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.

[spectre]

Exactly. And you DO speak for the average American.

Perception and conditioning are the two main problems with this.

sw

[TexasTransplant]

The anal exam of this company will be soooooooo disturbing and painful that the "deal" will never happen.

TT

[speekinout]

So who HAS been running the ports for the past umpteen years then?

The Brits.

[kaktuskid]

CSX is a publicly-traded US company..it has no foreign ownership

[Cedar]

Guess I could research it myself, but just in case you know---who ran the ports before the Brits?

[Hildy]

Even if it's 100% innocent now, it's just has potential for some really bad things in the future. Bush better back away from this...now.

[oceanview]

indeed.

if this goes through, and there is even a minor incident at one of these ports regarding "terror related" cargo, even if its just a suspicion, there will be political hell to pay.

[dervish]

"The Brits have been handling the container traffic at these ports (and that's all this is about. It's not "running the ports", "port security", or any of the other buzz phrases that scare you) for years."

And it stinks. This is an opportunity to change things.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9629/

[Dane]

Even if it's 100% innocent now, it's just has potential for some really bad things in the future. Bush better back away from this...now

Well the only two firms that will can make a credible bid are a Singapore firm or a Hong Kong(chicomm) firm and you know hillary will push for the chicomms and the press will be silent if that were to happen.

Be careful with your wishes they may come true.

[speekinout]

who ran the ports before the Brits?

We really should be clearer about terminology. All ports are "run" by a local Port Authority. (Security is separate - it's the responsibility of the Coast Guard).
Some ports are small enough so that the Port Authority can manage all operations. The larger ports subcontract some operations - both for efficiency and cost.

Each Port Authority decided individually when to subcontract container management. There isn't just one Fed'l agency to manage all of the ports, but I think it's DoT that oversees the regs. for port operations. They don't dictate what the Port Authorities can do, they just monitor.

[McGavin999]

and it seems that the only other companies who could are based in Singapore and Hong Kong.

I heard that if the UAE hadn't won bid on the British company, it would now be owned by the Chinese who would be running the ports.

[speekinout]

Did you even read the link you posted? The issue is about security, which is a Coast Guard problem, and has nothing to do with a subcontractor moving containers. (Although, Kirkpatrick does say good things about the capabilities that the Hong Kong co. has for security.)

[speekinout]

I heard that if the UAE hadn't won bid on the British company, it would now be owned by the Chinese who would be running the ports.

Can we be more precise, please? This issue isn't over who "runs" the ports. Local Port Authorities do. It's about who has the contract to manage container movement at our largest ports.

But, yes, the only two other companies that might have bought P&O are based in Singapore and Hong Kong. I think it was the one from Hong Kong who put in a tentative bid.

[logician2u]

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

The knee jerk is an expected reaction to Hillary's demagogy. It has about as much credence as the campaign against Wal-Mart.

(Strange that I'm actually posting a reply agreeing with something Dane wrote. We'll see if that ever happens again.)

[dervish]

Of course I read it. Did you? I posted it because it discusses what a mess our current system is. It emphasized how disabling a terror attack via container would be to trade, since then it would require security that would cause massive gridlock. It requires that we pay attention to the vulnerability of our system from transit start to transit finish.

Also the details of security screening are the linchpin of the current system which checks only 5% of the riskiest. Do you want a UAE company to have those details?

And yes the system in Hong Kong sounds interesting:

"Asean and the EU should also endorse a pilot project being sponsored by the Container Terminal Operators Association (CTOA) of Hong Kong, in which every container that arrives passes through a gamma-ray content-scanning machine, as well as a radiation portal to record the levels of radioactivity within the container. Optical character recognition cameras then photograph the number painted on several sides of the container. These scanned images, radiation profiles, and digital photos are then stored in a database where they can be immediately retrieved if necessary.

The marine terminals in Hong Kong have invested in this system because they hope that a 100% scanning regime will deter a terrorist organization from placing a weapon of mass destruction in a container passing through their port facilities. Since each container’s contents are scanned, if a terrorist tries to shield radioactive material to defeat the radiation portals, it will be relatively easy to detect the shielding material because of its density.

Another reason for making this investment is to minimize the disruption associated with targeting containers for portside inspection. The system allows the container to receive a remote preliminary inspection without the container leaving the marine terminal. "

[logician2u]

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, expressing coherent thoughts on a thread such as this one.

This is a gut issue, donchaknow?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

If they get hold of this port, they could bring in a 100 shipping container nukes, load them on the railroad, and park them up and down the east coast. Then set 'em off, all at once.

There's a whole bunch of things they could do and why it's insane to give potential terrorists an opportunity to get a foothold inside the port operations.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

It's all but done. The British gov't and the stockholders all approve. The US can't do anything about it.

I'll bet you the rent money the deal isn't getting US approval. The GOP isn't so keen on giving the democrats a potent issue to pound them over the heads with.

[Lauretij2]

This deal is DOA. I can't believe this is another idiotic move by Bush. Supporting this is skating over lava. Bad move.

[Moorings]

True. The widespread anti-americanism in that part of the world, that we see and hear about every single day does not exacly build trust, especially when giving them a foothold in some of the key ports of this country. The emir of Dubai may be a friend, but can't say that about the general population there.