, who was among the first to raise concerns over the DP World forays into the US shores. Those concerns are, he says, based (only) on matters of US internal security.

The problem, prima facie, is that the Senators and others who are raising a hue and cry over the Dubai moves are, deliberately or otherwise, confusing people about the role of an international port operator like DP World. They do so by ignoring the fact that matters of security at these ports will be firmly in the hands of the US security personnel and US systems.

The US is not new to such situations. It is one country where airports are operated-and operated efficiently-by private companies, taking advantage of the good entrepreneurial climate there. Also, take the case of international airlines. British Airways has its own terminals at the US airports to conduct its operations like loading and unloading the passengers, crew and material. Or, Air France, for that matter. But, in all those terminals, the American systems and personnel are taking care of security, customs and immigration-related jobs; not the British or French systems or personnel. Commerce is commerce; it is divorced from security aspects.

That's why I do not understand what this noise is all about. Some of those who participated in TV shows go as far as to say that the Dubai firm must be kept away on the ground that one or two of the Sept-11 accused had had some links to this part of the world. And, the anchorman goes a step further and says the Congress would block the deal. He should know what he is taking about.

Talk show participants are free to air their views. Ideas must clash; the more they clash, the better for viewer interest. There were strong voices for and against the DP World foray. Even in such shows, one must however talk logically. It should be the job of the anchorman to guide the discussions to logical conclusions. He should not be biased and must even correct wrong perceptions. He, more than the participants, must be matter-of-fact. But, what I have noticed in these discussions in the past few days is that anchormen are not helping guide the discussions on the right lines. Also, there was no difference between them and the guest speakers. They do the same: take stands that might appear to be biased.

Dear readers, I am however enthused at the way there is so much talk in America and the media there about Dubai and the UAE. Twenty years ago, when I talked to people there, no one knew where Dubai or the UAE was. When I said it was in the Gulf, they asked me whether I meant the Gulf of Mexico? And, now everyone there wants to talk about Dubai and the UAE, courtesy the major takeover involving billions. It is a great testimony to the strengths that this city and the country have built for themselves over the past two decades.

Readers’ response may be forwarded to marg@khaleejtimes.com