the PORTGATE thread, where do you stand?

[shecky]

In a sentence, that's it.

That, of course, assumes that one's ultimate strategy is promoting America rather than promoting global corporatism.

Whose responsibility is it to promote America? The government's? Given government's ability to do things efficiently, I'd say don't bother.

Besides, shouldn't American business interests be capable of doing it themselves? If they are not, they deserve to fail. If they actually need government help, perhaps that's a sign that they are not competitive. Shouldn't they be allowed to fail? If subsidized, they lack incentive to actually improve.

 

[Jeff White]

shecky,
A foreign power will exhibit less influence on an American owner then they would on a foreign owner. Especially an owner like the UAE who has to face the prospect of living within range of Iran's crude theater range ballistic missiles.

An American owner would also be subject to US laws. It's easy to sell out someone you are in a business arrangement with, it's not so easy to sell out your country.

There is no justification for foreign control of strategic assets.

Jeff

 

[Sry0fcr]

I don't see any problem with a Dubai company owning a British company that sub-contracts to an American entity to operate our ports. Consider:

1. Britain has at least as many Islamic radicals (including mad bombers) as Dubai, possibly more. They could have come over here working for P&O as easily as they could working for anyone else.

2. The USA still has to issue visas for anyone coming to work here. This should serve as a check on Dubai nationals just as easily as US nationals - and there are already many thousands of Dubai nationals here, studying and working.

3. We can't apply a double standard. If US companies are allowed to operate in Dubai, then Dubai companies must be allowed to operate here. It works both ways.

4. I don't see the Dubai company as being in any way eager to assist terrorists - after all, they'll be making billions of dollars from their US operations, so it's in their own best interests to make sure that their US staff are reliable, loyal and completely non-terrorist (or better yet, anti-terrorist) in outlook.

I think this is a storm in a teacup, and is being stirred up by those who "feel", rather than those who actually think about the realities of the situation.

I'll add that security is not handled by whoever manages the ports but by the Coast Guard and other government entities. The dock workers sure as hell aern't going to change. What are you folks so worried about? Welcome to a global economy.

 

[Camp David]

There is no justification for foreign control of strategic assets.

So should we attack Quebec, since most of New England's electricity, as a strategic asset, is provided by hydropower from Quebec, Canada?

So should we attack Saudi Arabia, since much of the crude oil used domestically, as a strategic asset, is provided by Saudi Arabia?

Is your definition of "strategic asset" simply a domestic item? Because if it is, you need to adjust it to include geopolitical realities!

 

[PCGS65]

I'll add that security is not handled by whoever manages the ports but by the Coast Guard and other government entities. The dock workers sure as hell aern't going to change. What are you folks so worried about? Welcome to a global economy.

I hope we don't find out "what we are all worried about"
Screw the global economy. That has already and will continue to lower our standard of living.

 

[Jeff White]

SryOfcr said;

I'll add that security is not handled by whoever manages the ports but by the Coast Guard and other government entities. The dock workers sure as hell aern't going to change. What are you folks so worried about? Welcome to a global economy.

This is what I'm worried about:

It's 2 years in the future. Iran has just demonstrated to the world that they are truly a nuclear power by conducting open air tests of their new hydrogen bomb.

Iran demands that all Crusader forces leave the Middle East. US forces have been drawn down to approx. 60K in theater. The president responds by announcing he's going to bolster the forces in the Middle East. Heavy units at Ft Hood, Ft Carson, Ft Benning, and Ft Stewart begin rail loading their tanks and IFVs for the trip back to the sandbox. The trains begin arriving at the seaports, where the foreign owners have decided to go to war with the longshoremen over contract issues. Work slows, it finally stops.

The administration is now faced with a politically impossible position, does it side with the UAE owners and order the longshoremen back to work? Does it reroute the heavy equipment to other ports?

We've now got an additional 100K troops enroute to the Middle East by air where they are walking around in the FOBs in Kuwait armed and equipped with what they can carry on their backs. How do we sustain them? What have we accomplished except to give the Iranians a big juicy target for their new nuclear capability.

Even in a global economy, you have to protect your strategic assets. We used to have laws about such things, but I guess profit overrides national defense.

Camp David said;

So should we attack Quebec, since most of New England's electricity, as a strategic asset, is provided by hydropower from Quebec, Canada?

No Canada is not a world power and exists simply because we choose to defend it. They are too tied to us economically and physically that their strategic interests are our strategic interests even if the leftist government there is too stupid to recognize it.

So should we attack Saudi Arabia, since much of the crude oil used domestically, as a strategic asset, is provided by Saudi Arabia?

Have you ever heard of the strategic petroleum reserve? It's not our policy to attack sovereign nations who possess assets that are necessary to run our economy. We do however buy and stockpile enough of the resource to see us through a crisis. The strategic petroleum reserve doesn't exist so the president can boost his flagging poll ratings by releasing the oil into the domestic market and artificially drive gasoline prices down. It exists so that our economy and military can operate through a crisis where the oil may be cut off for a period of time.

Is your definition of "strategic asset" simply a domestic item? Because if it is, you need to adjust it to include geopolitical realities!

My definition of strategic asset has always included geopolitical realities. We used to have strategic reserve programs for other commodities we can't produce domestically.

I would suggest you realize that we still live in a very dangerous world, perhaps more dangerous then the bad old days of the cold war. We still have a need to keep all strategic assets under direct American control, and those we cannot control domestically, we need to stockpile like we do with oil and used to do with various other commodities.

Jeff

 

[engineer151515]

.......... Rather than cede control of vital interests in perpetuity to foreign interests we need to do what's necessary to develop the skills to get this situation under control. ..............

We can't even close our Southern border to millions of illegal aliens.


Forget it.

Political smoke. No fire.


At this point in time, it would not suprise me if a Chinese PLA based company was in charge of landscaping around the US Capitol Building.

 

[Merkin.Muffley]

Bush now says he didn't know about the deal.

Uh-huh.

For a guy who didn't know he certainly swooped down on the issue like a mother hawk. I don't remember hearing anything about, "Hmmm, let me look into this."

Is there ANYONE on this forum who believes he is telling the truth?

 

[Kodiaz]

Well Merkin when was the last time you think he told the truth?

 

[ArmedBear]

Is there ANYONE on this forum who believes he is telling the truth?

I doubt it.

I don't. It just wouldn't make sense. And I like to think I'm not afflicted with BDS like a lot of people here.

To offer a little balance...

I don't think it's the President's job to tell the truth. I don't think it was FDR's job to tell the world about the Manhattan Project, or that it was Kennedy's job or Reagan's to tell the USSR if they were bluffing, or Clinton's job to tell Hussein what we'd do next. Carter's job was NOT to tell the Iranian government that we were choosing impotence, but he didn't do his job. So it's not Bush's job to give up any secrets to Arab countries, or even to the UK whe it's not appropriate.

It IS the President's job to look after US interests, every day in every way. If that involves international deception, then fine with me.

What would be a problem is if the President looks after his own interests, or those of his friends, at the EXPENSE of US interests. And of course, that's the question here.

We DO NOT know if that is happening. Let's see if we can find out.

 

[taliv]

but if "domestic" includes publicly traded US corporations whose stock is held primarily by chinese, french and the saudi royal family?

 

[Art Eatman]

An excerpt from today's "Daily Reckoning" (dot-com). Worth thinking about.

"> "The deal should go forward," says our friend, Chris Mayer.
>
> "First, people should understand that DP World would not own the ports,
> only the concessions (or contracts) to manage the ports.
>
> "Second, security at U.S. ports is handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and
> U.S. Customs Service. Management companies have little to do with
> security. None of this changes with the deal.
>
> "This deal was no secret. It has been reported on extensively in the
> financial press, as DP World was in a bidding war for P&O, eventually
> beating out a Singapore-owned shipping company. The deal passed all of the
> normal regulatory approvals.
>
> "Dubai, located in the United Arab Emirates, is a Middle Eastern country.
> It is a Muslim country and as detractors are fond of pointing out, two of
> the 9/11 hijackers came from the UAB. Somehow, that puts everyone related
> to the UAB under suspicion. Politicians, and the mainstream public, are
> essentially acting like bigots for holding a Middle Eastern ally to a
> different standard. Many of the top execs at DP World are American and the
> port workers are Americans - regardless of who owns the concessions.
>
> "For those who say they don't want a foreign government running our ports:
> well, I have a surprise for you. China already runs a terminal at the Port
> of Los Angeles. Singapore runs terminals in Oakland. The fact is that
> around the world this is commonplace. If the U.S. government is going to
> exclude foreign companies (even government-owned ones) from running its
> ports, it will only slip back further in the global competitive race,
> isolating it from the biggest and most efficient port operators in the
> world.
>
> "U.S. ports are already inefficient, expensive and heavily-regulated.
> Hutchinson Ports, the world's largest port operator, won't touch the
> United States because of how poorly U.S. ports are managed and organized."

FWIW,

Art

 

[longhorngunman]

Now Art there you go ruining a perfectly good rant, rave, accusation, assumption, and stereotype thread by injecting reality and common sense into it!

 

[Zedicus]

Lack of homegrown capacity to manage our ports is a symptom of a much bigger problem that "Portgate" has, thankfully, awakened us to. Rather than cede control of vital interests in perpetuity to foreign interests we need to do what's necessary to develop the skills to get this situation under control. This is like saying we don't have enough engineers so let's just forget about it and hire foreign talent. We piss away billions and billions on stupid stuff, we waste infinite amounts of time on nonsense, but we don't have the will to steer our own national ship? This is just one Big Problem America is either going to start coming to terms with or slowly but surely perish.

+1

Well Said!

 

[PCGS65]

by the Daily Reckoning "The deal should go forward," says our friend, Chris Mayer.

Ahhhh opinions,opinions
"The deal should not go forward says me" PCGS65
Evidently a biased source.
So much for that.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I couldn't answer the poll since you have it asking about operating the port.

That will not be the case. They will own it, not operate it. There are HUGE amounts of real estate owned by other countries in America, you just don't know it since the media doesn't make a big deal about it.

I don't think there is a port in America that is American owned now.

 

[DonP]

Who'd a thunk it. Facts from a network news source!

From CBS News of all places..........
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/22/opinion/meyer/main1335531.shtml
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.

Horselips.

Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.

The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.

The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports. Odds are higher that you'll be trampled by Chuck Schumer rushing to a microphone to provide soundbites than by something smuggled into a port terminal leased by Dubai Ports World.

But please: let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And what's wrong with a little Arab-bashing anyway?

I am no expert on ports, transportation or shipping. But it takes very little reading and research to cut through the gas on this one.

Myth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.

No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.

Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.

P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.

Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.

No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.

Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.

Myth #3: American ports should be American.

Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…" Thirty per cent of the countries port terminals are operated by companies that are, um, unAmerican.

At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.

Remember the global economy? Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just aboust every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facilty.

Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.

My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.

Myth #4: The United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.

That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that didn't mean it was true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.

Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.

Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. To my knowledge its crimes were not governmetn sponsored. It is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: Bush is paying them off at the expense of our safety).

Some combination of these facts led the Dubai Ports deal to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a joint effort of a dozen government agencies tasked with security (yes, I know, that's slim solace).

Certainly the security of American ports is an important issue. Certainly who controls the finances of companies that lease terminals at ports is far down the to-do list of how to improve security at ports.

That has everything to do with adequate funding and proper management at the relevant agencies. Management is the responsibility of the executive branch, while funding and oversight is the job of Congress. There is scant evidence that Congress or the administration have excelled in their duties.

That's why it's so tempting for politicians of both parties to indulge in xenophobic Arab-bashing on this matter of minimal national security importance. There are uncounted real homeland security issues and glaring national security problems coming from Arab or Muslim stetas; this is not in either category, not even close. But as one Republican said, regardless of the facts, the administration was politically "tone deaf" on this one. Appearance is more important than reality.

Often bipartisanship is a sign of pragmatic consensus or noble common cause. In this case it is merely a demonstration of an occupational hazard of politicians: cover-your-arse-itis.

 

[notupperwareplease]

I vote against any foreigner in charge, as a theory. Of course, there is no American-based company that COULD, but in theory we should be running our own ports.

However, I don't see a difference between UAE and England or Singapore. Terrorists have global networks with worldwide front companies designed for pure income and influence/intel. Where a company is based has no effect. People act like there is some kind of magical wall in the ME, and everything between Japan and Europe is fanatically Communist or Terrorist, and everything west is somehow righteous.

I think many here discard the value of money. Money, Ideology, Career, Ego...is that how the acronym goes? Fork over enough money, almost any port employee from any nation will hand you some info under the table. People who can't be bought are few and far between.

Proof? How many people do you talk to will say "I would never do that" on any given issue, but when you say "How about if someone offered you a million dollars?" they say "Well...maybe...."

 

[longeyes]

"For those who say they don't want a foreign government running our ports:
> well, I have a surprise for you. China already runs a terminal at the Port
> of Los Angeles. Singapore runs terminals in Oakland. The fact is that
> around the world this is commonplace. If the U.S. government is going to
> exclude foreign companies (even government-owned ones) from running its
> ports, it will only slip back further in the global competitive race,
> isolating it from the biggest and most efficient port operators in the
> world.
>
> "U.S. ports are already inefficient, expensive and heavily-regulated.
> Hutchinson Ports, the world's largest port operator, won't touch the
> United States because of how poorly U.S. ports are managed and organized."

This is what's called an OPPORTUNITY. I'm glad we're finding out about this rather grim fact. Now let's change it. Why do we have to just accept this as a fait accompli for all time?

 

[ArmedBear]

This is what's called an OPPORTUNITY. I'm glad we're finding out about this rather grim fact. Now let's change it. Why do we have to just accept this as a fait accompli for all time?

Well, if you can get rid of the Longshoreman's Union and the politicians in their pocket, you'll be off to a good start. But I thought you were a protectionist pro-organized-labor guy?

 

[longeyes]

But I thought you were a protectionist pro-organized-labor guy?

Not at all, just a realist--and an unapologetic nationalist. If I have to choose between the blue-collar "organized labor" guy and the guys living off trust funds, directorships, and political connections, I'll take the former. Give me an honest truck driver anytime over a dishonest arbitrageur.

 

[GoRon]

After waiting for the dust to settle and the facts to dribble out this is what I think.

This is a non story. Nothing of any importance will change with this sale.

The same security (or lack thereof) will be in place, the same unions and workers will be doing their jobs as under the previous owners.

My initial reaction was just like everyone else. After looking at this dispassionately I have come to the conclusion that this would never happen if there was a chance it would make security worse.

Jeff,
In the event of some conflageration that required the use of the ports, do you really think some bureaucrat in the UAE is going to be able shut down our ability to use the ports. One phone call to the union from the Whitehouse promising everyone will be paid regardless of what the "owners" say and every true blue union guy will be on the job just to stick it to the "Arab" owners.

 

[Flyboy]

http://www.reason.com/hod/db102605.shtml

Bottom line: peace isn't just good for business, business is good for peace.

A little more in-depth:

There are a number of reasons why economics appears to trump politics. The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict, because the political destabilization resulting from war deters profitable investment and trade. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends.

Go read the full article for the full details.

Besides which, there are two major points not being mentioned by any of the usual media outlets. 1) As others have pointed out, it's not like Dubai Ports World is going to own the port; they're going to be managing a small aspect of it. Security will still be handled by Americans, including government agents (insert joke here). This doesn't change anything--in fact, the functions being transferred were already owned by foreigners, in this case the Brits. 2) You want Americans running it? Fine--get an American company to compete for the contract. Yeah, you heard me: no American company even tried for the contract. That's because this sort of port operation is a money-losing venture.

If the UAE wants to throw money at us, and simultaneously put itself in a position where it has something to lose, economically and financially, from terrorism, I say bring it on. And, incidentally, there's a reason foreign-owned companies and foreign-flagged vessels absolutely dominate maritime shipping, but I think tax discussions are probably way outside the scope of this thread.

 

[longeyes]

There are a number of reasons why economics appears to trump politics. The shift from statist mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war. Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable. Territorial aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Free-flowing capital markets and other aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the economic price of military conflict, because the political destabilization resulting from war deters profitable investment and trade. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic prosperity, provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends.

There's an old saying on Wall Street: "This time it's different." It qualifies as sardonic humor.

How long have we had capitalism? How many wars during that time? How many wars during the "high-tech" phase? Fitting that this comes from "reason.com." Too bad human history isn't a display of reason, huh? The Enlightenment is a campfire surrounded by dark, deep jungle. There are so many reasons why we and the Islamic world should not fight to the death, so many. And yet...we will, if history is any guide.

This is a non story. Nothing of any importance will change with this sale.

I beg to differ. No matter how much Rove talks about "valued allies" and "racism" the fact is that this will be a catalyzing political event that strips the Bush administration of its last vestiges of strength. I think a lot of people are going to wake up, a lot are going to finally register ultimate disillusionment with the current leadership. That leadership is more than the Bush crew; it extends to all the people who, over the years, have presided over America's long slow slide into being a happy, flabby giant that needs to placate its enemies. A lot of change lies ahead.

 

[Maxwell]

Its a port.
People make money cause other people pay money to use it.
People who own ports dont really run the security or customs, its a governments job.

Now heres the issue to me:
One non-american guy is tired of owning ports, he wants out. Other non-americans offer to buy the things. Everyone talks to the powers that be to make sure its kosher, and its seen as kosher.

Now the dems say they dont want forigners in charge of ports... well, these forigners are in charge of alot of stuff. The country a company is based in has little to do with how it runs on our soil. We got laws to govern that.

If we back out of this deal, and worse if we back out of it with this politicly correct brainstorm that the UAE will somehow mean our port security can suck any more than it already does, two thigns will happen:
1) Someone in the UK is going to lose alot of money on their investment since they cant offload it.
2) Other forigners with investments in the US might start to think twice over what is now an unwise investment.

I think in trying to save these facilities from status-quo security in the near future, we're going to expose ourselves to a much larger economic crises that has little to do with ports or arabs.