Articles
April/May 1993, Page 10
Speaking Out
Haifa Home-Porting Has High Political, Military Costs
By Paul Findley
A scheme that will expand and improve the port at Haifa, Israel, at U.S. expense is moving steadily toward execution. It will make Haifa a permanent home port for the U.S. Sixth Fleet and other U.S. naval vessels, a transformation that carries grave consequences for the United States in the use of military assets, the health of the U.S. ship-building industry, the federal deficit, and U.S.-Arab relations.
Retired Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, questions whether, in a crisis, the port would even be used—despite the great investment in U.S. funds it would represent. He views the selection of Haifa as a "political move" that does not respond to military realities and requirements.
"In almost any crisis in the Middle East, Israel, which is after all a very small state, would likely be a prime target," Moorer said. "Because of that reality, home-porting facilities at Haifa would be so vulnerable they might not even be used. Ships and base property there might well be hit, whether they were the intended targets or not."
Moorer sees another serious complication. "Having Haifa as a home port would likely create much the same problem that occurred in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when none of our NATO allies except Portugal would let us use their bases when we were ferrying supplies to Israel." During that war, all other members of NATO were opposed to siding with Israel. Even Portugal would not open its mainland bases to U.S. planes ferrying supplies, but agreed to permit U.S. use of the Azores.
Moorer said home-porting services should be located at a distance from volatile areas. In an international crisis, he said, the United States must have the cooperation of its major NATO allies. A base located in a controversial country like Israel would pose problems so serious in allied relationships that it would be a liability rather than an asset. It also would pose another barrier to U.S. cooperation with Arab states, who would view the home-porting decision as further evidence of a close military alliance between the United States and their antagonist, Israel.
The respected Baltimore Sun reports opposition to Haifa from the Pentagon: "Navy officials say privately they are not eager to initiate such a move. But they say pressure from Senate committees and pro-Israel interests in Washington help to explain why they are considering Haifa as a possible home port for U.S. ships."
Leading the pro-Israel campaign on Capitol Hill is Senator Daniel K. Inouye, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee. Reversing assurances he had given earlier in Washington, Inouye told officials on a recent visit to Jerusalem that he has taken steps to include $57 million in the U.S. defense budget "for expanding Haifa Port in order that the Sixth Fleet can use the port as a permanent base in the region." The statement was broadcast over Israel radio.
Earlier, Inouye had told reporters in Washington that establishing Haifa as home port is not on his current agenda and that he considers the issue to be premature. Nevertheless, the Sunreports that "Congress already has moved discreetly toward increasing the Navy's use of Haifa for routine port calls and ship repairs." Each port call for a major vessel involves three to four days and the expenditure of about one million dollars in U.S. funds.
Appropriation bills during the past two years include $15 million to upgrade the facilities of Israel Shipyard, a government-owned industry at Haifa, and to dredge access lanes. They also provide $2 million for a study to determine what else is needed in order for the Haifa port to meet all the "repair, supply and prepositioning needs of the Sixth Fleet in both peace and war. " The amount of money provided for this study alone suggests the magnitude of the total project.
The $17 million plus the $57 million Inouye mentioned are only the beginning of costs to the U.S. Treasury if the project is carried to completion. If past is prologue, the port will become a funnel into which a torrent of U.S. taxpayer dollars will be poured to fund capital investment and operating expenses.
One Navy official estimates at $200 million the cost of making the port accessible for aircraft carriers. No one has yet put an estimate on the total outlay involved. It is being considered in increments without reference to a total.
Pro-Israel lobbyists have launched a four-pronged public relations strategy to support the idea.
First, Israel will package home-porting at Haifa as an economy move advantageous to the U.S. federal budget.
Proponents of the scheme cite a Congressional Research Service analysis which concludes that a home port in the Mediterranean would allow a "20 percent cut in the size of the Navy. " Making Haifa home port, Israel's U.S. supporters argue, will help Congress adjust to President Bill Clinton's plan to reduce the number of aircraft carrier groups from 14 to 10.
Critics note that the study does not take into account the cost of upgrading Haifa, which experts say will be "exorbitant," and ignores the fact that home-port savings could be attained more prudently by locating facilities at a safer distance from the volatile Middle East, perhaps in Italy or Greece.
The second public relations point will be for Israel's supporters in Washington to work hard to conceal the cost of the whole package. One U.S. official said, "I know that the incremental approach is the only way it will go through Congress." He explained, "If you come in with a big, whopping military construction submission in this day and age, in this budget environment, no way. It's just not going to happen." It has already been announced that the $2 million study will not include an estimate of the total cost.
In addition to the expense of making the port accessible for aircraft carriers, other large capital investments will be required, including the construction of schools, housing, hospitals and other facilities for the use of U.S. base personnel and their families. Operating expenses will be on top of capital outlays and likely will be paid entirely by the U.S. government. In contrast, the Japanese government pays a major part of U.S. home-porting expenses in that country.
Third, Israel's principal lobby in the United States, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is striving to keep the project out of controversy and thus avoid a legislative showdown.
To that end, the project is being presented piece by piece and buried within the usually popular annual Defense Department authorization legislation. AIPAC's activity, so far, is low-key and informational. It is focusing for the present time only on one limited objective, improving Haifa's ship-repair capacity.
Fourth, sponsors will present the project as a magnanimous act in which Israel accepts substantial inconvenience in order to advance the national security interests of the United States.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin is an old hand at extorting money from the United States and characterizing the act as a kindness. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, after many a tussle during Rabin's earlier tenure as chief executive, once remarked of Rabin: "If he had been handed the entire United States Strategic Air Command as a free gift he would have (a) affected the attitude that at last Israel was getting its due, and (b) found some technical shortcoming in the airplanes that made his accepting them a reluctant concession to us."
Critics of the Haifa move have potential allies in the areas where shipbuilding, ship service and naval bases face severe budget cuts. Organized labor, management and civic leaders could join military experts and cost-conscious taxpayers in a combined assault on this costly boondoggle. But despite its many serious drawbacks, Haifa home-porting seems almost certain to become a reality.
