Posted on 02/22/2006 6:33:17 PM PST by Ooh-Ah
Grant the President this: There is more than a little anti-Arab sentiment in the uproar over a Dubai firm purchasing the British operating company running terminals at six major American seaports. Otherwise, how do you explain the LACK of concern over Chinese companies running terminals at two major West Coast ports and New Orleans, the locus of much of our energy imports? Or about the original British company when there are probably as many jihadists in Britain today as there are in Dubai? Yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security was still trying to figure out the ownership of terminal management in all 361 U.S. ports.
The Coast Guard does, and will continue to do, port security and the tracking of ships, crews and cargo. The Customs Service does, and will continue to do, screening in the ports. The real problem is twofold - and applies to all foreign terminal ownership: first, that a management company could facilitate infiltration of people or weapons into the U.S.; and second that company officials would be briefed on American security procedures which, if given to terrorists, would make security much easier to breech.
There are two ancillary, but also real problems. The Dubai company is government-owned. The current government of the UAE is pro-American, but change in the Middle East is nerve-wracking at best. Second, the company runs terminals in places including Venezuela - having a Middle Eastern company control both ends where one end is increasingly close to Iran is even more problematic.
We are indebted to Advisory Board Member Stephen Bryen, a former Pentagon official, for pointing out that American defense companies with partial foreign ownership are required to have an American Security Board responsible for issues which, if controlled by foreign interests - even allied interests - would make Americans nervous. Accepting the rules and the authority of the Security Board is part of the deal. No Board, no deal. More than one sale fell through on that point, which is just fine with us.
Ports are not military installations, but they are considered “critical infrastructure” under an Executive Order signed by President George H.W. Bush. So why not have American Security Boards for all of America’s ports? Why not prevent Chinese, Danish, Singaporean, South Korean and British as well as Dubai owners from getting an inside look at American security practices?
The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) points out that not only do American ports handle 95 percent of America’s overseas commerce and 10 million cruise passengers annually, “They also enable deployment of U.S. military vessels, personnel and cargo to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while ensuring the ability of relief organizations to ship critical supplies to areas of the world hard hit by man-made and natural disasters, such as the tsunami catastrophe... 16 million jobs... $2 trillion worth of international trade annually... 27 percent of the nation’s GDP.”
You’d think we’d want to protect all that and not only from Dubai. It’s time to have a real policy to protect the management of our ports from all foreign ownership.
It’s time to have a real policy to protect the management of our ports from all foreign ownership.
I know I've been concerned about it for a while. Actually it wouldn't hurt to go back and see who opposed and who supported what back when that went down.
What American company is capable/willing to assume management of the ports?
The ChiComs are devious and backstabbing, but not quite as insane and fanatical as the Islamofascists.
Good question. Let's see if you get an answer.
Dare I say which one? The one which can do what others cannot but but is demonized by the press--H A L L I B U R T O N !
Hey, I would hate for reality and/or facts to interupt the knee-jerking session that FR has become over the past few days!
Another angle to consider: In general, someone who is making a multi-billion dollar infrastructure investment in your country isn't going to be too keen on blowing it up.
LOL! Man, that would make my day if Haliburton bought the ports, if for no other reason than getting to see the libtards choke down that sh*t burger after the stink they have been raising.
And ask yourself this question:
Why aren't there American companies to run American ports, And why so little American shipping interests now?
A disgrace IMO. Too much union BS, too many stupid rules, way too much regulation. Free American capitalism.
Those questions need to be addressed, and now.
"Too much union BS,"
The unions will still be working in the ports.
The number of US companies is ZERO. You are playing into the hands of the earmarking congressmen who would like nothing better than another big federal agency with lots of little properties all along the coasts of the US.
Are you sure you meant to ping me? I'm not playing into their hands. I now their game is more Federal control and I'm against it.
International Shipping Industry Benefits from Recent Tax ChangesBy David A. Lifson and Peter E. Bentley
JUNE 2005 - Despite its continuing importance, the shipping industry has lost most of the prestige it held in this country. One reason is that although several U.S. shipping companies are publicly traded, the nation is less well represented in international shipping than in other, comparable global industries. Several explanations have been offered for this decline. The explanation favored in the shipping world is that the U.S. and other Western countries have not competed with low-cost shipping centers in other nations. Labor costs, tort laws, and taxes are often cited as contributing factors.
To partially address this complaint, and in an attempt to incentivize the U.S. shipping industry, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 includes four measures—the deferral of freight tax regulations; changes to the controlled foreign corporation rules; changes to the foreign tax credit rules; and the introduction of a tonnage tax for qualified entities—that represent a dramatic change in federal tax policy and will likely make the U.S. environment more attractive to businesses engaged in U.S.-international shipping. [much more boring tax law info at the source site]
Source: The CPA Journal-A Publication of The New York State Society of CPAs
Ditto to Siena's reply.
A look at several large port operations across the US (LA, NY, NO, Miami) reflect numerous stevedoring and operatiing companies running terminals at the locations. Many are foreign companies.
A great resource site is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There is a category to look up these port companies: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Port_operating_companies)
There are 11 pages in this section of this category.
AC |
DEFH |
MP |
I am concerned that this could lead to problems. But I'm also beginning to wonder if it is a problem why has it not come up before. Why would we trust our ports to any business (government owned or other) if it is a foreign company. They could be infiltrated easier or just as easier as companies within the US. When I heard this was announced last October and no member of Congress said anything, but now they do. My curiosity has definitely been aroused.
I'm wondering if it is now a political 'bat' to use against the Administration or at least bludgeon the citizens into thinking they are doing something. Since they are not doing anything about our borders where we know Al Qaeda is attempting to cross.
...I am concerned that this could lead to problems. But I'm also beginning to wonder if it is a problem why has it not come up before.
It has but nobody was listening.
Another CFIUS review was the sale if IBM's personal computer division to the Lenovo Group, a Chinese Company based in Beijing. This was deemed okay too. And let's not get into Slick Willies Administration conducting CFIUS reviews.
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.