US Port's to be secured by UAE?

[Rich Parsons]

This is the Straw Man Argument the President used repeatedly within his State of the Union Address. I know of no-one that is calling for closing our borders and ignoring the world. If you are going to ascribe such motives to someone, please identify to whom you are ascribing such claims.

While I happen to think that regulations that make goods and services more difficult to move across borders would be a good thing, even I am not calling for closing the borders. I am calling for regulated trade; fair trade as opposed to free trade.

There are some corporate mergers that should not be allowed to take place. Just as when the major Insurance Companies set up post-office box offices in Carribean Islands to avoid paying income tax in the United States, I think that benefits derived in the United States should be subject to United States Laws.

This goes for UAE, Britian, Singapore, Argentina, and any other companies that wish to do business here.

Prior to World War I, you know the "GREAT WAR" or "THE WAR TO END ALL WARS", the US had this leave us alone attitude. You know isolationism. To which many of the same characteristics are in todays society, of where people say we should leave them alone. That is their problem. We have no right to get involved.

I am by no means defending the current administration, for I personally do not like the current sitting president.

So, could someone please explain to me the details of this thread for in my mind and in the words of "michaeledward" this whole discussion is based upon a strawman point of view. The world is going to end, the sky is falling because some company that has experience and made the best bid. Could someone give me one piece of actual data where a foreign company in this case has increased our risk?

Points such as well terrorists come from such a country, are strawmen in themselves, for this is like saying I got one bad apple so all apples are bad.

The logical relationship is not there.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

So, could someone please explain to me the details of this thread for in my mind and in the words of "michaeledward" this whole discussion is based upon a strawman point of view. The world is going to end, the sky is falling because some company that has experience and made the best bid. Could someone give me one piece of actual data where a foreign company in this case has increased our risk?

Points such as well terrorists come from such a country, are strawmen in themselves, for this is like saying I got one bad apple so all apples are bad.
The logical relationship is not there.

I haven't really been sure about the whole affair. Many have attacked it knee-jerk simply because they want to damage the current Administration. Others, because of the Arab connection. While, I think many have made up their minds on the basis of race, asking questions as to the wisdom of bringing in a corporation headquartered in a region in which we are not thought of so highly is legitimate and NOT racist in and of itself. After doing some research on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the U.A.E. is a valued American ally and a jewell of modernization and liberalization in its part of the world.

 

[Carol]

Largely, I agree with Michael.

To me, I see a differece between a foreign company such as the British P&O managing our ports...and a foreign government managing our ports. Daimler was not part of the German goverment. Dubai Port World is.

There is more than six ports at stake.

A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
(Washington, via United Press International, Feb 24)

Neither the President nor Congress seemed to be aware of the deal.

President Bush was unaware of the pending sale
(Washington, via Associated Press, Feb 22)

Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal.
(Washington, via United Press International, Feb 24)

Yet, his closest confidant seemed to know all about it.

Speaking to reporters hours before she was due in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, Rice said the US administration had spent three months vetting the deal, dismissing concerns by several Congress members that it could be a threat to national security.
(Dubai, via Khaleej Times, Feb 23)

While I happen to think that regulations that make goods and services more difficult to move across borders would be a good thing, even I am not calling for closing the borders. I am calling for regulated trade; fair trade as opposed to free trade.

As am I, and this comment is dead-on considering what the administration has in mind:

The United States is negotiating a free trade agreement with the UAE -- its third largest trading partner in the Middle East after Israel and Saudi Arabia.
(Dubai, via Khaleej Times, Feb 23)

an equally significant fact in the longstanding bilateral relationship is that the UAE is a vibrant arms market not only for the US but also its allies in Western Europe, particularly France and Britain.
(Hong Kong, via Asia Times, Feb 24)

Sources:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB25Ak04.html
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2006/february/middleeast_february740.xml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

 

[michaeledward]

So, could someone please explain to me the details of this thread for in my mind and in the words of "michaeledward" this whole discussion is based upon a strawman point of view. The world is going to end, the sky is falling because some company that has experience and made the best bid. Could someone give me one piece of actual data where a foreign company in this case has increased our risk?

Points such as well terrorists come from such a country, are strawmen in themselves, for this is like saying I got one bad apple so all apples are bad.

The logical relationship is not there.

Rich Parsons,

I have not argued that Dubai Ports World should not be given authority over the terminals in the Ports.

How then, could I be building a Straw Man argument, against it?

And, if you have a question for me ... why ask 'somebody'? Really, I probably know my thoughts much better than whomever that is.

 

[michaeledward]

I am going to make an extended quote here. I hope you will allow and forgive.

On this thread, I have argued that the policy of free trade favored by the voting American public over the last decade and a half demands that the Dubai Ports World transaction be completed. If we were to stop this transaction, we must question the foundation of the transaction; free trade.

This argument, posted on HuffingtonPost, properly challenges the idea of Free Trade in areas of strategic and tactical security.

I think this position is reasoned and reasonable. And, if the discussion were allowed to progress that far before turning into one of the 'You just hate Bush' arguments, we might eventually get to my stating this, or a similar opinion.

For the moment, we have not discussed the merits of Free Trade; to which I have grown opposed. Therefore, there should be no reason to stop the aforementioned transaction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-are-any-us-ports-ow_b_16325.html

There are plenty of good, non-jingoist, reasons to oppose the sale of 6 US ports to a corporation controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. But the bigger question is: why are US ports and other strategic infrastructure being privatized, particularly to companies owned by foreign governments?

Before the UAE controversy erupted, most Americans probably did not know that many US ports are already owned or run by private corporations, some of which are owned by foreign governments.

According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals. According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.


You don't have to be an economic nationalist to think that certain strategic infrastructure should not be owned by foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments. Ports certainly fit into that category. Other examples include airports, railroads, and nuclear power plants. If we're going to sell off strategic facilities to foreign companies and governments, why not sell off the FAA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, or the New York City Police? (I'm sure some Saudi or Chinese security personnel know how to crack heads better than New York's finest.)

Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure. Corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there's a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.

In the end, the issue comes down to the Bush Administration's ideology of privatizing everything from social security to port ownership.

The Democrats, if they're not too timid, should expand congressional hearings on the UAE deal to include the larger issues of port security and the ownership and control of America's strategic infrastructure. They should make clear that while Bush may sacrifice constitutional liberties in the name of national security, he will sacrifice national security to further the interests of the global business elite.

 

[Don Roley]

The idea that a having a port run as it is by a foriegn buyer is a strategic risk just does not pan out. Think about it a second, the security of country is still in the hands of the coast guard, etc. What can the management do to bringthe country to it's knees by running a port? If it ever tried to shut things down, do you think the goverment would not move in to reopen it?

Taken from the proposal by Mogulescu,

You don't have to be an economic nationalist to think that certain strategic infrastructure should not be owned by foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments. Ports certainly fit into that category. Other examples include airports, railroads, and nuclear power plants. If we're going to sell off strategic facilities to foreign companies and governments, why not sell off the FAA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, or the New York City Police? (I'm sure some Saudi or Chinese security personnel know how to crack heads better than New York's finest.)

Now that is a bit of a straw man argument. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency, NYPD and such are goverment agencies meant to provide oversight. They are not for sale and should not be. But the management company of a port, etc- as long as they are not in charge of security, what could they do?

Ah, but we get to the meat of the matter in the next paragraph.

Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure. Corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there's a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.

Ah yes, the people in goverment want more govermental control and ownership.

Define "strategic." The security of the ports is not being compromised, they can't shut them down... so how does this differ from tons of other things that could be considered "strategic" by people like Hillary Clinton? Strategic metals like steel and the plants that use them? During WWII, rubber was in short supply, shall we consider tire plants strategic?

The democrats seem to be flaming up xenophobia to ram through this chance to take over anything that they can consider strategic.

And remember what happend with the idea of eminent domain?

 

[michaeledward]

The idea that a having a port run as it is by a foriegn buyer is a strategic risk just does not pan out. Think about it a second, the security of country is still in the hands of the coast guard, etc. What can the management do to bringthe country to it's knees by running a port? If it ever tried to shut things down, do you think the goverment would not move in to reopen it?

Taken from the proposal by Mogulescu,

Now that is a bit of a straw man argument. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency, NYPD and such are goverment agencies meant to provide oversight. They are not for sale and should not be. But the management company of a port, etc- as long as they are not in charge of security, what could they do?

Ah, but we get to the meat of the matter in the next paragraph.

Ah yes, the people in goverment want more govermental control and ownership.

Define "strategic." The security of the ports is not being compromised, they can't shut them down... so how does this differ from tons of other things that could be considered "strategic" by people like Hillary Clinton? Strategic metals like steel and the plants that use them? During WWII, rubber was in short supply, shall we consider tire plants strategic?

The democrats seem to be flaming up xenophobia to ram through this chance to take over anything that they can consider strategic.

And remember what happend with the idea of eminent domain?

The accusations you make against Democrats could also be made against Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert, right? Oh, yeah, and Governor Pataki. So should you really be arguing against only the Democrats?

I think that speaks volumes.

That you state the 'Security of the Ports is not being comprimised', makes the assumption that there is security in these ports at this time. According to the head of the 911 commission, Mr. Kean, the level of security at the ports is non-existant.

 

[Bigshadow]

But the management company of a port, etc- as long as they are not in charge of security, what could they do?

After thinking more about it, I agree that if the foreign company was not in charge of security, then what problems could we have? For some reason, I was thinking it included port security, but it doesn't and that makes more sense.

 

[michaeledward]

What could they do ...

as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....

I suppose, if you don't live downwind of those Chemical plants, there's not much they can do ...

 

[TimoS]

the level of security at the ports is non-existant.

And how is blocking this deal going to improve or worsen it ? Like has been said, isn't the security of the ports being handled by totally different people, such as your Coast Guard ? As I understand it, the DPW (or any other company that runs ports for that matter) isn't tasked with security

 

[TimoS]

as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....

And how is that different from if the port would be run by an american company ?

 

[Bigshadow]

What could they do ...

as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....

I suppose, if you don't live downwind of those Chemical plants, there's not much they can do ...

I understand, but isn't that the job of security to inspect them? That isn't a port management issue, but a security issue. In all truthfullness that could happen now, regardless of the port managment company.

 

[michaeledward]

And how is blocking this deal going to improve or worsen it ? Like has been said, isn't the security of the ports being handled by totally different people, such as your Coast Guard ? As I understand it, the DPW (or any other company that runs ports for that matter) isn't tasked with security

TimoS ...

Security of the Ports is handled by the United States Coast Guard and the United States Immigration and Custom Service. Preventing this transaction will do little to increase security.

(Edit) Oh, OK ... claiming security is 'non-existant' is a bit too hyperbolic. The United States Coast Guard has stated their security budgeting of 700 million dollars is approximately 1/5th of what is required to actually secure the Ports to a level equivilent with their charter. ..... So, our ports are 20% secure. (End Edit).

But, as the United Arab Emirates has a) recognized officially the Taliban government of Afghanistan, b) allowed money paid to the 911 hi-jackers to flow through their banking system c) was the home-country for two of the 19 911 hi-jackers, d)shipped nuclear components around the world for A.Q. Kahn of Pakistan, there are some who have concerns.

Mayor Bloomberg of New York City - has concerns (Republican)
Former Governor Kean of New Jersey (Chair of 911 Commission - has concerns (Republican)
Representative King of New York - has concerns (Republican)
Speaker of the House Hastert - has concerns (Republican)
Senate Majority Leader Frist - has concerns (Republican)
Representative Fossella of New York - has concerns (Republican)

I will state it again, the questioning occurring as a result of this business transaction (DPW acquiring P&O), should be directed at the 'Free Trade' agreements and the ever increasing speed of 'Globalization'. These are the real issues.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I haven't really been sure about the whole affair. Many have attacked it knee-jerk simply because they want to damage the current Administration. Others, because of the Arab connection. While, I think many have made up their minds on the basis of race, asking questions as to the wisdom of bringing in a corporation headquartered in a region in which we are not thought of so highly is legitimate and NOT racist in and of itself. After doing some research on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the U.A.E. is a valued American ally and a jewell of modernization and liberalization in its part of the world.

JR,

Thank you for your opinions and post here.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Largely, I agree with Michael.

To me, I see a differece between a foreign company such as the British P&O managing our ports...and a foreign government managing our ports. Daimler was not part of the German goverment. Dubai Port World is.

There is more than six ports at stake.

A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.
(Washington, via United Press International, Feb 24)

Neither the President nor Congress seemed to be aware of the deal.

President Bush was unaware of the pending sale
(Washington, via Associated Press, Feb 22)

Adding to the controversy is the fact Congress was not notified of the deal.
(Washington, via United Press International, Feb 24)

Yet, his closest confidant seemed to know all about it.

Speaking to reporters hours before she was due in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, Rice said the US administration had spent three months vetting the deal, dismissing concerns by several Congress members that it could be a threat to national security.
(Dubai, via Khaleej Times, Feb 23)



As am I, and this comment is dead-on considering what the administration has in mind:

The United States is negotiating a free trade agreement with the UAE -- its third largest trading partner in the Middle East after Israel and Saudi Arabia.
(Dubai, via Khaleej Times, Feb 23)

an equally significant fact in the longstanding bilateral relationship is that the UAE is a vibrant arms market not only for the US but also its allies in Western Europe, particularly France and Britain.
(Hong Kong, via Asia Times, Feb 24)

Sources:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB25Ak04.html
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Displayarticle.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2006/february/middleeast_february740.xml
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

Lady Kaur,

How is it different from A british company than an Arab Company to a German Company to a Japanese Company?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich Parsons,

I have not argued that Dubai Ports World should not be given authority over the terminals in the Ports.

How then, could I be building a Straw Man argument, against it?

And, if you have a question for me ... why ask 'somebody'? Really, I probably know my thoughts much better than whomever that is.

***************************************************************************************
Personal Opinion Expressed here, and is not a statement from staff or the board.
***************************************************************************************

michaeledward,

I asked someone, becuase I did not want to turn this into a Rich versus Michael thread. I asked for someone, for I respect that everyone has an opinion and that some may have a perspective that I have not considerd. I have asked for someone so others will reply.

Although it seems when ever I get into a discussion, you make points specifically at me. You ask wy I do thing, You are almost making it look like I am after you.

When, if you looked at my points and how I approach things, I am actually closer to you than the current adminstration. Yet, just like so many people in politics and also on the web, if you are not with them 100% then you must be against them.

Can we no just set aside this "is he out to get me" or "Is he trying to repress me" attitude, and just make points, and from time to time acknolwedge that the other side has a point, even if you disagree with it. When a person who does this, they do not loose the fight. They actually gain the respect of those who are listening, when you acknowledge that someone has a point.

So, I apologize if somewhere I have hurt your feelings, or you feel that Ihave repressed you, or insulted you. For if any of those were my intention I would tell you straight forward, and then make it a campaign.

So, can we get along?

Thank you and best regards

 

[Rich Parsons]

I am going to make an extended quote here. I hope you will allow and forgive.

On this thread, I have argued that the policy of free trade favored by the voting American public over the last decade and a half demands that the Dubai Ports World transaction be completed. If we were to stop this transaction, we must question the foundation of the transaction; free trade.

This argument, posted on HuffingtonPost, properly challenges the idea of Free Trade in areas of strategic and tactical security.

I think this position is reasoned and reasonable. And, if the discussion were allowed to progress that far before turning into one of the 'You just hate Bush' arguments, we might eventually get to my stating this, or a similar opinion.

For the moment, we have not discussed the merits of Free Trade; to which I have grown opposed. Therefore, there should be no reason to stop the aforementioned transaction.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-are-any-us-ports-ow_b_16325.html

In this you are correct. If this is argued to be stopped then you should look at other business deals as well.

Which goes back to my point in my first post on this thread. Isolationism is the slippery slope you than walk down. How would you address this issue without having the public swing the other way?

 

[Rich Parsons]

What could they do ...

as only 6% of containers' entering the United States are inspected in any way, they handlers of cargo could work to be certain nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are hidden in the other 94% of containers ... placed on trucks and driven to chemical companies in New Jersey, where there is a similiar lack of security, and allow an explosion to go off ....

I suppose, if you don't live downwind of those Chemical plants, there's not much they can do ...

I know others have asked as well.

Yet I must also ask as I am curious.

How does the management dictate what will and will not be inspected?

I am curious, for even if this is US run, then most likely you could find some people who would take 10K in small bills to slip a container in the right spot.

 

[michaeledward]

In this you are correct. If this is argued to be stopped then you should look at other business deals as well.

Which goes back to my point in my first post on this thread. Isolationism is the slippery slope you than walk down. How would you address this issue without having the public swing the other way?

There is a continuum between 'Isolationism' (sometimes referred to as the Monroe Doctrine) and Free Trade. We do not need to accept either a)Isolationism or b) Free Trade. There are other options.

Ross Perot predicted a Great Sucking Sound of jobs leaving for Mexico in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Now, ole Ross was a dingbat, but he was correct with that prediction.

The United States current trade deficit is growing month over month. The rest of the world does not seem to wish to purchase goods made by Americans. This sets the scene for recession. Globalization allows companies to own and operate functions with no local ties; generating no local revenue.

Because DPW would take its revenue home to its local coffers, it would pay little or no local taxes, which would mean that there would be no revenue to fund increased security by the Coast Guard and Customs Service. Unless we increase taxes on the income of the local workers.

In my opinion, we need to re-address the whole 'Free Trade is a good thing' idea. Free Trade is seldom good for an individual, while it is very good for a corporation.

 

[Carol]

Lady Kaur,

How is it different from A british company than an Arab Company to a German Company to a Japanese Company?

Fair question, Rich. I hope I can give a fair answer.

A company is different than a foreign goverment. One reason why, governments have much more access to capital and strategic resources that can be used to affect the open market or otherwise influence operations in a way that an independent business cannot do. For example, I'm not crazy about the fact that the German government currently owns a substantial part of our wireless communications network.

Outside of your question. there just seems to be a lot going on that is under our noses. The story originally discussed 6 ports, yet now there is news indicating that there are 21 ports. The President and congress say they don't know, yet Secy Rice says this was vetted for 3 months. The desire for a Free Trade pact with the UAE is going largely unnoticed. Maybe that is just my perception, but I cannot figure it all out.