FACTBOX-Security assurances DP World made to U.S.

Reuters ^ | 2-24-06

[markedmannerf]

The Department of Homeland Security released the following information on Friday:

-- DP World agreed to continue to participate in U.S. cargo inspection and security programs for U.S. and foreign ports including:

* the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, which commits companies to implementing certain security procedures in close cooperation with the U.S. government.

* the Container Security Initiative and a related Department of Energy program that ensure cargo is screened before it gets to U.S. ports, including by stationing U.S. Customs officials at overseas ports, such as Dubai.

The Department of Homeland Security said this mandatory participation in these programs was unprecedented.

-- DP World agreed to assist U.S. law enforcement with information and records about its operations. DHS said this would enable it to screen or probe DP World workers.

-- DP World agreed to maintain existing security policies and procedures at U.S. facilities, including security personnel, and to notify DHS about any changes.

-- DP World, to the extent possible, agreed to operate facilities it owns or controls with existing U.S. management.

-- DP World agreed to take all reasonable steps to assist and support law enforcement agencies in activity related to its work or the work of its subsidiaries in the United States. Such assistance will include disclosing, if necessary, information relating to the design, maintenance or operations of its U.S. facilities, equipment or services.

-- DP World agreed to provide promptly, upon written request, any relevant records in the United States relating to foreign operational direction of any U.S. facilities it owns or operates.

[thoughtomator]

I don't get it... if DPW has no role in security, as the deal's boosters have said over and over and over, why need any security assurances?

[Frank_Discussion]

As a tenant of the port on US soil, they are beholden to security protocols of the US government. As all foreign enitities are in a similar situation.

This opens more doors to understand the dealings of the UAE, not fewer.

[mnehring]

DPI doesn't have anything to do with Port Security, but they do have security in the container storage facilities they run. This is like McDonalds hiring a rent-a-cop.. that has nothing to do with the road in front..

What I do see in this is that this is opening the door to getting our security personnel in DPI port operations outside the US and possibly increasing the amount of cargo that is screened.. Knew there was a lot more than the face value or the fears of the bashbots..

[cripplecreek]

I'm still wondering why everyone wants to ignore the most likely potential problem. How much money will find it's way into the hands of terrorists?

After all, it seems that every other so called ally we have in the region give money to terrorists.

[Darkwolf377]

I don't get it... if DPW has no role in security, as the deal's boosters have said over and over and over, why need any security assurances?

To placate folsk like you. ;) /jk

[Bahbah]

if DPW has no role in security, as the deal's boosters have said over and over and over, why need any security assurances?

It's not a very artful headline. I think what they are actually saying is that they have been fully cooperative with all of the demands made by those implementing OUR security procedures.

[Darkwolf377]

What I do see in this is that this is opening the door to getting our security personnel in DPI port operations outside the US and possibly increasing the amount of cargo that is screened.. Knew there was a lot more than the face value or the fears of the bashbots..

Gee, so maybe--just maybe--the Bashbots (great term!) can see that Bush didn't just suddenly lose his mind after running the WOT up to this point and say "Ah, what the hell, who cares if they sneak in a nuke as a result of a deal made on my watch?"

If your analysis is right, this is an opportunity to get more of our security folks over THERE. That's a win-win as far as I can see.

[Frank_Discussion]

"If your analysis is right, this is an opportunity to get more of our security folks over THERE. That's a win-win as far as I can see."

Yes. But let's mess that up if we can, right? /bashbot

[Darkwolf377]

LOL

By all means let's mess that up--it's not like getting our people involved in port security in the SOURCE countries is important. If we wanted that, we don't have to engage in diplomacy or economic interaction--we just ask them, and they'll all just give it, just because.

So at the end of the day, terminal operations already operated by foreigners will be operated by foreigners, we have strengthened our association with a strategic ally in the Middle East, extended our ongoing interaction with Middle Eastern countries and thus shown the way for others in the region, and shown that such countries can be treated as economic partners. In exchange, we expand the inspection of containers--which eveeyone here is always complaining about, "only 3% checked" and all--at the SOURCE, where it matters.

Yeah, I can see why the Bashbots are against this. Much better to make demands of Middle Eastern countries (such as the UAE, which cooperated after 9-11) and then just deny them any opportunity to engage us economically, because they'll just do it because it's a nice thing.

The same people who are whining about this deal would be the ones screaming "Racism!" the loudest if an American company were about to buy the terminal operations in the UAE and the people rejected it because they didn't like Canadians.

[Frank_Discussion]

Your lips to God's ears!

[Wuli]

I see all of this new information as just more smokescreen, in front of a deal that didn't really give a %$#^^) about national security (Chertoff found out after it was a done deal). The deal makers were the usual class of financially connected political insiders (both Albright's and Daschel's lobby groups were involved as is apparently Jim Baker), and the permanent government of bureaucrats inside DOD, State, CIA, et. al. who are more connected to the lobbyists than anyone else (follow the resumes).

You can put a silk-purse over the pig's ear of the DPWorld exec coincidentally becoming head of our Maritime Dept, as the deal was finalized, but you cannot avoid that coincidence suggesting that some people knew more than they are admitting to (when he was vetted for the position, the fact of the ongoing DPWorld deal was left out?, I think not).

To me the absolute "security" concerns are no longer my primary concern. I smell some rats and they're sleeping on money.

[visualops]

the DPWorld exec coincidentally becoming head of our Maritime Dept, as the deal was finalized

Better double-up on the tin foil.
Sanborn was nominated because he is eminently qualified.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE ALLEN
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee
Nomination Hearing
February 7, 2006

Finally Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce another fine Virginian, David Sanborn of Smithfield, VA who the President nominated to serve as Administrator of the Maritime Administration. He is a graduate of the Merchant Marine Academy. David has impressive credentials and a wealth of experience, both domestically and internationally, but most importantly a sincere desire and vision to promote our nation’s ports and shipping industry.

Most recently, as Director of Ship Operations for Dubai Ports International, he was responsible for expanding port infrastructure and efficiency, while developing successful new lines of business. As Senior Vice President of Service Delivery, a company based out of Norfolk, VA, he controlled cargo logistics and demonstrated his ability to seamlessly coordinate shipping with rail and truck operations. Operating multi-million dollar budgets, overseeing staff of hundreds, and redesigning organizations are familiarities extensive to David Sanborn that will undoubtedly ensure his success as Administrator. I look forward to working with him and working with this committee toward his swift confirmation.

I suggest further reading:
Fact Sheet: The CFIUS Process And The DP World Transaction
DHS Fact Sheet: Securing U.S. Ports

[Wuli]

He may be imminently qualified from a background and experience perspective, and all things being equal, most likely a good hire.

Are there others in his field who may equal his experience? Likely, yes.

I do not believe in coincidences in politics.

Major international company is about to gain its first major stake in its line of business in the U.S. and one of its top executives is simultaneously leaving that company to become head of the government Dept that oversees that industry? Simply fortuitous? When are such events ever simply fortuitous in Washington, D.C.?

I don't need any tin foil, but you better get a shovel for all the bs you are willing to accept.

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump