Politics as (un)usual: Now discussing the Dubai Ports World Deal

Ah, but you see it is his fault if he allows it. So, tell me Raven, do you honestly think he'd be threatening a veto if he didn't have some knowledge of the deal beforehand? That's just intergalactically stupid.

 

He didn't even know about it because it was his cabinet secrataries that arranged the deal

And you think that somehow makes him free of any responsibility? think again.

He is the president of the united states, and he is responsible for the security of our country, not to mention what goes on in his cabinet. For him not to know about the deal would make him look even worse. If the report is true, of course. Either way, he looks bad.

 

Here's a question for all of you complaining about this deal.

How many of you know what exactly is involved in the deal? What is Dubai Ports World buying, exactly?

They aren't buying the ports, nor is the contract they are buying exclusive. They are buying a contract covering the operation of terminals at 6 US ports (and in 17 other countries). For example, in New Orleans, they will be one of 8 companies operating terminals. In Baltimore, they will operate only 2 of the 14 terminals. They will not have control of more than 30% of any of the ports' terminals.

They currently operate ports in Australia, China, Korea, and several other countries, and have a very good reputation and history.

All security for the ports in question remains the responsibility of the Coast Guard and US Customs. Dubai will have nothing to do with that.

They are buying P&O Ports. As with most buyouts, most of the operation of the ports, down to the lowest employees, is unlikely to change in any significant capacity.

The UAE is also a fairly close ally in the "War on Terror". They were the first Arab nation to join in a DHS program for inspecting high-risk cargos before they get the the US, and Dubai Ports World has a very good record of assisting the US government.

So, what is the exact problem with the deal? It is similar to if a foreign airline bought rights to a set of gates at a US airport. They are simply managing the operations of loading and unloading ships at the terminals. Nothing more. I don't see the security risk.

Kimball Kinnison

 

For everyone who has been bashing the President, it's time to eat some crow. The AP is reporting that Presideint Bush didn't make the deal itself. He didn't even know about it because it was his cabinet secrataries that arranged the deal. It wasn't his plan and wasn't his fault.

So Bush is oblivious to what goes on in his own cabinet? His defense is that he's clueless?

 

KK, the problem is more that this is a COUNTRY, not a corporation buying these ports. I mean, the right wing is clamoring about terrorist ties, but then again, they probably think everyone up to and including Canada has terrorist ties.

I just think its fun to watch as Dubya finds himself in another political blunder. When the only person defending you is Jimmy Carter, well, good times are ahead! (For us spectators anyway.)

 

Seems to be his defense. I seem to recall that that defense has never worked historically. Does he think that it will work now?

 

But, they aren't buying the ports. They are buying a contract to operate a few of the terminals at those ports. At most, they will be operating 30% of the terminals at any one port. In Baltimore, they will be operating only 2 out of 14 terminals. In New Orleans, they will be one of 8 companies operating terminals (I haven't found a count of how many terminals are there). Some of those contracts will start to expire as soon as next year.

Not only that, but the country that owns the company is one of our closest allies in the Middle East. They supplied troops for the Gulf War, are currently supplying non-military aid in Iraq, and are the site for one of our largest air bases in the Middle East (one of our refueling wings is based there).

Again, where is the big security threat? All I'm seeing is a lot of misinformation and spin.

Kimball Kinnison

 

A smuggler only needs one terminal, and the UAE's relationship with the US is not as clean as all that. When our President's cabinet rubber-stamps the issue like it's no big deal, and when the President himself continues on oblivious to any possible threat it might pose, we have a problem.

 

To me this whole issue seems like more of the jingoistic, reactionary exploitation of the same kind of fundamentally racist fears that fueled all the outcry over the Chinese bid for Unocol last year. To Democrats and Republicans alike trying to cash in on this issue: grow up. Either you want the Middle East to join the western process of economic globalization or you don't.

 

Again, where is the big security threat? All I'm seeing is a lot of misinformation and spin.



Your right theres a ton of misinformation on this topic, but the spin is coming from the administration on this one which of course was echoed in only ONE news program last night ( Ill let you guess ) and come on, KK, where is the security threat? The potential is obvious. All of a sudden were PC? Thats ridiculous. This is a goverment thats an ally to us the way Pakistan is an ally to us. They provide logistical and geographical support and probably for a tidy sum of money. Its a dictatorial goverment that has ties to 9/11, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, however tangential. Its actually despicable that this particular administration would pull out the race card. I wouldnt want any dictatorship, benevolent or not, Arab or otherwise, to control any aspect of our ports. I mean if anything in this country should be federally controlled in every facet it should be the ports - the mafia proved that over 50 years ago. Bush is playing political Russian roulette. The people of Manhattan whatever their political affiliation will NEVER shut up about this and the last time I checked they are fairly influential on Washington when they want to be.

 

KK, the problem is more that this is a COUNTRY, not a corporation buying these ports

Except this isn't the case, OWM, and I think you realize this.

UAE, the country, isn't being transferred ownership of anything. A global shipping company, which is owned by the royal family in the UAE, is buying out the current British company that holds the port access contracts.

As myself and K_K and the original article pointed out, the Coast Guard, the Customs department, all the way down to the longshoremen who unload the cargo will remain the same. The actual issue seems to be rather mudane, but it's almost that people want to believe that it represents some great conspiracy.

The misinformation is related to what E_S posted above, in that Bush has become so polarizing that some people automatically think the worst before they even bother to find out the real situation.

I think Clinton could have sold the ports directly to a company owned by undead Hitler and zombie Stalin, and no one would have given it a second thought. Clinton would have played his saxaphone on Leno, told everyone to chill out, and the issue would be forgotten. I'm not faulting Clinton for that, it's his political genius that Bush hasn't mastered. But that reality also shouldn't overshadow the actual situation.

Had the process that was in place not been followed, this might have been a different story. But the sale did pass the required review by the CFIUS. The same requirement that dozens of other companies are also reviewed under. But instead of being looked at a an opportunity to foster cooperation, it turned into politics as usual...

(I posted the review link above, but here it is again

USTREAS

 

Without reading anyone's responses to this, I have to say that I, for once at least, agree with the stance of the President of the United States (and, incidentally, Jimmy Carter).

It's just silly to think that the US government would not suspect a major threat from a source so obvious, first of all, unless it was absolutely clear there was no greater danger from Dubai ownership than from British or American ownership.

It's a deal, as far as I know, in the private business arena. The President is quite right not to regulate deals in private business so long as a monopoly is not created. I really don't find any reason to block the deal other than some people of the UAE may be involved in terrorism. Bush is entirely right that we can't block a corporation from that same country on those grounds. Of course, there were even less ties on American-targeted terrorism to Iraq and that country was invaded... but the discussion today isn't the hypocracy of the Bush administration, it's on this deal. And I believe they happen to be, as far as I've read, absolutely correct.

 

For once, I think I agree with Bush. The government shouldn't even have control over this. And you shouldn't deny it just because the company's owned by the UAE. So what if they're Arab? Americans are showing how stupid and ignorant they are right now, giving into their fear, just like the terorists want us to.

 

I dunno. I think that maybe Bush is crazy like a fox, but I still don't like it.

That fact that Carter agrees with Bush is yet further reason to doubt the reasoning behind this decision.

 

I think I agree with this in part; I doubt it's a rational fear. Talking to some friends who are analysts - equities, derivatives, futures, etc - they all say that the reaction isn't justified and that DPA has an unimpugnable reputation in it's business operation.

Really, this is a bit silly. Nobody doubts that Emirates is the best airline, followed by Singapore Airlines; and yet you're not suggesting Emirates be barred from flying to the US. As Kimball said, this isn't even about handing sole control of the entire port facility; they're talking about buying a few terminals and running their own stevedores.

You're all entitled to suggest this is a massive security threat, but realise not one market analyst or economist would concede there's an iota's truth to the claim about UPA being a security risk.

E_S

 

[Han Solo Voice] It's not my fault![/Han Solo Voice]

Ignorance = exorneration? Since when?

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin.

I don't think it's JUST a matter of it being a Mid East company - but the fact that Bush is being such a jackass about it.

Oh, Just in - the quote of the day "People don't need to worry about security...."

 

You're all entitled to suggest this is a massive security threat, but realise not one market analyst or economist would concede there's an iota's truth to the claim about UPA being a security risk.

I forsee the following possibility. An owner (or member) of the company with secret anti-american allegiances could command the security guards not to check a package containing a nuclear bomb. If this could be debunked, let me know and I'll lower my guard on the topic.

 

They aren't in charge of security inspections in exactly the same way Airlines aren't in charge of security inspections.

 

1) The Coast Guard and US Customs are in charge of port security. DPW would only be controlling the operations of actually loading and unloading cargo, as well as coordinating ship arrivals and departures.
2) DPW will not own or control all of the ships that dock at the terminals in question. They will simply be unloading them, managing the details of preparing them to depart (refuel, resupply, etc), loading them with cargo from the US, and then letting them leave.
3) Once a nuclear weapon gets into the ship, it's pretty much a lost cause trying to stop it. You can always defeat the inspections by setting off the weapon in the port before the inspectors arrive.
4) The weak point in security isn't in inspecting the cargo as it comes into the US, but in inspecting it as it is loaded into the ships before it leaves its previous port of call. This is an area that the UAE (and specifically DPW) in which have been providing a lot of assistance to the US.

Let me put it this way (building on farrie's post). When you take a flight, how much responsibility does your airline have in making sure that you aren't carrying a weapon onto the plane? Does the airline search you? Do they decide whether you get to fly on the plane or not, because of security? No, no, and no. Those jobs are handled by the TSA. Does the airline search your luggage to see if you are bringing contraband into the US? No, that's the job of US Customs.

It is no different with ports. Basically, DPW will be running the gates at a few terminals, and many different airlines will be using those gates to board passengers. That's it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Ender and Kimball get it. This is such a clear cut case of trying to generate mass hysteria over a non issue for slimy political gain. Only, it doesn't line up coherently along party lines, so the cynics on both sides of the aisle are scrambling to exploit it.

Since 9/11, politicians simply cannot lose by pandering to American cowardice.

Exploiting the administration's belief in free trade/free markets to find an alleged administration weak point on the terrorism issue is dumb in my view. Short-sighted. And it will backfire on the Democrats in particular.

 

I think that the reason many things which would normally be overlooked by the left are being scrutinized so much is because of the following factors in this particular Administration:

A proven track record of deceit
A pattern of decisions leading to the decline of America
A clear pattern of lack of forsight in homeland security
A pattern of outsourcing opportunities at the expense of economic security

This port deal may or may not fall under all these patterns, but it appears to have almost slipped by Rummy (who is supposed to know these things) without oversight.

Its not just that the port deal in itself might sacrifice security or American job opportunities. It is that the deal is happening at a time when our leaders are either asleep at the wheel, or yet again, deliberately compromising Americans' interests in favor of making sweet deals with their buddies... And this time those buddies have more ties to 9/11 than Saddam Hussein.

Basically, ANYTHING this administration does is on borrowed time, and will be highly suspicious no matter if it is even a little bit controversial. It is in our best interests to treat this administration as "on probation". If they are not on their very best behavior from here on in, they deserve whatever they get.

 

What do any of those things have to do with the port deal? Let's look at each one individually, starting from the last one.

A pattern of outsourcing opportunities at the expense of economic security

In reality, the US government has almost nothing to do with the deal itself. DPW (a company from the UAE) is buying P&O (a company from the UK). The terminals in question haven't been controlled by a US company for years, since well before the Bush administration started. This isn't outsourcing, it's one foreign company buying another.

Additionally, the vast majority of the jobs at those terminals affected will remain with Americans.

A clear pattern of lack of forsight in homeland security

How does this deal in any way show "lack of foresight in homeland security"? As pointed out repeatedly, DPW has nothing to do with the security side of things. By all indications (short of the knee-jerk reactions in the press), this deal will have zero impact on homeland security.

A pattern of decisions leading to the decline of America

Such as? How does this fit with the deal? Again, it is one foreign company buying another. It is encouraging foreign investment in the US, which last I checked is a good thing. How does that add up to the "decline" of America?

A proven track record of deceit

What deceit is there in this? By all indications, until people started blowing it out of proportion, it was simply a routine business deal that the government reviewed and found to be no significant threat.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The only area where I'd criticize the Bush administration is in the area of yet another public relations debacle that makes the administration look foolish. A failure to foresee this reaction really, really makes the administration look idiotic, despite the fact that I agree wholeheartedly with the Bush administration that the acquisition is entirely appropriate.

It's a political blunder possibly bigger than the nomination of Harriet Miers, particularly in that he ought to have been able to foresee and head off minor insurgencies from within his own party. It adds to the growing sense that Iraq has opened up a chasm between Republicans that continues to widen and is starting to suck in other issues. He's created an ad hoc coalition of reactionary republicans and democrats who are succeeding in making him look stupid.

 

What do any of those things have to do with the port deal?

They don't have to have anything to do with the port deal for this to have become a big controversy. The fact that there is any question by anyone that it might be unsafe, combined with the fact that it is happening while THIS ADMINISTRATION is in control, means that it should be controversial at least from the outset.

It is not Democrats' fault that this took everyone by surprise, nor that it is controversial. Bush nor Rummy even forsaw the deal. Yet -

Major media outlets -- including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times -- reported that the administration approved the deal only after a thorough review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). But none of the reports noted a glaring inconsistency in the administration's account, highlighted by the weblog Think Progress: that Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, and one to whom national security considerations would presumably be highly relevant, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."

How much can we trust CFIUS, given this information, and given the current state of corruption in the White House? If you want to blame someone for continuing controversy, blame the media, the administration's track record, and the fact that these things slip by without a democratic process in place.

Oh, and one more thing. Add hypocracy to the mix. The country that owns this company has far more 9/11 ties than another country that we've invaded, whose civilians we've killed in the tens of thousands, and who we've now and plunged into civil war. If the president wonders what message it will send to the middle east if we deny the deal, he should consider that very carefully, because it sends them the message that they can support terrorism as long as they are business partners with the top 1%.

 

Supposedly theres a financial conflict of interest between this company and the Treasury Secretary, John Snow. The media reported it when this story grew wings but I havent heard anything since.