Scotch the ports deal

The Washington Times ^ | February 22, 2006

[KarlInOhio]

In two weeks time, the ports of New York and New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans will go under contract to a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates.

< snip >

The most immediate thing Congress can do is ask that President Bush put a hold on the deal and order the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to conduct a 45-day investigation of Dubai Ports World. Mr. Bush yesterday vowed, with a certain heat, to veto a ports bill; firm congressional action may nevertheless lead him to reconsider. There is a chance the deal would dissolve with the tougher 45-day review -- this has happened to previous reviews by the foreign investment committee -- and in this case it is clearly warranted. Last week, it emerged that both Dubai Ports World and Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the seller, specified that an agreement by the U.S. government not to make a formal investigation as a condition for the deal. This is exceedingly odd; this is enough to persuade Congress to push the review. < snip >

[Alberta's Child]

The description of the relevant Federal statute can be found here:

Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)

In particular, note the following:

Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:

- the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and

- the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

[Democratshavenobrains]

I think if Bush would just allow a longer review time, it would satisfy a lot of people up about this issue.

[hedgetrimmer]

No conditions. This deal is bad for the USA.

[RightWhale]

This issue is old and stale.

Today the Gov of Alaska announced two oil deals:
A tax settlement, 20%, for produced oil in Alaska, and
a stranded gas contract deal for the TransAlaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

The Pipeline deal will dry up a good-sized chunk of oil investment money for the next decade so the Pipeline may be built. $20 billion. The tax deal will encourage the smaller oil companies to develop the smaller fields in Alaska that the biggies are not interested in.

[ARCADIA]

I think if Bush would just allow a longer review time, it would satisfy a lot of people up about this issue.

If a formal review would have satisfied, then they probably would have done one already. There is something here that is not quite right; and, although there may be a reasonable explanation for it, we have yet to hear it.

[FFIGHTER]

Once again the politicos and the MSM is spouting off without the benefit of facts or knowledge of the deal, port operations, port security and the shipping industry in general. The vast majority have never been to a port, been on a ship, have a clue about cargo movements, port operations or who is in charge of port security. The Port Authority is responsible for port security along with INS, U.S. Customs Service, USDA and the U.S.C.G with ultimate oversight of security operations and procedures.

[Democratshavenobrains]

You forget that the media and politicians can only concentrate on one thing at time. Last month it was Alito, last week it was Cheney's hunting ability lol.

[clawrence3]

How do you know a formal review was not done?

[GOPJ]

This deal might be bad for the U.S. or it might not - but the secrecy shows that something is rotten in the state of Dubai.

Like a relationship, if there's irreconcilable differences, it's better to find out before the wedding...

[clawrence3]

Good web site there ; )

October 31, 2005 - Company press release responding to takeover rumors http://portal.pohub.com/pls/pogprtl/docs/PAGE/POGROUP_PAGE_GROUP/POGROUP_NEWS_2005_PAGE/RESPONSE%20TO%20PRESS%20SPEC%2031%20OCT.PDF

November 29, 2005 - Company press release recommending sale to DPW http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,234588&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

[ch.man]

DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION


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 Dave’s 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:
“Dave’s 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.


-- ENDS --

[clawrence3]

What secrecy?! Just because the Washington Times did not know, does not make it a secret.

[B4Ranch]

Henry K doesn't want his name all over the report, then slammed in the news and TV

[anton]

If the Longshoremans union is against it, its probably a good deal for the country.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the post. Up till now I have read little outlining the reasons behind Dubai Ports Worlds (DPW) reason for wanting to run/takeover these US port businesses. Now I think I have a slightly clearer understanding based on this article and
Dubai Ports World facts.
In a pinch P&O (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.) stockholders had agreed to be bought out by DPW. So naturally, the British owned P&O would no longer be in the position of providing services to the named US ports.
So the question could be raised. If P&O will no longer be under contract to operate these ports, then what are we (US) to do in order to keep the ports opened and operational?
Clearly someone must run the operation. If P&O has been or will be purchased by DPW by the will of the P&O stock holders and officers, then what are we supposed to do?
The ports must not close down for even hours unless a known breach of national security is involved. I can at least better understand why GWB may had taken the course he has.
Since DPW is a world class provider of port managment it could have been as simple as working out deals with them to assure they would monitor very closely their staffs, and who was to be hired to run the daily operations at various levels.
Clearly, in todays world as it be, DPW's internal security operation would do it's best to assure things ran smoothly without any infiltration of Islmofacists, or Islamo symphasizers etc.. Where talking about big business in a very sensitive niche market. Any company that took over from P&O would be under the same scrutiny to make sure no incident ever was to arise.
So perhaps I am changing my mind a bit as to how I had responded to Ernest the other day in another post.
But clearly I see the responses by both sides of the political spectrum in wanting a fully vetted company to take over such a critical business operation so vital to the US economic well being. Surely a tough call to say the least.

[ARCADIA]

How do you know a formal review was not done?

I don't, but one way or the other we will soon find out.

[planekT]

Ha!

[clawrence3]

That much we agree - also more than 45 days passed between announcement of the takeover and Administration approval - wouldn't it be ironic if this deal is scuttled and the terrorists attack the port using the Singapore or British company instead?

[clawrence3]

Agreed.

[KarlInOhio]

If the Longshoremans union is against it, its probably a good deal for the country.

On the other hand, Jimmy Carter is for it so its probably a bad deal for the country. But Hillary is against it so it is probably a good deal for the country...I'll just have to wait to see where Fat Ted falls (heavily) on the issue.