Uproar over U.S. ports (excellent editorial)

The Washington Times ^ | 2/17/2006 | Staff

[Dark Skies]

The White House is obviously not listening to the congressional uproar over Dubai Ports World. Lawmakers want to know why a federal panel allowed a state-owned United Arab Emirates shipping firm to pay $6.8 billion to acquire six major American ports -- including critical ones in New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia -- despite its home country's glaring ties to international terrorism. But the White House is yawning.

[Alberta's Child]

They probably already know this now. Do some research on the executive board members and operating staff of every foreign company that currently operates port terminals in the U.S., and you'll find a veritable United Nations of people at all levels of the company from all over the world.

The notion that U.S. port security is vastly superior today -- with companies from China, Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc. operating port terminals here -- than it would be with a UAE-owned company involved is idiotic, and has all the relevance and credibility of a Geraldo Rivera report on Fox News about Natalee Holloway.

[TXBSAFH]

Yep

[DJ MacWoW]

Do some research on the executive board members and operating staff of every foreign company that currently operates port terminals in the U.S., and you'll find a veritable United Nations of people at all levels of the company from all over the world.

Oh well then that's all right. We'll just invite MORE foreign interests in, ESPECIALLY muslims, and everything will be just fin......BOOM! Oops.

[atlaw]

First, it is my understanding that P&O Nedlloyd is currently owned by A.P Moeller-Maersk, which secured 95% of the total issued and outstanding share capital of Royal P&O Nedlloyd N.V. in August of 2005.

P&O Ports is the P&O Group company responsible for port development, investment, operating and stevedoring activities. It operates approximately 31 container, general cargo, and passenger terminals in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, and Vancouver, and half of Norfolk's CP&O Ports Virginia, the largest stevedoring service in Hampton Roads.

A little background history:

International Terminal Operating Company, Inc. (ITO) was founded in 1921 by Captain Franz Jarka. Originally called The Jarka Corporation, the company specialized in handling freight and passengers in the Port of New York. Soon, The Jarka Corporation expanded its services to encompass the ports of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads, Virginia. In 1962, ITO was acquired by Ogden Corporation. In 1983, the company merged with John W. McGrath Corporation, which included Atlantic and Gulf Stevedores, Inc. and integrated their North Atlantic and Gulf Coast operations. Ogden and McGrath continued to share ownership of ITO.

ITO opened its first public container handling facility in 1967, and it was among the first to utilize computers in its terminal operations. The company used the latest technology to coordinate all its port activities, including receiving and delivery functions, cargo documentation, and terminal security. ITO worked with many of the largest container, break-bulk, and specialized cargo carriers in the world and became one of the largest stevedores and marine terminal operators in the United States. In 1999 the United Kingdom-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) acquired ITO. The company then became part of P&O Ports, one of P&O's many subsidiaries. P&O Port's operations spanned 17 countries around the globe. In all, P&O Ports ran 24 container terminals in 84 ports.

And now, for the sum of $6.8 billion, Dubai Ports World (DP World) is the proud owner of the former P&O Ports.

And as noted in Forbes (during the bidding war for acquisition of P&O):

DP World made the first formal approach for P&O in November, when it offered 3.3 billion pounds ($5.9 billion) for the 165-year-old company.

A deal would make the combined company the third-largest ports operator in terms of capacity, lifting DP World up from its current rank as No. 7.

The concern, of course, is that DP Worlds is state owned, that Dubai has a rather ignoble history of ties to terrorist funding and transit, that DP Worlds' ownership rights over existing North American terminal infrastructure and operations comes complete with extant leasehold, stevedoring, wharfage, and seaway rights, and that the CFIUS did not conduct a 45-day investigation on top of the initial 30-day review that it usually gives to foreign purchases of U.S. businesses

By the way, that 30 day window was for the approving committee itself to voice objections.

[atlaw]

Oops. Second paragraph should have read -- "and owns half of Norfolk's CP&O Ports Virginia, the largest stevedoring service in Hampton Roads." And of course, that "owns" is now past-tense.

[RSmithOpt]

So, why is it no US owned companies are able to operate these sites at our ports? Is it not profitable enough? Or is it that the Bush Administration wants to pander to more government sanctioned use of illegal slave labor just for the improvement of the bottom line of certain sectors and corporations?

[Gopher Broke]

Her Heinous Hillary is getting ready to introduce a bill to stop this foreign takeover of the ports.

The Hildebeast spanks Republicans again.....another red-letter day for the STUPID party

[Alberta's Child]

. . . that DP Worlds' ownership rights over existing North American terminal infrastructure and operations comes complete with extant leasehold, stevedoring, wharfage, and seaway rights . . .

Any port that has concerns over this could sever their connections with DPW tomorrow if it wanted to. All of those "ownership rights" would vanish in an instant, though the port authority in question would probably end up buying out the lease.

[Alberta's Child]

So, why is it no US owned companies are able to operate these sites at our ports?

That's a very good question.

Most of these terminal operators are subsidiaries of large shipping corporations that own and operate maritime vessels, lease terminal space at ports, and sometimes even own other subsidiaries in the trucking or railroad sectors. These huge corporate conglomerates don't really operate independently . . . they join with other similar companies and function as shipping cartels with price-fixing agreements, preferential shipping rates for different routes, etc. The problem is that the business arrangements within these global "alliances" are in direct violation of U.S. anti-trust laws, so these companies effectively circumvent U.S. law by operating out of countries where the rules in this regard are not nearly as strict. This is why many of these companies are officially headquartered in places like Switzerland, the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, etc.

[David1]

I heard Mark Levin's opposition to this a couple of days ago. And you would know he is not one to allow himself to be drawn in my the democrats if you listen to his show.

[Light Speed]

Allrrightty then.....Muslims get ports.

I'm thinking Amtrack will go to some country steeped in rail experience.....ya.....some firm from India.

Aww Dammit Ramjit ......Sheva protect us"!

[atlaw]

though the port authority in question would probably end up buying out the lease.

"Probably" here should read "certainly." And considering that the buy-out (which would actually be an anticipatory breach) would entail confiscation of billions in infrastructure and income-generating service rights, I doubt seriously that any of the affected port authorities would be able to afford it, even if they did decide to unilaterally take on the federal government's abrogated duty to protect the homeland.

[Alberta's Child]

And considering that the buy-out (which would actually be an anticipatory breach) . . .

I think the "probably" still stands, because the notion of an "anticipatory breach" in a merger/acquisition of this sort may not necessarily apply. If I am the Port Authority of NY and NJ and I have a lease arrangement with P&O Ports, I may have a very strong case if I decide to terminate the lease in the event the ownership of P&O changes. I didn't sign the deal with DPW -- I signed it with P&O.

[atlaw]

Maybe. It would very intersting to see the actual contrats between P&O and the various port authorities. And it would be highly ironic if the local level reversed the federal rubber stamp. Local authorities do, after all, have a slightly more acute and personal interest.

[Alberta's Child]

In the case of New York and New Jersey (the area I am most familiar with), the port authority operates as something of a quasi-public agency. In some ways it functions like a private company (it is expected to operate without any government funding, for example, and to generate a certain rate of return from its various business units), while it does operate under a certain amount of government oversight (the directors are appointed by the governors of New York and New Jersey).

My experience is that these agencies have much more leeway than a government does when it comes to many issues like this.

[Alberta's Child]

Ping.

[KeyLargo]

I can't believe that I am agreeing with Chuck Schumer!!!

Are the inmates running the asylum at the White House???

---

What's next . . . surrendering our flag?

Kaye Grogan
February 17, 2006


I think it is way past time some heads in Washington went to the shrink's office and laid down on the long black couch. To even consider allowing a company associated with the middle east to have access to six of our US seaports is beyond lunacy! If this is the only way we can help the economy, then we're in worse trouble than initially thought. We would be better off to just keep eating our pinto beans, cornbread, and forget about Caviar. I never liked it anyway!

Congress should do more than just look at the hideous proposal. It's way past time our government put their "gonna protect us from the bad guys" beyond the usual worn out lip-sync we're all tired of hearing. They need to get serious about national security. We are not paying big salaries up there in Washington, for our lawmakers and do-nothing committees to be so far removed from sanity.

What's next? Access to our war arsenals? Why not just hand over our flag and be done with it?

I'm with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. To hand over our ports for lease to Dubai Ports World is just asking for more trouble. How much common sense does it take for someone to realize the real danger of playing with fire? In this case, it's more like playing with time bombs, literally!

Has anyone considered how many people could be blown off the face of the earth in six large cities simultaneously? I know that the devil can be cunning and sly, but come on get a grip! Do we have the extra manpower needed to patrol six potential dangerous war zones at our own seaports? The lawmakers are already lamenting that we can't secure our own borders. So what are we supposed to do? The average person does not have underground bunkers built for them, that resemble the Hilton Hotel, reserved only for the Washington VIP class, to cower in, while the rest of Americans inhale deadly chemicals from nuclear weapons.

I don't think I have ever agreed with Senator Chuck Schumer on anything he has ever said before, until now. Schumer has signed a letter sent to US Treasury Secretary John Snow, along with six other congressional members showing concern about the latest so-called proposal by the Bush Administration, to boost the US economy allowing the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (soon to be Dubia if the sale goes through) — to operate using our ports. Senator Schumer and the other six have reservations about the group being trustworthy after the post 9/11 tragedy. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw a two-ton boulder! Both parties need to unite and embrace bi-partisanship for the safety of the American citizens. This issue is too important to second guess our safety.

Let's take a close look at how the hard-working American people have been sold out. We were told how important to the economy the free and fair trade agreements would be. Now I'm not an accountant, but even a "zombie" can figure out that an astronomical $725.8 billion trade deficit can't help anybody's economy to grow. Next, we are told how guest workers also help the economy. I believe they help the employers looking for low-wage earners more than anybody else, so the employers can pocket the difference. And what about the money it cost to offer free programs to the immigrants? In fact, there have been countless hospitals who have had to close their doors due to not being able to operate, because of the overflow of illegal immigrants needing medical attention. I am not against immigrants who come to America legally — so don't get your tonsils crossed up spewing venom! And we must not leave out how many hotels, banks, textile, and furniture businesses are now foreign owned right here in the good ole' USA.

Who are the traitors who are helping to bankrupt America's future? I believe if you follow the trail to Washington, D. C., you'll find your answer.

We want America back. . .and we want her back now!

And that's just my opinion!

No — change that!. . .I believe a lot of other people share this opinion too!

Kaye Grogan is a freelance writer who lives in Virginia. She writes, produces, and hosts a daily commentary called "Viewpoint" on her local radio station. She has written op-eds and articles for the Daily Republican newspaper. She also writes editorials for online newspapers and local papers.

Kaye has many published poems, one published book, and has been featured in a popular woman's national magazine. She is currently working on two books for children. Her hobbies include photography and she has won photo contests all over the world.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/grogan/060217

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I wonder what Chuckie had to say about the Panama Canal being turned over to a Chinese firm owned by the Red army.

I'm sure he was startlingly silent on that one.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I don't know, he probably was. But I'm far more concerned about ports in MY country than I am about the Panama Canal. That's not to say I'm not concerned about it, just that in the relative importance, it's not near as important as this issue is.

[Victoria Delsoul]

This is quite interesting:

The deadlock cinch here is that Dubai Ports World doesn't even have to be a willing collaborator to be a danger to the United States. All other things being equal, an Arabic company is easier for terrorists to penetrate than a British or American firm. In the least nefarious of scenarios, Dubai Ports World might not even know what happened until after some future attack. That would be possible even if the dockworkers are the same and even if most of the local management is exactly the same. There are other frightening scenarios. What happens if the government of the United Arab Emirates backs away from the counterterrorism support President Bush currently lauds it for?

The president and the treasury secretary should call this deal off on national-security grounds. The United States gains nothing and risks everything by letting Dubai Ports World own these hubs of commerce.