Dubai seeks to defend ports takeover

MSNBC, Financial Times(UK) ^ | 2/20/06 | Robert Wright

[Dane]

A team from Dubai's DP World is expected to start meetings on Tuesday with groups which have expressed concerns about its takeover of P&O Ports' US operations as it seeks to head off political opposition to the deal.

The company, owned by the Emirate of Dubai's Ports, Customs and Freezones Authority, is set to meet representatives of some of the five US port authorities where P&O has operations, and national politicians who oppose the deal.

The team is thought to include some of the many US citizens who work for DP World, including Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer, who has been one of the main actors in Dubai's transformation into a major shipping hub.

They hope the meetings will erode support for efforts to reverse the approval already given for the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which approved the takeover in January. The efforts gained momentum last week when Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez introduced legislation which would prevent a company controlled by a foreign government from taking over a US port facility.

[Dane]

I guess all those Americans that work for DPWorld are "traitors" to some on FR.

BTW, I wonder if hillary will try to shake DPWorld down. What am i thinking of course she will, that's her way, IMO.

[King Moonracer]

I guess all those Americans that work for DPWorld are "traitors" to some on FR.

No, but neither are 100% of the employees American.

[spetznaz]

This is somewhat tantamount to having a Chinese firm take care of the janitorial services (or maybe the security services) over at Los Alamos. There are Chinese forms capable of doing the job effectively, and in fact at considerable economic advantage (for us, due to cost), however it would not be prudent. Same thing here .....I'm certain there are some economic benefits to this arrangement, and there is the possibility that this firm may do the job every year 'til Kingdom Come without any problems whatsoever (just as there is a chance -LOL- that the Chinese firm would do what it's supposed to do at Los Alamos without any espionage taking place).

However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked. Especially when you consider that ports are a huge Achilles heel for the US.

[Dane]

This is somewhat tantamount to having a Chinese firm take care of the janitorial services (or maybe the security services) over at Los Alamos

Huh? DPWorld has American citizens running it's operations and on it's Board of Directors.

[GrannyK]

Here's a poll you all can FReep....will be interesting to see results of this one.

http://www.olneydailymail.com/

[Racer1]

I'll pass simply because the answers are clearly a joke. In a more serious poll I would gladly participate. If approved there would be Arabs up to no good, no doubt about it.

[Irish Eyes]

Huh? DPWorld has American citizens running it's operations and on it's Board of Directors.

Very few seem to know or even care about this fact.

[Dane]

Very few seem to know or even care about this fact.

I know, it almost like some put their hands up to their ears and scream "lalalalalalalalalalala, I don't hear you".

[speekinout]

However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked.

There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution.

[Irish Eyes]

The media sure is not helping.

[ER Doc]

And all those folks will keep their jobs, and they don't have to worry about any orders that might let something slide by, because, obviously, even though the company is run by an Arab government, the American employees will be running everything... //sarcasm

[Dane]

There are other questions that are equally important. Like, for example, if this company doesn't do it, who will? There aren't any American companies who can, and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong. Shutting down the ports is hardly a solution

But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.

[isrul]

"However when it comes to matters of national security the question on whether it is prudent to even risk this has to be asked. Especially when you consider that ports are a huge Achilles heel for the US."

I believe the times in which we live demand that no foreign nation be given charge over any point of entry and that any person employed within the area of that port be thoroughly screened by American security officials. I know that's asking a lot, but how much are you willing to do in order to stop something very very lethal from entering through these ports?

I don't limit my objections to muzzie nations. Although they would be at the top of the banned list.

I have no illusions about the sincerity any of the Democrats complaining about this. If Bush wasn't behind it they would support it in the name of tolerance.

[observer5]

The company may be ok, but ya can't trust the Arabs working in it. 99.9% muslim = at least 10% sympathetic to terror groups.

[spectre]

This issue is a "perception" problem, Dane.

And, the Republican's have handed the Rats a gift horse.

sw

[oceanview]

and they are killing us with it. tis story is even making the news blurb at the top of the hour on music radio stations.

[P-40]

And, the Republican's have handed the Rats a gift horse.


At least now the Democrats are on record supporting profiling. Can we start searching Mohammed more than granny at the airport?

[villagerjoel]

So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?

[speekinout]

But it feels so good to go knee jerk without thinking of the consequences.

LOL.

[speekinout]

So they had been running fine for 200+ years by us; what happened?

The Brits have had those contracts for years. Most ports are owned by local Port Authorities. The Port Authority has a lot of varied work (some of them are also responsible for airports). The largest ports have a lot of the routine work contracted out, and container transfer is just one of those things.

I don't know why no American co. has ever gone into that business, but the truth is that none did. Internationally, there seems to be only 3 cos. left who do it - this one, based in Dubai, and one each in Singapore and Hong Kong.