American Port Deal

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

OK, so I'm sure almost everyone has heard about the whole port deal controversy (UAE to take over management of American ports on the East Coast, people in Congress raise a ruckus). I didn't think it was that big of an issue (who cares whether American capitalists or Arab ones run the port??). But the whole issue has seemingly gotten larger, to the point where Bush's veto may be overridden. I wanted to hear what everyone else thought about this, I thought a few things were interesting:
1. The reputation of the company hasn't really been questioned, the only issue being pressed is that of the UAE's response to terrorism
2. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats were the first ones to really put this issue out in the spotlight and have highlighted their renewed focus on "port security"

[godfather of soul]

1. Well, seeing as all of the employees that they would hire would be Americans, I don't see the clear threat that allowing them to manage the ports presents.

2. The democratic response is stinks of racism and opportunism. Nothing says hypocrisy like stoking up anti-arab sentiment over a deal that they will not be able to prove compromises security. More proof that the democratic party is a dying vulture that will use reactionary arguments in order to increase its political capital among racist whites.

3. People should be complaining about the free-market instead of security. You don't like it, then have the ports nationalized!

4. Most importantly is the racist undertones of the arguments. How many European (WHITE) companies manage ports and are integral to so called "national security"? How many white owned companies are integral to "national defense" that have substantial holdings in other countries and citizens from other countries on their boards? I am think that companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and GE have or have had foreign nationals on their boards of directors. Yet, they get free passes because Europeans (WHITES) have never sponsored, funded or supported terrorism. Gimmie a break.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:19 PM
I didn't think it was that big of an issue (who cares whether American capitalists or Arab ones run the port??).
American capitalists in the port-management business care, I guess.

A few years back - during the Clinton administration - the right wing raised a ruckus when Panama gave some port management contracts to a Chinese company. Implied China was taking over the Panama Canal, basically. Now it's the liberals' turn.

Either way, it's nationalist demagogy. Oooh noooo, some of the 9/11 hijackers passed through the UAE! They passed through a lot of countries, including the U.S.....

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, it's a real fucking joke.

Btw, I don't know if you all noticed, but the Teamsters have come out against the UAE company taking over the port.

Bush & co. have basically said they'll delay the move to let the Dems talk it about in the house for a while, but then they'll go ahead with it anyway.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Well at least it is not an Israeli company.

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/95018.php

If any "terrorist" attacks do happen the US already have an oil rich patsy to blame in place. How conveinant

[Samuel]

I live in New York, where part of the takeovers are happening, and I could care less. If it is a capable company that wont fuck anything up, whats the problem? US customs are still going to be in place, so I don't see any reason why people would have a problem.

[Guerrilla22]

Just more proof that the far right in the US will follow the Bush administration blindly, if a democrat was in office and would have struck this deal, they would be going absolutley nuts right now.

However, since its the Bush administration that has implemented this, all the sudden the far right has taken a "we need to be tolerant of our Arab allies and not wanting a UAE company to takeover because they are Muslims in xenophobic," line.

[Zero]

They will swear to not be racist just untill the light is out of their eyes.

However they will still bomb brown people untill they die themselves.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+Feb 26 2006, 06:19 AM--> (Severian @ Feb 26 2006, 06:19 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:19 PM
I didn't think it was that big of an issue (who cares whether American capitalists or Arab ones run the port??).
American capitalists in the port-management business care, I guess. [/b]

The Ports are owned by P&O, a British based company....


BBC News
Shareholders in UK ports company P&O have voted to support a $6.8bn (£3.9bn) takeover bid by Dubai Ports World.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4709782.stm

[LSD]

Politics is politics, it's really no more complex than that.

To American congresspeople seeking to boost their chances in the midterms, I suppose this is a big deal. But for everyone else, it really isn't.

The question of which rich capitalist company gets this one particularly contract is so unimportant as to border on the absurd. Personally, I'm much more interested in how our response to this "crisis" reflects on this board and its membership.

Frankly, I've been surprised that this hasn't come up yet. A few days after this issue first "broke", I scanned through the politics forum, searching for the thread that I knew someone must of started ...but I couldn't find it.

And even now that it's finally here, the responses have without exception been on the ball. I really did expect more people to be as "outraged" as CNN seems to be. I'm quite glad I was mistaken.

It seems that unlike the more "mainstream" left-leaning forums where this "portsgate" has been the "big issue" of late, almost everyone on this forum is politically astute enough to recognize this situation for what it is

That's phenomenal! :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:28 AM
Frankly, I've been surprised that this hasn't come up yet. A few days after this issue first "broke", I scanned through the politics forum, searching for the thread that I knew someone must of started ...but I couldn't find it.

There was another thread a few days ago, saying how this is a case of "Islamaphobia".

That thread must have been lost during the server crash.

Pity. :lol:

[Janus]

Here's some of the latest news on this event.

BBC News

A Dubai company seeking a takeover of shipping company P&O has agreed to a 45-day review of the security impact, after concerns from a US bidder.
Dubai Ports World (DPW) aims to appease Miami-based Eller & Co, which will try to block the controversial £3.9bn ($6.8bn) takeover bid.

The US firm has lodged a petition in London's High Court, saying the buyout would harm its interests.

Dubai Ports (DPW) has said it was surprised by the outcry over the bid.

Security concerns

Many US lawmakers believe the deal could threaten US national security.
Republican and Democrat politicians have criticised the transaction, which would hand control of six US ports to DPW, based in the United Arab Emirates, claiming it would make the country more vulnerable to terrorism.

DPW, while agreeing to the security investigation prior to the deal, is still determined to proceed with the acquisition.

The company will also set up a separate subsidiary to run the ports, distanced from its owners.

"We consider our company to be a friend of the United States," Michael Moore, a company executive told BBC Five Live.

"We are simply trying to be helpful," he said of the 45-day review.

"It is clear that the nature of who we are, our operations and responsibilities is clearly being misunderstood."

Concessions

The company had already agreed not to take over the management of the US ports until security issues had been fully addressed.

However, this has not deterred critics of the deal.

New Jersey officials are taking legal action to try and block the deal, while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is seeking to annul P&O's 30-year operating licence, claiming it failed to seek permission for the transfer of ownership.
The deal had been expected to be formally sanctioned in a hearing in the High Court on Monday.

However, a judge is now expected to hear Eller & Co's petition to have the deal blocked, made late on Friday evening.

Eller, which provides stevedoring services at the port of Miami, is expected to argue that the deal could be revoked in the US and that it breaches contractual agreements it has with P&O.

'Licence threat'

"There is a real prospect that the arrangement will lead to US port authorities revoking licences and leases held by joint venture companies which will cause sever financial losses," its petition states.

Dubai Ports World said it was "fully committed" to the deal, which would make it the world's third largest port operator.

The Bush administration is backing the takeover, arguing that it poses no threat to US security interests.

However, it has supported plans to allow more time for Congress to be briefed on the details of the transaction.

When Republicans and Democrats alike vowed legislation that would force a review of national security issues surrounding it, the president's national security adviser responded that such negotiations were between Congress and the company.

He said the White House was simply willing to go along with their conclusion as long as it did not block the deal.

It seems that the Bush administration is behind the takeover but some politicians are still against it as they see it as a potential security hazard (something that has already been addressed by the company). A US company, Eller & Co., is filing a petition against Dubai Ports World and claims that the purchase will harm its interests.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 26 2006, 12:45 AM
Btw, I don't know if you all noticed, but the Teamsters have come out against the UAE company taking over the port.
I hadn't.

I noticed something interesting looking at the stuff about this on their site (you can google up the Teamsters easy if you want.)

The early stuff is exclusively about how this is bad for "national security" - accepting a common interest with the upper class, as the labor bureaucracy always does.

Then the last one suddenly switches and starts talking about how anti-union the Dubai government is....dunno why, maybe the flag-waving wasn't getting a response from the ranks.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 03:30 AM
Then the last one suddenly switches and starts talking about how anti-union the Dubai government is....dunno why, maybe the flag-waving wasn't getting a response from the ranks.
Of course not. Anyone who has worked in a port knows that the only thing that matters is how many "lifts" you have -- i.e., how many containers are moved a day. Most port management companies are paid per lift (every time a container is lifted up, whether from the ship, train, truck or stacks). More lifts mean more money.

In the end, that's why only about three percent of all containers brought into the U.S. are checked by Homeland Security. If they checked every container coming in or going out, port traffic would slow to a crawl, messing up international supply chains and "just-in-time" production worldwide.

That's why Port Division Teamsters (and Longshoremen, and Production Workers, etc.) are yawning at the whole thing. It's a non-starter. The ports would be unsafe, regardless of whether the management flew the U.S. or UAE flag over its corporate offices. (Then again, given that, somewhere in the world, port workers die every day on the job, how much more unsafe can the "threat" of possible "terrorism" really make them?)

Miles

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 27 2006, 01:32 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 27 2006, 01:32 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 01:28 AM
Frankly, I've been surprised that this hasn't come up yet. A few days after this issue first "broke", I scanned through the politics forum, searching for the thread that I knew someone must of started ...but I couldn't find it.

There was another thread a few days ago, saying how this is a case of "Islamaphobia".

That thread must have been lost during the server crash.

Pity. :lol: [/b]
Well it does seem like the only motive behind the "outrage" that congress is feeling is that the company is Arab. No discussion over the companies security record or anything, just arguing that because its Arab its bad or something. With that being said, the whole issue is bullshit and not really important. As others have pointed out, the media has portrayed this as being some "outrageous issue" that has people pissed off, still I have yet to meet one person who feels it makes one iota of difference.

[YSR]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed
Well it does seem like the only motive behind the "outrage" that congress is feeling is that the company is Arab. No discussion over the companies security record or anything, just arguing that because its Arab its bad or something.

Amen. Has anybody seen anyone on the networks saying this? I mean, has no one said, "wow, this whole thing smacks of racism" yet?

[Janus]

It seems that the Coast Guard has doubts about Dubai's security.

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.
Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of such a deal.
"In this case, the concerns that you're citing were addressed and resolved," Clay Lowry, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for international affairs, told lawmakers.

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

"Any time there's a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record," Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. "And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements," he added.

[Janus]

Here's some of the latest coverage on this issue.

In an effort to prevent the takeover of P&O by DPW, Eller & Co has called on the English High Court to intervene.


A US company has called on the English High Court to block the controversial £3.9bn ($6.8bn) takeover of shipping giant P&O by Dubai Ports World (DPW).
Eller & Co claims that the takeover could cost it $150m ($86m) and affect up to 1,500 jobs at the port in Miami.

P&O's lawyers said the firm's legal challenge was "woefully thin".

The move came as US politicians also tried to block the purchase of P&O because of security concerns, and port workers protested.

Republican and Democrat politicians argue that the US would be more vulnerable to terrorism after the takeover, which would hand control of 21 US ports to a firm from the United Arab Emirates.

Speaking on Monday, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez said that opposing the takeover was "about making sure we keep America safe".

"We're here to stand for a very simple proposition; our ports should not be in the operational hands of a foreign government," he said.

"What we don't want unloaded here is a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon."

Shock tactics

In an effort to soothe the situation, DPW has agreed to a 45-day review of the security implications.

"We consider our company to be a friend of the United States," Michael Moore, a company executive told BBC Five Live.

The White House said on Monday that it welcomed the review.

DPW, which has said it plans to push ahead with the purchase, said it was surprised by the turmoil its bid had caused.
Buying P&O would turn DPW into the world's third largest port operator.

However, critics are pushing ahead with their attempts to stop the sale of P&O.

New Jersey officials are taking legal action to try and block the deal, while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is seeking to annul P&O's 30-year operating licence, claiming it failed to seek permission for the transfer of ownership.

Meanwhile in London, Eller, which provides stevedoring services at the port of Miami, has been arguing that the deal could be revoked in the US and that it breaches contractual agreements it has with P&O.

"There is a real prospect that the arrangement will lead to US port authorities revoking licences and leases held by joint venture companies which will cause sever financial losses," its petition states.

[Janus]

Here's some of the latest coverage on this issue.

In an effort to prevent the takeover of P&O by DPW, Eller & Co has called on the English High Court to intervene.


BBC News

A US company has called on the English High Court to block the controversial £3.9bn ($6.8bn) takeover of shipping giant P&O by Dubai Ports World (DPW).
Eller & Co claims that the takeover could cost it $150m ($86m) and affect up to 1,500 jobs at the port in Miami.

P&O's lawyers said the firm's legal challenge was "woefully thin".

The move came as US politicians also tried to block the purchase of P&O because of security concerns, and port workers protested.

Republican and Democrat politicians argue that the US would be more vulnerable to terrorism after the takeover, which would hand control of 21 US ports to a firm from the United Arab Emirates.

Speaking on Monday, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez said that opposing the takeover was "about making sure we keep America safe".

"We're here to stand for a very simple proposition; our ports should not be in the operational hands of a foreign government," he said.

"What we don't want unloaded here is a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon."

Shock tactics

In an effort to soothe the situation, DPW has agreed to a 45-day review of the security implications.

"We consider our company to be a friend of the United States," Michael Moore, a company executive told BBC Five Live.

The White House said on Monday that it welcomed the review.

DPW, which has said it plans to push ahead with the purchase, said it was surprised by the turmoil its bid had caused.
Buying P&O would turn DPW into the world's third largest port operator.

However, critics are pushing ahead with their attempts to stop the sale of P&O.

New Jersey officials are taking legal action to try and block the deal, while the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is seeking to annul P&O's 30-year operating licence, claiming it failed to seek permission for the transfer of ownership.

Meanwhile in London, Eller, which provides stevedoring services at the port of Miami, has been arguing that the deal could be revoked in the US and that it breaches contractual agreements it has with P&O.

"There is a real prospect that the arrangement will lead to US port authorities revoking licences and leases held by joint venture companies which will cause sever financial losses," its petition states.