Posted on 02/23/2006 6:58:42 AM PST by Howlin
So anyway, does this guy bobbing behind Sen. Mrs. Bill Clinton bear any resemblance to Leo Mazzone? Granted Leo is more a rocker than a bobber.
Are you still around? Looking more into the business reasons for paying a premium, it's not just the U.S. ports they will be operating terminals in (which may end up losing money for them), but the lucrative terminals in Australia and India that rival PSA (also a foreign company) wanted - in addition (from Malkin's site) Dubai has recently christened its stock exchange. It hasn't been very successful thus far -- so they've been looking to acquire really high profile items to trade on it. (Note: they also tried to buy the Refco assets after Refco collapsed). If the Dubai Ports World deal goes through, it becomes the largest publicly traded Islamic exchange in the world. As a result, Dubai instantly becomes the place to go for Islamic finance in the world -- and folks specializing in Islamic finance stand to make a great deal of money through that too.
Criminy! I already told you that twice! I'm sorry I couldn't watch it all, but that's the beauty of this board. Someone always does, and I can pick up the pertinent info. from them.
Did you know that legislation crafted by Congress requires that CFIUS work in strict secrecy? So your post previously that "Bush didn't even know" is a little over the top, wouldn't you say?
I don't think you mean that CFIUS is designed to work in such secrecy that the President of the United States is not entitled to know its deliberations, do you?
After all, as you duly note, the Treasury Secretary (a cabinet member appointed by and answerable directly to the President) is the chair, and "[t]he Departments of Defense, State, Justice, and Commerce are among the agencies that participate in the CFIUS process." That's quite a bit of participation across the board (as it should be). And President Bush himself made the Dept. of Homeland Security a member of CFIUS in 2003.
A few questions:
Why would it be unexpected (or over the top) to expect the President to be involved in national security issues arising out of the turn over of US port infrastructure to a country with a history of terrorist ties?
Why is such secrecy even necessary when it involves commercial acquisition of US port infrastructure? In other words, what's so secret about that?
And, if the sheer unimportance and mundanity of this transaction is as you say it is, why would any secrecy at all be necessary?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. By legislation crafted by Congress, as I said already, the committee meets in secret and no one knows the results until a decision is announced.
The third and most important of these three vehicles is the Treasury Department’s chaired CFIUS. The United States created the CFIUS process in 1988 as part of a larger trade liberalization policy to review the potential national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms. Section 5021 of the landmark Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to give the President the authority to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger, or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten national security.
If the authority is given to the President, it certainly seems like he's entitled to know what's being done with his authority.
Affiliated Terminals, Incorporated - not publically traded, last known address: 140 43rd Street, Brooklyn, New York - which is currently the office address for Commodore Manufacturing Corp., distributor of Christmas ornaments, Trim-A-Tree Decorations, Bows/Ribbons, Wreaths/Garlands.
EMESCO Marine Services, Corp. - John Schlossberg, the company's president, may be an American citizen but we all know how deceptive THAT can be - EMESCO is a freight-handling firm at the Illinois International Port District of Chicago, but I could not confirm if it operates any terminals. Schlossberg is quoted during the tariff fiasco that: "Steel is about 65% of our volume . . ." with half of that steel comes from Romania, Italy and other foreign countries FWIW.
Federal Marine Terminals - Canadian
Hyde Shipping Corp. - definitely began as a small American family owned business, but merged with the 2 primary cargo lines of Hybur, Ltd. and Thompson Line (formerly known as Thompson Shipping) and then Mak Freight Inc., so I don't know if they are still American-owned.
Inbesa (not INBESCA) America, Inc. - was a Texas corporation in 1994 - no confirmation of ownership currently.
Industrial Terminals, L.P. - Joe D. Hughes, Inc. acquired by Intermarine, Inc. from Halliburton Company & name changed to Industrial Terminals, L.P. - current ownership unknown.
Kinder Morgan/Pinney Dock & Transport LLC - the Kinder Morgan family of companies includes three separate, publicly-traded entities on the New York Stock Exchange - Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI), Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (KMP), and Kinder Morgan Management, LLC (KMR) - I have not been able to determine where Pinney Dock fits into all this.
L&L Fleeting, Inc. - tugboats
Levin Richmond Terminal Corp. - Richmond, CA company but no ownership information.
Maher Terminals, Inc. - Port Elizabeth, NJ - family-owned and operated (this could be one more American company).
Saipan Stevedore - foreign owned.
Sun Terminal Inc. - foreign owned.
AP Moeller-Maersk - foreign owned.
Transocean Terminal Operators, Inc. - D/B/A P&O PORTS LOUISIANA, INCORPORATED - foreign owned ; )
I am aware of it. I am also aware that this company operates terminals throughout the world. I am also aware that Congress getting involved in this is like the camel putting his head into the tent.
If government gets involved in private business, then pandoras box will be opened, security of no security.
OK, fine, then you are advocating for door #2, which I also could acccept:
let the administration accept a 45 day delay (its going to happen anyway), propose a comprehensive updated plan for port security requirement for ALL foreign port operators in the US. treat them all like DoD subcontractors - clearances for their employees, the subcontractors they hire, security protocols for every decision that effects port operation, etc. And then, let DPW stand up and say that they will be the first company to comply with the new protocol at these six ports, get rid of these "waivers" in the CFIUS deal, and begin the process of enforcing it on all other port operators too.
If you don't want to be on defense and get beat up like we are now, then let's go on offense. but let's do SOMETHING, because just standing up there with a message of "trust us" isn't going to cut it.
we won't know until someone tries it, until some of these port authorities shop it and see who might be interested.
I think I am going to take a break from FR for a while after this port thing is over. seriously, the stress on this issue has gotten to me.
I truly understand. I came out of an 'FR break' to discuss this. The nastiness is disappointing.
Heaven forbid that Republicans and Democrats should be on the same page once in a blue moon, even on the crucial issue of national security.
I think the scrutiny of this deal and of port security is a good thing.
"Outside of cruise ship terminals in those ports, operations include two of the 14 terminals in Baltimore's port, one of three terminals in the Miami port, one of five terminals in Newark, two of five terminals in New Orleans, one of five terminals in Philadelphia. DHS officials also note that the deal lets DP World run four of 12 terminals in Houston and allows it to be involved in stevedoring for all five terminals in Norfolk, though DP World would not manage any specific terminal." (3rd paragraph from the bottom - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185799,00.html)
We won't know how bad the global trade war will be until someone tries that too - see you after your break.
That's not what was testified to today and none of the Congressmen, who are in a position to know, debated it.
"Dubai Ports World is owned by financial conglomerates (not the UAE as has been misreported..)"
This is an incorrect statement. The Government of Dubai requires that they own 51% of any company doing business from their country.
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/8192.pdf
5. Significant Barriers to U.S. Exports The UAE maintains non-tariff barriers to trade and investment in the form of restrictive agency, sponsorship, and distributorship requirements. To do business in the UAE outside of one of the free zones, a foreign business, in most cases, must have a UAE national sponsor, agent or distributor. Once chosen, sponsors, agents, or distributors have exclusive rights. They cannot be replaced without their agreement. Government tendering is not conducted according to generally accepted international standards. Re-tendering is the norm. To bid on federal projects, a supplier or contractor must be either a UAE national or a company in which UAE nationals own at least 51 percent of the share capital. Federal tenders are required to be accompanied by a bid bond in the form of an unconditional bank guarantee for five percent of the value of the bid. Except for companies located in one of the free zones, at least 51 percent of a business establishment must be owned by a UAE national. A business engaged in importing and distributing a product must be either a 100 percent UAE owned agency/distributorship or a 51 percent UAE/49 percent foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC). Subsidies for manufacturing firms are only available to those with at least 51 percent local ownership. The laws and regulations governing foreign investment in the UAE are evolving. There is no national treatment for investors in the UAE. Non-GCC nationals cannot own land. Only one stock is currently open to foreign investors and is capped at 20 percent total foreign ownership, although limited participation by foreigners in a few mutual funds is permitted. There have been no significant investment disputes over the past few years involving U.S. or other foreign investors. Claims resolution is generally not a problem, because foreign companies tend not to press claims, believing that to do so might jeopardize future business activity in the UAE. 6. Export Subsidies Policies The government does not employ subsidies to provide direct or indirect support for exports. 7. Protection of U.S. Intellectual Property The UAE is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a contracting party to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and has signed the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (patent, trademark, and related industrial property). In April 2001, the UAE was placed on the "Special 301" Watch List following the registration of a number of U.S. patent-protected medicines in violation of assurances from the UAE government that unlicensed copies of patent-protected medicines would no longer be registered. Discussions aimed at resolving this issue are ongoing.
Beautiful summary. Thank you.
Of course many here will consider this more paranoia while ridiculing and poo-pooing the relevance and dot connecting.
"Heck, even DP World stated explicitly that "We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," (very reassuring, eh?) making the general claim that DP World will have no responsibility for security a truly odd little piece of spin."
We're being set up by Muslim Trojan Horses -- including the "benign" domestic (yeah, yet another surprise) our "friendly" Saudi port owners.
One wonders when objecting to Syrian, Iranian, and North Korean American port owners will be considered "xenophobic" as well.
Sorry. I thought you were originally saying that P&O operated 30% of the total of US terminals. I now see that you were saying that P&O has no more than 30% of the total operations of any one port within which it is conducting operations. My mistake.
And Fox News' statement isn't precisely correct regarding Houston. P&O is the assigned freight handler for wharves 25, 26, 27 and 28 at the City Docks Turning Basin Terminal in Houston, which includes stevedoring services. There isn't any indication that they are terminal or wharf leaseholders.
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.