Posted on 03/24/2006 11:59:30 AM PST by freedom44
The real reason the Dubai ports deal created such an uproar across America was the much larger issue of border security.
If only Congress would show as much concern for our border security as they did about the port deal.
Another matter Congress should concern itself with is China's growing reach over global ports - including ones close to the United States.
Many Americans already feel neglected by their government over illegal immigration and vulnerable to terrorism due to lax border security.
In my mind, it is still baffling to me that after Sept. 11, even after the U.S. government created a mammoth new security agency (Homeland Security) engaged in all sorts of domestic controls over U.S. citizens (think airport security and the Patriot Act) - we even went to war with Iraq - we still haven't moved to secure our porous borders.
Frustrated by federal inaction, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, both Democrats, have gone so far as to declare a state of emergency in counties bordering Mexico, and Napolitano has ordered more National Guardsmen posted at the border.
The Bush administration has tried to deflect criticism over our open borders by insisting that security remains the most pressing issue.
Then came the news that the United States had agreed to turn over operations in major U.S. ports to a company owned by the government of Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates.
While I did not believe that either the Dubai deal threatened U.S. national security, or that it should have been prevented, I do believe it was fair for Congress to want a full review and not be railroaded into the arrangement.
While that controversy appears to have passed, I believe the issued has raised larger issues.
For one thing, should any foreign company be allowed to control operations in U.S. ports?
Laws are already in place to prevent foreign ownership of television broadcasting properties in the United States. Wouldn't concerns about terrorism at U.S. ports be even more in the national interest?
The U.A.E. deal focused attention on an unsettling fact: Foreign operators now control most of the port terminals in the United States, including 80 percent of the terminals in America's largest port, Los Angeles. While Dubai has been, in fact, a strong ally of the United States, other countries that control our ports may not be so friendly. The U.S. ports that Dubai Ports World agreed to take over were previously managed by a British company, and Dubai Ports had to outbid another foreign firm, part of the Singapore government's investment arm, to land the deal.
One terminal in New York is operated by a Hong Kong-based company with close links to China's communist party.
The majority leaseholder of a terminal at the Port of Long Beach in California is part of a company that serves as the merchant marine for the Chinese military.
China is pushing forward with a campaign to secure strategic ports around the world. A subsidiary of Chinese-owned Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., the world's biggest cargo terminal operator, has invested in 169 berths at 41 ports worldwide, and controls about 15 percent of global maritime container traffic.
Some of Hutchison's ports lie near key sea lanes and lines of communication, such as the Suez Canal. Hutchison even controls ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, and in Freeport, the Bahamas, just 60 miles from the United States.
Of the eight international regions with choke points labeled by the Department of Defense as "U.S. lifelines and transit regions," Hutchison has ports in six.
The late Admiral Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a founding board member of the parent company of NewsMax Magazine, told me repeatedly before he passed that China was using its commercial port facilities to expand its global military reach. A 1999 report by the American Foreign Policy Council determined that Hutchison "has substantial links to the Chinese communist government and the People's Liberation Army."
The port controversy does show that the potential for terrorism against Americans is enormous.
Still, in my view, Dubai should not have been singled out for exclusion from doing business in U.S. ports.
The U.A.E. has been a strong ally of the United States in the war against terrorism, and the port of Dubai is the busiest port of call for U.S. Navy ships outside the continental United States.
Singling out an Arab country for special treatment - remember that most U.S. ports are operated by foreign companies - could lead to a loss of support for U.S. policies in some Arab countries. New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote: "If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal - not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering."
As Democrats and some Republicans alike beat the drum over the deal, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., saw the bigger picture: "To kill the deal without a comprehensive solution to port security is just living for the political moment."
If there is one bright spot to emerge from the port controversy, it is that new attention has been focused on the security question in general. That attention should not stop at our ports - any effort to fend off attacks from foreign terrorism must include securing all of our borders.
I thought we were all supposed to be dead by now because China was going to nuke us after Hutchinson Whampoa started running the Panama Canal?
Someone can point out the incentive that PLA generals would have to cut off their money supply?
I guess the open borders/globalist crowd cant blame skpeticism abvout this deal on anti-Arab racism
Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, kings want to be king of everything? I am sure that the Chinese will soon melt into a warm puddle of love, and begin holding free elections. After that, they will be no different than us.
LOL - that's right, kick out every foreign-owned port terminal company - at least can we all agree from the start that the U.S. cannot force the Bahamas to do the same?
So we kick out the Arabs & the Chinese. Fine.
They will just buy Vancouver, Halifax, Veracruz & Lazaro Cardenas & truck in whatever they want past George Bush's joke border security.
I couldn't agree more strongly with this article.
"Laws are already in place to prevent foreign ownership of television broadcasting properties in the United States."
That's because the World Communist Politboro already controls the CNNBCBSABC 'major media'.
.
Whose security is W in charge of?
What the hell is going on? Is Clinton secretly running national security? This makes NO sense, I'm sorry.
And it was another no-bid contract. Whether or not you think these companies are a security threat, why aren't American companies even allowed to TRY and win the contracts?
Globalist fingerprints all over it.
Clinton is just another one of their phony front men...
Getcher self a program from the Mena debacle...and check out
all the players...
Our country is run by an multi headed octopus
More accurate is the US refused to let DPW lease docking spaces (terminals) to load and unload cargo and denied them trade with the US. 80% of the terminals are leased by shipping companies other than the US. Many want to deny other shipping companies trade in the US by refusing to let their ships lease docking space.
Conquest. China dumps good made by slave labor into our country at below-cost prices. They have nukes pointed at us. They are taking total control over ports near us and even control some ports in our country like Long Beach. They are known to want to rule the world -- they're Communists, after all. They're positioning themselves.
Sure it was was. And it was simply meant to mislead you or ignorant in its implication. Hutchinson owns 50% of that port. The 50% that ships cargo. Can you force them to give up ownership because you want somebody to bid on it. It was a contract for service to the owner of the port, Hutchinson. Check Freeport port and you will find that Hutchinson owns and has made the 50% cargo port modern. Also they have dredged it to 47 ft deep and deeper than any of our Alantic ports. The biggest ships come in there and the cargo is transshipped to the US.
Any country besides the US controlling any part of our port operations is just stupid.
No, anti-Chinese racism.
Iraq's.
And dangerous to hte national security.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!
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.