Port Problems Said To Dwarf New Fears

Washington Post ^ | Febuary 24, 2006 | Paul Blustein and Walter Pincus

[johnmecainrino]

Shifting ownership from Britain's P&O to Dubai Ports World would not affect those arrangements at the terminals in question, company officials said. Consider, for example, the situation at the Philadelphia port, where Dubai Ports World would obtain 50 percent control over a local outfit that runs one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. Robert Palaima, who runs the local company, said yesterday that he hires guards from a union that provides security officers and police guards under a security plan approved by the Coast Guard, which carried out a full-day inspection this week. Cargo loading and unloading is done by work crews supplied by the International Longshoremen's Association, which Palaima described as "the most patriotic of unions." And there would be no changes in the workforce even if the Dubai Ports World takeover goes through, he said, adding: "I am sick and tired of all this uproar. We're patriots and nothing will change."

[johnmecainrino]

When I hear Barbara Boxer on Joe Scarborough talking about Bush family ties and no one defending Bush it is remarkable.

But our great friend Joe would never mention to her that the deal consists of 30 terminals in 18 countries and out of the 6.8 billion the u.s part is less than a quater. Nor would Joe ever mention that this process was mandated by congress to take place at the bueracratic level well below the president.

Bush has been called out for committing treason for his family's connections to the uae because of a business deal between two competing companies.

All this because of a long term bidding war between singapore and the uae to acquire 30 terminals in 18 countries.

In the UK no one is saying Blair committed treason.

As part of this deal UAE will get leases of terminals at two ports there with I'm sure far less restrictions. And UK was just hit by terrorists in July.

The prime minister of australia isn't being called a traitor when this company has had terminal leases there for yeras.

[xJones]

Good points, and to have a worthwhile discussion it's necessary to have the rationals of both sides presented without ripping each other to shreds over it.

[antaresequity]

one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority

I have been trying for the last two days to point this out to people and they just wont listen...

P&O has a total of 24 berths across the 5 ports in question...the total berth capacity for the 5 ports in question is over 120...Further...that is just the container terminals...ports like Baltimore are considered secondary container ports...Baltimore is more of a bulk transfer port than a container port.

People are acting like UAE is siezing control of the entire port operations in these cities...it is so ridiculous...

Not to mention the Sauds are already operating stevedore services in ports from Newark to Texas...

[onyx]

You continue to do a most excellent job.

Thank you for your posts and the articles you have posted.

[Junior_G]

People are acting like UAE is siezing control of the entire port operations in these cities...it is so ridiculous...

The people that oppose the ports deal aren't concerned with the number of terminals UAE would operate, they are concerned that they will operate any at all. So I don't think it really has any bearing on the argument whether UAE will be controlling one terminal in Philly or eight.

[antaresequity]

OK...then lets follow 'their' logic to its conclusion...

We now have and had for many years, the Sauds doing exactly what DWP will do via its P&O acquisition...

If the P&O-DWP deal should be stopped...because we cant have Arabs 'running' ports...can we then logically conclude that we should terminate all port lease agreements with any company that is tied to Arabs?...are these folks saying that we should not only deny the P&O-DWP lease transfers...but also kick out the Sauds who run stevedore work across a spectrum of 30 ports from Newark to Texas?...

Do 'these' people even stop and think for a moment how disastrous that would be to our national security? Do they even think for a moment what the ramifications would be in regard to our relations with moderate Arabs would be?

[seastay]

Many would like to hear more of the other side of a globalists outsourcing debate in a rational manner, such as what are the advantages to the average middle class citizen if foreign governments owns and operates infrastructure on the US soil? Do we receive more jobs, do we get to invest in more stock in the companies involved in outsourcing deals, will it lower prices for the consumer in the long run? These are things that the average person cares about above and beyond the rhetoric.

While the explanation we hear is that we don’t want to offend such a government that aids us on the war on terror. But it would seem the only reason we are waging a war on terror is to prevent foreign governments from taking control of US infrastructure in the first place! So this whole line of reasoning appears circular and irrational.

A rational explanation seems to be lacking. Until the port deal is explained to the public they will not buy any of this. Given the house elections are coming up and the only thing the republicans have scored well on with the public is security (even spending the democrats are viewed more favorable) this whole thing is a debacle. If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasn’t already.

[Junior_G]

We now have and had for many years, the Sauds doing exactly what DWP will do via its P&O acquisition...

Most people weren't aware of this until now. I think having the ports operated by state-owned foreign entities is ridiculous. The fact that so many people see this as normal and good is just a sad result of globalism. Yes, I do think ports should be brought back under our own control. No, I do not think the plug should be pulled immediately and overnight, leaving all of our ports in disarray, obviously. And if our good relations with other countries are dependent on those countries running our ports, then something is seriously wrong with those relationships.

[antaresequity]

Finally a voice of reason responds to the facts...

God bless you...

Despite what some may think...I am neutral on this deal...

Thank you for your reasoned response...

[xJones]

Your points are well stated and without name-calling, which is a minor miracle for this subject.:)

Seriously, this is how a real discussion should be done. IMHO, your comments cut closer to home than "any trust Bush on this" arguments I've read so far. I'll watch and keep reading.

Best regards

[syriacus]

I'm glad to see the Chinese government is being given a run for the money by the UAE.

A Singapore-China alliance was going to buy P&O, which would have given the alliance 90 % control over British ports.

The Chinese already run terminals in the US.

COSCO - (China Ocean Shipping - owned by the Chinese government) got special treatment from the Clintons -- a 138,000,000 loan to build ships in Alabama, easing of rules, etc.

[PrinceOfCups]

Since 2001, Washington has arranged for customs officials to work in 42 foreign ports with rights to inspect containers before they head for U.S. shores; Dubai was the first in its region

This little, albeit rich, UAE emirate has cooperated fully with USA guidelines for outbound container shipping; there are many multi-million dollar outsourcing projects on the table for Western countries right now to bring up there infrastructure security to the soon-to-be-released Homeland Security container inspection standards. Dubai is out-front on every security compliance matter. And they are putting big bucks on the table for everyone to see.

[CWOJackson]

I believe they were the first nation to support these standards.

[G.Mason]

"If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasn’t already."

About as much as the VP Cheney's Texas field massacre.

I think a more logical thought is that the president treats the press with the contempt they deserve, tosses in some food to their "fish bowl" and lets them go into a frenzy feeding on it.

In the meanwhile (in this particular case) the Dims and Rino's, along with the MSM, started frothing at the mouth.

As blurring as the MSM and others are trying to keep it, it is becoming clear that this DP World hysteria has little basis in fact.

"Hurt the Party badly"? What ... your not going?

[ruiner]

Do you feel the same way about foreign airlines operating at US airport terminals?

[Kimberly GG]

"Bush has been called out for committing treason......."


Just another notch in the belt of the left's IMPEACHMENT JIHAD.

[snowsislander]

From a bit deeper down in the article:

Administration officials have asserted in recent days that security at U.S. ports is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the terminal operators responsible for little more than transferring containers from ships to railroad cars and trucks.

That overstates the role government agencies play. "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present," said Carl Bentzel, a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security.

What interests me is the argument that "it just doesn't matter what nation is an operator in our ports." I would assume that the extension of that argument then would be that it is just jim-dandy if North Korea, Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah suddenly started buying their way into our ports also?

[CobaltBlue]

Do you feel the same way about foreign airlines operating at US airport terminals?

False analogy. Foreign airlines do not "operate at" US airport terminals.

To be an analgous equivalent, we would have to allow Dubai to run air cargo operations into and out of New York, New Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, and two military bases in Texas.

In point of fact, we don't allow this. For very good reasons.

The fact that we've head our head up our rear ends for years is NOT a justification for leaving it there.

[redgolum]

A rational explanation seems to be lacking. Until the port deal is explained to the public they will not buy any of this. Given the house elections are coming up and the only thing the republicans have scored well on with the public is security (even spending the democrats are viewed more favorable) this whole thing is a debacle. If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasn’t already.

Very good point. This is a very bad move politically, as it gives the Dems a chance to look "tough" on security. The fact that Bush has threatened to find his veto pen over this also raises a lot more eyebrows. The feeling seems to be that the President is not really that concerned about security. I don't agree with that, but that is the feeling out here in the trenches.

[Almondjoy]

How many times will you have to be shouted down before you stop with the facts.

Don't you know everyone is against the President on this one?

Fear will win over Facts everytime. Just ask the Democrats... that's how us Republicans want the Presidency in the first place remember?

[Almondjoy]

Actually you also have a false analogy. Since security is run by the Coast Guard(or overseen by them) then it would be exactly like TSA.

Nothing would change except that essentiaaly they would be the one's "managing" the gate.. except wait.. it's run by a union.. so not a single employee would change.

Interesting.

[arasina]

Do you feel the same way about foreign airlines operating at US airport terminals?

Impressively concise way of stirring the thought processes. Excellent! (I haven't scrolled further down the thread to see if it was effective but I like the simple way you chose to express a complicated idea.)

[norraad]

The Coast Guard comes & goes like a substitute teacher looking in on a study hall.

We all know how effective that is.

[Almondjoy]

What's your point? That security will be the same whether this deal goes through or not?

The security will be just as horrible?

So what's the problem with the deal then? Are you feeding off of paranoia?

[CWOJackson]

"The Coast Guard comes & goes like a substitute teacher looking in on a study hall."

And you base that tidbit on what real knowledge?

[norraad]

Hoping the "deal" will bring much needed attention to upgrading every aspect of security in general.

W/o this, no hope of detailed focus on this part of the problem.

I see alot of security people just going through the motions.

[norraad]

Last year an asphalt tanker was allowed to attempt a docking during a lunar low tide.

Even a dingy captain would wait 4 hours for a few feet clearance, but, noooooooo, that would cost a few dollars more in labor & fees.

So they we're allowed to proceed, they hit bottom & spilled "25,000" gallons.

Us dingy captains who actually live & work along the river calculated from the list & tonnage of the ship it was more like 250,000 gallons.

We told the CG who were very mad at us for even having the nerve to talk to them.

Yet, the next day they "revised" the spill estimate to our figures, go figure.

[CWOJackson]

Well you got something right...dingy captains. There's no need to estimate anything other then for quick information since accurate measurements can be made when time permits. The first concern in a pollution incident is containment of the product, not worrying about other issues not time sensitive.

[norraad]

Thank you for totally missing the point.

[CWOJackson]

Do you mean your substitute teacher point? I didn't miss it at all.

[norraad]

We weren't protected from a disaster based on simple greed, what hope do we have from perils far more sinister?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

No, You are the one who's missed the point.

If Port Security has been as inadequate as you say, Our ports would have been hit by now and countless cities would have had terrorist bombings. The actual record speaks volumes for what's real, as well as blows huge holes in your Hyper-reactionist theories.

[CWOJackson]

And I guess the Coast Guard didn't oversee the cleanup, that they didn't investigate and the Coast Guard didn't fine the owners?

Or would you prefer they simply have blown them out of the water before hand?

[TXBSAFH]

I will grant you the UAE has help us in the WOT. But I am most uneasy about letting any company owned and controlled by a muslim government that level of control and access (on all levels, security, operations, etc.) to any major US port. The more I read about it, both pro and con, the more uneasy I get. I think this is just a unnecessary risk give the situation these days and the level of port security that we have now. A level I believe is woefully lacking. Maybe if it was substancially beefed up I would reconsider, but as of now I am against this to the nth degree.

Also, another point in this whole mess, the complete and utter lack of brains in the handling of this by the administration. The one area Republican could always count on to trump the rats, national security. Now they are seen by many I know to not care about that anymore. They gave teh rats a club to beat them with. And alienated and angered many of their supporters. Thanks George.

[norraad]

Once again, point missers all, what we have here is Failure to communicate.

A lunar low tide means the water is shallower than normal, like so many people I know.

Certain folks in cahoots with other folks were so horny to bring a low rider into port that they gambled our river cleanliness for a few shillings.

You can only imagine what price the rest will bring.

[CWOJackson]

Of course, we should have blown them out of the water before they did anything.

[norraad]

What's wrong with you, young man?

Calm down,

how about,

" you know, your asphalt scow is drawing 35ft & we have at best 34ft right now, but if we wait a few hours the tide will give us a few more feet."

Wouldn't that be a better procedure?

[CWOJackson]

I couldn't be any more calm...I don't jump into each hysteria conga line that comes along. But please feel free to thrown your arms in the air, run in circles and scream shrilly.

[norraad]

The actual record speaks volumes for what's real,

In terms of actual record & speaking volumes, please refer to what our founding fathers said about foreign entanglements.

Meanwhile, I'll be trying to slow down the spinning of their graves.

[norraad]

That's not what I'm doing dude.

I'm "calmly" shedding light on important aspects of the "problem".

[CWOJackson]

LOL! Hardly.

[norraad]

Your the one talking about blowing people out of the water.

[CWOJackson]

You're the one who wants something done to the vessel before the fact, not me.

[Howlin]

one terminal out of eight leased from the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority

Even more amazing, Fox said today that in NYC it's TWO (2) terminals out of 182! One hundred and eighty-two!

[norraad]

I'm done with you, put your head back in the sand with the other big birds.

[discostu]

Avoiding foreign entanglements is no longer possible in the real world. Back when national capitals were days, weeks or even months away from each other countries could avoid talking to each other and go about their business privately and quietly. Now that no part of the civilized world is more than 24 hours from any other part that's not an option. The planet became much smaller in the 20th century and thanks to that all nations are entangled with all other nations whether they want to be or not.

[CWOJackson]

LOL! And put yours back where you've been keeping it. I bet that keeps your ears warm as well.

[Howlin]

The people that oppose the ports deal aren't concerned with the number of terminals UAE would operate, they are concerned that they will operate any at all.

Can you link any posts you've made about the UAE's container program since December 13, 2004?

Since you're all torqued out about how bad it would be to have these people in OUR ports -- under OUR security -- surely you were up in arms and posting thread after thread for the last 15 months about the UAE's work in the OWN port, right?

Flashback - December 13, 2004: Dubai, U.A.E., Joins U.S. Container Security Initiative (State Dept.)
US Department of State ^ | December 13. 2004

Posted on 02/21/2006 5:43:48 PM EST by new yorker 77

Becomes first Mideast port to participate in U.S. program

The United Arab Emirates has joined the U.S. Container Security Initiative (CSI) to help secure maritime cargo shipments against the threat of terrorism.

In a December 12 news release, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) said the agreement will enable all cargo destined for the United States through the port of Dubai to be prescreened.

CBP will station a small team of officers at Dubai ports to identify sea containers destined for the United States; Dubai customs officials will be responsible for screening containers identified as potential terrorist risks, the U.S. agency said.

Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation is the sixth-largest port operator in the world and the first in the Middle East to join the CSI, according to the news release.

To date, governments representing 21 countries around the world have signed up to the CSI program, launched by the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Following is the text of the news release:

(begin text)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security

First Middle Eastern Port Formally Commits to Target, Pre-Screen and Secure Cargo Destined for the U.S.

12/12/2004

Dubai, UAE -- Today Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation joined the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Container Security Initiative [CSI] making it the first Middle Eastern port to participate. CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman of the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, signed a declaration of principles to acknowledge the agreement that will enable all cargo destined for the U.S. through the port of Dubai to be targeted and pre-screened.

"The threat of terrorism is real and, it's a global threat. Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East," said Commissioner Bonner.

CBP will deploy a small team of officers to the port of Dubai, the 6th largest port operator in the world whose mission will be to target sea containers destined for the United States. Dubai Customs officials, working with CBP officers, will be responsible for screening any containers identified as a potential terrorist threat.

The primary purpose of CSI is to help protect the global trading system and the trade routes between CSI ports and the United States. By collaborating with foreign customs administrations, CBP is working towards a safer, more secure world trading system.

Under CSI, CBP has entered into bi-lateral partnerships with other governments to identify high-risk cargo containers and to pre-screen them before they are loaded on vessels destined for the United States. Today, governments representing 21 countries have signed up to implement CSI.

"I congratulate the Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation on this historic event. They are now partnering with the United States and are a leader in protecting the global trading system," said Ambassador to the UAE [United Arab Emirates] Michele Sison.

CSI did not exist before 9/ll. It was proposed by Commissioner Bonner and launched in January 2002. CSI has been accepted globally as a bold and revolutionary initiative to secure maritime cargo shipments against the terrorist threat. This initiative will continue to expand to strategic locations around the world.

The World Customs Organization (WCO), the European Union (EU), and the G8 [Group of Eight major industrialized economies] support CSI expansion and have adopted resolutions implementing CSI security measures introduced at ports throughout the world.

The 32 operational ports in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America include: Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver, Canada; Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Le Havre, France; Bremerhaven and Hamburg, Germany; Antwerp and Zeebrugge, Belgium; Singapore; Yokohama, Tokyo, Nagoya, and Kobe, Japan; Hong Kong; Goteborg, Sweden; Felixstowe, Liverpool, Southampton, Thamesport, and Tilbury, United Kingdom; Genoa, La Spezia, Naples, and Gioia Tauro, Italy; Busan, Korea; Durban, South Africa; Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia; Piraeus, Greece; Algeciras, Spain; and Laem Chabang, Thailand.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the protection of our nation's borders. CBP unified Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture Inspectors and the Border Patrol into one border agency for the United States.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

You are so enraged now that I'm certain you've voiced concern before.

Got any links to your rage and/or suspicion before this week?

[Howlin]

Didn't Diane Feinstein and her husband have something to do with those COSCO ports?

[Junior_G]

You are so enraged now that I'm certain you've voiced concern before.

Got any links to your rage and/or suspicion before this week?

Hmmm...poster is enraged this week, therefore it follows that poster was enraged even before learning about the issue. I'm not sure I agree with that reasoning. Like almost everyone else debating this issue, I had not heard about it until this week. Does that satisfy your question as to why I haven't been posting about it until now?