1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush Administration OKs United Arab Emirates Company to Handle US Port Operations

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by gifford1967, Feb 17, 2006.

Tags:
Page 1 of 9
  1. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,305
    Likes Received:
    4,648
    Why is the Bush Administration allowing a company based in the United Arab Emirates to play a role in operating US ports? It just boggles the mind. I wouldn't want any foriegn company to handle port operations, and especially not one based in the Middle East. This is an example of a REAL security issue.


    Despite Fears, a Dubai Company Will Help Run Ports in New York

    By PATRICK McGEEHAN

    The Bush administration dismissed the security concerns of local officials yesterday and restated its approval of a deal that will give a company based in Dubai a major role in operating ports in and around New York City.

    Representatives of the White House and the Treasury Department said they had given their approval for Dubai Ports World to do business in the United States after a rigorous review. The decision, they said, was final.

    Dubai Ports World is buying the British company that currently operates the cruise-ship terminal on the West Side of Manhattan, one of the biggest cargo terminals in New York Harbor, and terminals in Philadelphia, Baltimore and other big ports.

    Several lawmakers, including Representative Peter T. King of Long Island, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Senator Charles E. Schumer, have criticized the administration for its approval of the deal, saying it was done too quickly and without enough scrutiny of the ramifications for security at American ports.

    "In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company," said Mr. King, a Republican. He added that people in the intelligence community had told him they had concerns about how the company operated the port of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates.

    "I'm going to be pushing as hard as I can to slow this down." Mr. King said.

    Mr. Schumer said that he was concerned that the company could be infiltrated by terrorists with designs on exploiting the vulnerability of American ports. He noted that the Sept. 11 attacks were financed in part by money that passed through banks in the United Arab Emirates.

    "This is not going to go through quietly and secretly the way some people might like," Mr. Schumer said, adding that he feared that diplomacy might have trumped national security in this case.

    In an interview in London, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, a financial adviser to the royal family of Dubai, said yesterday, "We are working closely with the Americans."

    In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's operations in Europe and Latin America.

    Mr. Schumer and six other members of Congress sent a letter yesterday to John W. Snow, the treasury secretary, calling for a more thorough review of the deal, in which Dubai Ports World agreed to pay $6.8 billion to acquire a British shipping company, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. A subsidiary of the company, P & O Ports North America, operates the local facilities.

    Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, also wrote to Mr. Snow, seeking information about the security review that was conducted. Mr. Coscia said in an interview that he sent the letter after a few attempts to get answers drew no response.

    "Clearly, we would expect that information relative to a facility that we operate would be shared with us," Mr. Coscia said. "It is not our role to review and approve this transfer," he said, but added that "given the fact that this is our port and these are employees for whom we feel responsibility, there are issues we would like to become comfortable with."

    P & O Ports operates the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal and owns a 50 percent interest in the Port Newark Container Terminal, which is the third-largest cargo terminal on the Port Authority's property. The other half-interest is owned by a subsidiary of Maersk Line, which is based in Denmark.

    The Dubai purchase was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which Mr. Snow is chairman and which does not usually disclose information about its deliberations, said Brookly McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department. Ms. McLaughlin declined to say when the committee began or ended its review of the deal or what national-security implications it considered.

    "We as a general rule do not comment at all on any specific transactions," Ms. McLaughlin said. She added that the review could not be reopened unless the company provided false information or omitted important facts.

    Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said his department had no information about Dubai Ports World that justified an objection to the deal. Indeed, he said, the company has cooperated with the department in its efforts to secure American ports and ships in foreign ports.

    "We did not find derogatory information in our review," he said.

    But that review, Mr. Baker said, did not involve gathering information from outside sources, like the Port Authority, because the committee must keep a proposed transaction secret. He said the committee's investigation began in November and ended in mid-January.

    The investigation did not include background checks on the senior managers of the company or an evaluation of how the company screens its own employees, Mr. King said. "Certainly, you would think they would talk to the Port Authority," he added.

    Mr. Schumer said he believed that pressure for a second review was beginning to mount in Congress, among Democrats and Republicans. Mr. King said he would consider holding a Homeland Security Committee hearing on the matter if the administration refused to reconsider.

    "This can't be treated in a pre-9/11 way," Mr. King said. "There was a tone-deafness here that indicates they didn't show the level of concern that it warranted."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/nyregion/17ports.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
     
    #1 gifford1967, Feb 17, 2006
  2. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    While I whole-heartedly disagree with this move it is far from new... Clinton gave ports to the Chinese during his stay. I completely disagree with giving up control of any of our ports to any nation other then our own. While I can see the financial ramifications for doing it, but those gains don't out-weigh our national security and peace of mind.
     
    #2 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  3. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,683
    Likes Received:
    25,924
    what could possibly go wrong?
     
    #3 MadMax, Feb 17, 2006
  4. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Then you would be agreeing with Hillary and democrats and support this bill? :eek: ;)

    -----------

    Democrats plan bill to block Dubai-US port deal

    By Jeremy Pelofsky

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.

    Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.

    "We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Menendez said in a statement.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217...31UWvWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
     
    #4 mc mark, Feb 17, 2006
  5. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029

    You bet your ass I would... but the difference is they will politicize it and completely leave out the fact that her husband did the exact same thing and we still have ports in Chinese control because of it.
     
    #5 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  6. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    What are these ports that you speak of?
     
    #6 mc mark, Feb 17, 2006
  7. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,090
    Likes Received:
    10,073
    Via Kos...

    I agree with Max... what could possibly go wrong?
     
    #7 rimrocker, Feb 17, 2006
  8. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    #8 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  9. hotballa

    hotballa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,521
    Likes Received:
    316
    There havent been any terrorists that blew up airplanes sneak through China yet. A lot of the 9/11 hijackers came through Dubai.
     
    #9 hotballa, Feb 17, 2006
  10. Buck Turgidson

    Buck Turgidson Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    100,591
    Likes Received:
    102,835
    Exactly.
     
    #10 Buck Turgidson, Feb 17, 2006
  11. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    I hadn't realized that the Panama Canal was an American port. Thanks for the link.
     
    #11 mc mark, Feb 17, 2006
  12. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Nah, China's not the single biggest threat in all the world to us... not at all. And if you think for one minute that China doesn't have it's fair share of terrorist ties then you need to do a little research my friend. Feel free to see just this one unclassified CIA document finding China as one of the largest suppliers to terrorists.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm

    Who is more dangerous, those who fund or those who supply? Yeah, they can't buy it if there isn't anything to buy. Either way China, the UAE or the UK, I don't give a rats ass... US ports should be in US control only.
     
    #12 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  13. hotballa

    hotballa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    12,521
    Likes Received:
    316
    wow so now its China? And all this time I thought we were spending billions to go after Arab terrorists. What the US and China have right now is a military pissing match, with both sides hoping the other one doesnt pee on his shoes and start something stupid. The terrorists on the other hand are trying to put cherry bombs in the toilets. Which one would you rather deal with?
     
    #13 hotballa, Feb 17, 2006
  14. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    #14 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  15. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Militant Islam is our largest direct threat, other countries black market suppliers are 2nd on that list... we can't exactly invade all of the countries that we know to supply terrorists. So we're gonna take on China, Russia and North Korea all by ourselves because we feel their threat? No, we stop the terrorists themselves while trying to diplomatically halt the supply chains... just as we try to do in the war on drugs. I bring up the war on drugs because of this Frontline I saw over the weekend which has a great parallel to the war on terror. You must try and change the minds and hearts of terrorists (users) while taking out their leaders (dealers) and breaking up their supply chains.
     
    #15 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  16. mleahy999

    mleahy999 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    30
    Hutchison Whampoa controls the canal. They also have a port in the Bahamas. They are a billion dollar company and their object is making more money. I have a hard time believing that if there is conflict that HW would deny access to the the canal. How would they stop the USS Ronald Reagan and her fleet of battleships and destroyers?
     
    #16 mleahy999, Feb 17, 2006
  17. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Not very reassuring

    We know how the war on drugs is turning out.
     
    #17 mc mark, Feb 17, 2006
  18. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    Did you even read my posts? The canal was given back to Panama in 1999 to do what they see fit, but in 1997 Clinton gave over control to the Chinese... I was pointing out that this act of leasing out ports to foreign countries is nothing new. In the articles that I cited though there were a lot of other ports on US soil handed over to the chinese as well, on all coasts from east to west to the gulf.
     
    #18 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  19. Svpernaut

    Svpernaut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    1,029
    I agree, but the war on drugs is failing the same reason the war on terror is struggling... our hands are tied by the hypocrisy of it all. Everytime the DEA (the US) had a bead on what was going on in the drug world (terrorists) their hands were tied by lobbyists (the international community), and even though they knew exactly how to stop the flow of traffic they couldn't until it was too late.

    If you haven't seen the Frontline I encourage you to watch it and note just how many parallels there really are. You can watch it online HERE.
     
    #19 Svpernaut, Feb 17, 2006
  20. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,810
    Likes Received:
    41,282

    First off, you're citing an "investigative report" from good ol' world net daily - which is written out of some wing-nut's basement in Northern Virginia.

    Second - nothing was just given to "the Chinese" - the contract was awareded to Hutchinson Whampoa - which is an old school, giant Hong Kong based multinational conglomerate with operations ranging from telecom to shipping to public utilities to retail. You can go to the Hong Kong stock exchange and buy shares in it if you want. Now - Hong Kong is part of china - but doing business in Hong Kong is a WORLD apart from doing business in the mainland - and Hong Kong based companies operate like MNC's everywhere else. Of course, the idiot in his basemetn who writes WorldNetDaily can't be expected to realize these subtleties.

    Second, putting that aside - if they awarded a contract to a Hong Kong based conglomerate in 1998 - and the US was relinquishing control in 1999 - who cares? Do you honestly think that that less than one year of port operation by an HK shipping co. that the US could have done something about) really mattered or represented a threat? The Panama Canal itself has become decreasingly important insofar as shipping goes anyway in recent years as it is too small for the latest generation of container ships. -

    Hell - if China decided to embargo all CHINESE ports in mainland china to the US - it would cause FAR more damage to the U.S. than the Panama canal - this is not 1922.


    If you are referring to THIS passage in the article in WorldNetDaily
    You're misreading it - these places are all in Panama and presumably were to be abandoned once the US relinquished control of the Panama canal. Rather than being abandoned, they were leased to the Whampoa-Hutch to operate the canal. They were not on the US mainland - and they represent no threat to the US any more so than multinational corporations owning property in Latin America

    Regardless of whatever goes on with respect to the leasing of mainland US ports to the UAE - this article from worldnetdaily is a piece of crap - plain and simple. All it takes is common sense. That's what happens when you have unchecked random drivel written by wing nuts in their basements in fairfax or alexandria or wherever.
     
    #20 SamFisher, Feb 17, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 9

Share This Page