Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports

Feb 20 19:18 UTC 2006

from cnn.com, Hillary Clinton is leading a fight against a Bush 
admnistration proposal to sell a company that operates six major U.S. 
ports to the United Arab Emirates:

"NEW YORK   Democratic senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Robert 
Menendez of New Jersey introduced legislation on Friday to prohibit 
companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from buying US 
port operations. 

The measure is intended to block the $6,8bn sale of a company that 
operates six US ports to a firm controlled by the United Arab Emirates.

 Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign 
governments,  Clinton said in a statement on Friday.

A bipartisan group of US legislators called on Thursday for hearings on 
the purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation 
Company, the UK s largest port operator, by DP World, Dubai s port 
company. With the acquisition, DP World would gain control over most 
operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, 
Baltimore and New Orleans. 

 Ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism,  Menendez said. 

 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,  he said. 

Legislators have also asked the administration of President George Bush 
to conduct a more thorough review of the purchase. Seven sent a letter 
to Treasury Secretary John Snow, asking a government panel known as the 
committee on foreign investment in the US to look into the purchase. 

Snow said this month that while he had not seen the congressional 
requests for an additional review the committee was  thorough, and 
carefully considered the issue of national security in that 
acquisition. The process worked as it is intended to work,  Snow said 
in Chicago.

The departments of defence and homeland security had been part of the 
process, he said. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the administration 
continued to support the sale, and would brief congress on its 
decision.  It s the considered opinion of the US government that this 
can go forward,  Rice told a round table of Arab journalists at the 
state department in Washington. 

Rice said there had been a  thorough review  of the sale, and  it was 
decided that this could be done and done safely . 

She described Abu Dhabi as  a very good friend  of the US.  I hope our 
friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our 
democracy we debate these things. 

response 2 of 154:

Feb 20 19:33 UTC 2006

Yeah, because American companies are so trustworthy.

response 4 of 154:

Feb 20 19:43 UTC 2006

Richard, can you simply ask "what do you mean by that" rather than planting
words in someone's mouth?

response 6 of 154:

Feb 20 20:30 UTC 2006

On the surface it sounds like a bad idea.  But the people in charge of
security at the port would not change.

The British were already running the port so it isn't like it was a local
business going to an overseas company for the first time.  It was already
overseas.

response 8 of 154:

Feb 20 20:47 UTC 2006

re #7 thats an admirable stance, but it costs money to run those ports, 
and if you don't want to raise taxes, that money has to come from 
somewhere.  Contracting out port operations is for some an acceptable 
alternative to further government spending.  

response 10 of 154:

Feb 20 21:32 UTC 2006

 re #8:  I doubt that the royal family of Dubai wants to manage our ports
 as an act of charity; I presume that the company that manages the ports
 is a for-profit business with a revenue stream provided by port use fees.
 If they can make money at it it's not beyond the realm of the conceivable
 that a government-run program could at least break even..

response 12 of 154:

Feb 20 22:35 UTC 2006

 I think it's unlikely that this is a giveaway from Dubai and as far as
 I can tell it isn't doing much, so far, to benefit the Bush administration;
 to the contrary it's focussing unwelcome public attention on how cavalierly
 they really treat homeland security issues.  I'll accept, for the sake of
 argument, the premise that the royal family of Dubai might have motivations
 other than money in this case.  Dismissing them, do you think the British
 ownership that currently administers the company is *also* uninterested in
 making money?

 Why can't you just admit that port revenues pay for all or most of the costs
 of administering the ports and come up with some other argument against public
 administration of this national security function.

response 14 of 154:

Feb 20 23:08 UTC 2006

Yes.

response 16 of 154:

Feb 21 03:30 UTC 2006

IMPEACH
TRAITORS
They bombed us on 9/11
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH OUR GOV'T

response 18 of 154:

Feb 21 09:34 UTC 2006

islamic law, like in the UAE should rule at US ports? exterior signs of 
christianity (crosses and so) forbidden, no men-women equality, and 
other few things.Men required to wear the checkered scarf, women under a
 black sheet.

Btw., the mainstream US press didn't publish the Muhammad danish 
cartoons.Nice yanks.In the near future no need to hunt for WMD, they'll 
be in containers at US ports.

response 20 of 154:

Feb 21 17:31 UTC 2006

re #19
The facts are that DHS has fallen short of securing our ports and now they
want to hand the responsibility right off to the middle east were are biggest
threat emanates. 
IMPEACH

response 22 of 154:

Feb 21 18:30 UTC 2006

The facts are Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co's selloff by the
Brits to Dubai Ports World (state-owned by Dubai) never made it onto the DHS
radar.  Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co helps run several US
shipping terminals.  It was a buyout for $6.8 billion in cash by the Dubai
Monarchy of our weakest homeland security infrastructure.  
You know who analyzed the risks?  A committee on foreign investments run by
the Treasurey Department.  Not DHS, not Port Authorities, and not any US
intelligence agency.  DHS is not able to reconsider the approval without
evident Dubai Ports World gave false information to the foreign investments
committee. (i.e. there is only a 30 day window to withdraw approvals)

Now, why all the armwaving over Dubai?
UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear
components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul
Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to
recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. 
Is that who we want owning our biggest risks to homeland security?

response 24 of 154:

Feb 21 18:55 UTC 2006

re #23
Rane, something as simple as the budget for X-Ray equipment is at stake here.
We don't publish Port Authority security safeguard technology.  IN this case,
UAE wouldn't have to dig very deep to circumvent those safeguards.
They might even decide to not even fund them.  They might decide to sell
this information to neighboring Arab countries or intelligence.  Hell, they
might decide to just let al Jazeera walk through one of our ports with their
cameras and document the whole fucking thing.  *slaps forehead*
You don't see the problem with a Middle Eastern monarchy which is 
sympathetic to terrorist nation states having control over our ports?!?