Dubai Ports selling out

[Texsox]

Kap, the Maquilla will have some items that are not time sensitive that gets back loaded as space permits. Since many of the fees are based on truck costs, only in rare cases will they ship LTLs.

 

Of course YMMV, and smaller maquillas may not have that luxery, but the Johnson Controls, Delphi, Emersons, etc. all try and fill every truck crossing the bridge.

[Texsox]

Can modern destroyers/cruisers even get through there?

 

Even if they would/could fit, you wouldn't wanting them sitting like ducks on a pond. One bomb, anywhere on the canal, would keep ships from getting through. You can't route around the canal. No current military value.

[kapkomet]

Kap, the Maquilla will have some items that are not time sensitive that gets back loaded as space permits. Since many of the fees are based on truck costs, only in rare cases will they ship LTLs.

 

Of course YMMV, and smaller maquillas may not have that luxery, but the Johnson Controls, Delphi, Emersons, etc. all try and fill every truck crossing the bridge.

Either LTLs or their own, it's still trucked. That was my point, and you're right about that. But oh so wrong in so many others.

[Texsox]

Either LTLs or their own, it's still trucked. That was my point, and you're right about that.  But oh so wrong in so many others. 

 

Must be the different industries were are from.

[Steff]

Must be the different industries were are from.

 

 

My industry is specifically impacted by this. And it's not the way you've presented it.

 

[Balta1701]

National Review's Michael Ledeen

 

There is a clean way to handle things such as the port operations, and it still astonishes me that it wasn't done properly. It's been done thusly for many years, actually many decades:

 

1. Create an American company to handle the matter (if foreigners wish to buy in, or even buy it, that's ok);

2. Wall off the foreign investors/owners. They are silent partners. They have no say in the actual operation;

3. Create a "classified Board" composed of people with security clearances and experience in sensitive matters;

4. Appoint a CEO and other top executives with experience and clearances.

 

We do this all the time with, say, foreigners who want to buy companies that manufacture parts for weapons sytems, etc. It seems the obvious solution here. Dubai would get prestige and whatever profits are generated. Americans run the thing and guarantee, so far as is possible, security. Looks like a win/win solution. For that matter, we should have done the same sort of thing with the British owners, and we should do the same thing with the Chinese and others who now have access to all kinds of potentially dangerous information thanks to their buy-ins.

[Balta1701]

So, according to UPI, this deal would actually affect 21 ports, and not 6. I find it hard to believe that UPI isn't wrong here, since I just think that in the week since I started this thread, SOMEONE out there would have noticed "Hey, there are another 15 ports involved here" and written that up. Well, we'll see. They are owned by the same wonderful folks who own the Washington Times, but they usually do very good work.

 

A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

 

The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes.

 

P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

So, according to UPI, this deal would actually affect 21 ports, and not 6.  I find it hard to believe that UPI isn't wrong here, since I just think that in the week since I started this thread, SOMEONE out there would have noticed "Hey, there are another 15 ports involved here" and written that up.  Well, we'll see.  They are owned by the same wonderful folks who own the Washington Times, but they usually do very good work.

 

Actually this would give them operations in 23 ports.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/25/port.security/

 

The deal has been stalled amid bipartisan concerns over security. But if it goes through, DP World will operate 11 of the 43 terminals in the six ports: two of 14 in Baltimore, Maryland; one of five in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; one of three in Miami, Florida; two of five in New Orleans, Louisiana; four of 12 in Houston, Texas; and one of four in Newark, New Jersey, according to the Department of Homeland Security news release.

 

P&O also has service operations in 17 other cities, including New York, according to its Web site, which refers to the company as "the largest independent stevedore and terminal operator on the U.S. East and Gulf coasts with operations in most ports from Maine to Texas."

 

Also this directly from the company

 

"DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port," the news release states. "DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports."

[Balta1701]

So supposedly the Coast Guard doesn't seem to confident about the company.

 

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

 

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

 

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

 

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

[Texsox]

My industry is specifically impacted by this. And it's not the way you've presented it.

 

 

The maquilla operations are local, generally full loads except emergencies, and almost always company owned trucks. They are taking material from one manufacturing plant to another. For most of our maquilla drivers, the wait to cross the International Bridge and clear customs is longer than the actual driving time.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, these Dubai Ports World guys shouldn't have anybody concerned, they send all the right messages. . .

 

From today's Jerusalem Post:

Dubai Ports World Boycotts Israel

 

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

 

The Jerusalem Post notes that “US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.” Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration. From the BBC, 5/11/02:

 

“The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel,” said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

 

“The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations.”

 

…The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.

 

The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.

 

So, instead of turning down their request to operate here or fining them if we were in a position to do so, we're really playing hardball by handing them a $6.8 billion contract.

 

Nope. No mixed signals here. :rolly

[Steff]

The maquilla operations are local, generally full loads except emergencies, and almost always company owned trucks. They are taking material from one manufacturing plant to another. For most of our maquilla drivers, the wait to cross the International Bridge and clear customs is longer than the actual driving time.

 

 

Not talking about Maquilla. Talking about this port deal and how it effects the industry I work in.

[Mplssoxfan]

Yeah, these Dubai Ports World guys shouldn't have anybody concerned, they send all the right messages. . .

 

From today's Jerusalem Post:

So, instead of turning down their request to operate here or fining them if we were in a position to do so, we're really playing hardball by handing them a $6.8 billion contract.

 

Nope.  No mixed signals here.  :rolly

 

Bigot.

[Balta1701]

Step 1: the House appropriations committee has voted to block this deal.

 

Man is there gonna be a lot of pressure on Frist when this passes the House.

[Rex Kickass]

Wow. And they're sticking it in a defense appropriations bill on an election year. They're either putting a parallel one up for vote without the amendment, or the amendment won't make the Senate version of the bill.

 

That way in committee to consolidate versions, the amendment can be safely scrapped - everyone supported the troops and Congressmen did something to stop this deal from going through even though they actually did nothing at all.

[Balta1701]

Wow. And they're sticking it in a defense appropriations bill on an election year. They're either putting a parallel one up for vote without the amendment, or the amendment won't make the Senate version of the bill.

 

That way in committee to consolidate versions, the amendment can be safely scrapped - everyone supported the troops and Congressmen did something to stop this deal from going through even though they actually did nothing at all.

Frist is already trying to delay a similar amendment in the Senate, on the grounds of waiting for the 45 day "investigation" to conclude. But I don't think he'll be able to hold. This is just an issue sitting there that the Dems can use this fall just as easily as the Republicans used the DHS in 2002, whether or not it's right to do so.

[Rex Kickass]

Senator Warner from Virginia announced that DP Ports World will not assume management of the US ports but will instead turn them over to a US entity.

[Balta1701]

Senator Warner from Virginia announced that DP Ports World will not assume management of the US ports but will instead turn them over to a US entity.

CNN on that warner statement

 

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is working to head off a showdown between Congress and the president, something the White House desperately wants to avoid, a source involved in the negotiations said.

 

According to the source, DP World would make several concessions, including security guarantees that Warner and possibly the White House would pitch afterward as being above and beyond earlier compromise plans that included divestiture and ownership of "critical infrastructure" -- such as cargo terminals -- in American hands.

 

"The U.S. government would have an enhanced role in overseeing the company, which they don't have under current law," the source said.

 

But it's uncertain is whether the effort is too little too late, especially following the overwhelming vote by the House Appropriations Committee.

 

"Unfortunately, the situation on the Hill has deteriorated rapidly, and it's not certain anything will carry the day other than complete divestment," the source said.

[YASNY]

Apparently, the political difficulties of this deal have proved to be too much and and DPW has announced that they are selling the US part of the deal to "US interests".

 

Of course, there are some major questions to be answered. One of which being that what "US interest" is in existance that can handle this. From what I understood prior to this announcement, was that were none.

 

Also, the Democrats were apparently sandbagged by this announcement. Sen. Warner of VA was the apparent 'broker' of this deal and caught the senate Dems off guard.

 

Disclaimer: This is breaking news at this point, and at this point there are a ton of questions and issues to be addressed.

[YASNY]

Can someone merge this with the "Management of 6 US ports" thread?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Sounds like a job for. . . Haliburton!

[Mplssoxfan]

Sounds like the deal's dead for now.

 

Or, as I believe Rex first suggested, this whole thing could be a cynical ploy (my words, not Rex's) to allow GOP legislators to break with the President in a way that won't hurt the party or country, but will help their individual re-election chances.

[YASNY]

Sounds like the deal's dead for now.

 

Or, as I believe Rex first suggested, this whole thing could be a cynical ploy (my words, not Rex's) to allow GOP legislators to break with the President in a way that won't hurt the party or country, but will help their individual re-election chances.

 

Oh, I fully believe that is part of the equation in all this. Of course, both sides play these 'saving face' games. That's just part of it.

[kapkomet]

But what makes me SICK is the damn Democrats running for the tv cameras today EVEN AFTER THE DEAL IS DEAD demanding a vote.

 

That's asshole politics at its finest.

[Balta1701]

Sounds like a job for. . . Haliburton!

Simon Romero (business reporter for the NYT) and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute on PBS tonight:

 

SIMON ROMERO That's right.

 

It's -- it's -- you know, it's a strategy that, you know, American companies have often employed in their operations in politically sensitive areas of the world. It's not completely unknown. You know, Halliburton, for example, has done something like this in Iran, where they operated for many years, up until recently. They simply operated those -- those -- you know, those Iranian operations out of an offshore entity. And that could be very well what -- what the Dubai company is planning to do as well.

 

.....

 

(Ornstein):  If this is done now through the backdoor, where D.P. has any role at all, Congress is going to go ballistic, and it's going to be a disaster, I think, for the administration.

 

They have got a dilemma now, because there simply aren't American companies that have the know-how and the breadth to do this. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, what I had heard earlier in the day, as they were looking at those that have the -- the kind of resources, Halliburton was a name that came up. And Democrats, I'm sure, are saying, please, God, let that happen.