Ridiculous objections (port sale)

The Gulf Today (UAE) ^ | 26 February 2006 | DR MUSA KEILANI

[Cornpone]

WHAT IS TAKING place in Washington over the proposed takeover of container operations at six major ports in the US by a UAE-based company is nothing but a reflection of the real mindset of American politicians influenced by Israel into seeing Arab and Muslim countries as a security risk to the US after the Sept.11 attacks.

We in the Arab World have to draw our own lessons from the affair.

The UAE is involved in this particularly dispute. But there is no doubt that such deals involving any Arab or Muslim country would draw the same objection from American congress members.

Notwithstanding the sweet talk that American politicians give to us, it is a high probability that any other Arab-owned company would face rejection in the hypothesis that it secures a similar deal in the US.

The facts of the current dispute are clear:

Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of the emirate of Dubai, has signed a nearly $7 billion agreement with Britain's P&O to take over the shipping company's port operations around the world. The agreement is awaiting formal approval by a British court.

Under the agreement, DP World will also take over P&O's container operations in six major US ports that the British company had been operating for years. It is a natural transition of operations from one commercial entity which is bought by another.

US security agencies and departments will continue to be in absolute control of security at all ports in the US, including the six involved in the DP World agreement.

Nothing changes whatsover except that DP World will handle all incoming and outgoing containers, which are subject to routine scrutiny by US Customs and security officers from various agencies at the point of final entry and exit.

DP World will have no role whatsoever in any security aspect of the port. It is entirely an American affair.

There should be no hitch in the take-over if all these factors are taken into consideration by critics of the deal. Instead, they are citing "security concerns" and pointing out the UAE had recognised the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 90s.

What the critics are overlooking or deliberately ignoring is the excellent track record of the UAE.

The UAE was among the first in the Arab World to sign up in all measures aimed at tightening security and adopting anti-terrorism measures as suggested by the US following the Sept.11 attacks.

The UAE does not have a record of engaging itself in any extremist attacks or harbouring militants. On the contrary, the country has said it remains on high vigil and alert against extremists.

The UAE is among the leading voices of moderation in the Arab World and it has always followed a positive approach to Arab, regional and international issues.

If anything, the UAE, like Jordan, is known for advocating dialogue to resolve conflict, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere.

The UAE has signed bilateral extradition agreements with others and is also following its obligations under them without fail.

It is ridiculous at best to suggest that the UAE has links with extremism simply because extremist suspects happened to pass through the country on their way somewhere else.

Isn't primary that had the UAE had any inkling of their real intentions while they were present in UAE territory, then they would have been arrested and questioned?

Well, US security and intelligence agencies had tip-offs about an impending attack ahead of Sept.11, but they failed to take preventive action; so how anyone could blame others where they themselves had failed?

The key factor in the dispute over the DP World deal is that a commercial entity from an Arab Muslim country, seeking to build itself as a major player in the international market, is facing bitter opposition to a key project that would catapult it towards its strategic business objectives.

Indeed, not everyone critical of the DP World deal might be inclined to oppose it because of inherent hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.

They might indeed have concerns that they might see as genuine when seen from their perspective. That is where they needs to realise that the DP World-P&O deal as given clearance after a careful intelligence and security reivew.

There is a security system in place in the US, and that has vetted the deal. That should put to rest any "security" concerns, unless of course American congressmembers do not trust their own security arrangements.

If the latter is the case, then they should have no trust in their government either. That being not the case, the obvious conclusion is that Jewish-dominated political and business circles supported by vested interests are mobilising themselves against any effort by any Arab country to emerge into the international market and thus gain an influential role in world affairs whether it wants it or otherwise.

It is heartening to see that the Bush administration committed itself that the DP World takeover would go ahead although after a brief delay.

[penelopesire]

"The law was followed by the Administration and the secrecy of how the decision was made has been politicized by the Democrats, and has risen to the hysterical levels it is now, by those who are either ignorant of how the process works, or by those who know exactly how to play politics with the issue. My guess it's the latter"

YES..you are correct on those points. However..you do 'our side' no justice when you ignore legitimate questions like mine, with a brush off of talking points. If we react to the democrats 'politics of power and deception'....we lose site of our own IDEALS and FOUNDATIONS! Let's continue to work from a position of principle and power..not windmill waystands of mometary politicians.

[MJY1288]

It's really not that hard. It's like talking to a wall

[CWOJackson]

In some cases I think it's intended to make it appear that they are carefully examining the issue before announcing the decision they made a week ago.

[MJY1288]

I'm not ignoring legitimate questions, I'm dismissing ignorant ones.

I've done my research into this matter, I suggest you do the same!.... I'm frankly tired of trying to explain it to you

[TheCrusader]

"UAE----do not have oil reserves (or other natural resources - have you *seen* the Arabian dessert??), so what they do is services: primarily banking and port-running for the middle east."

You're getting some very bad information from somebody, the UAE oil reserves are among the highest in the world.

Gulf News |Abu Dhabi

_ June 8, 2002 |By Nadim Kawach

(excerpt)
"The UAE will continue to produce oil for the next 150 years given its enormous crude reserves that rank fourth in the world, and output could last longer with the improvement of recovery technology, an UAE official was quoted as saying."

"The country's recoverable oil wealth is estimated at 98 billion barrels, the fourth largest after those in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, said Dr. Ibrahim Ismail, an adviser at the Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources. At current production rates, UAE's extractable oil reserves could last up to 150 years, one of the highest rates in the world,"

Buying maritime companies and operating international sea ports is just a little hobby for the UAE Sheiks, who have the wealthiest country in the entire middle east, (per capita), and the second wealthiest country in the region outright.

[jonrick46]

Excuse me? Even if President Bush did know about the "deal" he could not reveal the details of it because the process conducted by the CFIUS as required by the Exon-Florio Amendment was to be top secret. Any talk about those proceedings would be an impeachable offense. Here is the wording:

The Exon-Florio amendment prohibits disclosure to the public of any documents or information about a transaction that is provided to CFIUS or the President pursuant to Exon-Florio. Federal employees could be subject to criminal and other sanctions for making an unauthorized disclosure of such information.

Let's stop being stuck on stupid, shift gears, and move this "deal" forward.

[MJY1288]

THANK YOU!

[penelopesire]

LOL..yes....this is getting tiring! You refuse to entertain the 'theory' that a ships cargo can be changed in the middle of the ocean! Any military man will tell you that a ship can have it's entire cargo offloaded mid ocean! Hell..any pirate will tell you the same thing! Are you dense or something..or do you believe that anything written on a 'manifest' is equal to the written word of the LORD?

[CWOJackson]

"Any military man will tell you that a ship can have it's entire cargo offloaded mid ocean!"

You have to be kidding.

[KDD]

3 miles before they enter our Waters, the Coast Guards boards and takes over all ships that are attempting to enter our Ports

That is simply not true. The Coasr Guard does not have nearly the manpower to board all ships 3 miles from our coast. What happens are the ships wait in anchorage outside the shipping channel until the port sends a port pilot to bring the vessel into dock. The crewboat delivering the pilot usually also carries the coast guard inspector and his crew(3-5) and also a customs officer, although a cutter will be somewhere nearby.

I've spent 20 years as a commercial captain (200 ton master) and though I am not qualified to handle a freighter by any means I have operated the crew boats, sea tow boats and commercial long line boats...

I retired from that work and started a new buisness 2 months before 9/11 so things may have changed. I don't a lot of people can imagine the shipping traffic a port like Tampa or Miami handles.

[penelopesire]

"I've done my research into this matter, I suggest you do the same!.... I'm frankly tired of trying to explain it to you"

OK..you still have not explained a glaring ommission of your 'research'! Which is at the heart of my questions! Frankly..you are beginning to look stuck on stupid!

[MJY1288]

ROFLMAO, Do you know what a manifest is? it is a detailed description of the Ships cargo, every container is sealed and numbered, those seals have an identification number on them, if they are broken or the numbers don't match... THEY WILL NOT BE GRANTED ENTRY TO OUR PORTS

BTW, Could you put me in touch with the last Pirate you spoke with?

Good Night, I'm done with this useless exercise

[jonrick46]

Good night! How do these people get to work? They would be so worried that something bad--like an UFO abduction on I-5-- would happen, they might as well stay in bed.

[MJY1288]

Shortly after 9/11 a bill was passed called something like "Container Security Initiative" in which all containers destine for the USA are inspected before leaving for the USA, All containers are sealed and numbered, that manifest is sent to the US and the Port where it will be unloaded, and that original manifest must match what is on board when it arrives. I will see if I can find the Bill Passed by Congress.

BTW Dubai was the first to comply with this initiative

[penelopesire]

"Do you know what a manifest is? it is a detailed description of the Ships cargo, every container is sealed and numbered, those seals have an identification number on them, if they are broken or the numbers don't match... THEY WILL NOT BE GRANTED ENTRY TO OUR PORTS
BTW, Could you put me in touch with the last Pirate you spoke with?

Good Night, I'm done with this useless exercise"


OK..I will put you touch with the IAEA..you are a prime candidate for the UN's doctrine of 'see no evil.
I bet those 'seals' are as fool proof as the ones the IAEA has put on countless nuclear crap all over the world...LMAO!!
yOU ARE A PRIME EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF NAIVETE THAT WILL HARM THIS COUNTRY! Night night...

[penelopesire]

I said:
"Any military man will tell you that a ship can have it's entire cargo offloaded mid ocean!"

YOU SAID:

"You have to be kidding."

Let's leave the answer to real miltary men..shall we?

[MJY1288]

Here ya go

...

Printer Friendly Version Of:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/international_activities/csi/csi_in_brief.xml

Printed:
Sun Feb 26 2006 03:39:45 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

CSI In Brief
02/15/2006

Press Contact: (202) 344-1780
Office of International Affairs: (202) 344-3000

As the single, unified border agency of the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) mission is extraordinarily important to the protection of America and the American people. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, U.S. Customs Service began developing antiterrorism programs to help secure the United States. Within months of these attacks, U.S. Customs Service had created the Container Security Initiative (CSI).

CSI addresses the threat to border security and global trade posed by the potential for terrorist use of a maritime container to deliver a weapon. CSI proposes a security regime to ensure all containers that pose a potential risk for terrorism are identified and inspected at foreign ports before they are placed on vessels destined for the United Sates. CBP has stationed multidisciplinary teams of U.S. officers from both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to work together with our host foreign government counterparts. Their mission is to target and prescreen containers and to develop additional investigative leads related to the terrorist threat to cargo destined to the United States.

The four core elements of CSI are:

• Identify high-risk containers. CBP uses automated targeting tools to identify containers that pose a potential risk for terrorism, based on advance information and strategic intelligence.
• Prescreen and evaluate containers before they are shipped. Containers are screened as early in the supply chain as possible, generally at the port of departure.
• Use technology to prescreen high-risk containers to ensure that screening can be done rapidly without slowing down the movement of trade. This technology includes large-scale X-ray and gamma ray machines and radiation detection devices.
• Use smarter, more secure containers, which will allow CBP officers at United States ports of arrival to identify containers that have been tampered with during transit.

Through CSI, CBP officers work with host customs administrations to establish security criteria for identifying high-risk containers. Those administrations use non-intrusive inspection (NII) and radiation detection technology to screen high-risk containers before they are shipped to U.S. ports.

CSI, a reciprocal program, offers its participant countries the opportunity to send their customs officers to major U.S. ports to target ocean-going, containerized cargo to be exported to their countries. Likewise, CBP shares information on a bilateral basis with its CSI partners. Japan and Canada currently station their customs personnel in some U.S. ports as part of the CSI program.

Announced in January 2002, CSI has made great strides since its inception. In just over 3 years, 26 customs administrations have committed to joining CSI and are at various stages of implementation. CSI is now operational at ports in North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin and Central America.

CBP’s goal is to have 50 operational CSI ports by the end of fiscal year 2006. At that time, approximately 90 percent of all transatlantic and transpacific cargo imported into the United States will be subjected to prescreening.

CSI continues to expand to strategic locations around the world. The World Customs Organization (WCO), the European Union (EU), and the G8 support CSI expansion and have adopted resolutions implementing CSI security measures introduced at ports throughout the world.

[CWOJackson]

No, let's leave the answer to someone who is sincere.

[KDD]

Of course most major shipping channels are more then 3 miles from the open sea channel buoy. I can't think of any reasonable way to stop anyone from smuggling anything into our ports no matter what company runs them. The drug war should have taught us that by now.

I object to a government owned company running any of our ports at all...especially an Islamic government owned company, Feels kinda like we're selling them the rope.

And if Bush trusts an Islamic government in any manner then he is myopic to what Americans perceive this war to be about,

[CWOJackson]

"I object to a government owned company running any of our ports..."

Then you should be glad to know that running our ports will remain in our hands, and DPW will only be running a commercial business located in a port.