Dubai Ports World to divest itself of all American interests

CNN

[navysealdad]

Dubai Ports Worls to divest itself of all American interests

[Elyse]

While I can understand why they'd be upset, the fact that they pulled out so early in the 45 day review period makes one wonder if there wasn't something more to this that would have been discovered by a more thorough review

Did you not see the bill Congress put forth yesterday?!?! Dubai bent over backwards to try to give the US time to review and what do WE do? Spit in their faces.

So now Dubai knows there was never any intention to give them a fair, impartial review and they decide it's not worth the freaking hassle and the risk of damaging relations further and when they pull out of the deal people want to kick them in the ass on their way out the door.

I'm disgusted with all the witch-hunting, racist and/or paranoid Americans who have surfaced during this deal.

[redtetrahedron]

Don't judge the site without reading. That site is not from a radical group like the KKK that promotes hatred, but simply a report on Islam by an investigative reporter, using quotes from Islam's 'holy' books to prove his points.

[ScreamingFist]

They were trying to use the Navy as a Diplomatic tool and it failed just as it can at any second in the UAE.

FRiend, realize that you're posting to a bunch of armchair warriors that don't know CVA is a carrier nor that CVA66 was the USS America.....it amazes me the screaming on this thread...like we didn't OWN the Strait of Hormuz before Dubai...sheesh....

[cva66snipe]

Only fools did.

I call them career military politicians :>} of the 0-8 and above pay grade long removed from the realities of national defense and shipboard security. Even our own military ports here in the states are limited in their security. For example 5 carriers at NOB Norfolk at the same time is nothing but arrogance. That is one ship minus half of the entire carrier fleet. Three carriers in Norfolk Naval Shipyards at the same time is not good judgment either.

But really how did they think everybody was going to take this port deal? We live under a color coded security system and are subject to having everything we possess searched for a simple trip on a plane or a mass transit system. At the same time our POTUS's State Department and a few others make a deal with a nation that up till very recently in history just assumed we had vanished off the face of the earth. People have a right to be angry and Washington DC brought this one on itself.

[Stajack]

This proves that they were no friends of ours in the first place and congress has done the right thing (for a change)!!!

No it doesn't. It just means that they saw the writing on the wall. Why try to squeeze water out of a rock? And if they decide to disinvite our military assets from the Port of Dubai, we'll be a thousand miles from the Iranian fleet rather than thirty.

[mlc9852]

"I'm disgusted with all the witch-hunting, racist and/or paranoid Americans who have surfaced during this deal."

So you obviously aren't interested in facts as to why so many people were against the deal. The people spoke and government listened - isn't that the way it is supposed to work?

[plain talk]

So tell me then how many years did you do in the Navy? Did it ever occur to you I said this based on what I've seen? Ever been on a carrier that did and emergency sea and anchor detail to get under way? I have and I know what I'm talking about. Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia late 1977 we anchored off shore. A violent straight line wind hit the ship. Within a very few short minutes were changed from dragging anchor and heading toward a grounding to underway and out of port. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There are too many mistakes being made and some of it is being caused by blatant arrogance out of the Pentagon.

So I guess you're suggesting no ship should ever moor in any port? If so, this is independent of the UAE issue then. Perhaps you should volunteer your expert information to the Pentagon. Write them. I'm sure with your credentials and expertise they would fly you up there to straighten them out since you have been on carriers and know what you're talking about.

[SwordofTruth]

Dubai Ports Worls to divest itself of all American interests

Good, very good!

[TigersEye]

It is a sad state of affairs for our country that our own companies do not jump on these strategic ventures.

Thank Congress.

[ScreamingFist]

More Than Meets the Eye: F-16 Sale Precursor to Establishing U.S. Bases in UAE
Luke Warren, Arms Trade Insider No. 29, March 9, 2000

As initially revealed last November the Arms Trade News, the UAE purchase of 80 F-16 Falcon fighter jets from the U.S. will help grease the wheels for a new basing agreement between the two countries. A 7 March memo from the Air Force liaison office regarding the national security rationale for this sale states clearly that, "U.S. forces could respond to the region quicker and more effectively if bases, ports, and the infrastructure they require were available in other countries as well as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The sale of F-16s to the UAE will allow the U.S. to work closer with this coalition partner."

So instead of just being seduced by the vast amount of money this deal offers, (the Pentagon assumes that over the Falcon's 20 year life cycle the deal will be worth $15 billion), we now can confirm that there is a larger seduction. According to Air Force, USCENTCOM's theater engagement plan calls for "enhancing and strengthening the strategic relationship between the US and the UAE...This plan seeks several specific long-term bilateral agreements including improved access to the Persian Gulf's only carrier capable deep-water port."

Arms sales for influence and access. This is not the first time this has been done, but not at this level of weapons technology. Selling weapons more advanced than your own for money and new bases is a dangerous game. Despite the Air Force's claim to the contrary, these F-16s may not "act as a stabilizing influence against forces in the region that could threaten this vital flow of petroleum."(i.e. Iran)

Iranian hard line clerics, who control the military, could react by initiating a pre-emptive strike on the UAE, or increasing terrorist attacks, or by accelerating Iran's research into ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This sale might also undermine the moderate influences of the Iranian Parliament and President Khatami. That is exactly the opposite of what the U.S. should be doing. The U.S. should attempt to bolster Khatami's reforms and power. Selling the world's best F-16s to the UAE will not accomplish this task.

And neither is setting up bases in the UAE. That will give Islamic radicals more evidence of U.S. encroachment in the Arab world, and hence more reason to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. It also begs the question; given U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, why do we need access to the UAE?. Is this a hedge against the crown prince of Saudi Arabia not being pro- western? Is it designed to give us a launch point against an increasingly hardline, military government in Pakistan? The U.S. has been able to keep the Straights of Hormuz open for years without bases in the UAE. If so, why undercut the moderate forces in Iran, and possibly increase tension in the already precarious region, by building these bases?

Before this sale goes through, Congress should demand the real reasons for this sale, and if they are not adequate, kill the deal.

[cva66snipe]

it amazes me the screaming on this thread...like we didn't OWN the Strait of Hormuz before Dubai...sheesh....

This is like saying we can't defend NYC because Connecticut won't do business with us. Doing business there such as supplies is one thing. Docking our fleet there and having a shipyard is a major mistake that some can't grasp the seriousness of. But this ports usage is largely a result of the downsizing that started under Poppy Bush. Up till then we used the PI's or Down Under for most WEST PAC needs including yard work.

[ScreamingFist]

And if they decide to disinvite our military assets from the Port of Dubai, we'll be a thousand miles from the Iranian fleet rather than thirty.

Don't be silly, the UAE is into the US for everyting from F-16's, to helicopters to Boeing 777....they like MONEY! and superior western weapons.....

[Right_in_Virginia]

Dubai Ports Worls to divest itself of all American interests

Good, very good!

Care to explain why?

[hummingbird]

I wonder if Bush knew this was going to happen... maybe some deals were made in India last week.

Hmmmmmmmmm..........worth pondering.

[cva66snipe]

So I guess you're suggesting no ship should ever moor in any port?

As a matter of policy yes if it is a foreign port unless the ally is much more stable with a long proved record such as Australia or the PI's for example. Any ship that can not under it's own power {meaning requiring no tugs or a pilot} moor pier side and get underway needs to anchor off coast in the M.E. The ship may only have minutes to get underway.

If so, this is independent of the UAE issue then.

No not really.

Perhaps you should volunteer your expert information to the Pentagon. Write them. I'm sure with your credentials and expertise they would fly you up there to straighten them out since you have been on carriers and know what you're talking about.

No the leaders I served under weren't quite so foolish and arrogant. What we have running the Pentagon now is ones either Poppy or Bubba pushed up through the ranks. They are politicians first and have long since forgotten their military duties.

[teletech]

Yea it'll be an "American" company owned with 49% foreign money.

BINGO!!!

[Stajack]

Don't be silly, the UAE is into the US for everyting from F-16's, to helicopters to Boeing 777....they like MONEY! and superior western weapons.....

Glad you've got it all figured out. Hope you're right. But even if you think there's going to be absolutely no blowback from today's events, you're smoking some great rope.

[Elyse]

I'm waiting to read all the predictions made by those who can see the future and will say, well, "Dubai hates us now" and, "They are going to throw out our Naval Fleet now.

Well, my prediction is that Dubai will continue to act reasonable and go on with their business. They have already proven they won't cut off their nose to spite their face.

The problem is that we have lost trust and goodwill that will be a long time, if ever, in being regained. Apparently, there are Americans who place very little value in that. After all, our new motto is - Who cares what the stinkin' Muslims think, they are all alike and you can't trust any of them.

[ScreamingFist]

What we have running the Pentagon now is ones either Poppy or Bubba pushed up through the ranks.

More of a clinton deal IMHO....see post #670.

[Sally'sConcerns]

Sounds like your the one twisting facts and spouting propaganda. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "Controlled" is. You find one element of security that will still be US run and then you say the US is controlling the whole port. Now that is propaganda.

Actually, you're the one who is spouting propaganda. You appear to not understand none of the ports are or were going to be purchased from P&O. P&O does not own our ports, therefore, they're in no position to sell them.

 

All ports located within the United States fall under the same jurisdiction and none of them are owned by a company either foreign or domestic.

Read in full the release by the Port of Houston Authority which has no problems with NATIONAL security being breached. Please also note they do not state P&O owns the port. It also lays out who is responsible for security.

Fact Sheet: Implication of the Proposed Acquisition of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World on the Port of Houston Authority

HOUSTON, Feb. 23, 2006 -- The recent announcement of plans by the Dubai Ports World (DP World) to purchase P&O Ports (P&O) will not have an impact on any of the facilities or operations of the Port of Houston Authority (PHA).

The PHA is a political subdivision chartered by the state of Texas. It owns and either operates or leases 12 public facilities. The PHA does not own or operate private facilities.

Specifically in Houston, P&O leases space at the PHA's Barbours Cut Container Terminal for container and chassis repair and container storage. At the PHA's Turning Basin Terminal, P&O maintains a freight handling assignment and is licensed to provide stevedore services. P&O does not own or operate public (PHA) facilities.

P&O, a private company headquartered in London, is involved in worldwide container terminal operations and stevedore services for the maritime industry.

The Port of Houston comprises more than 150 public (PHA) and private terminals along the 53-mile Houston Ship Channel. The port's private terminals include several U.S.-based, foreign-based and multi-national corporations. Approximately 85% of cargo that moves through Houston's port is handled at private facilities. A large portion of the port's private facilities are engaged in production, refining and transportation operations related to the global oil, gas and chemical industries.

PORT SECURITY

All port facilities in the U.S. that are engaged in commercial activities across interstate lines or international borders -- whether public or private, domestic or foreign -- are subject to state and federal security statutes as well as the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.

The federal government takes the lead in protecting America's ports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, primarily through the activities of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Coast Guard, runs many programs to secure U.S. ports. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for maritime security and reviewing and approving security plans for vessels, port facilities and port areas which are required by the MTSA. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for cargo security, and screens and inspects cargo entering the U.S. through every U.S. port.

Other cargo security programs include:

 -- Container Security Initiative (inspection of U.S. import cargo 
    by CBP prior to leaving the outbound foreign port)
 -- Use of radiation detection equipment to screen for weapons of 
    mass destruction
 -- Use of other non-intrusive inspection devices
 -- Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), which 
    encourages maritime stakeholders to verify their security 
    measures.  

The Port Security Grant program and the pending implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) are also important parts of America's port security portfolio to provide layered security.

While the federal government takes the lead on waterside and cargo security, overall security is a shared responsibility with port authorities, facility and vessel operators, and state and local law enforcement agencies providing additional security. The Maritime Transportation Security Act also establishes local security committees to evaluate and make improvements in each port.

In general, port infrastructure throughout the U.S. and around the world consists of diverse collections of docks, warehouses, and terminals. For the past two decades, it has been a common maritime industry practice for private port facilities in some countries to be operated by organizations that are based in other countries. This is widely regarded as the nature of trade and commerce in today's global economy.

For more information, please visit www.portofhouston.com .

The Port of Houston Authority logo can be found at: http://media.primezone.com/prs/single/?pkgid=720

CONTACTS:  Port of Houston Authority 
           Argentina M. James, Director of Public Affairs 
           Office: (713) 670-2568 Cell: (713) 306-6822
           ajames@poha.com


           Felicia Griffin, Communications Manager
           Office: (713) 670-2644 Cell: (713) 594-5620 
           fgriffin@poha.com

Port of New Orleans:

 

About The Port of New Orleans

Ideally located at the mouth of Mississippi River, the Port of New Orleans is America’s gateway to the global market. New Orleans has been a center for international trade since 1718 when it when it was founded by the French. Today, the Port of New Orleans is at the center of the world’s busiest port complex — Louisiana’s Lower Mississippi River. Its proximity to the American Midwest via a 14,500-mile inland waterway system makes New Orleans the port of choice for the movement of cargoes such as steel, grain, containers and manufactured goods. The Port of New Orleans is the only deepwater port in the United States served by six class one railroads. This gives port users direct and economical rail service to or from anywhere in the country. New Orleans is one of America’s leading general cargo ports. A productive and efficient private maritime industry has help produce impressive results, including the USA’s top market share for import steel, natural rubber, plywood and coffee. In the last 10 years, the Port of New Orleans has invested more than $400 million in new state-of-the-art facilities. Improved breakbulk and container terminals feature new multipurpose cranes, expanded marshalling yards and a new roadway to handle truck traffic. As we open the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal, the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans is committed to building a port, which will serve the needs of the global marketplace well into the new century.

MISSION

The Board’s mission is to maximize the flow of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce throughout the Port of New Orleans.

GOVERNANCE

The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans governs the Port of New Orleans. The Board sets policies and regulates traffic and commerce of the Port.

The Board is made up of seven commissioners. They are unsalaried and serve five-year staggered terms. The governor of Louisiana appoints board members from a list of three nominees submitted by 19 local business, civic, labor, education and maritime groups.

The seven-person board reflects the three-parish (county) jurisdiction of the Board. Four members are selected from Orleans Parish, two from Jefferson Parish and one from St. Bernard Parish.