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

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is defending approval of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over operations at six major American ports, even as one senator sought a new ban on companies owned by governments overseas in some U.S. shipping operations.

..."The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida said Thursday in a House speech. [continued]

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_national/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19860_4475139,00.html

This is simply beyond belief!

 

[loseyourname]

You know, even if these senators are right, they sound awfully racist in now trying to block acquisition by foreign companies, considering the ports before were under the control of a British company and they didn't seem to care then.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, whatever the past, this is clearly a matter of national security today. In fact securing our ports is one of the biggest and most difficult problems that we face. And we want to hand over control to a foreign entity?

 

[loseyourname]

It just caught my eye. How can we be handing over control to a foreign entity when they were already under the control of a foreign entity? It's not like national security just now became a concern. The only difference now is that an anglo-saxon entity is selling to an arabic entity, and the senate doesn't trust arabs.

Anyway, that's certainly the way it looks.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You seem to be worried about the past. The issue is national security today. Should we throw out all other post-911 considerations as well?

Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen

http://www.house.gov/shays/news/2006/february/febports.htm

And I think this should absolutely be done by a US owned and based company.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to know how Bush is acting in our best interest here; how is this a good idea wrt our national security? And since this is clearly not in our best interest, whose interests are his priorety?

 

[edward]

The same UAE company, Dubai Ports World, is taking over South Koreas newest and largest port.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/business/2006/January/business_January272.xml&section=business&col=

I think The Bush administration is in favor of this because UAE holds billions of dollars worth of T bills. Plus Bush seems to have a great hand holding kinship with wealthy Arabs.

Dick Cheney is most likely the real point man here.

Prime Projects International (PPI) of Dubai, is a major, but low-profile, subcontractor to Halliburton's multi-billion-dollar deal with the Pentagon to provide support services to U.S. forces.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/26660

edit:
And last year the same company bought American owned CSX World Terminals.

The deal makes Dubai Ports one of the six largest operators of terminals in the world and gives it a presence in Asia for the first time.

In January CSX World Terminals acquired a majority of Asia Container Terminals, which included one of the biggest container terminals in Hong Kong. A month earlier CSX (NYSE:CSX) had announced plans to sell CSX World Terminals to Dubai Ports International.

What the Hell is going on? Islamics will now own the worlds largest dirty bomb delivery network.

And we can't forget this:

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., the UAE was identified as a major financial center used by al-Qaeda in transferring money to the hijackers. The nation immediately cooperated with the U.S., freezing accounts tied to suspected terrorists and strongly clamping down on money laundering.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108074.html

 

[russ_watters]

It just caught my eye. How can we be handing over control to a foreign entity when they were already under the control of a foreign entity? It's not like national security just now became a concern. The only difference now is that an anglo-saxon entity is selling to an arabic entity, and the senate doesn't trust arabs.

Anyway, that's certainly the way it looks.

Yeah, it looks like a politician blustering over nothing to me.

Well, whatever the past, this is clearly a matter of national security today. In fact securing our ports is one of the biggest and most difficult problems that we face. And we want to hand over control to a foreign entity?

[separate post]And since this is clearly not in our best interest, whose interests are his priorety?

How is it a matter of national security? How is it not in our best interes. Heck, how is it even a chang from previous policy? It isn't like the Coast Guard is being disbanded. The Coast Guard still has primary responsibility for port security now, previously when the operations were under British corporate control, and still will later if the UAE takes over. The analogy made by the senator about turning over border control or customs is not correct. In fact, it's not really an analogy, since customs is one of the relevant agencies for securing our ports and it isn't(wasn't) being turned over to foreign control.

This isn't like the Panama Canal where the land itself used to be ours and when our lease was up it went to someone else. These companies are just running the day-to-day operations and they still have considerable government oversight.

 

[loseyourname]

You seem to be worried about the past. The issue is national security today. Should we throw out all other post-911 considerations as well?

But the ports were all British-owned post 9/11, which is really my point. This isn't about the past; it's about the present. In fact, until the sale is complete, the ports are still under British control. I just can't see the reason for concern arising now and not at some previous time unless the concern is solely over the new owners being Arabs.

I understand your concern, but why voice it now when the ports have been under foreign control for a long time? Something tells me the senators do not honestly believe that a multinational based in the UAE is more likely to sell secrets to terrorists on how to bypass security and customs (if the company that owns the ports even has such secrets, which I also doubt) than a multinational based in the UK. They're just trying to get headlines and playing off of national anti-Arab xenophobia in the wake of a terrorist attack carried out by Arabs. I would even be willing to bet that some of these were the same people crying out over not approving the sale of Unocal to the chinese company.

 

[edward]

I can't believe the total lack of knowledge of national security that I see in the last several posts.

Do you remember the words in the final sentence of the 911 commission??

As best as I can rememer it was:

"The final result is that it was a lack of imagination."

Nothing has changed.

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[edward]

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

You only have to read the links. They now own both ends of shipping control. The especially dangerous area is shipping from southeast asia to the USA. If you can not see a potential danger there you are not really looking.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.

Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.

After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of co-operation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts

You mentioned the Coast Guard:

Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard Commander and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has spent the last two and a half years studying the security, or lack of it, at U.S. seaports. And he says shipping containers are the weak link.

"We have about six million of them that arrived in the United States last year," says Flynn. "And really, nobody can say with any confidence what's in them."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/25/60minutes/main565180.shtml

 

[loseyourname]

How does who owns the ports make any difference to what's in the containers? The companies that are importing and exporting goods have not changed either location or ownership, and the people who do whatever inspecting goes on will not change, either. We're reading the same things you are, and all I see is guilt by assocation. People in the UAE were involved in 9/11, and this multinational is based in the UAE. Should we have stopped Chicago from being the nation's center of meatpacking because it was also the center of Al Capone's operations?

If you can show me how an ownership change for the ports will also result in a change in what is being shipped, where it's being shipped from, or how security is handled, then I'll follow your concerns. As of right now, all I've seen is innuendo. Even if you're trying to implicate the UAE government as being complicit in Al Qaeda attacks, is this multinational state-owned or controlled?

 

[russ_watters]

You only have to read the links. They now own both ends of shipping control. The especially dangerous area is shipping from southeast asia to the USA. If you can not see a potential danger there you are not really looking.

Or maybe you're seeing something that isn't there. If there is something there, tell me what it is!

 

[SOS2008]

The United Arab Emirates is considered a U.S. ally. However, as this CFR Task Force report made clear in 2004, the UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. That fact has officials in these cities asking questions. The New York Times says the move takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level," while Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) expresses similar security concerns on NPR. Schumer and other lawmakers are urging the White House to take a closer look at the sale (WashPost).

The uproar over the Dubai Ports World purchase is only the latest to focus on foreign ownership of vital infrastructure. The U.S. Congress last year overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission for a Chinese company, CNOOC, to purchase Unocal (Washington Quarterly), a U.S. oil services company. In 1999, when Hutchison Whampoa, a Chinese company, took control of the Panama Canal from the United States at the beginning of 2000, retired U.S. admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor."

Even in American hands, U.S. ports suffer from the "almost complete absence of any security oversight in the loading and transporting of a box from its point of origin to its final destination" said Flynn in his recent testimony before the U.S. Senate. After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security did create the "Container Security Initiative," but an April 2005 Governmental Accountability Office report questions the program's ability to improve cargo security.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9901/uae_port_purchase_raises_fears.html

So it's not just an issue of Homeland Security, but national security in general regarding U.S. independence from foreign control of infrastructure vital to our country. It's bad enough we depend on other countries for oil, stability of our currency, and national debt. Terrorism is the least of my worries in comparison.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well this won't stand and it will be obvious to most of us why: This is inherently a ludicrous idea and Bush will rightly look a bit like a traitor to most people.

This is an issue of access and control - access and control create opportunity. It is really very simple.

One really starts to wonder who is on what side here: Spy on US citizens without oversight for reasons of national security, but hand over the ports to foreign agencies; and to a company from a nation with a dubious record on terror, no less.

 

[russ_watters]

Well this won't stand and it will be obvious to most of us why: This is inherently a ludicrous idea and Bush will rightly look a bit like a traitor to most people.

This is an issue of access and control - access and control create opportunity. It is really very simple.

One really starts to wonder who is on what side here: Spy on US citizens without oversight for reasons of national security, but hand over the ports to foreign agencies; and to a company from a nation with a dubious record on terror, no less.

Ivan, none of that is an argument for why you think this idea is "inherently ludicrous". Just saying it is is not an argument.

 

[russ_watters]

No one wants to read links or do research of their own. They want to dismiss everything out of hand with antagonistic one-liners.

Don't make that erroneous assumption (and personal attack). Where do you think I got the quote I posted from the article if I didn't read the article?

So it's not just an issue of Homeland Security, but national security in general regarding U.S. independence from foreign control of infrastructure vital to our country. It's bad enough we depend on other countries for oil, stability of our currency, and national debt. Terrorism is the least of my worries in comparison.

That's fine, but that is not what the Senator was talking about.

 

[SOS2008]

Don't make that erroneous assumption. Where do you think I got the quote I posted from the article if I didn't read the article?.

It was a general comment about behavior in many threads.

That's fine, but that is not what the Senator was talking about.

The Senator and what he said is only part of the issue. I don't see why that is all that should be considered if there are additional important ramifications involved.

 

[edward]

If you can show me how an ownership change for the ports will also result in a change in what is being shipped, where it's being shipped from, or how security is handled, then I'll follow your concerns. As of right now, all I've seen is innuendo. Even if you're trying to implicate the UAE government as being complicit in Al Qaeda attacks, is this multinational state-owned or controlled?

What is being shipped doesn't matter until the possiblity of a little something extra being put aboard the ship enters the picture.

Under current law the foreign companies can employ security workers from anywhere and no U.S. citizenship or background check is required. I wasn't worried much about the British security at the British owned ports in the USA.
But with the possiblility of Islamic security personnel working the U.S. ports, especially since they will now be working on both ends of the supply system, yea I have a big problem with that.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A New Jersey congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/256503.html

I post the above link in lieu of tracking down the location of the exact law.
I presume what I stated about the law is correct, otherwise the congressman would not be wanting such a requirement.

 

[loseyourname]

Under current law the foreign companies can employ security workers from anywhere and no U.S. citizenship or background check is required. I wasn't worried much about the British security at the British owned ports in the USA.
But with the possiblility of Islamic security personnel working the U.S. ports, especially since they will now be working on both ends of the supply system, yea I have a big problem with that.

Okay, I see that concern. Then I ask why you think this is going to happen. I do not have the official payroll slips, but I can only imagine that US port security (that which is not carried out by the Coast Guard or Port Authority polices or other state organizations) is staffed by Americans, not by people that are either Brits or Arabs, the reason being that the ports are located in the US, and staff is presumably not going to commute across an ocean to work. Also, why do you think the staff is likely to change at all? This UAE-based multinational is something of a holding company, right? They'll probably install new management, but why would they layoff all of the currently employed security personnel only to hire and train new staff? And why would they hire Arabs? How many Arabs even live in these port cities and are both qualified for these positions and in need of employment?

And isn't it a little racist to imply that, just because someone is an Arab, he is more likely than previous personnel (who, as you stated above, were not screened and did not have to be citizens) to be involved in a terrorist plot? Heck, it even seems to me, with the racial profiling now occurring in the HSD, that an Arab involved in a terrorist plot would be more likely to be red-flagged and caught than a non-Arab involved in a similar plot.

As to the concern with what is being placed in the shipping containers: again, a legitimate concern, but why is that increased now? The ships are still going to go from point A to point B, correct? They're not now being rerouted through the UAE before being sent on to the US, are they? If the concern is that the security personnel themselves are going to place a device of some sort in the containers, why would they do that? Devices are placed in containers to be smuggled in. If the security personnel already possessed these devices/materials/whatever, they wouldn't need to smuggled in again. Once these things are in the country, it's best to just transport them by automobile.

I post the above link in lieu of tracking down the location of the exact law. I presume what I stated about the law is correct, otherwise the congressman would not be wanting such a requirement.

I agree with this concern. It is, however, a good reason to change the law, not to disallow the acquiring of British holdings by Arab companies.

 

[Moonbear]

One thing is certain, there's a lot of politic-ing involved in this acquisition. A U.S. company currently in partnership with the British-based firm is fighting this with regard to the port in Miami.

Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover
Email this Story

Feb 18, 9:08 PM (ET)

By TED BRIDIS
WASHINGTON (AP) - A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060219/D8FRT6F00.html

Since the question was raised earlier (unless I've misunderstood), at least according to this article, and contained within the quoted portion, this company is state-owned by the UAE.

I have to admit ignorance on this issue, as I was unaware that our ports were run by foreign companies already. What is the reasoning for putting our ports under management of foreign companies rather than keeping them controlled by the U.S.? Do we just have a lack of U.S. companies willing to take control of them, or is there some financial reason or foreign-relations incentive to handing the profits being made at our ports over to companies based in other countries?

Another somewhat naive question on this issue...if our ports are controlled by foreign companies (this could apply to the ports of any nation I suppose, unless we have substantially different laws and regulations regarding this), and for some reason, any reason, diplomatic relations with that foreign entity went kablooey (not even necessarily war or anything that extreme, but let's just say we were no longer allies with the country where that company was based), does that give that company, if aligning with the politics of their home country, the power to shut down our ports and not permit the ships in or out? I'm not talking about what happens to the containers in getting through customs or security issues, but simply allowing ships to dock and unload. If they could refuse to allow ships into our ports, what protection is there if that were to happen? Does the US government, or state or local government of the port cities, have the ultimate right to toss the management company out and take over control of the ports if such a dire circumstance should ever take place? So, I guess the overall question for me is, what exactly does this company, any company running our ports, have responsibility over, and what safeguards are in place to ensure they don't have the power to shut down our ports and cut off our supplies? Without knowing this, I can't form any kind of informed opinion on this issue.

 

[Cyrus]

The US government can take over the Port company if it comes to it. They could not shut down our ports whenever they felt like it, nor would they. They would loose so much money that they would go bankrupt.

 

[Moonbear]

The US government can take over the Port company if it comes to it. They could not shut down our ports whenever they felt like it, nor would they. They would loose so much money that they would go bankrupt.

Do you know that and have a source to back it up, or do you just think that's the case?

 

[sid_galt]

Should we have stopped Chicago from being the nation's center of meatpacking because it was also the center of Al Capone's operations?

No but would you have stopped the meatpacking operations had Al Capone been incharge of it?
I don't think it is practical and moral in the long run to support a people who are out to murder us.

 

[Cyrus]

A source is not necessary. Do you honestly think the US government would let its economy come to a hault? It would freeze the assets of the UAE just like it did to Iran in 79' and put it under US control, most likely selling it to the highest US bidder.

 

[edward]

The US government can take over the Port company if it comes to it. They could not shut down our ports whenever they felt like it, nor would they. They would loose so much money that they would go bankrupt.

How much would it take to drive the UAE into bankruptsy?

Do you think the U.S. Government could seize and reopen the ports overnight?? Give us a time frame and some links to where the funding would come from.

 

[Cyrus]

What funding? You don't need funding to freeze the assets of another country.

 

[edward]

A source is not necessary. Do you honestly think the US government would let its economy come to a hault? It would freeze the assets of the UAE just like it did to Iran in 79' and put it under US control, most likely selling it to the highest US bidder.

This is not Iran in 1979. This is America 2006.
Sure we could reposess our own ports, but at what cost? And again we would have a signifcant time frame to resume normal operations.

I can't seem to separate the security issue from this. The New York Port Authority is very much against this sale. One of the twin towers was taken down by a citizen of the UAE on 9/11.

We are at war with two Islamic countries and threatening a third. They on the other hand are screaming "kill Americans". Allowing an Islamic nation to purchase 6 of our east coast ports makes no sense at all in light of the billions we are spending on home land security.

 

[edward]

What funding? You don't need funding to freeze the assets of another country.

But you do need funding to get the ports operating again! And selling to the highest bidder is not going to happen overnight.