Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[edward]

Whoa, hold on. Let's make sure we all understand the issue here: We're not talking about the ownership of the port itself, we're talking about the operation of the ports.

He who operates controlls the security. Different entities own the ports in differen't areas. For instance the Port of Tampa is owned by the state of Florida.

 

[edward]

DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to the Associated Press.

The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.

The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.port12feb12,0,2948167.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines

Anyone know exactly who sits on this committee?? Chertoff would probably be one. If the committee is primarily made up of political appointees I have another problem with this sale. Bush's political appointees have not had a very good track record.

They also have a strong incentive to give Bush what he asks for.
And why the secrecy? The sale was completed before the general news media was aware of it.

I say general news media because I would imagine that some trade journals would have known.

Is this all about being a payoff to the UAE for allowing us to have a military presence there?? Or is the administration trying to show other Islamic nations that if they tow the line (our line) they too may have financial opportunities in the global market?

I have a gut feeling that there is much more involved here than just the sale of American port operations to a foreign country.

 

[edward]

Explain where you need that money to get it operating again? You already have US workers working there. They are already trained to do their jobs. The structure is already there, and you have the old British company that is familiar with the running of operations to take over if they had to sell it back. Yeah, the people that lost the bids to the UAE would buy it within the hour, not overnight, your right my bad.

Excuse me, but just how much experience have you had with large industrial organizations? oops I forgot you hate emoticons

Nothing ,absolutely nothing, about the business world happens overnight. especially if there has been a total shut down of operations. Company lawyers alone can take months to plan; a sale , purchase or take over. Youthfull exuberance is wonderful, but it is not necessarily correct.

 

[Moonbear]

Whoa, hold on. Let's make sure we all understand the issue here: We're not talking about the ownership of the port itself, we're talking about the operation of the ports.

Russ, this is what I'm struggling to understand, and would appreciate if you could elaborate here. What exactly does "operation" of the ports entail? I know they don't own them, but operation gives them some control over something, but just what is that something, what sort of contractual agreement goes along with it, what sort of oversight is there, and what would be required to revoke their authority over operations, and how quickly could that be done if such a need arose? This isn't a single port where shipping could be diverted to a different port on an emergency basis if a problem arose with the operations at one port, this is quite a few ports all on one coast. Without knowing what's involved in the operations and the safeguards in place, I'm not comfortable that ANY single country or company has so much of a stake in so many of our ports all on the same coast. Even if it were a single company based in the U.S., I would be uncomfortable having something as important as our ports under control of a limited number of people/companies. It seems important that there be some safeguards in place to ensure that anything even as simple as a contract dispute with employees that leads to a strike not be able to shut down the majority of shipping coming into the east coast. Diversification of who runs the operations seems to be a safer approach in ensuring shipping doesn't come to a screeching halt and no one entity has too much power over that.

My discomfort comes from a lack of knowledge here, and if anyone even knows where I can start looking to become more informed on this, I'd really like to be pointed in the right direction. As I find answers, maybe I'll find reassurance that this wouldn't happen, or maybe I'll be even more concerned with lack of such safeguards, but at least I'll know the real issues that need focus.

 

[Art]

The port authorities (owners) are responsible for loading and unloading shipments and also storage. They also have ownership of site security at the port.
It is not unrealistic to suppose that if one or more members of senior management wanted to bring something into America surreptitiously they could do so.

This is already the case with regard to drugs and the same loopholes could be created and then exploited by terrorists.

 

[edward]

Chertoffs' point of view:

The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…As far as my agency is concerned, port security really rests principally with the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/

On the other hand:

But maritime security experts say the Coast Guard should be given even more resources, considering the threat America faces at sea and in its ports. They say that while the Coast Guard is performing well with limited resources, America will get the bang for its homeland security buck by investing more in the service.

 

[Cyrus]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/

Halliburton Co.'s $7 billion contract, awarded without competition, to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure also gives it the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry, according to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

It's previous actions of the US government that I base my assumptions on.
Do you think something similar would not happen to our port system Edward?

 

[edward]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/

It's previous actions of the US government that I base my assumptions on.

That is pretty much oranges and apples. Halliburton just has dam good lawyers to write their contracts. BTW It is almost three years later and Halliburton has not been successful in producing any significant amount of oil in Iraq.

Do you think something similar would not happen to our port system Edward?

No. I think that someing much worse may happen. My concerns are primarily about security. Our little off to the side discussion got started when I answered a question posted by Moonbear when she was concerend about the possiblity of UAE shutting down the ports.

What if an Islamic country with a dubious record on terrorism was going to operate six of our largest airport authorities? How would you feel about that?

 

[Moonbear]

Chertoffs' point of view:http://www.thinkprogress.org/

On the other hand:

The problem with secondary sources like that is you never know what they left out where those ellipses are in the quote. I can't find a CNN transcript of the interview cited there, but I did find a transcript of Chertoff's comments on Meet The Press (I prefer sticking with unedited versions to find out what people really said).

This is the beginning of his comments.

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, let me make it very clear, first of all. We have a very disciplined process, it’s a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security. That process worked here. Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns is we build in certain conditions, or requirements, that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns. And here the Coast Guard and Customs and border protection really play the leading role for our department in terms of designing those conditions and making sure that they’re obeyed.

The full transcript of the show, including this interview is found here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11363075/page/3/
That link should take you directly to page 3, where the issue of the ports being operated by a UAE company is discussed and you can read the remainder of the comments and the questions they were answering.

I thought it was noteworthy that in another story posted on CNN's site, referring to Chertoff's comments on the Late Edition (the same interview cited by that blog), he is reported as saying:

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/19/port.security.ap/index.html

So, this tells me that the members of Congress blustering over the secrecy are doing just that, blustering. Whether or not there are legitimate concerns, they DO have access to the classified information the rest of the public does not have access to, so if they're concerned or have a problem with this, or complaining about the secrecy, they better get their butts in gear and request those documents and do their job of representing their constituents and making sure everything is in line as the DHS is saying it is.

 

[Cyrus]

That is pretty much oranges and apples. Halliburton just has dam good lawyers to write their contracts. BTW It is almost three years later and Halliburton has not been successful in producing any significant amount of oil in Iraq.

The amount of oil they have been successful in producing is not my point of the link. The point was to show you that the US government can, in a time of crisis, award a contract to new corporation without there even being a bidding process.

That is pretty much oranges and apples. Halliburton just has dam good lawyers to write their contracts. BTW It is almost three years later and Halliburton has not been successful in producing any significant amount of oil in Iraq.

Ok, let me give you my opinion on this issue:

There is more that goes on with the nations of the Middle East than you realize. Your statement,

Please don't pull the race card here. This isn't about race and you know it.
We are currently fighting a war on terrorism against Islam, not a race.

shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relations between the United States and the Islamic countries. First, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to counter-terrorism intelligence. So your sweeping generalization is factually incorrect. To be precise, we are in an asymmetric war with radical Islamists who lack well defined national boarders. Donald Rumsfeld himself said the other day on Charlie Rose that the way to win the war on terrorism is not through the military; rather, it is through intelligence. This means the US cannot win the war on terror alone. It is a fundamental necessity to have foreign countries participate in the intelligence gathering and sharing. Now, why did I go off on this tangent? I went here because the United Arab Emirates is not under the governments watch list for state sponsored terrorism. The statements you have made in regard to "one of the terrorists came from the UAE" holds no weight. Furthermore, the best people who can make the judgment on our security with the UAE are the state department, the department of homeland security, and the NSA. If these government organizations, whose job it is to monitor and work with countries like the UAE on a daily basis see no reason to block the bidding of said country, then I surely see no weight in your objections. Clearly, I agree with your wanting to side with caution; however, the best people to answer your questions with respect to security are the aforementioned government organizations. Now, there has been a disconnect between the NSA and the White House when it comes to how reported intelligence has been selectively manipulated. For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

 

[edward]

So, this tells me that the members of Congress blustering over the secrecy are doing just that, blustering. Whether or not there are legitimate concerns, they DO have access to the classified information the rest of the public does not have access to, so if they're concerned or have a problem with this, or complaining about the secrecy, they better get their butts in gear and request those documents and do their job of representing their constituents and making sure everything is in line as the DHS is saying it is.

The problem congress has with "the" secrecy, and this is a bipartisian complaint, is that they only found out about it after the fact. The sale was already completed.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/19/port.security.ap/

Why was this such a secret deal that even the congress didn't know.

 

[Moonbear]

The problem congress has with "the" secrecy, and this is a bipartisian complaint, is that they only found out about it after the fact. The sale was already completed.

It doesn't sound like a done-deal yet to me. Have I missed something? At what stage of the process did they find out and how did they find out?

Edit: You added more to your post after I quoted, but you're citing the same article I did. I don't see anything there that clarifies when Congress was told, just that King learned about it from "senior White House officials." So, someone in the White House informed Congress.

From the description of the take-over, it sounds like a typical corporate merger...this isn't a new company replacing a previous company, this is a new company that took over the previous company. Do we have any right to meddle in the British company's business deals to block such a corporate take-over? The more I'm reading, the more complicated it's sounding. Since the British company already was running operations, and the UAE company took over the British company, it's really not quite the same situation as a UAE company coming in and out-bidding the British company. The British company doesn't exist as a British company anymore, so it's possible we were simply stuck with the choice of letting the UAE company take over or have nobody running the show and close our ports. What a sticky situation! It seems more reason to get some sort of back-up plan in place.

I wonder how long the contract is with the UAE company? Since it sounds like it wasn't really a choice or decision to bring them in, but that they just took over the British company already operating the ports, I wonder if a new contract term was negotiated, or if they just complete the period of the prior contract...whatever that would be.

 

[Cyrus]

Dubai Ports World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists.

That should speak for itself. Last two paragraphs of your own link Edward.

While it says:

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist

It does NOT say this happened with the government of the UAE knowledge or approval.

It even says:

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

So they should stop pretending they do not have access to the same information.

 

[edward]

Ok, let me give you my opinion on this issue:

There is more that goes on with the nations of the Middle East than you realize. Your statement, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the relations between the United States and the Islamic countries. First, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are two of our biggest allies in the Middle East when it comes to counter-terrorism intelligence.

CYRUS
I am well aware of whom our allies are. But it was not until 2005 that UAE ceased to recognize the Taliban as an authority. They also use the petrodollar instead of the euro dollar. So do the Saudi's, and we really need for them to do that. But I could never say that in an unstable middle east that antything is guaranteed.

For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

That is the most sensible thing that I have heard yet. Although the White House has become very adept at manipulating agency heads who are political appointees.

The secret committee of twelve is headed by the Treasury Department?? Homeland security, as was mentioned in Chertoff's statement, approves of the sale. But in the same release Chertoff said that: "from a security point of view, they depend on the boarder patrol and Coast Guard." Those agencies already have their hands full.

 

[edward]

That should speak for itself. Last two paragraphs of your own link Edward.

Nice job of cherry picking. I posted seven links.

It does NOT say this happened with the government of the UAE knowledge or approval.

It does not say that they did not have knowledge or approval give approval either.

it even says,
"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."

So why did the administration wait so long, why did they wait until after the sale was made and congress found out on their own when a Florida company, a Partner of the British company, filed a lawsuit.

So they should stop pretending they do not have access to the same information.

It was only as of today that congress was told by Chertoff that they could have access to the information. And that information can be filtered before it goes to the congress.

WHAT WAS THE BIG REASON FOR THE SECRECY?

Why did the adminstraion wait until congress was chasing around like a monkey after a coconut, until they told congress anything at all??

By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer

FEB. 19 5:53 P.M. ET
U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told The Associated Press.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regarding what could happen if the company tries to close down the ports...
I'm not sure if it would cover it or not but there are provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act that allowed Bush to put a stop to the Long Shoremen strike just recently.

Although the Act also authorized the President to intervene in strikes or potential strikes that create a national emergency, a reaction to the national coal miners' strikes called by the United Mine Workers of America in the 1940s, the President has used that power less and less frequently in each succeeding decade. President Clinton famously used the law to quash a strike by American Airlines pilots when the strike was only a few minutes old on February 17, 1997.[1] President George W. Bush invoked the law most recently in connection with the employer lockout of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union during negotiations with West Coast shipping and stevedoring companies in 2002.

This is specific to union strikes though so like I said I'm not sure if it would apply. It does how ever give me the impression that there is something somewhere that would help with this.

Aha... here are a couple ones that are probably closer to the mark...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act

 

[edward]

It doesn't sound like a done-deal yet to me. Have I missed something? At what stage of the process did they find out and how did they find out?

There is always a clause in any contract that allows for a sale to be voided contingent on specific happenings. Thats why Chertoff and Condi Rice are in full spin control mode.

Edit: You added more to your post after I quoted, but you're citing the same article I did. I don't see anything there that clarifies when Congress was told, just that King learned about it from "senior White House officials." So, someone in the White House informed Congress.

I am curious about that myself. It appears that differen't members of congress got the word in differen't ways, but they all happened after the Administration had approved the deal as far as I have read in the various links.

From the description of the take-over, it sounds like a typical corporate merger...this isn't a new company replacing a previous company, this is a new company that took over the previous company.

It is not a merger, the UAE state owned company is buying out the british company for $6.8 billion. They will assume any contracts or leases of the British company. For instance the Brits have/had a thirty year lease on the operation of the Port of New York. There are different financial contractson other ports that will be assumed by the UAE.

Do we have any right to meddle in the British company's business deals to block such a corporate take-over?

We certainly do if national security is at issue. Plus any foreign acquisition of American assets must be approve by that mysterious, "special committee."

The more I'm reading, the more complicated it's sounding. Since the British company already was running operations, and the UAE company took over the British company, it's really not quite the same situation as a UAE company coming in and out-bidding the British company. The British company doesn't exist as a British company anymore, so it's possible we were simply stuck with the choice of letting the UAE company take over or have nobody running the show and close our ports. What a sticky situation! It seems more reason to get some sort of back-up plan in place.

We weren't stuck with anything, the federal government has the final say on this. I do think a back-up plan would be a good idea if this deal is not overturned by congress. The UAE isn't located in a very stable area of the world.

I wonder how long the contract is with the UAE company? Since it sounds like it wasn't really a choice or decision to bring them in, but that they just took over the British company already operating the ports, I wonder if a new contract term was negotiated, or if they just complete the period of the prior contract...whatever that would be.

The UAE will be assuming whatever contracts that the Brits had with the 6 individual ports.

 

[Moonbear]

Regarding what could happen if the company tries to close down the ports...
I'm not sure if it would cover it or not but there are provisions in the Taft-Hartley Act that allowed Bush to put a stop to the Long Shoremen strike just recently.

This is specific to union strikes though so like I said I'm not sure if it would apply. It does how ever give me the impression that there is something somewhere that would help with this.

Aha... here are a couple ones that are probably closer to the mark...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act

Thank you for helping clear that up. Those don't sound like they would exactly cover the issue, though the Taft-Hartley act at least addresses the problem of a strike with a single company running multiple ports. And it's good to see that it could be evoked quickly too.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you for helping clear that up. Those don't sound like they would exactly cover the issue, though the Taft-Hartley act at least addresses the problem of a strike with a single company running multiple ports. And it's good to see that it could be evoked quickly too.

The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States." It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat. In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.

I could be wrong but it looks like it should fall under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shutting down the port operations would easily be a national economic emergency and most likely declared an act of economic sabotage especially coming from a company owned by a foreign state.
One way or another there seems to be protection and it looks pretty much like the exact sort of thing Cyrus described if the IEEPA applies.

 

[loseyourname]

Please don't pull the race card here. This isn't about race and you know it.
We are currently fighting a war on terrorism againts Islam, not a race.
Thousnds of Americans were killed on 9/11 and thousands more have been killed since then. Hint: they were not killed by Catholics or Hindus.

Whether it's race or religion, you can't refuse to hire someone or sell to them because of it. That's not fair; it's just guilt by association when you have no evidence or reason to believe, other than innuendo, that this company has ever been or ever will be involved in terrorist plots or any other effort to hurt US security. Just saying that Al Qaeda once used other companies that were based in the same country to transfer money and that citizens of that country were involved in attacks is not enough. US citizens and companies have been involved in activities that threatened US national security before; that doesn't mean all US companies should now be barred from acquiring any operations that represent potential targets.

I'd just like to see some reason that we should be concerned about this company, rather than simply grouping them in with the entire UAE or all Muslims (are the owners of the company even religious fundamentalists?) and saying they're guilty for no reason other than because of belonging to the same nation or religion.

 

[Moonbear]

I could be wrong but it looks like it should fall under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Shutting down the port operations would easily be a national economic emergency and most likely declared an act of economic sabotage especially coming from a company owned by a foreign state.
One way or another there seems to be protection and it looks pretty much like the exact sort of thing Cyrus described if the IEEPA applies.

The only thing I wasn't sure about is since the act talks about property in a foreign country, would it apply to our own ports?

 

[Moonbear]

I'd just like to see some reason that we should be concerned about this company, rather than simply grouping them in with the entire UAE or all Muslims (are the owners of the company even religious fundamentalists?) and saying they're guilty for no reason other than because of belonging to the same nation or religion.

One of the earlier articles cited says that this company is state-owned, which is the reason given why the Miami company is fighting it, because it puts them in business with the UAE government.

 

[edward]

The UAE was very much aware of terrorist funding and activities in their country previous to and after 911. We had warned them in 1999 to put a stop to it. They didn't. The information is on pages 40-43 of the 9/11 commission report depending on your version of adobe reader.
Shortcut to: http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_Monograph.pdf

 

[edward]

Whether it's race or religion, you can't refuse to hire someone or sell to them because of it. That's not fair; it's just guilt by association when you have no evidence or reason to believe, other than innuendo, that this company has ever been or ever will be involved in terrorist plots or any other effort to hurt US security. Just saying that Al Qaeda once used other companies that were based in the same country to transfer money and that citizens of that country were involved in attacks is not enough.

The world isn't fair. And I didn't just say that they were guilty by association. They were just plain guilty. The UAE knew what was going on in their country and failed to do anything about it even though we had warned them in 1999.

US citizens and companies have been involved in activities that threatened US national security before; that doesn't mean all US companies should now be barred from acquiring any operations that represent potential targets.

You are putting oranges and apples in the same box again.

I'd just like to see some reason that we should be concerned about this company, rather than simply grouping them in with the entire UAE or all Muslims (are the owners of the company even religious fundamentalists?) and saying they're guilty for no reason other than because of belonging to the same nation or religion.

It is a state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam. What do you need, dead bodies? we already have them.

 

[Cyrus]

It is a state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam. What do you need, dead bodies? we already have them.

Edward, it saddens me to hear you say this. I thought you would have a better judgement than that. Do you think the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and the President of the United States would call the UAE their 'good friends' and approve of this bid if they though the UAE was in any way a " state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The only thing I wasn't sure about is since the act talks about property in a foreign country, would it apply to our own ports?

The part where it mentions "in whole or substantial part outside the United States" I am assuming would cover an entity in the US working on behalf of a foreign government. I don't think that they are referring to property in a foreign country though since the president has no authority to freeze assets or confiscate property in another country. Something like that would require diplomatic excersizes to convince the country where the property is held and/or clandestine CIA operations. I'm pretty sure it's referring to property and assets located in the US.

 

[edward]

Edward, it saddens me to hear you say this. I thought you would have a better judgement than that. Do you think the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and the President of the United States would call the UAE their 'good friends' and approve of this bid if they though the UAE was in any way a " state owned company and their religion is fundamentalist Islam."

Cyrus, sorry I saddend you. My judgement relies heavily on a liftime of experience.

I would really like to know what the presidents motivations are. Perhaps if he would just tell us it might clear up a lot of doubts that people are having. Chertoff and Condi Rice will say what the administration tells them to say.

Somewhere behind all of this move to be buddies with the UAE, someone has some very questionable alterior motives.

When I say state owned company I mean that DB Ports, the company in question, is an entirely owned entity of the UAE government. As of five years ago the UAE was not at all helpful according to the 9/11 Comission Report. They are not a democracy and the are very much Islamic. And every Islamic country has a fundamentalist faction.

If this is about: oil, the petro dollar, giving the UAE a place to invest their money, and having an area in the middle east to stockpile weapons, why can't we just call a spade a spade and dispense with all of the secretive garbage.

 

[SOS2008]

We are concerned about lack of control of strategic areas, such as the Middle East and oil resources we are dependent upon. We are concerned about outsourcing and/or importing to meet our country's needs (or at least we should be). We are concerned about foreign ownership of U.S. assets. We are concerned about national security, which includes insuring basic necessities for the American people. If we as Americans aren't capable of operating our own ports, we should be asking why not? The same goes with everything in the business sector if for no other reason than keeping revenue, jobs, etc. here. There must be something in it for BushCo.

 

[russ_watters]

He who operates controlls the security.

No. That is not correct. Primary responsibility for security is in the hands of the US Coast Guard and DHS. And that includes oversight of the physical security of the facility itself - not just the water. [edit-clarify] The company operating the port may hire the rent-a-cops, but their security plan is still overseen by the coast guard and DHS.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mp/mtsa.shtml

But let's keep our eye on the ball here: What is the primary issue with port security? The primary issue with port security is not the physical security of the port facilities, but the inspection/clearance of the ships and cargo that come into the ports. Responsibility for that is in the hands of the Coast Guard and DHS (the customs part was taken over by DHS).
http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/032003ohanlon.htm

The Coast Guard is highly relevant to the topic at hand because it is responsible for verifying the origin and characteristics of ships coming into the United States, and it has the job of stopping ships that do not belong here. The second asks how much larger traditional customs inspections resources (now part of DHS’s directorate of border and transportation security, as you well know) should be. They must now screen cargo coming into the United States well enough to deter dangerous shipments, and failing that to detect the presence of nuclear materials, surface-to-air antiaircraft weapons, substantial quantities of chemical weapons, and other potential terrorist weapons.

 

[crazycalhoun]

We are concerned about lack of control of strategic areas, such as the Middle East and oil resources we are dependent upon. We are concerned about outsourcing and/or importing to meet our country's needs (or at least we should be). We are concerned about foreign ownership of U.S. assets. We are concerned about national security, which includes insuring basic necessities for the American people. If we as Americans aren't capable of operating our own ports, we should be asking why not? The same goes with everything in the business sector if for no other reason than keeping revenue, jobs, etc. here. There must be something in it for BushCo.

The short and long of it...a port is not an embassy.

 

[Moonbear]

If this is about: oil, the petro dollar, giving the UAE a place to invest their money, and having an area in the middle east to stockpile weapons, why can't we just call a spade a spade and dispense with all of the secretive garbage.

There are some obvious types of reasons that come to mind, but I can't understand why none of them could be voiced outright instead of being done secretly, such as financial incentive to the UAE to stay allied with the U.S., a reduction of the cost of oil to the US (unless Bush's oil buddies were planning on keeping that information to themselves and still charging the consumer just as much), some sort of agreement so the US can maintain operations at their military bases in the UAE, or maybe even just a showing of good will/forgiveness to push diplomatic relations with the UAE forward rather than risk them deteriorating.

One semi-legitimate reason I can think of to have kept it secret and only "let it leak" late in the game, is if they really didn't have any intention of allowing this, but went through all the motions to keep the UAE happy, then let it leak out knowing it would cause an uproar, then when private companies sued to block it and Congress rushed to pass laws to change the rules, oops, sorry, I guess we tried our best, but just can't finalize that deal. But, geez, that would be awfully transparent as a diplomatic tactic.

This could be a very nice example of real politics hard at work, if only we knew more of the details. Afterall, national security is not just about who is running the ports, but ensuring we have fuel for our vehicles, and trying to appease governments in unstable areas to keep as many of them as allies as possible, and keeping them happy enough to continue permitting the US to operate military bases in their countries.

 

[crazycalhoun]

There are some obvious types of reasons that come to mind, but I can't understand why none of them could be voiced outright instead of being done secretly...

Probably because it wasn't done secretly.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, this is what I'm struggling to understand, and would appreciate if you could elaborate here. What exactly does "operation" of the ports entail? I know they don't own them, but operation gives them some control over something...

In addition to what Art said about loading and unloading cargo, physical site security (they hire the rent-a-cops that work the gate), I would assume that also means they own or lease the land itself and the buildings. Also, there is maintenance, fuel, provisions, tugboat service to assist in docking, etc. It isn't fundamentally different from the way some railroads are privately owned (except, of course, that even the private railroads have considerable government involvement since they are unprofitable on their own).

Also of note, the harbor pilots (local navigation experts, required by law to be used when entering or leaving port) are also private contractors, though they are separate from the port operations.

Regarding the secrecy thing: the Bush Admin has a culture of secrecy. I doubt there is any specific reason for most of the things they do in secret - it just the way they do business.

 

[russ_watters]

We are concerned about lack of control of strategic areas, such as the Middle East and oil resources we are dependent upon. We are concerned about outsourcing and/or importing to meet our country's needs (or at least we should be). We are concerned about foreign ownership of U.S. assets. We are concerned about national security, which includes insuring basic necessities for the American people. If we as Americans aren't capable of operating our own ports, we should be asking why not? The same goes with everything in the business sector if for no other reason than keeping revenue, jobs, etc. here. There must be something in it for BushCo.

All of that is fine, but it doesn't have anything at all to do with the OP. General port/shipping security is certainly an important issue, but this discussion is about the sale of a British corporation that currently runs our ports to a company based in the UAE. Unless you actually think the company is going to be infiltrated by terrorists because it is an Arabic company or will lower their security standards (despite all the government oversight), the net effect of this change on our security should be zero.

 

[russ_watters]

Explain where you need that money to get it operating again? You already have US workers working there. They are already trained to do their jobs. The structure is already there, and you have the old British company that is familiar with the running of operations to take over if they had to sell it back. Yeah, the people that lost the bids to the UAE would buy it within the hour, not overnight, your right my bad.

I rather suspect that when the sale goes through, the only immediate change will be the sign on the street in front of the port operaitons office. They will probably reorganize the management later (just like with any corporate sale), but very little will change immediatly about the day-to-day operations and certainly there will be no disruption.