By Vera Topasna for Kandit News & Views
The [seaport] is Guam’s economic heartbeat. Before we consider handing the keys to private operators, we must ask a more fundamental question: Is it in the best interest of the people of Guam and the security interests of the United States? We need to determine the full value and vulnerability of the Port of Guam in the context of Guam’s security, national security, and regional defense.
This isn’t just about shipping containers or balance sheets. The Port of Guam is a critical dual-use infrastructure asset underpinning both our civilian economy and the U.S. military’s forward defense posture in the Indo-Pacific. Over 90% of goods consumed on Guam pass through its gates. This includes not only consumer goods but the materials, fuels, and equipment necessary for everything from military operations to humanitarian assistance and disaster response. Guam is not an ordinary location, and the Port is not an ordinary facility.
With rising geopolitical tensions and near-peer economic and military competition, Guam’s role in U.S. defense strategy is expanding, not shrinking. The Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI), the Marine Corps relocation of Marines, the construction of a missile defense system, and integrated logistics efforts all rely on the functionality and security of the Port. We cannot treat it like a commercial terminal in Seattle or Singapore. The decisions we make here resonate across the Department of Defense.
Privatizing any portion of such infrastructure without a clear understanding of the national security implications would be short-sighted. To obtain a complete understanding of the national security implications, coordination with multiple local and federal agencies will be required. If private ownership or management hinders readiness, delays cargo staging during a crisis, or limits local and federal coordination, we may gain operational efficiency but lose strategic agility. That is not a tradeoff we can afford. There must be safeguards to ensure the security and control of Guam’s only port.
Rather than leap into a binary debate—public or private—we should follow a methodical process to evaluate options. A modern version of an A-76 study would be an appropriate first step. This formal government tool allows agencies to determine whether commercial-type services should remain in-house or be contracted out. It includes cost analysis, performance evaluations, risk assessments, and mission-critical function reviews—especially helpful in a hybrid infrastructure like Guam’s port.
This kind of analysis ensures we don’t inadvertently privatize functions that are “inherently governmental,” such as national security coordination, emergency staging, or customs enforcement. It also allows space to identify areas where public-private partnerships (PPPs)—like the fuel pier model already used—may work effectively without ceding core control.
We can and should explore models that incentivize modernization, promote worker retention, and accelerate capital investment. But that exploration must be grounded in facts. Any conversation about port reform must center on the workers, the people of Guam, and national security. We can empower our workers without privatizing their jobs.
We must recognize the risk of losing local or national sovereignty over a vital lifeline. In other countries, privatized ports have become choke points—economically or geopolitically.Let’s pursue a path that reflects Guam’s unique role as a U.S. territory at the frontlines of Indo-Pacific security, with a population that deserves both modern services and meaningful employment.
We can explore port reform through:
- An A-76-style assessment to identify functions appropriate for outsourcing
- Creation of a Port Modernization Task Force with civilian, military, labor, and economic stakeholders
- Legislative safeguards to ensure strategic functions remain public and
- A commitment to transparency, not transactional privatization.
This is not a question of resisting change. It’s a call to pursue the right kind of change, with eyes wide open to the implications for our people, our security, and our place in the world.
_____
Vera Topasna is the Executive Director of the Community Defense Liaison Office (CDLO)
