Dubai company describes plans to sell U.S. port operations

San Diego Union (AP) ^ | 3-15-06 | Ted Bridis

[clawrence3]

WASHINGTON – A Dubai-owned company said Wednesday it plans to sell all its U.S. port operations within four to six months to an unrelated American buyer and laid out new details about how it plans to pursue the sale under pressure from Congress. DP World said that until the sale is finalized, its U.S. businesses will be operated independently.

[inquest]

I hope the new terminal operators will be required to take the same security precautions that DPW was willing to take.

Whatever might you be referring to? According to WhiteHouse.gov (2nd link down posted at #54):

MYTH: The Bush Administration is outsourcing the security of our ports to a company owned by the Government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

FACT: The United States government is in charge of U.S. port security. We will never outsource the security of our ports. The U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are in charge of security of our ports.

I hope you're not suggesting that the administration is giving us false or misleading information here.

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

PING PONG

[clawrence3]

Did you read my post above about $100 million in promised radiation detectors?!

[Cboldt]

Questions about the divestiture intensified during the weekend, when Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said DP World could be permitted to operate and manage some U.S. ports if no suitable American buyer were found and if the Bush administration determined there were no security risks.

But Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said during the weekend, "the deal is over" and said the company's intent "looks like in every respect a total divestiture."

An interesting difference of "opinion" there. Heheheh. Frist trying to straddle the fence with some exceptionally strong illogic.

[La Enchiladita]

Sullivan and Cromwell LLP will act as legal advisor.

How do you know that? I didn't see that in this article.

[clawrence3]

It was on the radio this morning, which is why I am looking for the full press release : )

[P-40]

Did anyone else hear on Rush that the Dubai company already holds terminal rights at one(?) port -- Miami, maybe?


I posted a link to that story a couple of times but can't find the link at the moment. But yes, they already do business here.

[Mike Darancette]

Whatever might you be referring to?

From the WSJ:

The four-page offer, titled "Proposed Solution to the DP World Issue," promised to give the Department of Homeland Security nearly complete say over the company's U.S. corporate affairs and to install "state-of-the-art radiation-detection and gamma-ray inspection devices" at company expense at all current and future DP World-managed ports overseas. Experts estimate that step alone could have cost DP World as much as $100 million, though some ports where DP World operates already have some radiation-detection devices.
---------
There would at least have been many foreign ports the we had to worry less about.

[Cboldt]

I hope we are not thinking about kicking all of them out now too.

See S. 2410. (Click on 24 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS), S.2400, and Hillary! Clinton's postion expressed as follows:

BY KENNETH R. BAZINET, JAMES GORDON MEEK and MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

The deal may also have other fallout. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she was still intent on banning foreign governments from running U.S. ports, though relationships with countries like UAE are "oftentimes in America's best interest."

Some critics of the furor have said the death of DP World's deal could lead Dubai to be less helpful in the war on terror. Clinton conceded, "There are legitimate concerns, I'm not going to deny that."

Asked if her proposed policy could backfire, she shrugged.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/398519p-337656c.html

[clawrence3]

"We" being the rational people in America, not Hillary ; )

[TAdams8591]

Marking.

[La Enchiladita]

Well... you know the unspoken rules around here, or should I say "etiquette."

So.. you'd better dig it up! ;^]

[untrained skeptic]

I think that they'd be within their rights to shut down the terminals and take this to civil court and demand hundreds of millions if not more in damages.

We're a nation of laws. We should act like it.

[Freedom is eternally right]

Location:
Djibouti
Djibouti

Ports of Presence:
USA - Los Angeles, USA - Miami, USA - Mobile, USA - New Jersey, USA - New London, USA - New Orleans, USA - New York & New Jersey, Yemen - Aden, Yemen - Hodeidah
http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/com/Inchcape-Shipping-Services-and-Cie-Djibouti-SA-INC007.html

[oceanview]

let them. the port authorities can lease those terminals to someone else in about 15 minutes.

[Freedom is eternally right]

Here is the article about the company:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1172220,00.html

[oceanview]

given that only 5-7% of the cargo is inspected, there is an implicit security interdependency with the terminal operator - their practices, etc. you cannot escape that.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for a intellegient description of who and how terminal operations are ran, relative to container operations. I and a few others have in essence worded similiar comments in the endless posts of lately on this subject.
Sadly some of our Freepers for whatever reason still seem to not understand. I will just say I hope as time goes by more folks shall gain a better understanding of the underlining issues. These dialogs often go off on wild tangents that most probably are confusing some. They cannot for instance diffrentiate between what the Stevadores and truckers do, verse how the Port Authority operations (Coast Gaurd & US Customs) along with the Port Authority security forces, are responsible for the security end, container inspections etc.. I'll leave it go at that.
One can get rather weary after a while trying to explain the basics.

[oceanview]

the truth is, when you look at the CFIUS record - almost 0% are "stopped".

[maryz]

Thanks!