Here's some more fact finding.
Washington Post UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports
United Press International - 8 hours ago
By PAMELA HESS. WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal ...
UAE Terminal Takeover Extends To 21 Ports Post Chronicle
UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports World Peace Herald
all 184 related »
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r
BTW, it's always been that many. It's just the opponents when they originally screamed kept saying "6", and it stuck. More misinformation. That information about the company has been on its web site all along, there is no mystery in this company as it is publicly traded.
Even the buyout is public, since it has to be for stockholders to determine whether to sell their stock or not.
Of course, operations information is not public, just the contract for purchase.
I've noticed that among the opposition, a lot of people say they want the "contracts" to be sold to halliburton, or a u.s. contractor. Hopefully they are just using shorthand, and understand that the "contracts" are not currently being offered for sale, they were sold in 2000. What is being sold is the company that OWNS the contracts, and the issue is whether we allow the current owner to transfer rights and responsibilities to a new company.
Also, a lot of opponents oppose because they want the ports to be american-owned. If there was an actual choice between DP World and an american company, I would vote for the american company. But their isn't. There isn't even a "choice" between DP World and the existing company, since DP World is BUYING the existing company in any case.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the end DP World doesn't simply extend this "no operational control" offer they made buy setting up a U.S. board to give a little more "independence" to the U.S. operator which currently manages the holdings of the P&O company in our country. I'm not saying they will, or they should, just I could see that as an easy way out for them at least for the next couple of years or until after the election.
I "support" the deal, in the sense that I support allowing one foreign company's stockholders to sell their company to another company -- so in fact what I support is the process by which the administration determined that there is no security concerns.
Our country has no responsibility to "approve" the deal or not, that was a stockholder decision. We were to evaluate security, so my answer is that I believe the people who are responsible for protecting us did their jobs, and trust their judgment.