TRANSEC sees no security issue in Dubai Ports bid

Reuters-UK ^ | 2/17/06

[Dane]

TRANSEC sees no security issue in Dubai Ports bid Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:33 PM GMT Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's transport security arm said it had no concerns about the takeover by a Dubai company of terminal operations in the UK after U.S. lawmakers said the same $6.8 billion (3.9 billion-pound) deal posed a threat to security at U.S. ports.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport's security division, TRANSEC, said on Friday that Dubai Ports World's takeover of P&O's (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research) terminals in Southampton and Tilbury would not compromise maritime security.

P&O shareholders this week voted in favour of the bid by Dubai Ports to take over P&O, ending 165 years of UK ownership to create the world's third-largest ports operator.

A number of U.S. lawmakers have urged the U.S. government to urgently review the security implications of the multi-billion dollar bid that would change control of six U.S. ports, citing terrorism concerns.

"It's immaterial who owns anything here as long as the ports themselves meet the security requirements. And if they don't meet them, then we have power to do something about it," the TRANSEC spokesman said.

He said there was no "issue of principle" involved in giving the United Arab Emirates-backed firm management control over important container terminals.

In an editorial on Thursday, the New York Times said that allowing control to pass to a UAE-backed firm "was a step in the wrong direction" by an administration that had already done far too little to protect the nation's ports.

The deal has already been given regulatory clearance on a number of fronts, including national security, by the White House.

[Dane]

Hmm, The NYT saying that having port operations run by foreign firms is a step in the wrong direction. Where were they when a foreign firm was already port operations in NY/NJ, can anybody say typical NYT hypocrisy.

BTW, talk about irony, the Dubai port company will be running one of the many cargo container ports in conjunction with a Danish company, as reported by the same NYT.

P & O Ports operates the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal and owns a 50 percent interest in the Port Newark Container Terminal, which is the third-largest cargo terminal on the Port Authority's property. The other half-interest is owned by a subsidiary of Maersk Line, which is based in Denmark.

Link

But still some on FR will take the chuckie schumer/hillary line, hook, line, and sinker.

[samadams2000]

Good thing we arent at war, have no illegal immigration problem and arent overspending in Washington or people could accuse the President of being tone deaf...

[oceanview]

fine, let them slip the nuke or the nerve gas into the UK ports then.

[Dane]

Good thing we arent at war, have no illegal immigration problem and arent overspending in Washington or people could accuse the President of being tone deaf..

Uh please tell me how the President is supposed to stop shareholders of a company from a legitimate vote on selling their company(P&O).

[ovrtaxt]

It's amazing how the WH will rush to defend these kinds of actions, but they seem to be loathe to stand up for the conservative things they've done.

[jeremiah]

Write an executive order, that makes security at the ports a job that can only be filled by an ally of 25 years standing? That would make any buyers/bidders wary enough to quash the deal.

[Dane]

It's amazing how the WH will rush to defend these kinds of actions, but they seem to be loathe to stand up for the conservative things they've done.

If anything they aren't rushing to defend it. They are just defending the shareholders right to vote on how their company assets are sold.

We wouldn't be in this predicament if it wasn't for the lefts and MSM vitirol and hatred for such companies such as Halliburton.

BTW, not one American company bid on this, and this is somehow George Bush's fault?

[speekinout]

But still some on FR will take the chuckie schumer/hillary line, hook, line, and sinker.

That didn't take long, did it? :-)

It's easier to react to emotional buzz words than it is to read about the issue. This isn't "control" of the ports; it's operations that have been done by a British company for years. The Brits have no problem with selling that company to a UAE corp. (It also runs British ports, and no doubt ports in other countries).

I'll never understand people who think that we should try to be isolationist in today's world. Even the Chinese have figured out that won't work.

[Siena Dreaming]

Uh please tell me how the President is supposed to stop shareholders of a company from a legitimate vote on selling their company(P&O).

That's a good question.

[oceanview]

the shareholders can do whatever they want - once the merger closes, cancel this contract for the US port operation and let them go somewhere else.

[oceanview]

nonsense, I am listening to the spokesman for the treasury dept right now on FNC - defending it at a press conference today.

its not Bush's fault, its whomever at Treasury OKed this. But once it makes it to Bush's desk, if he does not reconsider it, its on him.

[oceanview]

no its not. the shareholders can do whatever they want regarding the merger, we just have to cancel the contract for our ports and send the UAE controlled company (post merger) packing.

prediction - next week, the "shareholders" that many want to love and respect here, will vote to kill the takeover. if they want the US ports contract retained, that's their only option.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Would you demand that the POTUS sign an executive order preventing WalMart from buying any stuff from the ChiComs and thereby funding the People's Liberation Army? How about an order preventing US businesses from outsourcing customer service work to India? Gimme a break!

[Dane]

prediction - next week, the "shareholders" that many want to love and respect here, will vote to kill the takeover.

the merger has already gone through, and as for those contracts I suppose the US govt. will honor them until they are up for renogetiation.

Should the US and local govts. pay billions to buy out those contracts or is it better to spend what would be less money on surveillance.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[Alberta's Child]

Write an executive order, that makes security at the ports a job that can only be filled by an ally of 25 years standing?

Are you kidding? The U.S. government already goes beyond that . . . Security at U.S. ports is handled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Imagine that.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"It's amazing how the WH will rush to defend these kinds of actions, but they seem to be loathe to stand up for the conservative things they've done."

but this plays into that theory many here have, which you conveyed so well the other day.

[oceanview]

I believe the merger is contingent on these contracts being retained. no US contracts, and either/both sides can get out of the deal.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Some freepers think we should restrict any foreign company from having a stake in any American corporate activity. The next thing we will hear is that we should prevent the ChiComs and Japanese from purchasing our bonds.

[Alberta's Child]

You may be right.

And I'll take this one step further . . .

The $6.8 billion deal involving the DPW acquiring P&O Ports is somewhat higher than the original $5.9 billion that was tendered late in 2005.

Ten bucks says that these tiresome jack@sses like Chuck Schumer and Peter King have gotten hefty campaign contributions over the years from another shipping conglomerate that is trying to get DPW out of the picture so P&O Ports could then be acquired for something closer to the original $5.9 billion.

Call me a zany conspiracy theorist, but remember that you've heard it here first . . .