Dubai seeks to defend ports takeover

MSNBC, Financial Times(UK) ^ | 2/20/06 | Robert Wright

[Reaganwuzthebest]

What destructive behavior?

You mentioned lax security at the airports. If the immigration laws had been enforced 9/11 may not have happened. How much destructive behavior do you need? Just because a large explosive hasn't gone off lately doesn't mean we're not vulnerable. Spain and Britain can tell you about that.

It's time to face reality, Muslim countries don't play well with the other kids and the last thing we need is to invite the bullies right onto our doorstep.

[o_zarkman44]

In the post 9/11 publication about the failures of our intelligence etc the UAR was mentioned 19 times specifically as having helped the 9/11 terrorists, everything from money and finances to their flights originating in the uAR and ending in the final destination where they hijacked the flights.

This is all about money. Government is selling us out on national security.

[o_zarkman44]

Our security depends upon American citizens to stop this insane bullshit. Government needs to listen to the people and listen well. Doing whatever the elite think is best is not in America's best interest and there are 290 million non elite people in America who think this is bad for national security.

And the muzzies are decrying that if we don't follow through with the deal we are racists. Striking the emotional issue with the R word only allows them to get stronger at our expense. Saying no is not racist but intelligence. Buying into the racist bullshit is exactly what they want to use to intimidate us into cooperation.

Enough said.

[speekinout]

The US ports are an AMERICAN asset that a foreign power bought the right to run.

Do you even have a clue as to how wrong that statement is?
Education is a good thing, try it.

[edsheppa]

Produce just one example of terrorists trying to "buy or bully their way into port operations" anywhere in the world, and we'll agree that it's a problem.

(Before 9/11) Produce just one case of terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into building?

(Before Cole) Produce just one case of terrorists using a speedboat bomb against a US warship.

Come on! It's no longer 9/10. Think outside the box!

[DJ MacWoW]

Just WHAT do you think this is about? I can't believe that you don't get it. A foreign power bought the rights to run 6 US ports from another foreign company. US ports are a US asset. WHAT is so hard to grasp? Dubai will manage US ports.

[DJ MacWoW]

Bush Says He Will Veto Any Bill to Stop UAE Port Deal

WASHINGTON — In a rare display of his veto authority President Bush said Tuesday he will put the kibosh on any legislation that attempts to stop the purchase by a United Arab Emirates-owned firm of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which runs six major U.S. ports.

Breaking a gaping silence during the debate of the purchase by Dubai Ports World, Bush said the deal should go forward and won't jeopardize U.S. security.

Officials from the Cabinet departments that participate in the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which approved the sale last Monday, are appearing in a briefing Tuesday afternoon to defend the process by which CFIUS reviewed and approved the deal.

"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port," Bush said.

[speekinout]

A foreign power bought the rights to run 6 US ports from another foreign company. US ports are a US asset. WHAT is so hard to grasp? Dubai will manage US ports.

None of that is true. US ports are run by local port authorities. Security of the ports is the responsibility of the US Coast Guard.
Get educated. It isn't really painful.

[DJ MacWoW]

None of that is true

Bush lied?

US ports are run by local port authorities. Security of the ports is the responsibility of the US Coast Guard.

I'm not talking about security.

Just WHAT do you think Dubai bought? They bought P&O and will maintain the contracts to run the ports. BUSH SAID AS MUCH. Is he stupid too?

"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port," Bush said.

[lapsus calami]

 

Everybody's been so focused on the "6 US ports" thing that I believe that a big picture is being missed. I've been digging around on this and it looks that if the DP World buyout of P&O gets finalized, DP World gets P&O's 29 ports of operation - and that's nothing to sneeze at, at all. Sure, even if DP World were to get "run off" from our domestic 6 ports, there are still 23 other ports that are surely connected to US commerce interests, just the same.

 

I've been thinking that this media hubbub has been connected with strategies by other business interests (read: Chicoms). Though it may be a little late in the game at this point, have been theorizing that if they could garner enough pressure even up to the last minute at any and every level to somehow torpedo the deal between P&O and DP World, it could buy time for them to finally garner enough capitol cash to put in a bid that no one could ever match, thus setting the stage to (eventually) become the only mass shipping game in town on planet earth. That's a spooky thought. Though the P&O shareholders have already voted, there is still some sort of court approval pending, coming up shortly.

 

I'm not suggesting some sort of "conspiracy", am just saying not to underestimate the stubborn business acumen of the Chinese.

 

 

[logician2u]

Think outside the box!

That's easy to say when you're in a competitive industry, looking to save on labor costs or to improve a product.

When the government thinks "outside the box" it invariably leads to massive cost overruns, schedule slips, disappointing results. Been there, done that.

Risks must be weighed whenever the government lets a contract. Will the contractor perform? Are the requirements doable? Is there a fallback plan, in case the original one doesn't work out?

Understand, the government is by nature a conservative institution. When taxpayer money is committed to a project, no matter how trivial, the government likes to see it through to completion without any glitches. Minimizing risk is as important to government agencies as maximizing profit is in the business world.

Now, why am I spending time telling you about how the government works?

Because, in the case of changing control of P&O port operations at six American ports . . the new operator is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a government!

And not just any government, but one that is striving to be at the forefront in worldwide shipping and terminal operations. You think they will take any chances? Not on your life.

All the fuss and fury about this "deal" -- really a buy-out, which happens all the time in every industry -- needs to be consigned to the tin-foil heap where it rightfully belongs.

[edsheppa]

You're just not getting it. It is not a question of UAE taking chances or not, it is a question of what could happen? Are we defending in depth? Is it possible that terroist infiltrators into the company could hurt us? We should not be asking yesterday's questions in this war like the one you did.

It gives no confidence that it's really been thought through when President Bush asks why we should hold a Middle Eastern company to a different standard.

[logician2u]

The war we've started is against "terrorism" and not a country or a group of countries whose people happen to practice a religion that some here would like to ban if it were possible.

You need to get out from under your tinfoil and realize that 99% of the business decisions in the world are made on economic factors exclusively. Politics (or "national security," if you will) plays hardly any role. If it were any other way, international trade would grind to a halt.

And then where would you find those neat toys for the kids you get at Wal-Mart?

[speekinout]

if the DP World buyout of P&O gets finalized, DP World gets P&O's 29 ports of operation - and that's nothing to sneeze at, at all. Sure, even if DP World were to get "run off" from our domestic 6 ports, there are still 23 other ports that are surely connected to US commerce interests, just the same.

Exactly right - and notice that none of the other countries are complaining - that includes Australia, England, Germany, etc.

I'm not positive how the flap started, but the best information I have is that it started with some Union members in Miami, who wanted assurances related to their contracts. They didn't get everything they wanted, so they wrote a letter to Chuckie Schumer. He saw the political possibilities, and so did his fellow senator, hillary. (They have always been Union supporters). And so a flap was born.
All they needed to do was find some inflaming language - like Bush is selling our ports to Arabs. Bingo.

BTW, a big argument against your Chinese theory is that the other two major companies that P&O invited to bid are based in Hong Kong and Singapore, and both of them declined to bid. If the Chinese wanted the business, they would have bid on it.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Yep - people gotta realize that the P&O holdings are well beyond the 6 (or is now 7?) US ports, and commerce connected to the US will be flowing through those ports too. That's one thing that gets me about all the hysterics.

 

 The "flap" - yes, it's always a case of "follow the money". It's always about someone having something to lose, or something to gain, and the lengths they'll go to further their interests.

 

The Chinese theory - was thinking out loud on that one. I did look around some before posting thoughts on that theory. This sort of transaction is a big, big deal. I'm not sure if all that many people even comprehend the scale of it. BIG money, BIG assets, and an opening to dominate freight and shipping as we know it. I was looking at things from a business standpoint - when there are stakes like this up for grabs, I don't put anything past anybody, particularly the Chinese. Thing was, that there was a bidding war for P&O, and Temasek Holdings of Singapore was after P&O, but they couldn't come up with the cash - the Dubai crew was too rich for their blood in the end, with the bidding ending at an accepted 520 pence per unit of deferred stock - a premium of 10.6 per cent. to the Temasek offer of 470 pence for each unit of deferred stock. After that the P&O directors would consider no other offers unless it would meet or beat 546 pence per unit. That's the part that got me - the Chinese would know the target price that would turn things around, only if that deal with DP World would only fall through. The way I was looking at it, if this would fall through it might buy the time and breathing room for the Chinese to pull in some more markers. I've personally seen stuff happen like that before - a big transaction that was "done" for all for practical purposes, and then right up to the end *poof*, it's not, with one or both parties walking away for what ever reasons, and at times another party that had had interest diving in to cinch the deal instead. The P&O stockholders didn't go wobbly on approving the deal with DP World, so now it's up to some court - as long as they don't go wobbly, either. I've still got a wait-and-see stance on all that. There's always a chance that all this "Portgate" could be over a transaction that "could have been" or "almost was".

 

 

 

[speekinout]

The way I was looking at it, if this would fall through it might buy the time and breathing room for the Chinese to pull in some more markers.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think the Chinese engineered this flap. They couldn't have known - as most Americans didn't know - that the Dems could find language that would get us into hysteria.
Only politicians could engineer such a response.

And, of course, the Chinese would be happy if we got rid of the UAR company. They'd take the contract over cheap. (Wonder if the Stevedore's union would like that?)

[lapsus calami]

 

 

>don't think the Chinese engineered this flap

Sure, though it wouldn't be beyond them to see if they could get it to help to work to an advantage somewhere.

 

> the Chinese would be happy if we got rid of the UAR company. They'd take the contract over cheap.

You better believe it, which has had me wondering. I think there are more angles to this story than have been seriously explored. You really can't take things at face value when the business stakes and long term implications are this high. A political ploy that has undertones that have been co-opted by business interests to further an advantage towards a specific objective, or a business ploy that has been exploited for political gain? Either, or, both?? Having the US ports would certainly be lucrative, but I know that the Chinese are disappointed at falling short on sacking up P&O and all their assets. Opportunities like that come along only once in a while, and unless something unforseen were to happen to DP World or it's backers, the chances of the Chinese at having another shot at those assets any time soon are essentially nil.

 

>Wonder if the Stevedore's union would like that?

Probably burning up the phone lines to their attorneys and in-pocket politicians as we post.........

Heh heh.