Posted on 02/28/2006 3:34:51 PM PST by Carl/NewsMax
News reports over the last two weeks have repeatedly claimed that a Dubai company was taking control of six major U.S. ports as part of a deal approved by the Bush administration.
But according to one port security expert, Dubai Ports World will run just a tiny fraction of the terminals at the U.S. ports involved if the deal goes through.
Defending the transaction on MSNBC's "Scarborough Company" Monday night, Kim Petersen, president of Seasecure, noted: "There are 300 terminals at those ports. Dubai Ports World is going to handle nine of them."
SeaSecure is the largest provider of maritime security in America.
That's a far cry from the impression left by the press, which reported over 50 times in the last two weeks that DPW would be "taking control of six major U.S. ports," according to a Nexis Lexis search.
Variations on the same phrase likely appeared in hundreds of additional reports.
Only in the American press does a 3 percent share of operations constitute "taking control."
Takes only one terminal ... and its more like 21 ports, not 6...
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
HOUSTON, Feb. 23, 2006 -- The recent announcement of plans by the Dubai Ports World (DP World) to purchase P&O Ports (P&O) will not have an impact on any of the facilities or operations of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA).
The PHA is a political subdivision chartered by the state of Texas. It owns and either operates or leases 12 public facilities. The PHA does not own or operate private facilities.
Specifically in Houston, P&O leases space at the PHA's Barbours Cut Container Terminal for container and chassis repair and container storage. At the PHA's Turning Basin Terminal, P&O maintains a freight handling assignment and is licensed to provide stevedore services. P&O does not own or operate public (PHA) facilities.
P&O, a private company headquartered in London, is involved in worldwide container terminal operations and stevedore services for the maritime industry.
The Port of Houston comprises more than 150 public (PHA) and private terminals along the 53-mile Houston Ship Channel. The port's private terminals include several U.S.-based, foreign-based and multi-national corporations. Approximately 85% of cargo that moves through Houston's port is handled at private facilities. A large portion of the port's private facilities are engaged in production, refining and transportation operations related to the global oil, gas and chemical industries.
PORT SECURITY
All port facilities in the U.S. that are engaged in commercial activities across interstate lines or international borders -- whether public or private, domestic or foreign -- are subject to state and federal security statutes as well as the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.
The federal government takes the lead in protecting America's ports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, primarily through the activities of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, runs many programs to secure U.S. ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maritime security and reviewing and approving security plans for vessels, port facilities and port areas which are required by the MTSA. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for cargo security, and screens and inspects cargo entering the U.S. through every U.S. port.
Other cargo security programs include:
-- Container Security Initiative (inspection of U.S. import cargo
by CBP prior to leaving the outbound foreign port)
-- Use of radiation detection equipment to screen for weapons of
mass destruction
-- Use of other non-intrusive inspection devices
-- Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), which
encourages maritime stakeholders to verify their security
measures.
The Port Security Grant program and the pending implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) are also important parts of America's port security portfolio to provide layered security.
While the federal government takes the lead on waterside and cargo security, overall security is a shared responsibility with port authorities, facility and vessel operators, and state and local law enforcement agencies providing additional security. The Maritime Transportation Security Act also establishes local security committees to evaluate and make improvements in each port.
In general, port infrastructure throughout the U.S. and around the world consists of diverse collections of docks, warehouses, and terminals. For the past two decades, it has been a common maritime industry practice for private port facilities in some countries to be operated by organizations that are based in other countries. This is widely regarded as the nature of trade and commerce in today's global economy.
For more information, please visit www.portofhouston.com .
The Port of Houston Authority logo can be found at: http://media.primezone.com/prs/single/?pkgid=720
CONTACTS: Port of Houston Authority
Argentina M. James, Director of Public Affairs
Office: (713) 670-2568 Cell: (713) 306-6822
ajames@poha.com
Limbacher sees the light!
Imagine that; the not-so-MSM quibbled. Shocked. Absolutely stunned. /sarc
Thanks. Glad to see someone getting the facts out. I do not object to people having different opinions on the wisdom of the Port Deal, but it really made me angry the way the opposition has deliveratly obfuscated or mislead on the facts
I am still neutral with regard to all this, but a stupid argument is still a stupid argument. You only need one terminal to smuggle contraband, which is the alleged threat at hand..
"For the past two decades, it has been a common maritime industry practice for private port facilities in some countries to be operated by organizations that are based in other countries. This is widely regarded as the nature of trade and commerce in today's global economy..."
Everything changed post 9-11, and what had been "common maritime practice" has got to take a back seat to our national security.
A royal family that hunts with OBL, laundered his $$ and supplied two of the terrorists that attacked our country is a country we don't need operating any of the terminals in any of our ports..
The issue is not how many PORTS are involved, it is how many TERMINALS. Every major port has many terminals. So the discussion of the UAE taking control of our ports is an intentional obfuscation.
P&O Ports North America's home page is:
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=169,1,169_82863&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
P&O Groups global Ports subsidiary page is:
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207406&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL
On the latter page, you can follow links to North American container totals.
The article leading off this thread is rather fact free, to say the least.
Bump, Sally!
" royal family that hunts with OBL, laundered his $$ and supplied two of the terrorists that attacked our country is a country we don't need operating any of the terminals in any of our ports..
"
So now the Royal Family "supplied" 2 911 hijackers?
Do you plan to demand that the ports in Dubai be closed also?
A royal family that hunts with OBL, laundered his $$ and supplied two of the terrorists that attacked our country is a country we don't need operating any of the terminals in any of our ports..
Right on.
IMHO our enemy should not be rewarded with multi-billion $ contracts
I'm not demanding that ports be closed HERE... but in a post-911 world, port security is a national security priority (and one that with a GOP congress and WH, we should expect to be a very high priority).
I'm not as concerned with ports in Dubai.. and I resent that a small dictatorship should be calling the shots on OUR security..
This is the biggest brouhaha over nothing that I have seen in years. The only thing worse was the Cheney hunting hysteria.
And of course, Bush left for India so that he can't answer anyone for three or four days. Tell me this wasn't planned for maximum effect.
I'll amend the sentence to comply with the grammar police...
Of course you're not; if you were, you'd find out some FACTS:
Flashback - December 13, 2004: Dubai, U.A.E., Joins U.S. Container Security Initiative (State Dept.)
and I resent that a small dictatorship should be calling the shots on OUR security..
Again proving you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I did not know that; so it's okay for them to FLY stuff in, but not SAIL it in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.