The Port Deal Controversy

[Matt Molnar]

Despite the attempts by Time and Newsweek to extend the Cheney hunting non-story another week, it seems the biggest news this week will be the takeover of the British company (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company) that operates many of the US's largest ports, by a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (Dubai Ports World).

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. Here are some points I've found most interesting.

-- 99.9% of America, including myself, had no idea our ports were being run by a British company in the first place. To me, any foreign institution, be it owned by a foreign government or foreign private enterprise, operating something so important to national security as our ports is a bad idea. We don't even allow airlines to be foreign owned (probably for competitive reasons as opposed to security concerns, but still).
-- The mainstream media hasn't exploited this point yet, but last month, President Bush nominated David Sanborn to be chief administrator of the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration, reporting directly to Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta. Sanborn's previous job: DP World's Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America.
-- 40% of our military's overseas movements are moved through the 6 ports involved in the deal.
-- The administrator of the ports, be it DP World or P&O, is simply that, an administrator. Individual shipping companies, many or most of which are foreign owned, own or lease the actual terminals in the port. We should not be relying on private concerns, the shipping companies or the port administrators, to provide security. It must be federalized as much as possible. Customs and the Coast Guard already do most of the work, but they need to be expanded. Private security didn't work at airports, why should it work at seaports?
--The biggest concern seems to be based on the hypothesis that being a UAE-based company, DP World is more liable to have Al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers in their management ranks, who would thereby hire Al Qaeda people in the US to work at the ports, who could use their positions to smuggle in nukes and dirty bombs. Again, the only way to truly prevent this is through federal security.

I think this is just a bunch of political grandstanding by guys in both parties during a congressional election year. What do y'all think?

[PhilDernerJr]

You hit the nail on the head. There's nothing I could add.

IT jsut seems like one of the dumbest moves we can make.

[Midnight Mike]

I don't see any problem with the Port sale, this is the UAE we are talking about, Dubai is a very modern city & does not support terrorist, hell, the country has the only 6 Star hotel in the world.....

If Dubai wanted to launch a terrorist attack, they have a large fleet of aircraft that could do a very effective job (Emirates).

I think people need to understand that "Arab" does not always mean terrorist....

Now, if your argument is that a foreign company should not operate the port, whether, British, French, or Australian, then, that is very valid argument.

Fact is, ports have been in foreign hands for quite some time and there has not been a problem....

If we do not allow this transfer to go through, we are not exactly making friends, go ahead & buy our products, just as long as you operate elsewhere.

[T-Bird76]

I have to disagree and for one single point, we are a capitalist society. As Mike stated our ports have been foreign owned for years our system shouldn't say to a country that we have very good relations with "I'm sorry you can't buy this company." If the argument was that our ports should be owned and run only by American companies and "All" foreign companies were banned then I'd agree. While our system may not be perfect its needs to be allowed to run how it was intended to run. If the U.S and the U.A.E are on good economic terms then they should be treated as though they were just another British or U.S company who wanted to take over the ports. If the deals legit then let it be done.

I'm not one for trusting the Arab nations but I have to stand by our economic system and how it runs. If our system allows the U.A.E to take over these ports then you have to support that conclusion. We can't have double standards for some countries. If we had some kind of sanction on the U.A.E then we'd have a problem allowing them to do this but our system allows for it. I'm one for almost a pure capitalist society with little govt control, when the govt gets involved things get ****ed up. Personally if they wanted to get something in they could, even if the 82nd Airborne watched over the ports you can't screen every single container its just not feasible.

[PhilDernerJr]

I think when it comes to economics vs. national security....that our safety wins.

By that logic...anyone would be able to buy a gun as long as they have the money regardless of the safety concerns it might bring. Honestly, that's as accurate of a comparison as one can get.

I'm all about us doing what we can to maintain and promote capitalism. But when you are talking about a few sensitive areas of business that can have drastic effects on the safety of our nation like seaports and airports, that's where the government needs to step in.

The money will be made there for business through the cargo the port brings in, not necessarily the owners.

[Garri767]

I think when it comes to economics vs. national security....that our safety wins.

By that logic...anyone would be able to buy a gun as long as they have the money regardless of the safety concerns it might bring. Honestly, that's as accurate of a comparison as one can get.

I'm all about us doing what we can to maintain and promote capitalism. But when you are talking about a few sensitive areas of business that can have drastic effects on the safety of our nation like seaports and airports, that's where the government needs to step in.

The money will be made there for business through the cargo the port brings in, not necessarily the owners.

agreed. but overall you cant really have a correct solution to this , for it is all based on your opinion . I agree to what phil already said , but many may not, itd be a fight that never would end

[T-Bird76]

The problem as I see it you run the risk of a domino effect. If we say this and that must be govt run what else then will the govt want to get involved in? Again I go back to the foundations of economic system and what a capitalist system is based upon. We can't let govt takeover areas of our economy that have been under the free market system. Just look at France's economy, the govt has its head stuck so far up the French economy's ass the unemployment rate is sky high.

Personally I'd rather have a private company run the ports. They have more at stake then the govt. For a company it comes down to dollars and the ramifications of lost revenue. A breach in security would mean a huge lose for a company and a lose to its investors who they would have to answer to. Who does the govt answer to?? The public?? Take a look at New Orleans lots of questions, no answers. Put controls in to lower the risk but let the free market system work.

[Midnight Mike]

I think when it comes to economics vs. national security....that our safety wins.

By that logic...anyone would be able to buy a gun as long as they have the money regardless of the safety concerns it might bring. Honestly, that's as accurate of a comparison as one can get.

I'm all about us doing what we can to maintain and promote capitalism. But when you are talking about a few sensitive areas of business that can have drastic effects on the safety of our nation like seaports and airports, that's where the government needs to step in.

The money will be made there for business through the cargo the port brings in, not necessarily the owners.

Safety concerns, what about driving in the snow, that is a safety concern, we can always outlaw driving in the rain, how about driving in windy conditions.

If there is a legimate concern against the UAE, then why do not have an embargo against the country like we do with Iran?

Where were these "safety" concerns when a foreign company was in charge of Port operations?

As for me, I rather have a private company in charge of Port Operations with US Governmental oversight....

[PhilDernerJr]

Snow doesn't intentionally crash planes into skyscrapers. The two don't even compare.

[Midnight Mike]

Snow doesn't intentionally crash planes into skyscrapers. The two don't even compare.

Very true, I was only speaking of your gun analogy.....

Couple of other points.

The UAE Government was not involved in any part of 9/11.

The UAE would not be in control of Port Security that will still be the US Coast Guard and/or Homeland Defense.

Additional points:

Even though the US Government has not supported terrorist groups, we have had private companies do, we have had many groups support the IRA for years, which was a terrorist organization...

[Midnight Mike]

Gotta admit something, the more I read up on the Port Deal, at first glance it does not look good.

I think that perhaps the first thing is that many of us did not know that a foreign enitity was in charge of Port operations, & then to top it off, an Arab country wants to buy out the Briish company.


Something else to consider, kind of amazing that some of these politicians that are against this deal, because of the involvement of an Arab country, are the same Politicians that are against racial profiling......

[Tom_Turner]

Yes, the "profiling" aspect of this quite interesting. If anything, Bush is remaining consistent and it is the likes of Hillary that is flip flopping.

None-the-less I am entirely against the deal.

And no, I don't mind one bit if a British company were still there.

We have threatened all kinds of sanctions against China over the years....the Most Favored Nation Trading status..or whatever it is called..its a misnomer anyway, but the point being we frequenlty interfere with the free market.

We bail out foreign govts to bail out Wall Street.

We prohibit travel to Cuba becuase ..well, of this and that...

Again, who determined the "Blind Cleric" behind the fist World Trade Center bombing should be living amongst the American people? Above even the regulations of INS?

Who was it? And why is there no accountability?

This administration is likely to be 100% wrong about how democracy is going to work in Iraq; We don't need a collosal misjudgement on this issue now.

[Matt Molnar]

Here's another fun conflict of interest...The Treasury Department was in charge of investigating whether this deal was in our national interest. Our Treasury Secretary, John Snow, was formerly the CEO of CSX. CSX sold their port operations division to DP World while Snow was CEO for $1.5 billion.

[Tom_Turner]

Well..... it would appear the people have spoken.

[Max10803]

Yeah, it would appear so.

However, I dont understand the hysteria thats followed this deal from start to finish. As Mike put it before, I think that some people need to quit associating "Arab" with "terrorist".

I mean, 95% of the goods that are recieved in US ports go unchecked! I think that its definitely a possibility that the Dubai company would've made the ports more secure. It sure would be hard to get any more lineant than the ports are now!

I think that one article from cnn.com sums it up for me very well.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/ ... index.html