Move over commerce. There's a new international policy sheriff in town, and he goes by the name of national security.

The U.S. deal with a United Arab Emirates-based company to sell six U.S. ports seems to have collapsed under bipartisan pressure last week when the ruler of Dubai Ports World saved President Bush the political embarrassment of losing a battle with Congress and killed the deal.

Politicians framed this port deal as a battle over the security of U.S. ports, threatening to override presidential support of it. In reality, the opposition to the $6.8 billion deal, which may still go through if no other company agrees to acquire the ports, cloaked a new wave of protectionism in international commerce.

It is too late to rethink the globalized commercial network in which business functions today without reducing American policy to an isolationist doctrine. America reverts to isolationist policies at its own peril.

Outright protectionism is the wrong tactic, but it is not out of the purview of federal government to exercise discretion in choosing whom to put at the helm of its busy ports. That said, government would better spend its time overseeing port security instead of pursuing protectionist policies.

Despite this argument, the issue to be debated should center on the safety of American ports -- as only a small percentage of the cargo containers coming into U.S. ports are searched. The debate over who should be allowed to acquire the ports has obscured a larger problem facing American security.

If national security is to truly be at the forefront of American policy, then the government should concentrate on the insecurity and vulnerability of ports instead of realigning its trade policies with defunct, centuries-old trade practices.