In Defense Of Dubai

CBS News ^ | Feb. 22, 2006 | Dick Meyer

[bd476]

In Defense Of Dubai

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 2006

A nefarious multinational corporation secretly controlled by a hostile Arab government has engineered a covert takeover of six major U.S. ports. America is at risk of losing control of its borders and compromising national security in an entirely preventable way.

Horselips.

Never have I seen a bogus story explode so fast and so far. I thought I was a connoisseur of demagoguery and cheap shots, but the Dubai Ports World saga proves me a piker. With a stunning kinship of cravenness, politicians of all flavors risk trampling each other as they rush to the cameras and microphones to condemn the handover of massive U.S. strategic assets to an Islamic, Arab terrorist-loving enemy.

The only problem -- and I admit it's only a teeny-weeny problem -- is that 90 percent of that story is false.

The United Arab Emirates is not an Axis of Evil kind of place, it will not own U.S. ports, it will not control security at U.S. ports and there is nothing new about foreigners owning U.S. ports. Odds are higher that you'll be wounded interfering with a congressman providing soundbites than by something smuggled into a port terminal leased by Dubai Ports World.

But please: let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story. And what's wrong with a little Arab-bashing anyway?

I am no expert on ports, transportation or shipping. But it takes very little reading and research to cut through the gas on this one.

Myth #1: That an Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.

No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.

Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.

P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.

Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.

No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.

Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.

Myth #3: American ports should be American.

Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…"

At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.

Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.

My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.

Myth #4: the United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.

That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that doesn't mean it's true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.

Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.

Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. But it is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: the U.S. is paying them off).

Some combination of these facts led the Dubai Ports deal to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Certainly the security of American ports is an important issue. Certainly who controls the finances of companies that lease terminals at ports is far down the to-do list of how to improve security at ports.

That has everything to do with adequate funding and proper management at the relevant agencies. Management is the responsibility of the executive branch, while funding and oversight is the job of Congress. There is scant evidence that Congress or the administration have excelled in their duties.

That's why it's so tempting for politicians of both parties to indulge in xenophobic Arab-bashing on this matter of minimal national security importance. One Republican said that regardless of the facts, the administration was politically "tone deaf" on this one. Appearance is more important than reality.

Often bipartisanship is a sign of pragmatic consensus or noble common cause. In this case it is merely a scene of a politician occupational hazard: cover-your-arse-itis.

Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

[nopardons]

Many thanks for the ping! :-)

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP

[syriacus]

The Yusen website had links to webcams of their ingate, outgate and yard.

China Shipping website mentions:

On Dock Rail: On May 1, 2001, China Shipping North America and its vendor partners at Marine Terminal Corporation and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway inaugurated on-dock rail service for twice weekly trains from Los Angeles to Chicago, IL and beyond (including dedicated steel wheels interchange to the Ohio Valley, New York, Boston and Baltimore).

[syriacus]

Thank you, Syriacus for posting current port information.

You're welcome bd476. Here's an oldie.

COSCO And China's Military May Get US Military Base [excerpted]

T he Chinese Ocean Shipping Co.'s bid to operate from the Long Beach Naval Station foundered amid controversy, but the City of Angels now is eager to make a similar deal.  

They're back. The China Ocean Shipping Co., or COSCO, the merchant marine for the People's Liberation Army, or PLA, has returned with a vengeance. It didn't set well with COSCO when it lost out on the former U.S. Navy base in Long Beach, Calif., last year because an alerted Congress tucked legislation into an appropriations bill prohibiting such a takeover. [snip]  

President Clinton has no plans to thwart this Communist China priority. In fact, the Clinton administration has done just the opposite. At the very time the Justice Department launched its biggest espionage case since the Rosenbergs, concerning allegations that nuclear secrets were stolen by Beijing from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Clinton was paving the way for COSCO to take over the port at Long Beach.

n 1997, the New York Times raised questions concerning why a "Clinton-administration official made what several people involved describe as highly unusual telephone calls to push for construction of a container terminal that would be leased to a shipping company owned by the Chinese government."  

. . . . But why would Clinton have a personal interest in COSCO?

etc

[syriacus]

Threads about COSCO

vanity: looking for information on China controlled ports in this hemisphere
Cosco Pacific to bolster container business
Chinese in at Port of Los Angeles

[bd476]

Thanks for posting this one too, Syriacus.

Meanwhile here are some new discussions which you might find to be of interest:

Tommy Franks Defends Dubai Ports Deal

ABU DHABI SHIPBUILDING COMPLETES ITS FIRST U.S. NAVY SHIP REPAIR CONTRACT (UAE)

[Recovering_Democrat]

I'll bet Mohammed Atta is a hero to most people in Dubai. I'll bet most people in Dubai if they might not agree with al-Qaeda, certainly understand and respect it.

You have no evidence of that, do you? You're assuming that, aren't you?

Let's move on to someplace we know has a population that hates us: Saudi Arabia. Do you buy Saudi petroleum for your car? Do the plastics that you use in your home come from the oil found in Saudi oil fields? Ought you not give up those things? I mean, after all, so many people in Saudi hate us.

[Clemenza]

Well, according to polls, more Australians support and admire "Red" China than the U.S.. I've been told by several Italians that the U.S. government is a greater threat to the world than Osama Bin Laden or any Muslim group. A Peruvian once told me to my face that the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself.

Should we therefore allow Qantas to operate its cargo terminal at LAX? Should I stop buying Chianti? Should I stop ordering pisco sours and sleeping with my Peruvian girlfriend?

Dubai is the Vegas, Scottsdale and Monaco of the Middle East, a place where the free market reigns, women are free to dress as they wish (as long as skirts are below the knee) and alcohol flows freely in the hotel bars and nightclubs. I don't know about the "man on the street" but I do know that Sheik Makhtoum is arguably the most pro-American leader in the Arab world.

[Truthsearcher]

Not at all, I've made no comment about the merit of the decision to allow the transaction, as I said in my original post, it may well be very logical and reasonable.

What I question is that given the opposition voices that has been raised, is it wise for the president to use this occasion to make his stand. I mean, how important is it really that this transaction goes through? Is it some major catastrophe if it doesn't? Is it even a minor catastrophe if it doesn't?

In the grand scale of things, how much does it matter? And if the answer is "not very much", why not save your political capital for the more important fights? Who knows, we might get another supreme court nominee this year, he should save his bullets for the important fights.

[bd476]

Thank you Truthsearcher. Your reply was very clear and concise. Your clarification is much appreciated.

You also raised some good points. Perhaps someone will provide the answers regarding potential outcomes for either scenario in the next few days.

[syriacus]

Thanks for providing the links. I'm enjoying reading them.

[confederacy of dunces]

Thanks to both of you for posting all of this info. I'm afraid, though, that there are many folks who flat refuse to be confused by the facts.

[syriacus]

Thank you confederacy of dunces. Many people have very short memories, too.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Santorum- My pick for the next President after President Bush for the past 5 years- sells out Toomey to play ball, wants NOAA to be privatized - and turns on the President over this?

Ok... *sigh* I was wrong about him.

(*shaking my head....)

[Alia]

The company isn't going to organize a terrorist attack but you can't tell me that some in the company wouldn't look the other way if one was planned.

I wouldn't dare say such a thing to you.

I also wouldn't suggest that average employees at US Companies WOULDN'T steal consumer credit cards and conduct identity theft. Or that perfectly "normal" looking females running the books at major religious orgs weren't committing embezzelment. Nor that "for the children" employees of teachers unions wouldn't be "taking advantage" of young students.

[wouldntbprudent]

also this--

Here's the real money quote from the Dick Morris column that was posted earlier today at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593000/posts regarding the Clintons' relationship with the UAE:

Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The crown prince — that is, the government — contributed to his presidential library and pays him $300,000 per speech. Recently, Yucaipa, an American company that has Bill Clinton as a “senior adviser” and pays him a percentage of its profits, formed a partnership with the Dubai Investment Group to form DIGL Inc., a company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments.


If BJ is deeply involved in a "company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments," he and the Witch will be receiving millions of dollars of income in the following years from that very company. In other words, if she's elected President, the President of the United States will be on the Dubai payroll due to BJ's involvement in managing the sheik's personal investments. Her denunciation of the ports deal is nothing but cover for this raging, continuing conflict of interest. If the Pubbies can't take advantage of this, they can't take advantage of anything.


8 posted on 03/09/2006 5:51:31 AM PST by libstripper