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

[Art]

Just to clear up a couple of points;

Customs offices do a risk assessment to categorize containers. These are graded high, medium and low. Those with a high rating have a strong liklihood of being examined whereas those with a low rating have a correspondingly low chance of being examined. Hence the benefit in changing a containers BIC to put it in a low risk category.

Once the customs officer flags a container for exam he contacts the shippers shipping agent and they arrange for the container to be delivered to the customs hall for inspection. The customs officers do not examine them on the quays.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You don't need to change the BICs, you can pop the bolts off the hinges and switch the contents without breaking the seal.

And you need a logistician to do what?

Several people seem to be assuming the only thing they'd be smuggling in would be some sort of explosive, and are dismissing the claims because they think a large explosive would be better used right at the port. As Art has pointed out (thanks Art for providing solid evidence for my earlier comments on this), they can also smuggle in people to build up terrorist cells within the US, or drugs to fund their organizations.

The risk of which, of course, is not clearly increased with DP World acquiring P&O. And that's the issue. Not port security wholecloth, but the specific threat posed by transfering operations to a company with its headquarters and majority owner in Dubai and is buying out the operations side of US ports.

I was simply unaware such a thing happened until this story brought it to light. It's mind-boggling to me that ANY country would not want to retain control over their own ports.

"Control" is an overly broad word. Let's be clear. DP World is taking over Operations. Many of the tasks you've counted as "controlling" belong to the port authorities, customs, BIC or some other state, provincial or national entity. Let's not forget that a port itself is not a private entity.

And yes, I agree with everyone who is saying there are other big security holes that need to be plugged that have nothing to do with this take-over and perhaps even take priority, but that doesn't make foreign managment of ports a non-issue, just perhaps a lesser one in comparison to those other problems facing security at the ports.

Based entirely on the substance of this thread and what's been appearing in the news, it certainly seems like a non-issue.

 

[Moonbear]

They'd have to first remove or cover the markings, and ISO 6346 covers the consistency, thickness and persistence of those markings. The point is you now increase the risk of Customs detecting a deviation in the paint given knowledge of the paint characteristics--if they actually pull the container as suspect in the first place. If they don't...well then, your guy on the inside can't really take the credit for that.

I don't really know how quickly things are moved that aren't flagged by Customs compared to those that are being held for inspection, but my suspicion is that by the time Customs got close enough to that container to notice something was suspect about it, and depending on how obvious the changes are (yeah, fresh paint would probably be a tip-off), the other container with the contraband is already long gone. Nobody is saying this would be easy or wouldn't require a lot of coordination or involve a lot of risk, but you could imagine that container goes to a local warehouse, the contraband is off-loaded into another vehicle, and a few of the crew take the heat for smuggling and gaining employment with falsified work papers that the management company can claim they didn't recognize were falsified, while the contraband itself is out of the system and untraceable. Terrorists aren't exactly afraid of taking risks to achieve their objectives anyway.

Okay, now my imagination is probably running wild a bit, but I can even envision a scenario where the management company makes themselves look more trustworthy by "catching" a few of the switches or containers with contraband, and voluntarily cooperates and turns in some of their employees who they suspect were involved; now Customs doesn't watch as closely because the management company seems to be on-the-ball and very helpful with regard to security, while they help slip through the more dangerous shipments. Of course, no, this doesn't even require foreign ownership, just corrupt ownership.

 

[Moonbear]

"Control" is an overly broad word. Let's be clear. DP World is taking over Operations. Many of the tasks you've counted as "controlling" belong to the port authorities, customs, BIC or some other state, provincial or national entity. Let's not forget that a port itself is not a private entity.

Okay, let's be clear then. What tasks have I counted as "controlling" that belong to those other entities and not the company responsible for operations? I showed you job descriptions posted by P&O that cover the responsibilities I have been using in my arguments. That seems to be fairly clear-cut evidence that those jobs really are handled by the company in charge of port operations.

 

[Moonbear]

And you need a logistician to do what?

What logistician? You need a crew to do that.

 

[edward]

Once the customs officer flags a container for exam he contacts the shippers shipping agent and they arrange for the container to be delivered to the customs hall for inspection. The customs officers do not examine them on the quays.

The responsibility for making sure that goods loaded in a box were legitimate and authorized was shouldered almost exclusively by the importing jurisdiction. But as the volume of containerized cargo grew exponentially, the number of agents assigned to police that cargo stayed flat or even declined among most trading nations. The rule of thumb in the inspection business is that it takes five agents three hours to conduct a thorough physical examination of a single full intermodal container. Last year nearly 20 million containers washed across America’s borders via a ship, train, and truck. Frontline agencies had only enough inspectors and equipment to examine between 1-2 percent of that cargo.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5730

This was as of 2003. I hope there has been a drastic increase in the number of inspectors, but I seriously doubt it.

I see that this thread has fone from UAE control to security, but to me they are one in the same.

 

[crazycalhoun]

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5730

This was as of 2003. I hope there has been a drastic increase in the number of inspectors, but I seriously doubt it.

I see that this thread has fone from UAE control to security, but to me they are one in the same.

The aren't one in the same, precisely because the realm of security holes in the supply chain is massive compared to that prospectively assigned to DP's acquisition of P&O. We haven't even gotten into what P&O was running. For example, do we care about container security where the New York Cruise Terminal is concerned? No, no containers. What about NYCT? No, because NYCT Inc., runs operations there, not P&O (soon to be DP World).

Global freight is damned efficient because it breaks down tasks into comparatively small components managed by different firms. It's so insecure because our current inspection regime is based on and grows from a pre-20th century century model that predates intermodal cargo transport. And this thread is, quite frankly, unfair to DP World because we're not addressing the specifics of a pretty technical division of labor and responsibility--one that can stand to have more secure means of identifying cargo yet is frequently characterized as including what we've historically put on our customs officers and coast guards.

 

[SOS2008]

Quote:
My question is why can't our ports be managed domestically?

Why should they? Doesn't really mitigate against the danger all that much. Operations is concerned almost entirely with routing. Security, customs, etc. are issues principally handled by port authorities. What you should really be concerned about is how to leverage operations to address security concerns. For one, we need to identify areas in a shipping process where contents can be confirmed accurately but expeditiously and without a great deal of human oversight. That's a process engineering problem.

I'm not asking that question in regard to security. I just want to know why we can't manage our own ports. As a beginning point, I want to know if and what alternatives there are to this sale before I get all excited about "what if" scenarios.

In the process of trying to find out, here are some links I came across (in addition to those in my earler post):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201437_3.html

http://www.worldtrademag.com/CDA/Articles/Ports/653d1e36d9af7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____

I still couldn't find any information about U.S. seaport management companies--Who is managing other ports in the U.S. now?

But what I did find out (aside from a lot of security information, such as how hinges on containers are being designed to lock if the seal is tampered with) is that the U.S. is way behind in port infrastructure, including technologically (communication, etc.). Infrastructure in general has been neglected, as seen in regard to the levees and the major port in New Orleans. Read the source via the last link above, which addresses other aspects of intermodal tranport such as the need for rail. Let's face it people, the U.S. doesn't have funds to modernize it's ports including security upgrades. So was any money in the transportation bill allotted to this? This sale is just a drop in the bucket on the spectrum of things to worry about.

 

[crazycalhoun]

I'm not asking that question in regard to security. I just want to know why we can't manage our own ports. As a beginning point, I want to know if and what alternatives there are to this sale before I get all excited about "what if" scenarios.

They do manage the ports. They contract out for certain services, like operations. Why? Well, who do you want at an important juncture of 50 million TEU a year network? An 80K operations specialist acquired for the lowest bid or a 40K a year state employee you can't fire without a years worth of hassle? If that works for you, we might as well nationalize telecommunication service providers, too.

But what I did find out (aside from a lot of security information, such as how hinges on containers are being designed to lock if the seal is tampered with) is that the U.S. is way behind in port infrastructure, including technologically (communication, etc.). Infrastructure in general has been neglected, as seen in regard to the levees and the major port in New Orleans.

Once again, you're taking a very general (and nebulous) criticism and connecting specific technical points in a dubious way. NO levee strength has nothing to do with the quay cranes, video surveillance around the quays, or the (extremely high) volume of traffic Port of NO and SL could handle. You know, other than the fact that water is at least tangentially involved in some way. This discussion, on the other hand, is narrowly focused on security risks due to port activity, specifically due to the acquisition of an operations contract by a UAE company that bought out the holder.

 

[Moonbear]

But what I did find out (aside from a lot of security information, such as how hinges on containers are being designed to lock if the seal is tampered with) is that the U.S. is way behind in port infrastructure, including technologically (communication, etc.). Infrastructure in general has been neglected, as seen in regard to the levees and the major port in New Orleans. Read the source via the last link above, which addresses other aspects of intermodal tranport such as the need for rail. Let's face it people, the U.S. doesn't have funds to modernize it's ports including security upgrades. So was any money in the transportation bill allotted to this? This sale is just a drop in the bucket on the spectrum of things to worry about.

P&O contributed the funds to expand Port Newark http://www.pnct.net/, so those new aquisition may have that benefit of bringing in funds to other ports that desperately need expansion.

Though, it seems DP World had some help greasing the wheels for their takeover:

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

http://dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

That's right off DP World's website.

Their home page is here: http://dpiterminals.com/dpworld_main.asp
It's not terribly useful for learning anything though...you can tell it was a bunch of business types who wrote it...it's heavy on buzzwords and light on substance.

 

[Moonbear]

This discussion, on the other hand, is narrowly focused on security risks due to port activity, specifically due to the acquisition of an operations contract by a UAE company that bought out the holder.

This discussion is not so narrowly focused. A lot of related issues have been brought up as well as the political implications of it (this is the politics forum), and a whole range of grays has been tossed in from various people's viewpoints of the acquisition.

 

[edward]

Against rising bipartisan oppositon, Bush is dead set on having this sale completed.

''They ought to listen to what I have to say about this. They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto.''

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&cid=2194

 

[edward]

My question is why can't our ports be managed domestically? I can't find any information to explain this, and I seem to be the only one wondering about this. I guess I should just be relieved the contract isn't going to Halliburton.

Originally American ports were operated by a local authority. Then privitization came along. Many companies bought it, many companies merged, when the economy was bad many companies got out.

The operation of American ports has been in a constant flux in recent years. There are still some small companies managing smaller ports. CSX used to operate ports, but when they needed to raise money they sold out.

CSX even sold ports that they operated in Asia to this same UAE company.

I do find it odd that I can't google up any company names operating specific ports.

I guess if you want that info you have to buy it.
http://www.seaportsoftheamericas.com/

The info above comes from the American Association of Port Authorities. Oddly, on their website they don't even mention private companies running the operations.

 

[Moonbear]

Against rising bipartisan oppositon, Bush is dead set on having this sale completed.


http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060218210909990001&cid=2194

Does it have enough support for Congress to override a veto?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, consider this. First, we have the 06 elections coming up and this will [is] certainly play[ing] very badly with most people. So just the perception of selling out is a political landmine for every Republican. Next, there is no way that the Republicans are going to assume the liability for this. If anything ever happened at one of these ports they would forever be held accountable. It would be political suicide. I don't see how Bush can win on this one.

The next question that comes to mind for me is why? Why would Bush take a stand against his own party [and the Democrats, now Governers, and probably most of the nation] on THIS issue?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One more point if no one has made it. Even though I think it is outrageous to allow any foreign entity to control a US port, to compare the UAE to Britain in terms of national security is completely inappropriate. We have a long standing and unique relationship with GB; one that spans a century. Any logic that seeks to equate the two simply as "friendly foreign nations" is a zeroth order approximation at best - a completely unrealistic stretch of the imagination.

 

[SOS2008]

Originally American ports were operated by a local authority. Then privitization came along. Many companies bought it, many companies merged, when the economy was bad many companies got out.

The operation of American ports has been in a constant flux in recent years. There are still some small companies managing smaller ports. CSX used to operate ports, but when they needed to raise money they sold out.

CSX even sold ports that they operated in Asia to this same UAE company.

I do find it odd that I can't google up any company names operating specific ports.

I guess if you want that info you have to buy it.
http://www.seaportsoftheamericas.com/

The info above comes from the American Association of Port Authorities. Oddly, on their website they don't even mention private companies running the operations.

Thank you, and Moonbear for information. I had found the AAPA link, which is as follows:

Founded in 1912, the American Association of Port Authorities is a trade association which represents more than 150 public port authorities in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America. In addition, Association members include more than 300 sustaining and associate members -- firms and individuals with an interest in the seaports of the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.aapa-ports.org/

A list of some of those 150 public ports can be found here:

http://www.expandglobal.com/Resource_Pages/Port_authority.htm

But if the operation of a port is contracted out, it isn't indicated.

It sounds like managing operations of a port isn't a profitable enterprise. This is what I want to know. It may be we have no other choice at this time but to outsource to a foreign company that has global economy of scale--the UAE did come in with the low bid fair and square. Actually it would hurt the UAE if a terrorist attack was committed in relation to any port they manage, no?

But it is a sad commentary nonetheless that America is not an independent country on so many levels, many related to national security. Any country that increasingly imports instead of producing something itself (with exception of luxury goods) puts itself at risk in regard to basic needs. Outsourcing is just another form of importing. And foreign ownership should be limited in general.

I would prefer the debate among politicians to be less about election posturing and more about the substance of this issue, and that goes for our culpable media as well.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, this is not a matter of producing widgets. Being that it is a matter of national security we have every right to demand that this be managed domestically. If domestic management costs more, fine, we have spent hundreds of billions on the security of Iraq.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting:

Travel Advice
United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates overall This Advice is current for Wednesday, 22 February 2006.

Be alert to own security Exercise caution High degree of caution Reconsider your need to travel Do not travel

This advice has been reviewed and reissued. It contains new information on Local Laws. The overall level of the advice has not changed.

Summary
We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack.

We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates. Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets.

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/United_Arab_Emirates

I'm not sure of the implications here but it was in the press. It seems that the UAE has been considered unsafe for westerners by the Au Government for some time.

 

[SOS2008]

Again, this is not a matter of producing widgets. Being that it is a matter of national security we have every right to demand that this be managed domestically. If domestic management costs more, fine, we have spent hundreds of billions on the security of Iraq.

There may be more to the issue than meets the eye, but don't get me wrong. Though I prefer government to be as limited as possible, my personal belief is that areas of national security, which includes basic needs according to Maslow, should be protected (as in protectionism), and either nationalized, subsidized, or highly regulated. And as stated earlier, I believe we should take great care in regard to foreign ownership/control of American assets. The rest should be fair trade, not free trade except perhaps in regard to luxury items. I believe it costs less in the long run, and makes America safer to boot.

People may consider this isolationist or worse. This is my position in view of history, terms of trade, etc. and methods the U.S. has used to take advantage of other countries in the past, in particular the third world. We are now unwittingly allowing other countries to treat us in the same way. How can we be an empire if we can't even control the area within our own borders (this goes for border control as well)? We are behaving like a third-world country at every turn. This isn't about racism...maybe not even terrorism. In my mind it's worse than that.

(Okay, that's my late night diatribe...)

 

[Skyhunter]

P&O contributed the funds to expand Port Newark http://www.pnct.net/, so those new aquisition may have that benefit of bringing in funds to other ports that desperately need expansion.

Though, it seems DP World had some help greasing the wheels for their takeover:

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

http://dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

That's right off DP World's website.

Their home page is here: http://dpiterminals.com/dpworld_main.asp
It's not terribly useful for learning anything though...you can tell it was a bunch of business types who wrote it...it's heavy on buzzwords and light on substance.

I guess that explains why George is willing to veto his first piece of legislation over this.

In response to a question, Bush said he would veto any legislation enacted to block the deal.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=auP6XjMk11cM&refer=home

Here is a copy of the http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdffrom Congress.

 

[russ_watters]

Show us some imagination then, edward - just saying we're wrong is not an argument.

Bingo, Russ, and to this point in the thread that is all you have done.

Three problems with that, Integral:

1. You are implying an equivalent responsibility where none exists. It is incumbent upon the originator of the thread to provide a complete argument to be debated in order to be a starting point for the debate(failing to get that, I took up the question with someone who supports the OP's assertion). Ivan provided no initial argument whatsoever (just a question in the title that we must assume has an affirmative answer in his opinion). Heck, he didn't even state his opinion explicitly.

2. Often in such arguments, the "con" side is simply the assertion of the negative (ie: my assertion that nothing of substance will change). Such positions are, by their nature, rebuttal-only. They require a concise point from the OP to rebut.

3. That very first post of mine contains a clear and concise argument that you ignored.

There are simple and obvious flaws in what was presented on the first page and lyn and I both pointed them out.

The point is, it is not necessary for a entire staff change to present a danger. It is only necessary that some 2nd or 3rd level manager do a "favor" for family or friends. That is how easy it would be for terrorist to get into the system on BOTH ends of the shipment. It is not necessary for an entire ship be waylayed, the CG does not board every vessel and check every container, it simply can't. The danger could be contained in a few cubic feet of unused space in a container. It is the last person to close the container and the first to open it which define the danger.

I think you overstate the danger - it takes more than one person to unload a ship and the containers themselves are not typically opened at the port.

Regardless, I at least understand why you are saying there is a potential danger in having a foreign (Mid-Eastern, in this case) company running the operations. However, I don't think it is ethical to assume that the the company is going to be a risk any more than it is ethical to assume that an Arab-American owning a business in the US would pose a risk. That is just the sort of fear-based decision making that scares people about the Patriot Act and the wiretapping.

Unless a real (as opposed to potential/hypothetical) threat exists, we cannot act as if a real threat exists.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

Well, that is beyond the scope of the specific issue in the OP of this thread, but I agree with you that shipping, in general, is an real threat. Inspection of every container is probably the right thing to do regardless of this corporate sale.

 

[edward]

The middle eastern counties are in constant turmoil. Even If the UAE DPworld, can manage a safe and secure operation NOW, can that be guaranteed in the future? Sure they are currently supposedly an ally, but then both Iraq and Iran were our allies in the past.

I see from a link posted by Moonbear, that a former company executive of DP WORLD, Is now a Bush appointee in the very area of transportation that we are talking about. My my isn't that special.

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

This whole thing is starting to smell very strange.

 

[BobG]

I think using religion as a basis for a decision about who can operate a port is illegal in the United States. Brings up an interesting question about which of our civil liberties is worth sacrificing in the interest of safety - freedom of religion or freedom from unreasonable, unwarranted searches.

In any event, I don't see how foreign ownership of a US port is that much different than foreign ownership in other companies (such as rubber companies, automobile companies, airlines, etc.). In fact, some industries encourage foreign investment - they need the extra cash to pay their pension obligations: Airline Ownership and Control: Good for Consumers, Airlines, and the United States[/url]

:uhh: I probably shouldn't stir up the pot like that.

 

[edward]

I think using religion as a basis for a decision about who can operate a port is illegal in the United States. Brings up an interesting question about which of our civil liberties is worth sacrificing in the interest of safety - freedom of religion or freedom from unreasonable, unwarranted searches.

This isn't really about religion BOB. It is more about where the radical part of that religion is located. When it comes to security nothing is illegal. If a Baptist minister allowed terrorist to plan and raise funds in his church, NSA would be all over the place like flies on a three day old corpse. The UAE allowed something similar to happen in their country, but on a much grander scale.

Should they now be rewared because that have claimed to be reformed?

These guys could be total athiests, but with their track record and with what is going on in the Middle east, the entire picture changes. For that matter they are also a state owned company. P&O is a very large company, 6.8 billion worth of large. They could spin off the 6 American owned ports from the deal.

 

[loseyourname]

This isn't really about religion BOB. It is more about where the radical part of that religion is located. When it comes to security nothing is illegal. If a Baptist minister allowed terrorist to plan and raise funds in his church, NSA would be all over the place like flies on a three day old corpse. The UAE allowed something similar to happen in their country, but on a much grander scale.

Do you still not see how this is guilt by association, though? What has this company or anyone affiliated with it ever done? You're indicting them based on nothing other than the location of their base of operations. If someone in a position of large responsibility within the company has a history of ties to terrorism or money laundering or any of these other things that have taken place at one time or another in the UAE, then I'll go so far as to say that this person should be fired for the deal to go through. If he represented a company-wide trend, then I'll even agree that we should block the deal outright. Is there any history of irregularities or problems at the ports this company already owns? It's not like they have no track record for us to look into.

 

[BobG]

The plus side of the United Arab Emirates:

The UAE has an open economy with a high per capita income and a sizable annual trade surplus. Its wealth is based on oil and gas output (about 30% of GDP), and the fortunes of the economy fluctuate with the prices of those commodities. Since the discovery of oil in the UAE more than 30 years ago, the UAE has undergone a profound transformation from an impoverished region of small desert principalities to a modern state with a high standard of living. At present levels of production, oil and gas reserves should last for more than 100 years. The government has increased spending on job creation and infrastructure expansion and is opening up its utilities to greater private sector involvement. Higher oil revenue, strong liquidity, and cheap credit in 2005 led to a surge in asset prices (shares and real estate) and consumer inflation. Any sharp correction to the UAE's equity markets could damage investor and consumer sentiment and affect bank asset quality. In April 2004, the UAE signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Washington and in November 2004 agreed to undertake negotiations toward a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US.

The negative side is that it is a union of non-Democratic Emirates and:

the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to Southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving

Source: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

I agree with loseyourname. The bottom line is the particular company's history, not that some terrorists have come from the UAE. The westernization of culture (and the resulting abandonment of traditional values) in the UAE is one reason fundamentalists from the UAE have joined terrorist organizations.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It sounds like managing operations of a port isn't a profitable enterprise. This is what I want to know. It may be we have no other choice at this time but to outsource to a foreign company that has global economy of scale--the UAE did come in with the low bid fair and square. Actually it would hurt the UAE if a terrorist attack was committed in relation to any port they manage, no?

I've been trying to look up information on Port Operators and what exactly they are in charge of without a whole lot of luck. Searches mainly turn up articles on this story.
As for the Port Authority, that is not what DP World is going to be running. A Port Authority is the governing committee in charge of all ports in an area which includes things such as airports and ferrys.
A wiki article on the Port Authority of NY and NJ so far has the best description of what they do and is one of the area where DP World will have operations. It says that they even have their own police division specifically for the ports they oversee. I'm not sure how much of the operations a port operator takes over, I'm trying to look into that.
As for why we would allow a company from another country to run operations in our ports I think that has been rather common for some time and not just here. I think it makes it cheaper and easier for their shipping companies. If you just take a look at airports (Again these are under our port authorities) there are plenty of airline companies operating there that are based in other countries. Again I'm not sure how this works with sea ports. I'm trying to figure out what shipping interests DP World has outside of port operations.

 

[edward]

Do you still not see how this is guilt by association, though? What has this company or anyone affiliated with it ever done?

Previous to this incident "guilty by association" has been enough for the CIA to clamp down hard on a country. In national security issues "guilt by association" has to be preaumed to be true. If the UAE has never done or allowed anything to happen that affected this country, then why all of the secrecy? This deal was strarted in November, and the congess just now hears of it...whats going on with that.

We don't know what this company or anyone and everyone associated with it has done. That is one of the big sticking points.

You guys do realize that a lot of money is swapping hands here and not just between DPWorld and P&O? The price of P&O stock doubled in December. And the price rise in the stock was attributed to a lot more than this being just the natural rise due to a sale. The opposing bidder in Singapore was buying and jacking up the price.

Link on previous page:

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

According to the Sept. 11 commission, (commonly recognized as the definitive investigation into the 2001 attacks), the United Arab Emirates served as a conduit for funds, logistical hub and transit point for al Qaeda operatives involved in the plot.

It revealed that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Emirati nationals: Fayez Banihammad and Marwan al-Shehhi. According to the Sept. 11 commission, at least nine of the 19 hijackers passed through Dubai on their way to the United States and received assistance from al Qaeda operatives based in the emirate.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates, was the headquarters of the nuclear black market run by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network supplied centrifuge technology to countries including Libya and North Korea.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/02/con06072.html

DP World is in Dubai. That is where the D comes from. And we should assume that no one associated with this very large shipping company knew anything of the above incidents? Give me a break.


When I start putting together the pieces of this situation, I see a lot that is going on that indicates we aren't being told the whole story.

 

[edward]

WASHINGTON – President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060222-1410-portssecurity.html

WHAT, the guy has been talking about this as if he had been right on top of it all along. Rove is in full spin cycle again.

DPW was formed by a September 2005 merger of Dubai Port Authority and Dubai Port International. DPW is 100 percent owned by the government of the Emirate of Dubai via a Dubai government holding company called the PCFC (Ports, Customs, and Free Zone Corporation). The government holding company is headed by the ruler of Dubai, Shiek Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who took over on Jan. 4, 2006, following the death of his father, Sheikh Maktoum.

Ok OK So State owned DPWorld (the company) has a year and a half of experience under its belt and is ready to take on the big Apple.

 

[Cyrus]

DP World is in Dubai. That is where the D comes from. And we should assume that no one associated with this very large shipping company knew anything of the above incidents? Give me a break.

You do know that Dubai is not a country, right? Dubai is part of the United Arab Emeriates. Its not some backwards 3rd world country like afganistan Edward.

http://www.am.joneslanglasalle.com/NEWS/2002/11nov/Dubai.jpg

Many consider it to be one of the nicest and most modern places in the Middle East.

Tell me Edward, do you mean to tell me a our shipping companies are in cahoots with drug traffickers? I think you owe use the break, not the other way around. We KNOW drugs are being trafficked at our ports, does that mean we can stop it? Knowing something does not mean you are willfully doing it. You need to distinguish the two.

Previous to this incident "guilty by association" has been enough for the CIA to clamp down hard on a country. In national security issues "guilt by association" has to be preaumed to be true.

As John Mc Laughling says, WRONG! The US government in fact does not hold this view, only you do. So you are making a false argument. And please don't point to your 9-11 reports, because in it they said it happened in the UAE, it did not say the UAE were knowingly helping terrorists. It's one of the largest places of transporting goods in the Middle East, how do you NOT expect something bad to go through there? Why don't you put some facts forth that implicates the UAE government if you want to continue this false argument of yours.

Near the start of this thread I told you:

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.

and you replied (with my name in all caps )

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.

But the more you post, the less I think you actually do. The US government is itself calling the UAE our ally, and yet you continue to call them the enemy. At this point, you really need to start backing up your claims or just stop making them.

 

[edward]

You do know that Dubai is not a country, right? Dubai is part of the United Arab Emeriates. Its not some backwards 3rd world country like afganistan Edward.

Of course I know this, and I did not refer to it as as being a country, please read again.
I only stated that the "company" in question is located in Dubai, and did so in relevance to:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates, was the headquarters of the nuclear black market run by disgraced Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The Khan network supplied centrifuge technology to countries including Libya and North Korea.

Tell me Edward, do you mean to tell me a our shipping companies are in kahoots with drug traffickers? I think you owe use the break, not the other way around. We KNOW drugs are being trafficked at our ports, does that mean we can stop it? Knowing something does not mean you are willfully doing it. Distinguish the two.

Someone else posted the "Drug" issue.

As John Mc Laughling says, WRONG! The US government in fact does not hold this view, only you do. So you are making a false argument. And please don't point to your 9-11 reports, because in it they said it happened in the UAE, it did not say the UAE were knowingly helping terrorists.

No, it was just that for a period of time they did not co-operate on shutting down terrorists activites and funding as they were warned to do in 1999. Had they done so... who knows. There is a link to that back yonder somewhere.

 

[SOS2008]

The middle eastern counties are in constant turmoil. Even If the UAE DPworld, can manage a safe and secure operation NOW, can that be guaranteed in the future? Sure they are currently supposedly an ally, but then both Iraq and Iran were our allies in the past.

Exactly:

Endless conflicts of interest abound when it comes to foreign dependence in order for the U.S. to maintain its infrastructure, electrical grid, military weaponry and supplies, air travel and homeland security, to name a few. When smaller U.S. specialty industries vital to the industrial base become extinct on our shores, they now appear huge in a world where alliances are tenuous at best. A global economy at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, security and standard of living is something that the Colonists would not have stood for. They would have found another way. Maybe America still has time to do the same.

- http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11650.shtml

In any event, I don't see how foreign ownership of a US port is that much different than foreign ownership in other companies (such as rubber companies, automobile companies, airlines, etc.). In fact, some industries encourage foreign investment - they need the extra cash to pay their pension obligations: Airline Ownership and Control: Good for Consumers, Airlines, and the United States[/url]

The article goes on to say:

The industrial base and manufacturing for the U.S. military were necessarily intertwined. But following the end of the Cold War there has been a deliberate decomposition of U.S. industry, unprecedented in American history. There are a number of factors which have contributed to U.S. dependence on foreign trade, primarily with India and China, which has not only led to millions of U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs permanently lost, but paints a grim picture for the long term stability of the U.S. military supply line.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11650.shtml

So it could be chemicals, ball-bearings, and so forth that are important for national security. Not just maintaining control of something more obviously strategic, such as our seaports.

But you are right about the need and therefore desire for foreign investment. When tax breaks are implemented (to shift funds to the wealthy, Wall Street, etc.), and "...Not one but two wars were prosecuted (one clearly necessary, the 2nd, less so). On top of several national emergencies that ratcheted up spending (9/11, Katrina), we have seen runaway ordinary spending from the Federal government. One party rule -- no matter which party -- causes profligate wasting of OPM, and the present group of spendthrifts are no different. Surprisingly, the President has never vetoed a spending bill." - http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/10/subsidizing_us_.html, foreign money is necessary.

As per sources via links provided above by various members, U.S. seaports are in dire need of modernization, including the Port Newark:

Over the past four years, a significant capital investment has been allocated by P&O Ports and A.P. Moeller-Maersk (formerly Royal P&O Nedlloyd) for the redevelopment of the existing Port Newark Container Terminal (PNCT) in Port Newark, New Jersey.

- http://www.pnct.net/

So we're making deals with communist states and states associated with terrorism. I won't go into trends of foreign ownership of U.S. assets overall (e.g., Canada owns a great deal), only to say that it has skyrocketed in recent years, with Treasuries now above 50% for example. There is debate on how good or bad foreign investment may be in the long run. IMO, it may not be bad financially, but it is all bad (outsourcing, importing, etc.) in view of national security.

 

[Cyrus]

No, it was just that for a period of time they did not co-operate on shutting down terrorists activites and funding as they were warned to do in 1999.

Prove it. Tell me exactly what were the known terrorist activities going on in the UAE that could have been stopped. If you are going to say trafficking cargo, tell me exactly how they are supposed to stop it? It is the same reason we can't stop all the trafficking that goes on at our own ports. Too high a volume makes it impossible to check 100% or even 10% of all items. If you want to say money, then tell me exactly whose bank accounts were they instructed to freeze at the time?

Your own quote even says, 'for a short period of time.' Which shows that once they realized the extent of the problem they took a proactive stance. Since you are putting the UAE in an unfair light, I am going to hold you to what you say from now on. Start providing solid evidence to back up what you have to say. Tell me things that could have actually been done to stop 9-11, not theoretical hand waiving.

 

[edward]

Prove it. Tell me exactly what were the known terrorist activities going on in the UAE that could have been stopped. If you are going to say trafficking cargo, tell me exactly how they are supposed to stop it? It is the same reason we can't stop all the trafficking that goes on at our own ports. Too high a volume makes it impossible to check 100% or even 10% of all items. If you want to say money, then tell me exactly whose bank accounts were they instructed to freeze at the time?

I am not about to go scrambling for that link again. Oh well here it is, it is in the link in post 58 and it is in the 911 commission report. I have given an other link to illegal cargo that was shipped in and out of Dubai. I have to take a long shot and say that it would have involved DP before the mereger. (the merger was only last year. Sept 05.0

Your own quote even says, 'for a short period of time.' Which shows that once they realized the extent of the problem they took a proactive stance. Since you are putting the UAE in an unfair light, I am going to hold you to what you say from now on. Start providing solid evidence to back up what you have to say.

It was a short periond relatively speaking from 1999 when they were warned, to 2003-4 when they actually begain to take it seriously.

What does this have to do with a company that has only been in existence for less than two years, and is a merger of what was both wrong and right in the past. Ten years ago we would have sent these guys to the back door to make deliveries. Tell me what wonderful chages have taken place that make them capable of doing the job?