Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arabs Takeover of Major US Ports

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arabs Takeover of Major US Ports

    WASHINGTON - A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.

    The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

    The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

    A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.

    The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.

    The sale, already approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

    The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.

    A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.

    Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer — internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey — is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

    The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a "long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.

    President Bush visited the seaport in Tampa, Fla., but did not mention the dispute Friday. The president said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local government officials.

    "We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."

    One of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, on Saturday harshly criticized the president's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O'Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security. O'Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.

    Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.

    In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.

    Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.

    "A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. ""We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."

    LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.

    "We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

  • #2
    Hmmmmm.....23 views on this and no comment? That's odd since security was our main priority at election time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Julie....I commented!

      Comment


      • #4
        Security???

        Anyone can get into this country with the right money and right connections. We are lucky some psycho hasn't come over from wherever and done some serious harm here.

        Comment


        • #5
          There are still many facts coming out on this and the jury has yet to be convened. The administration is defending the decision and the Democrats....well, they're going to be Democrats. Perception can be used as a tool or a weapon.
          Regardless, looking at this from a political standpoint, it was a ignorant move and damaging to the Republican partys image as warriors on terror.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Semper Fi
            Security???

            Anyone can get into this country with the right money and right connections. We are lucky some psycho hasn't come over from wherever and done some serious harm here.
            I would be shocked if Al Qaeda hasent already taken advantage of the wide open unguarded borders.

            Comment


            • #7
              Fair competition and they won the right to run the port. That is what globalisation is all about!

              Many US companies run strategic industries in other countries.

              Yet, is this globalisation and fair competition or through the same taking hold of strategic assets a good thing?

              That is the dilemma. Globalisation, fair comptetition and a country's security



              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

              HAKUNA MATATA

              Comment


              • #8
                Don't jump to the conclusion that this decision was 'wrong'. It may not be. It's been studied by the six Federal agencies most concerned with the subject, and they all chopped off on it. Then again...maybe it IS a Bad Call.

                I want an independent study done of this. It has now received enough scrutiny to assure me that if it's studied AGAIN, there's little chance that the result will be colored by politics, money, 'who-you-know', or anything else except national security. Enough eyes on this, and nobody can pull a fast one.

                It may be perfectly defensible on any of the grounds it was considered on before, but I want to know if it was really, truly, and exhaustively vetted. If so, FINE, let it go on through.

                We've got to trust the government to get the stuff under its purview correct, especially complex issues that aren't as simple on their face as they may first appear. Things like this should not be decided by plebiscite. (Hell, after watching Leno's "Jaywalking" segments, I'm not so sure I support universal suffrage anymore. Those idiots are voting, and they simply have no idea what they're doing to the rest of us! ) So that means experts (who are still fallible and corruptible humans) have to decide these things.

                But if there is now emphasis placed on getting it right, instead of getting it done, then there is a whole new set of considerations, and I'd like those addressed, too. First things first, though: should the deal hold up, or do we scrap it?

                If we scrap it, then the 'other considerations' I mentioned above should be examined:

                If it went through before without the requisite emphasis on national security and strategic implications...WHY? What factor(s) influenced the decision, and justified what looks like such an obvious risk? If it can be defended, great - welcome aboard UAE guys, here's the keys to the six ports. If it canNOT be defended...who needs to get their butts out of public life, with DISGRACE (and possibly prison time, if the fix was in) as their retirement gift?

                And finally (IF it can be determined that this decision was 'wrong'), what part of our system failed enough to allow it to almost get past us? Corruption? Bureaucracy? Treason? Stupidity? A combination of some or all of these?

                Let's dig into it, and find out how the decision was reached. NOW, before we hand over the keys.
                Last edited by Bluesman; 20 Feb 06,, 19:15.

                Comment


                • #9
                  As I see it, national security should take precedence over fancy theories of business and globalsation.

                  One cannot sell off one's country.


                  "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                  I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                  HAKUNA MATATA

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ray
                    One cannot sell off one's country.
                    Too late sir, we've already been sold out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      eh, they said the same thing about japanese buy-outs in the early 90s, too.

                      come on, julie, isn't there just a bit of engrained racism in this whole deal? if it were a british company that bought out the ports, would this thread even exist?

                      and let us not forget which nationality richard reid was.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sale of your countries strategic assets is never a good idea. Believe you me, we in New Zealand have learnt this the hard way.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by astralis
                          eh, they said the same thing about japanese buy-outs in the early 90s, too.

                          come on, julie, isn't there just a bit of engrained racism in this whole deal? if it were a british company that bought out the ports, would this thread even exist?

                          and let us not forget which nationality richard reid was.
                          I'm pretty sure that it was a british company that "owned" the ports. It is the buyout of the British company by the UAE company that is causing this stir.

                          Now, Julie wants someone to blame the Dems, and so I'll do it here to make her happy. Globalization is the child of William Jefferson Clinton, Forty-second President, one each. Happy now?
                          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            WASHINGTON — House Speaker Dennis Hastert and newly minted House Majority Leader John Boehner will soon be "flexing muscle" against the Bush administration-approved transaction that permits shifting control of port operations in six U.S. ports from a British company to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

                            On Monday, New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he was urging President Bush to delay approval of the deal. King also said he saw many reasons to cancel it altogether. "I'm strongly urging the president to intervene to stop this, to freeze it, to put it on hold," King said.

                            King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republic Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

                            http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Julie
                              WASHINGTON — King's comments were cleared by House GOP leaders and, according to sources, reflect the view of the House Republic Conference at large. Republicans are increasingly concerned at the political impact of the port story. They fear it could leave them vulnerable to Democratic criticism and at least partially undermine their political advantage on national security.

                              http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html
                              They dam' well better be increasingly concerned about how it might undermine SECURITY, and how it could leave them vulnerable to TERRORISM, and stop worrying about whether it LOOKS BAD POLITICALLY. DAYUM!

                              Dammit, we're supposed to be GOOD at national security, and we're supposedly the principled party that puts the good of the country ahead of nakedly political considerations. If that is changing, I'll change my registration.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X