Goodbye, Dubai (Protectionists Rejoice)

Los Angeles Times ^ | March 10, 2006 | The Editors

[RWR8189]

PROTECTIONISTS, REJOICE! The dastardly United Arab Emirates company that would have presumed to unload containers of underwear and toothpaste on U.S. soil has backed down, and it will now divest its U.S. port interests to an American entity. Rest assured, the nation is now safe from dangerous Middle Eastern accountants and port logistics specialists.

Dubai Ports World did what was necessary, if not necessarily fair, on Thursday by agreeing to give up the U.S. operations of its newly acquired British ports company. The House Appropriations Committee had voted 62 to 2 on Wednesday to block the deal; a similar bill was pending in the Senate.

Although President Bush rightly stood by the acquisition and vowed to veto any bill that stood in its way, he was fighting a losing battle that only deepened a growing rift in the Republican Party. Dubai Ports World officials wisely recognized that they had to put some distance between themselves and their new U.S. assets. The company probably will sell its U.S. assets or create a U.S. company with a separate board to run them.

Much as we wish it would go away, the fight may not be over yet.

For one, the terms of the divestiture remain unclear, and some members of Congress are demanding more details. Will it be enough for Dubai Ports World to create a U.S. subsidiary? Will it have to open headquarters in the United States? Pay its employees in dollars?

[Dominic Harr]

But I am not afraid of Dubai or the UAE or DPW.

Does that mean you disagree with all those who opposed this deal on the basis that they were afraid it would endanger our ports?

[GOP_1900AD]

The dirty laundry of "the global economy" is that most countries (even including the US in some ways) do not conform to WTO rules. It's a matter of degree. What I find is that many non / anti Western countries who are WTO signatories conform the least.

[Paul Ross]

Globalist Neoliberal Economic Utopians repent!

I like it!

Seriously.

[Dominic Harr]

Hillary Clinton THANKS YOU.

You lost me on that one -- Hillary wanted the deal killed, didn't she? And I am opposed to her goal.

[GOP_1900AD]

For some "better Red than dead" has been updated to "better Muslim than dead!"

[mlc9852]

If I lived near a port, I might be afraid. However, I don't so I am not.

[Alamo-Girl]

I was for the Dubai deal.

[MissouriConservative]

So you wholeheartedly agree with Chuckie Schumer? Are you coming out of the political closet? You do know that Chuckie Schumer does not care a whit about national security? He has political interests in this deal being killed....such as longshoremen as well as a wife who has ties to the port authority. You do know that you are supporting something that purely political in nature and not about "security in America" don't you? Take you blinders off and get used to the real world.

LINK

LINK

You've been suckered by a liberal democrat into believing that he is for national security. He is out for his own self interest and that of those who put money is in his coffers. I never thought that I'd live to see the day when supposed conservatives would back liberal democrats screeching during an election year.

[jec41]

SSA of Seattle planned to work with DP World
By Alwyn Scott

Seattle Times business reporter

SSA Marine, by far the largest U.S.-based port operator, appears to be in prime position to take a role in running the U.S. assets of Dubai Ports World (DP World), the company at the center of the port-security controversy.

Seattle-based SSA had been planning to accept DP World as its joint-venture partner at ports in Philadelphia, Wilmington, Del., and Camden, N.J.

SSA was a partner in those ports with London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O). DP World purchased P&O in a $6.8 billion deal that closed this week.

On Thursday, DP World said it would transfer P&O's U.S. assets "to a U.S. entity" either by selling them to another company or setting up a corporate structure without management links to its government-controlled parent in Dubai.

Bob Watters, vice president at SSA, declined to comment on whether the company was interested in acquiring DP World's half of the joint venture, or its assets at other U.S. ports that would have been acquired by DP World. Those include Baltimore; Newark, N.J.; Miami; and New Orleans, all ports where SSA does not have operations.

SSA manages one of the largest terminals at the Port of Seattle.

Through the P&O purchase, DP World would have acquired half of Delaware River Stevedores, the joint venture with SSA. The venture operates port terminals at Philadelphia and Camden; in Wilmington its role is limited to stevedoring, or loading and unloading ships.

SSA has 150 port operations in at least nine countries, Watters said. In 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it won a U.S. government contract to operate the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr to handle aid and reconstruction cargo.

The company leases and operates seven container terminals in the United States. The next-largest U.S. competitor is Maher Terminals, which leases and operates the largest amount of terminal space at the ports of New York and New Jersey. Other large companies leasing U.S. terminals are foreign-owned, Watters said. And other big U.S. companies only operate terminals, but don't lease the land.

Watters said SSA saw no security issues in having DP World as its partner at the three East Coast ports.

"All the same people were going to be in place to run the business, so we had no concerns about [security]," Watters said. "We had the existing stevedoring company there, and all U.S. employees."

Through its stake in the partnership with SSA, DP World would have had access to the government security plans for those terminals, Watters said. Such plans are developed with the U.S. Coast Guard and implemented by the port operators, with periodic Coast Guard inspections, he said.

SSA, known for years as Stevedoring Services of America, was founded in 1949 and limited to Pacific Northwest and Alaska ports until a string of acquisitions in the 1980s. The company ranked 214th among the nation's 500 largest private companies last year, according to Forbes magazine, which estimated its 2004 revenues as $1.45 billion.

Business does not cease just because congress does not know the difference between a port, a port terminal, or a port-a-potty. Neither does it succumb to politics, racism or other agendas. It simply finds another way.

[Dominic Harr]

If I lived near a port, I might be afraid. However, I don't so I am not.

Now you're being evasive.

Do you agree with those who are afraid, or not?

[GOP_1900AD]

No joke. I wish we would do precisely that. When she wrote "The Origins of Totalitarianism" Hannah Arendt warned the world that just because victory was declared in '45, we had not eradicated the cancer. The cancer is out of remission and is on the verge of metastasis. This is difficult to face. So not only would I propose that we don't do business with bigots, I'd also propose, against all post WW2 "norms" that preemptive total destruction of rising totalitarian mennaces is actually not only just but is actually our duty. With this statement, I hereby curse the UN, and all other utopians who dream of a liberation from history.

[syriacus]

Next plan...let's build our ports 20 miles out to sea.

Shanghai Celebrates Giant Port Amid Worries of Overcapacity

SHANGHAI — In many ways, Shanghai's new port is a work of wonder. Built amid a cluster of craggy islands, Yangshan Deepwater Port is connected to Shanghai by a six-lane bridge that meanders across 20 miles of water. The government has not disclosed the project's cost, but local media put it at about $1 billion.

If we put our international airports out at sea, too, we can build a wall around our coutry.

[GOP_1900AD]

C-Ya, you big L!

[Earthdweller]

""better Muslim than dead!""

Who me? Ain't no Islamofacist going to convert me unless it's over my dead body. Try again.

[prairiebreeze]

Nope, I was responding to your post about writing in candidates. I should've copied your text as reference.

Republicans can often leave much to be desired, I agree. In this debacle, they've shown positiviely terrible judgement IMO.

Still, fracturing the vote plays right into the Democrats game plan. I used Hillary as an example, but it applies to any election contest.

While you feel better about writing in your father-in-law, you also squander your one opportunity to defeat the RAT candidate. And the RATS fully appreciate you acting on your disgust at republicans, after all, they had a hand in orchestrating it.

Many of us hold our noses and vote the lesser of two evils. And wish we didn't have to...

[thinkthenpost]

You claim your opposition to DPW buying OPB was national security, why then haven't you been screaming for all foreign operators to likewise be forced out, this change would not have affected our security one iota. DPW operates terminals that ship to the US, the company already possesses any information that is required to bring items here as for infiltrating workers, they'd have a better chance of taking over the union than trying to replace current workers with agents from the Middle East. I might be able to understand all this if this was the very first time a foreign company was attempting this but for me this is 30 years too late.
The state on state war is not obsolete IMO and I am afraid the way the Army is being changed a real war is going to be much bloodier for this country that it had to be. I don't think there was this much outcry concerning the China-Unocal deal and we have actually exchanged gunfire with Chinese the last thing I exchanged with anyone in the UAE was Durhams (sp?) or Dinars at the Gold Souk

[jec41]

When the UAE welcomes Jews and disavows Hamas, I'll listen.

When the US stops funding Palestine and their governments that started with Arafat then I will listen.

[syriacus]

Does that mean you disagree with all those who opposed this deal on the basis that they were afraid it would endanger our ports?

Why was the 45-day investigation scuttled? Why did folks like Schumer and Clinton want to sweep this under the rug without looking at it?

[GOP_1900AD]

That's cool with me. Personally, I am neither upset nor celebratory about this outcome. This has been a tough issue.

[Cboldt]

SSA, known for years as Stevedoring Services of America, was founded in 1949 and limited to Pacific Northwest and Alaska ports until a string of acquisitions in the 1980s. The company ranked 214th among the nation's 500 largest private companies last year, according to Forbes magazine, which estimated its 2004 revenues as $1.45 billion.

A few years later, other tenants at the port vacated space and Cosco was able to build its own terminal, says Art Wong, public information office for the Port of Long Beach.

That terminal is operated by a joint venture between Cosco and a U.S. company, Stevedoring Services of America. "Cosco is the majority lease holder with 51 percent, says Wong."

Foreign involvement is nothing new - Kathleen Pender

Stevedoring Services of America is mostly a Democrat Party donor. Patty Murray's husband is big deal in the company.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1592783/posts?page=83#83