Bush Says Ports Deal Not a Security Threat

Okay, here is the issue as I see it. First, why are we allowing any foreign nations' corporations have control over ANY of the US ports? Second, why is the UAE getting special treatment, and being allowed to skirt requirements that exist for other foreign national corporations?

For those who shoot down EVERY single "bad thing bush does as liberal whining". What would it take for you all to actually say, o I guess the president is wrong here? Seriously, I want to know how bad this guy, called George W Bush, would have to screw up before you take notice. Tom Delay and Bill Frist are even oppose to this idea. They are as far from liberal as it gets.

Assume for a second that a corporation from Canada were to take over these 6 ports. I bet that there would still be the same level of noise as there is currently over the UAE. Why? Simple, because they aren't having to follow normal standard protocol. Granted some people are overly focus on the fact it IS the UAE , not a bad point imho, but still, why are they not being required to go through the 45 day waiting/investigation period.

by the way the deal has been in the making from november!!

@oalmulla

so then bush is lying when he said he was unaware of this deal?

even this article says that White House Had Secret Agreement.

Either bush did not know, and is for some reason or another is defending it, or he is lying and defending it for one reason or another.

The facts just aren't lining up

you should now that there is a deal between the US and Dubai ports among other ports in the world that gives the US the right to check containers in Dubai by American security agents.......... the fuss about this deal is just out or proportion.........this company is not going to do anything different than the other foreign operaters...

"Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments," Clinton said. "I will be working with Senator Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments."

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=251709

My understanding is that security is not being turned over, and it is not a sale, it is continuation of a lease as the ownership of the company that holds it is transferred. Am I wrong? If not, why would she say such a thing?

I'm trying to get more facts before forming an opinion ...

The following is a great overview on the Dubai Company and how ports are managed in the U.S.

Who's Behind the Dubai Company in U.S. Harbors?

Check out this paragraph:

In the talk-show furor over the transfer of P&O to Dubai Ports World, there has been little reference to the mechanics of port management in the U.S. Over 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles, for example — the biggest in the U.S. — are run by foreign-owned companies. U.S. ports are owned by state authorities, and the workers who actually offload the ships that dock there are the same unionized Americans who belong to the International Longshoremen's Association, regardless of which company hires them. Dubai Ports will not "own" the U.S. facilities, but will inherit the P&O's contracts to run them, with no changes in the dockside personnel or the U.S. government security operations that currently apply to them.

this is just bad for the USA, bad.

Andrew McElroy writes:

Okay, here is the issue as I see it. First, why are we allowing any foreign nations' corporations have control over ANY of the US ports? Second, why is the UAE getting special treatment, and being allowed to skirt requirements that exist for other foreign national corporations?

You questions have already been answered.

1. US ports are already under foreign control. (See comment above about APL and Singapore.) And note even if the deal falls through and stays with P&O England also is home to Islamic extremists, so where do you draw the line?
2. The special treatment is also answered above. The UAE is the ONLY Gulf port to allow the access for NATO to train Iraqi police on its soil, has the ONLY port in the Gulf large enough for a US aircraft carrier to dock, it has a unique position strategically because of its location a short distance from Iran across the Straits of Hormuz. (any blockage there stops the worlds supply of oil not the to the US)

3. For those that are using the "security meme:" first security isn't an issue with the change, and secondly the finger should be pointed in the right direction.

Directly at those in Congress: the president of the American Association of Port Authorities complained that the $708 million allotted for maritime security over the past four years amounted to only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports.

The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393375p-333478c.html

Not sure what to make of it - submitted here for further comment

This just proves that Gee Dubya is willing to outsource anything, INCLUDING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY! He's sending the message that any part of our country is up for sale to the highest bidder. What else can this looser do to destroy our country? What's next, that's the scary part!

Ugh, I'm sorry to pimp my own seed here, but more people really do need to read this;

Dubai Ports Myths

So...outsourcing our port administration and security to foreign power (corporate/government) isn't a security threat, but a few vegans in upstate Washington constitute a domestic threat worthy of FBI surveillance. Yes, I may be running a tangent, but let's get our priorities straight. Maybe if there were billions to be made from tofu futures, Bush would get his act together.

All this has brought into question more than just whether a UAE state owned company should have rights to the U.S. ports business

a couple of articles:

One, is the story posted by Bugg in the NY Daily News

Why was there such haste and fervor on the part of the White House to have this pass through? Namely, two connections in the White House to DP World, the company which is seeking the rights, has raised some questions.

To quote the article,

[Treasury Secretary John Snow]Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Later, it goes on...

The Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day probe should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.

According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

For an administration claiming to have a staunch stance on Homeland Security, those two issues raise some red flags.

In the Ny Times, the core of port security is really the essence of all the questions being raised, briefly:

The administration's core problem at the ports, most experts agree, is how long it has taken for the federal government to set and enforce new security standards — and to provide the technology to look inside millions of containers that flow through them.

Only 4 percent or 5 percent of those containers are inspected. There is virtually no standard for how containers are sealed, or for certifying the identities of thousands of drivers who enter and leave the ports to pick them up. If a nuclear weapon is put inside a container — the real fear here — "it will probably happen when some truck driver is paid off to take a long lunch, before he even gets near a terminal," said Mr. Flynn, the ports security expert.

As far as I can see, there are plenty of issues in regard to security and the handling of the issue by the White House.

I, myself, do not either see the fuss here.. but a question I have the for the Bush Administration: If Bush just recently found out about the deal (In the past week, or two weeks) according to Scott Mclellan.

How does Bush have any room to comment on possible security issues? This is a lot larger deal than just letting someone into the country. This is giving control of 6 major east coast ports to another country.

The point of my post was to illustrate that beyond just the question of a UAE company being in charge of the port facilities, is the motivation behind the administration's need to move through these issues so quickly. With the obvious connection between those in the administration and the company in question, what other relations to people in the administration and other companies have the potential to shape policy? I think I remember hearing something about a company called Haliburton?

This is ridiculous. I was led to believe that terrible things were happening by mainstream news....thank goodness they're far from the truth.

I'm going to relink to an article (linked above by somebody else): CBS News editorial on the matter. Please read it. It's an excellent break down.

Marshall Righter writes:

Isn't it Crystal clear that Bush is still suckling from the Saudi milk-secreting, glandular organ.

Having tough time with geography guy? The UAE is not now, or ever was a part of Saudi Arabia. Two countries, two entirly different places on the map.

Jace writes:

So...outsourcing our port administration and security to foreign power

Well you're half right, admin will go to DP. Security will remain with the local port authorities, Coast Guard and Homeland security.

And BTW Jace, the "outsourcing" was done long ago, (started in the seventies) almost none the the major US ports are controlled by the US.

Case in point: The Houston Texas shipping channel. The Mersk terminal has been run by a "foreign power" for 25 years. Care to guess who?

China... you know China, the same one Clinton sold secret US missile plans to for campaign donations. Hmmmm.... wonder if they were shipped out via Mersk?

But don't let your sky is falling security concerns ruin a good story.

Dubai will not be responsible for any level of security on shipments coming in and going out. They will manage the port, only 1/2 of it actually. I can't see any real reason to raise a fuss, unless it's the traditional outsourcing argument (Like, wouldn't it be better to employ an American business instead?). But I don't think our security is at risk here. And, given this recent piece of news (if you make it past the headline), this move might help increase our security by strengthening our diplomatic relationship with a Middle Eastern country.

A news story on CNN this evening said that security works as follows:

While the ship is in the water, security is provided by the U.S. Coast Guard
While the ship is docked, a different agency is responsible for security.
After the containers have been unloaded from the ships, security is provided by the terminal operator, in this case DP.

I should have been a little more clear in my post, Full Throttle. I'm not simply opposed to the UAE running the ports, I'm opposed to foreign governments or corporations having anything to do with them. Why does everything in this country have to be privatized? Wouldn't it make sense for something as essential as our ports to be a public utility? Gasp! God forbid I advocate such a socialist opinion...

I think I might call it nationalist, more than socialist, personally... and not a totally objectionable concept (like expanding socialism is to me). However, it's suspicious when the first time the concept ever makes to the forefront of the media and many politicians' lips is when a British -> Arab transfer is occurring. I'm not talking about your position, Jace, you probably did have it on your mind prior. I'm talking about why this is such a big issue for many other people all of a sudden. Clearly it is the Arab factor. Remember this is a foreign -> foreign transfer, neither a gain nor loss in how American the ports are. I don't think the scrutiny is bad, just all the jumping to conclusions that has been occurring by politicians and media members that should know better.

I understand that the UAE had a checkered pre-911 past, but as far I can tell so far, they no longer have Taliban or other harmful affiliation. If it turns out that they do, in an official capacity, we need to withdraw our extensive military PORT use, intelligence & commerce ties -- tell them to stop supporting us in Afghanistan and Iraq -- and send in a special ops team to evacuate Michael Jackson immediately ;)

The White House web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/ has some info on this topic that is worth reading too, for those that haven't.

I'm looking forward to hearing Al Gore's opinion on this... in light of his recent betrayal of the US.

Wouldn't it make sense for something as essential as our ports to be a public utility? Gasp! God forbid I advocate such a socialist opinion...

It would make less than zero sense.

Name one efficient government operation? Commercial enterprise has an incentive to be efficient and effective, the bottom line. No Any government run operation has no "bottomline," only a bottomless pit of wasted taxpayer money.

A news story on CNN this evening said that security works as follows:

While the ship is in the water, security is provided by the U.S. Coast Guard
While the ship is docked, a different agency is responsible for security.

Close, but no cigar.

DP World won't suddenly become our only recourse for port security. There is in fact a layered set of security checks that operates independent of DP World. These checks include the following:

* A 24-hour Manifest Rule that requires sea carriers to provide U.S. Customs with detailed descriptions of the contents of containers bound for the U.S. a full 24 hours before the container is loaded onto a vessel. This allows U.S. Customs officers to assess risks and scan the containers in overseas ports before they enter the U.S. * The Coast Guard remains responsible for port security regardless of who manages the ports, while Customs and Border Protection maintains responsibility for container and cargo security. * As containers enter the U.S., officers on the ground screen the containers using imaging and radiation detection technology.

These security procedures will not change even if DP World takes over port operations. Whether or not one believes that these security procedures are sufficient, the fact remains that we won't be left any worse off.

Just as the security procedures and those who are charged with carrying them out will remain the same, we are unlikely to witness a change in the composition of the workforce at the six ports that DP World would run. Robert Palaima, the president of Delaware River Stevedores, pointed out that when the British company P&O Steamship Navigation Co. ran the ports, there wasn't a sudden infusion of British workers. He doesn't expect that this will change once the partner is based in Dubai rather than Britain.

Another reason that security concerns are overblown is that DP World isn't exactly a fly-by-night operation that came out of nowhere to buy up P&O. Rather, it is a multi-billion-dollar operation that bought up the British company for a whopping $6.8 billion. DP World operates ports around the globe. If a terrorist attack came through one of its ports, its entire business could be shattered. That is a high price to pay, and means that DP World has at least the same kind of incentive that any other company would -- indeed, perhaps more of an incentive -- to ensure strong port security.

And a final consideration is the manner in which the administration has attempted to "push the borders out" over the past few years to guarantee better port security. Security screening has shifted to the port of origin, with checkpoints along the way to ensure the cargo's continued safety. This means that a significant portion of our port security is already handled by ports outside the U.S. Thus, it's not clear why the present port acquisition has caused more of an uproar than the expansion of DP World's operations into Europe, Latin America, East Asia and Australia.

And BTW, I forgot to add, the last paragraph lays to waste the Democratic meme about "only 5% of containers are inspected."

On it's face, that's true but doesn't account for all the overseas inspections. But you'll never here them say that because they are either political opportunists are just plain ignorant.

Take your pick which.