It had to happen. The New York Times and I are both opposed (although, perhaps, for different reasons) to having a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates manage six of our ports, and the Times is praising Senator Frist and Representative Hastert for joining leading Democrats in objecting to the move.
From the Times editorial:
The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country’s control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department’s record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.
Meanwhile, a Washington Post editorial supports the deal with the following rationale:
A goal of “democracy promotion” in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States?
Arab countries—principally Saudi Arabia (our most important Arab “ally”)—have been investing in the U.S. ever since the quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 provided them with mountains of petrodollars that needed to be recycled. While the recycling of Saudi petrodollars somewhat softened the depressing effect of higher oil prices on our economy, it came at a considerable non-economic cost: facilitating the spread of Wahhabism in American mosques and Muslim schools. With investment comes influence.
The UAE isn’t Saudi Arabia, and, as far as I know, its people aren’t followers of Wahhabism. But that doesn’t mean that we should welcome its investment. Nor do we need to. Its government is threatened by both al-Qaeda and potentially Iran. That being the case, do we really need to open a new road for Arab influence in the U.S. in order to retain the UAE as an ally in the War on Terror?
Then there’s the Wall Street Journal, which also favors the deal. In its editorial, the Journal resorts to what can only be described as a specious argument:
Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over.
More often than not, I concur with the Journal’s views. But not this time.
I have some additional information on my website, and I do agree with the WSJ on this issue.
Really it comes down to knowing how ports operate, what port information is available to the operating firms that isn’t available to the public and then assessing what would change by this particular transaction.
Will DPW play to the US’s rule sets regarding its ports? If it wants global business it must. At the same time, the operations its taking over don’t necessarily manage the full volume of trade at each port. A visit to P&O’s website will show you exactly how many berths are being managed at each US location.
I also discuss on my site the fact that an executive from DPW is up for confirmation to be the next Maritime Administrator.
From the perspective of a logistics professional, this is a solid deal and great way to further bring Dubai into our security rule-sets globally.
Last night I heard a Congressman from FL state that the U.S. is only allowed to own assets in a discreet geographic area of the UAE and, in addition, by UAE law may only own a 49% share of that asset. If this is true (and I would love to have someone expand on this statement) then I think the Congress should immediately pass legislation to place the same 49% controlling intrest prohibition on any UAE concern.
I would also like to state that I am terribly insulted that the Pres. would reduce this to “you just don’t like Arabs”. Did I “just not like Asians” when I did not agree with letting a front company for the Red Chinese take control of the port of Long Beach in 1996?
Something has gone off the rails with this administration. We have Karen Hughes, who I thought held great promise when she was first appointed as a diplomatic spokesman, cruising around the Middle East spouting inanities about religious “sensitivity” while our citizens watch the Muslim world burn embassies, churches, put bounties on people’s heads, and beat Christians to death in the streets. And now, my President wants to tell me that allowing a Muslim government to control shipping in some of the largest ports in the U.S. will be just fine?
Even if you put aside the religious insanity and the potential threat to our national security, what ever happened to equal trade agreements which is another rather large drum the President likes to beat?
What’s the problem? The UAE are our friends: tame money-grubbing undemocratic fanatic Muslims, not at all like our enemies the terroristic undemocratic fanatic Muslims.
ATTN: Bipartisan Congressional Members !!
PLEASE DON’T TURN OVER OUR PORTS TO THE UAE. WE MUST FIND ANOTHER WAY TO HANDLE THIS, AND GIVING THIS BUSINESS TO THE UAE IS NOT THE ANSWER. WHAT ARE OUR LEADERS THINKING ? HOW DUMB CAN THEY BE? THANK GOODNESS DFOR THE OPINION OF HOMELAND SECURITY. WAKE UP WASHINGTON
I find it quite amusing to find that the “best from our tolerant, so-called land of the free” are nothing more than closet racists – pure and simple.
Has someone taken the time to investigate the number of US defense related work being done by the Israel?
Why is there no hue and cry about “outsourcing” our security to a foreign nation?
Grow-up people. If all you are looking for is a WHITE, JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLD say it openly and start a pogrom. After all, you know how it is done !
I think you are just sending the world the wrong message. America, the great advocate for free commerce and globalization turns out not to be so open when globalization knocks at its door.
Ports and homeland security are responsibility of the US government, the fact that a foreign company deals with the operations should not affect the nation´s security.
Security is a governmental issue, operations and commercial activities should be just business as usual.
The contrary position sends a message that would become very handy to those opposing US global commerce policies, like many leftist governments which i won´t mention.
Gopal and Fernando,
Interesting that you are so quick to label the American people as racist… It is my impression that the most severe racists on the face of the earth are Muslims. Why don’t you address yourselves to the fact that the UAE and the KSA are closed economies for white Christians. Why don’t you adress the fact that there isn’t a single church in the KSA.
Well, to answer my own question, these countries are given a pass while the U.S. is not. So, citizens of the U.S. are “white racists” because we object to a front company for the gov’t of the UAE that wants to take logistical control of the ports in our homeland and, Muslim gov’ts that will not allow any more than minority investment in their countries by the west are not?
And, I will say again, was I also racist and anti-global when I objected to having a front company for the Red Chinese run the port of Long Beach in 1996?
This only serves to prove the hypocrisy associated with this village idiot who twice was re-elected by his father’s money and influence. If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your BS.
Why shouldn’t people who voted this incompent into office buy into the theory that he had no knowledge of this supercilious deal? That he has a flagrant disdain for the will of the people is no secret. He is unmovable in his loyalty to the corrupt administration that maintains his symbiotic relationship. He is therefore incapable of rendering a decision on his own; and one that may cause his falling from grace within the confines of the regime that pull the strings.
I am not ready to take a position in this debate. The conversation so far seems long on xenophobia and short on facts.
The Greeks had grown tired of its ten year war with Troy so they devised a ruse: build a giant wooden horse and fill it with Greek warriors. The Greeks had a spy whose job was to convince the Trojans it was a gift. Trojan officers allowed the horse to be pulled inside their walled city. Later, as Trojans were celebrating the end of the siege with a drunken party, the Greek warriors emerged from the horse. They burned, pillaged, sacked and murdered all the men. Women and children were taken into slavery.
This, dear editor, is Virgil’s myth of the Trojan Horse. Could this tale be lost to George W. Bush from his freshman Literature 101 at Yale as he proceeds to giveaway my country’s seaports?
The UAE isn’t Saudi Arabia, and, as far as I know, its people aren’t followers of Wahhabism.
Although that may be true, DPW is jointly owned by UAE and the House of Saud. So Marc’s prior paragraph is completely accurate in this case. I think the security issue is completely overblown, but “democracy promotion” has always been BS. All were doing when we do business with the Sauds is legitimize the House of Saud’s complete disregard for freedom and democracy, making the US completely hypocritical. If Castro had oil, he’d be our best buddy.
I think we all should be cautious of xenophobia. And I ask myself whether I would be so up in arms were it Clinton at bat. However, I think the most disconcerting issue is the genuine lack of control US citizens have now. Bush has filled his administration with business executives who have shared the US budget by passing off hefty contracts to their cronies. In the meantime, people desperate for medicine and food are told that the government just can´t fork anymore out. It has money to pay worthless contracts to huge logistics firms that have connections with the administration but it can´t buy some poor elderly woman´s arthritis medicine. The sad thing really is that the contracts are circulating US tax dollars, paid by hard working people, back into the hands of those issuing the contracts. Dick Cheney certainly has no connections to Haliburton – or at least not until the company has grown tremendously and he no longer has conflict of interest to worry about because he´s out of the administration. All of a sudden he´s working as some sort of a consultant. This is all life and the one the US citizens have limited themselves to because they are afraid to show outrage or raise a fist for anything beyond changing their cable channels.
Why was it okay for Pennisular and Oriental (the British owned company in question) to “operate” the ports in the first place? This company has been in existence for 165 Years. In the shipping industry P&O is considered the top of it’s class in port management. Granted they have been operating ports and terminals worldwide. Ports and Terminals in Australia, New Zealand, India, Mozambique. Terminals in China, India, Thailand. Container terminals in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Belgium. Just to name a few Their reach is truly global. Most of these locales have been the result of a partnership or and outright acquisition. All of which had to have the blessing of the host country. Let’s investigate further. Beginning in 1999 P&O began extending it’s reach into the USA. It acquired an existing company that provided stevedore and container handling service. In May of 2000 they “acquired ” 2 terminals in Antwerp, Belgium and a company in New Orleans, USA amongst others. In November of 2000 they picked up terminals in New York and New Jersey
In 2001 they signed a 6 year deal to manage two piers in Baltimore. Many of the other American ports in question are part of the same deals. The following years they were named as terminal managers or in partnership with at least six or seven more major ports and terminals worldwide. 2004 statistics show that they are responsible in part or wholly for maintaining and managing 27 locations worldwide. They shipped and received 40 metric tons or Cargo, 1 million Vehicles and 4.2 Million passengers. With 25,000 employees worldwide. As harbor management facilitating goes they are without equal. So why is it that it was okay for a company from another land to obtain these footholds? For in the scheme of things, what they run compared to what is available amounts to as few as 2 piers and as many as 7. Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Miami and New Orleans locations which count their piers in double digits. However the question remains … how come when these negotiation to turn over these facilities to P&O came up (obviously it wasn’t as highly publicized as this situation) it seemed to sail under the radar. Was it because we were swamped with the job we were doing and needed help … so we made the deal? Was it because they are British (who by the way are one of the leading owners of American property and industry) and therefore we could “trust” them. The fact that the President of P&O (an Englishman) was running the Gulf Shipping Office located in Dubai … early in his career with the company could have given Dubai a leg up on the negotiations. I would take a moment to explain the difference in the UAE and Dubai, however I will take it as read the those reading this are at least up on their geography. If not I have lost you a long time ago. My point is sometime while we were not looking and possibly during a non election year the business transaction with a foreign country took place. Now that company has been purchased by a country that we have been openly doing business with. Tiger woods goes to play tournaments there, major tennis matches are held there, we are exporting automobiles, electronics, foodstuffs, computer technology. Donald Trump is even speculating construction there. And yet the level of paranoia and misinformation is staggering. Most of my information was very easily located by typing in the name of the company … they have nothing to hide and doing a minor bit of research. Something which the major and minor networks have neglected to do … or if they have withheld it for the more alarming notion that a deal was struck to give The Arabs control of American ports … sound Fox-a-liscious doesn’t it. Instead of going further to calm fears it seems they go the distance to feed them. And why have the party’s become kissing cousin on the issue … election year. The Democrats are looking for any opening and the Republicans are looking to close any opening. That is the saddest because I’m sure the interns and staff members who cling to these politicians could have just as easily obtained the information presented here and more. If directed to, but then some of them had to know about the initial deals because they could not have passed in their domains without their blessings. Let’s see how long it takes before the finger pointing and backtracking begins. The P&O sale was a business deal done on the up and up probably not more then a stock transaction and cash. The House and Senate members who are feigning shock and horror had to have advance warning. The Company has been up for sale since last year. Dubai beat out China. Just think of the noise if they had won. Alas that’s old news. The news story is The Arabs have it now. One more thing … those are the same Arabs who with their UAE partners donated 400 million dollars to Hurricane Katrina relief … did you write a check? Just wondering