Skip to comments.Port Problems Said To Dwarf New Fears
Posted on 02/23/2006 10:07:38 PM PST by johnmecainrino
Shifting ownership from Britain's P&O to Dubai Ports World would not affect those arrangements at the terminals in question, company officials said. Consider, for example, the situation at the Philadelphia port, where Dubai Ports World would obtain 50 percent control over a local outfit that runs one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. Robert Palaima, who runs the local company, said yesterday that he hires guards from a union that provides security officers and police guards under a security plan approved by the Coast Guard, which carried out a full-day inspection this week. Cargo loading and unloading is done by work crews supplied by the International Longshoremen's Association, which Palaima described as "the most patriotic of unions." And there would be no changes in the workforce even if the Dubai Ports World takeover goes through, he said, adding: "I am sick and tired of all this uproar. We're patriots and nothing will change."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But our great friend Joe would never mention to her that the deal consists of 30 terminals in 18 countries and out of the 6.8 billion the u.s part is less than a quater. Nor would Joe ever mention that this process was mandated by congress to take place at the bueracratic level well below the president.
Bush has been called out for committing treason for his family's connections to the uae because of a business deal between two competing companies.
All this because of a long term bidding war between singapore and the uae to acquire 30 terminals in 18 countries.
In the UK no one is saying Blair committed treason.
As part of this deal UAE will get leases of terminals at two ports there with I'm sure far less restrictions. And UK was just hit by terrorists in July.
The prime minister of australia isn't being called a traitor when this company has had terminal leases there for yeras.
Good points, and to have a worthwhile discussion it's necessary to have the rationals of both sides presented without ripping each other to shreds over it.
I have been trying for the last two days to point this out to people and they just wont listen...
P&O has a total of 24 berths across the 5 ports in question...the total berth capacity for the 5 ports in question is over 120...Further...that is just the container terminals...ports like Baltimore are considered secondary container ports...Baltimore is more of a bulk transfer port than a container port.
People are acting like UAE is siezing control of the entire port operations in these cities...it is so ridiculous...
Not to mention the Sauds are already operating stevedore services in ports from Newark to Texas...
You continue to do a most excellent job.
Thank you for your posts and the articles you have posted.
The people that oppose the ports deal aren't concerned with the number of terminals UAE would operate, they are concerned that they will operate any at all. So I don't think it really has any bearing on the argument whether UAE will be controlling one terminal in Philly or eight.
We now have and had for many years, the Sauds doing exactly what DWP will do via its P&O acquisition...
If the P&O-DWP deal should be stopped...because we cant have Arabs 'running' ports...can we then logically conclude that we should terminate all port lease agreements with any company that is tied to Arabs?...are these folks saying that we should not only deny the P&O-DWP lease transfers...but also kick out the Sauds who run stevedore work across a spectrum of 30 ports from Newark to Texas?...
Do 'these' people even stop and think for a moment how disastrous that would be to our national security? Do they even think for a moment what the ramifications would be in regard to our relations with moderate Arabs would be?
Many would like to hear more of the other side of a globalists outsourcing debate in a rational manner, such as what are the advantages to the average middle class citizen if foreign governments owns and operates infrastructure on the US soil? Do we receive more jobs, do we get to invest in more stock in the companies involved in outsourcing deals, will it lower prices for the consumer in the long run? These are things that the average person cares about above and beyond the rhetoric.
While the explanation we hear is that we dont want to offend such a government that aids us on the war on terror. But it would seem the only reason we are waging a war on terror is to prevent foreign governments from taking control of US infrastructure in the first place! So this whole line of reasoning appears circular and irrational.
A rational explanation seems to be lacking. Until the port deal is explained to the public they will not buy any of this. Given the house elections are coming up and the only thing the republicans have scored well on with the public is security (even spending the democrats are viewed more favorable) this whole thing is a debacle. If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasnt already.
Most people weren't aware of this until now. I think having the ports operated by state-owned foreign entities is ridiculous. The fact that so many people see this as normal and good is just a sad result of globalism. Yes, I do think ports should be brought back under our own control. No, I do not think the plug should be pulled immediately and overnight, leaving all of our ports in disarray, obviously. And if our good relations with other countries are dependent on those countries running our ports, then something is seriously wrong with those relationships.
Seriously, this is how a real discussion should be done. IMHO, your comments cut closer to home than "any trust Bush on this" arguments I've read so far. I'll watch and keep reading.
A Singapore-China alliance was going to buy P&O, which would have given the alliance 90 % control over British ports.
The Chinese already run terminals in the US.
COSCO - (China Ocean Shipping - owned by the Chinese government) got special treatment from the Clintons -- a 138,000,000 loan to build ships in Alabama, easing of rules, etc.
I believe they were the first nation to support these standards.
About as much as the VP Cheney's Texas field massacre.
I think a more logical thought is that the president treats the press with the contempt they deserve, tosses in some food to their "fish bowl" and lets them go into a frenzy feeding on it.
In the meanwhile (in this particular case) the Dims and Rino's, along with the MSM, started frothing at the mouth.
As blurring as the MSM and others are trying to keep it, it is becoming clear that this DP World hysteria has little basis in fact.
"Hurt the Party badly"? What ... your not going?
Do you feel the same way about foreign airlines operating at US airport terminals?
"Bush has been called out for committing treason......."
Just another notch in the belt of the left's IMPEACHMENT JIHAD.
Administration officials have asserted in recent days that security at U.S. ports is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the terminal operators responsible for little more than transferring containers from ships to railroad cars and trucks.
That overstates the role government agencies play. "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present," said Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security.
What interests me is the argument that "it just doesn't matter what nation is an operator in our ports." I would assume that the extension of that argument then would be that it is just jim-dandy if North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah suddenly started buying their way into our ports also?
False analogy. Foreign airlines do not "operate at" US airport terminals.
To be an analgous equivalent, we would have to allow Dubai to run air cargo operations into and out of New York, New Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, and two military bases in Texas.
In point of fact, we don't allow this. For very good reasons.
The fact that we've head our head up our rear ends for years is NOT a justification for leaving it there.
Very good point. This is a very bad move politically, as it gives the Dems a chance to look "tough" on security. The fact that Bush has threatened to find his veto pen over this also raises a lot more eyebrows. The feeling seems to be that the President is not really that concerned about security. I don't agree with that, but that is the feeling out here in the trenches.
How many times will you have to be shouted down before you stop with the facts.
Don't you know everyone is against the President on this one?
Fear will win over Facts everytime. Just ask the Democrats... that's how us Republicans want the Presidency in the first place remember?
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.