[PigRigger]

Understand your statements....However, allowing a company domiciled in a country that has known problems with terrorism, in a post 9-11 world, is more apt to invite problems.

The UAE company is most likely going to become privy to sensitive security documents and processes that (in order to cooperate with those who will assist in implementing security) they otherwise would never have access to. It is irresponsible to sanction such actions given the domiciled countries track record and what happened on 9-11.

I'm sorry if you can't see that, but it poses a huge problem to many, even those who agree whole heartily with free trade.

[Dane]

The UAE company is most likely going to become privy to sensitive security documents and processes that (in order to cooperate with those who will assist in implementing security) they otherwise would never have access to. It is irresponsible to sanction such actions given the domiciled countries track record and what happened on 9-11

Along with their Danish partner(see reply #41). If anything, IMO, the UAE company will be watched like a hawk.

[Alberta's Child]

However, allowing a company domiciled in a country that has known problems with terrorism, in a post 9-11 world, is more apt to invite problems.

My point was that a company domiciled in the UAE is no less dangerous than one domiciled in Great Britain in this regard.

For that matter, the company domiciled in the U.S. might be the most dangerous of all. When it comes to dealing with terrorism I wouldn't necessarily trust a U.S. stevedore or a U.S. Homeland Security official any more than I would trust a Pakistani national working on a British ship, or an Arab executive working in Dubai.