Posted on 02/28/2006 3:34:51 PM PST by Carl/NewsMax
News reports over the last two weeks have repeatedly claimed that a Dubai company was taking control of six major U.S. ports as part of a deal approved by the Bush administration.
But according to one port security expert, Dubai Ports World will run just a tiny fraction of the terminals at the U.S. ports involved if the deal goes through.
Defending the transaction on MSNBC's "Scarborough Company" Monday night, Kim Petersen, president of Seasecure, noted: "There are 300 terminals at those ports. Dubai Ports World is going to handle nine of them."
SeaSecure is the largest provider of maritime security in America.
That's a far cry from the impression left by the press, which reported over 50 times in the last two weeks that DPW would be "taking control of six major U.S. ports," according to a Nexis Lexis search.
Variations on the same phrase likely appeared in hundreds of additional reports.
Only in the American press does a 3 percent share of operations constitute "taking control."
And you might give some passing consideration to this article as well, which isn't exactly ancient history, and isn't exactly unique in its perspective:
_____________________________________________________
An Unlikely Criminal Crossroads
12/5/05
"From Egypt to Afghanistan, when terrorists and gangsters need a place to meet, to relax, maybe to invest, they head to Dubai, a bustling city-state on the Persian Gulf. The Middle East's unquestioned financial capital, Dubai is the showcase of the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich federation of sheikdoms. Forty years ago, Dubai was a backwater; today, it hosts dozens of banks and one of the world's busiest ports; its free-trade zones are crammed with thousands of companies. Construction is everywhere--skyscrapers, malls, hotels, and, soon, the world's tallest building."
"But Dubai also serves as the region's criminal crossroads, a hub for smuggling, money laundering, and underground banking. There are Russian and Indian mobsters, Iranian arms traffickers, and Arab jihadists. Funds for the 9/11 hijackers and African embassy bombers were transferred through the city. It was the heart of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's black market in nuclear technology and other proliferation cases."
"Half of all applications to buy U.S. military equipment from Dubai are from bogus front companies, officials say. "Iran," adds one U.S. official, "is building a bomb through Dubai." Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents thwarted the shipment of 3,000 U.S. military night-vision goggles by an Iranian pair based in Dubai. Moving goods undetected is not hard. Dhows--rickety wooden boats that have plowed the Arabian Sea for centuries--move along the city center, uninspected, down the aptly named Smuggler's Creek."
"U.A.E. rulers have taken terrorism seriously since 9/11, but Washington has a half-dozen extradition requests that they refuse to honor. The list includes people accused of rape, murder, and arms trafficking, and the last fugitive of the BCCI banking scandal. The country has put money laundering controls on the books but has made few cases. Interior Minister Sheik Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan told U.S. News the U.A.E. has made great strides in cracking down, but he insists that the real problems lie elsewhere. "We are a neutral country, like Switzerland," he says. "Give us the evidence, and we will do something about it. Don't blame others." Not everyone agrees. "All roads lead to Dubai," says former treasury agent John Cassara, author of Hide and Seek, a forthcoming book on terrorism finance. Cassara tried explaining U.S. concerns about Dubai to a local businessman but got only a puzzled look: "Mr. John, money laundering? But that's what we do."
-David E. Kaplan
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051205/5terror.b1.htm
This whole thing started because of some lawsuit with P&O because a tugboat captain is going to lose some money...has nothing to do with the UAE people.
Shared responsibility? With THIS country??:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060223-123441-8908r.htm
BTW, like Hamas, they do not recognize Israel's right to exist....
The low ratings for our president reflects the general frustration over this deal. I really do not understand this, and those trying to defend this deal use a lot of sophistry and longwindedness to try to explain away this deal. Debbie Schussel gets it right:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/02/somethings_rott.html
I guess we're just doomed then... and the terrorists won! Let's make $$$ in the meantime until we're all blown to kingdom come..
By the way, do you have a link to that UAE website you referenced? It would be interesting to contrast it with the State Department's view.
Through two lawsuits in London and Miami, and a flurry of lobbying in Washington since late January, Eller & Co., of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., has become an obstacle for Dubai Ports World's $6.8 billion takeover bid of P&O of London.
Eller's biggest breakthrough, though, has been in helping to stir consternation in Washington, and especially within Congress, about a deal that lawmakers from both parties portray as a potential threat to U.S. national security. The uproar during the last two weeks sparked a flurry of threatened legislation to block the deal and caused Dubai-owned DP World to request that the Bush administration begin a 45-day security review of the transaction.
P&O's proposed takeover has been in the works since late last year, but received no attention on Capitol Hill until Eller lobbyists began to brief key lawmakers in both the House and Senate, including Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of N.Y. He has since led the charge against the deal, along with other prominent Democrats such as Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey. All three represent the Port of New York, which would be covered by the deal.
Yes, I do since I googled UAE.
http://www.uaeinteract.com/government/political_system.asp#B
Thanks! Every time I google UAE these days, I get about a half-million articles on the port deal. I have yet to figure out a truly effective way to slip past the press-room frenzy and get to the background information.
If you will read the Port of Houston statement that Sally's Concerns posted, you'll see why the variance among different articles on the number of ports incolved, 6 or 21.
Luckily, that was the very first document I found when I went to reference this last week, because I have worked with the Port of Houston often in the past.
The SIX ports being bandied about - New York, New Jersey, Philly, Baltimore, Miami and NOLA - are talked about the most because ... P&O LEASES terminals at these ports. When they LEASE a terminal, they manage their own interests and activities WITHIN that ONE leased terminal, just like any other lessee does.
That means they handle paperwork, have a small staff, do management duties, for things such as a storage yard they might have or a crane that they might build themselves to ENHANCE their LEASEHOLD, or a railyard connection that might be at that terminal, or other intermodal transportation.
If you look at the P&O list, you'll see that they have leases currently on TWO container terminals, at Port Newark and Port Jersey City, within the authority of the Port of New York and Port of New Jersey, a two-state partnership. One is joint venture, partnered with Maersk on a 30-year lease. Most of this RoRo cargo, imported cars.
On those two leases, P&O, and soon DPW/America, is the OPERATOR of those individual TERMINALS.
Separately, but also in the NY port area, the City of NYC contracts with P&O to provide management and stevedoring services for the New York Cruise Terminal, under a 20-year LEASE. Among their duties, they host Fleet Week for the US Navy.
In Philadelphia/Camden, P&O has a joint venture with the Delaware River Stevedores for the Tioga Marine Terminal. DRS operates the terminal, which mainly deals in Chilean fruit. DRS has the 10-year lease - P&O, as noted, is just the partner with the Americans who are in charge.
Also in Philly, the Philadelphia Cruise Terminal (formerly the Navy Yard) is served by the DRS partnership with baggage handling and storing services. DRS also contracts its services at the Del Monte Fruit Terminal, providing labor and equipment, and at terminals in the Port of Wilmington.
The largest P&O operations in the US are at the Port of Baltimore, where they operate two terminals on six-year leases. These are the Seagirt Marine Terminal and the Dundalk Marine Terminal. They provide terminal management and stevedoring services, as well as maintenance and repair of containers and chassis.
Additionally, P&O contracts directly with shipping lines for various cargo handling services in the harbor at Baltimore.
In Miami, P&O is half owner of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, which operates the only multi-user container facility at the port. P&O also has contracts for stevedoring and other services at other terminals within the port.
P&O has been an integral part of the Port of New Orleans for decades, providing comprehensive terminal operating and stevedoring services, including a full complement of top-end handling equipment and expansive storage warehousing facilities. They operate leases at the Nashville Avenue B and C Container Terminals, as well as the Napoleon Avenue Container terminal.
All right. The scorecard tally from those 6 ports is:
.2 total terminals in NYC/NJ leased - half each of two, plus all of another
.1 total terminal in Philly - half each of two
.2 total terminals in Baltimore - all of each
.1/2 (0.5) a terminal in Miami
.3 total terminals in New Orleans
The grand total is management of 8.5 TERMINALS in those 6 ports. The earlier article stated that there are 300 terminals in those 6 ports alone. Thus, we're talking about 8.5 terminals out of 300.
Those are ALL the "port management/terminal management" activities in which P&O and soon DPW/America will be involved.
In the other 15 ports listed on the P&O site, which evidently add up to the "21 ports" figure some have quoted, P&O - DPW/America, if you will, is just another contractor of various handling services in selected terminals at those ports.
In Houston, for example, they operate these services in just two terminals - Barbours Cut and just 4 wharves at the City Docks Turnin Basin Terminal. They don't lease any TERMINALS and therefore, do not provide any management services for any TERMINALS.
While I don't have a total number for how many terminals there are in the ports of Houston (150, I know that one), Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Port Arthur, Freeport, Galveston, TX; Lake Charles, Baton Rouge, LA; Gulfport, MS; Norfolk, VA, and environs; Wilmington, DE; Davisville, RI; Boston, MA; and Portland, ME, I can be assured it is more than the 300 in the original six ports detailed.
They have NO leases and NO port management contracts for ANY of those TERMINALS in those ports.
Now do you see the difference between the main 6 "ports" and the total 21 "ports"?
I agree, wholeheartedly.
Facts? Which facts? There are so many conflicting reports at this point that I am just taking the side of the folks who are suspicious of the UAE and the whole deal, by default. It seems to be the most reasonable position for someone who gives a damn about security. I have no obligation to help the Bush administration save face on this. Furthermore, I have no vested interest in doing so. This whole ordeal has clearly demonstrated (like no other situation before it) that there are people who will support literally any position Bush takes, regardless of the details...and that is a scary proposition when you get right down to it. I suspect that when the illegal alien amnesty deal comes down from on high, FR will once again be divided between those who support common sense and principles and those who support a man. Putting your faith in men (particularly politicians) is a foolish proposition.
The Chinese Government's company, China Ocean Shipping, was able to convince folks that they were not a security risk, even after their ships were involved in smuggling weapons into the US.
COSCO, through a lobbying company, was able to get an exemption from a US law which "discriminate" against shipping companies owned by foreign governments.
Bill Clinton was able to guarantee a loan for COSCO to build ships in Mobile, AL
Bill Clinton was able to convince folks that it was in our "national interest" to ensure funding for the nuclear plant that powers the shipyards near Shanghai which build Red Chinese warships.
you didn't quite get my meaning...not saying companies won't ship here but if we start scrutinizing every business that might affect us in a negative way we might start seeing lots of investment dollars leave. Let's take banking for one. Can you see somebody getting worked up about your money being mixed with Iran's money. Or some company that does business with Iran. What about petro-chemical. Should we push Citgo out since Chavez is some moron potentate? That was my point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.