Posted on 02/19/2006 12:33:10 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.
Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company
Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said: While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Daves selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.
Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said: Daves decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.
Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.
Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.
I'm wondering if they set a precedent for companies solely owned by foreign governments to operate our ports on the east coast, how long will it be before the Chicoms buy the port operations on the west coast? If they let one enemy country run our ports, I guess they gotta let them all-- that is if they want to be perceived as "fair".
I was posting a similar concept days ago.
suppose the chinese wanted to buy a major US defense contractor - that make planes, or laser guided bombs, whatever. is that OK? I mean, the chinese are our friends, aren't they?
Whoa. Not good at all. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Geez..that's not good.
Good information. You proved your point nicely.
This port deal has to be stopped.
Did ANY of you even bother to note he HAS BEEN NOMINATED, he is NOT yet confirmed OR that the Martime Administration has NOTHING to do with Port Operations?
No it only has to do with our Ready Reserve Fleet and our National Defense Reserve fleet.
National security is the key point here.
I find it interesting that your language choices demonstrate that you are not a native English speaker.
What country are you from? My guess -- just a wild guess -- is China.
Confirm?
From MARAD's website, what they do for US ports:
*
Inland Waterways
Intermodal Development:
Cargo Handling Cooperative Program (CHCP)
Inland Waterways Intermodal Cooperative Program (IWICP)
Intermodal Access to US Ports and Marine Terminals
Inventory of American Intermodal Equipment
Efficient Marine-Rail Interface
Heartland Intermodal Partnership - HIP
*
Environmental Activities:
Artificial Reefing Letter Application
Artificial Reefing Application
Industry Environmental Support
Marine Air Emissions
Ballast Water Management
*
Domestic Shipping:
Domestic Shipping Overview
Short Sea Shipping Initiative
Coastal Shipping Initiative
Maritime Administration Assistance to Shippers
Small Vessel Waiver Program
Ferry Initiative
Inland Container on Barge
*
Ports:
MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit
Port Facility Conveyance Program
Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies Port Readiness
Public Port Capital Expenditure Analysis
Port Risk Management
Port Finance
Port and Cargo Security
http://www.marad.dot.gov/programs/index.html
MARAD is in charge of US port security. DP is signing on to control most operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans.
There's your connection. It's exactly the one you were afraid of. Not money. Security.
Is it just me, or is there something creepy and scarey about Michael Chertoff -- who can't even get trailers to New Orleans -- telling us that Homeland Inecurity is positive that DP will be able to maintain US security but the information is classified so he can't tell us how.
What is wrong with these people?
"What is wrong with these people?
"
Money is what's wrong with them all. Chertoff is incompetent. The borders are open. We can't respond to a natural disaster in our own country. I'm not listening to Chertoff any more.
"There's your connection. It's exactly the one you were afraid of. Not money. Security.
"
Thanks for the post above the one I'm responding to. This whole thing sucks.
I think he's got zero credibility with everybody but the Bushbots.
Write your Congress Critter and voice disapproval. It's important.
"I don't like this. I don't like this at all."
There's no reason for alarm "the adults are in charge" (and they're taking us to the cleaners).
If anything how come you are silent about the P&O shareholders who sold their company to DPWorld. Oh that's right then you couldn't blame Bush, when Bush had nothing to do with this the selling of P&O.
I've seen a lot of talk about the ports deal with some folks saying it has nothing to do with security. If it has nothing to do with security then someone needs to explain the exact nature of what DP World would be doing and why security would not be an issue.
Most of us were not aware that a British company was handling these ports. The publicity about the DP World deal has brought the subject into the light. I personally do not like the idea of any foreign company running our ports, but I'm willing to admit I don't know much about the subject and might be convinced that it is a non-issue if someone presented a convincing argument.
I'd like some education here. Your comments imply that you are an expert on the subject, so how about educating the rest of us using some facts? Exactly WHY is this deal not a security issue?
You have to admit that having an employee of the company in question suddenly appointed to a post regulating his former employer immediately after the deal is consummated is guaranteed to raise red flags. He may be a good choice, and there may be nothing untoward going on, but this is the kind of thing that makes you wonder if you shouldn't buy Alcoa stock.
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.