[vmarks]

I haven't weighed in yet, but I've been asked my opinion.

There are a few things worth paying attention to here:

1) The UAE, British, Hong Kong, or any other country who has a company that 'runs' a port does simply one thing: take the shipping containers from ship to dock. That's it. That's all.

2) Security will still be the responsibility of Customs and the Coast Guard.

3) Federalizing a business function tends to run it into disfunction and debt. What government-run business runs profitably and effectively?

4) The UAE are some of our best friends in what is otherwise a dangerous region of the world. The UAE lets us dock there, lets us maintain an airfield there, and right on the other side of them is Iran. I'm glad knowing we have such local access should Iran put action behind their current rhetoric.

5) When has the UAE government, in recent years, been in the aid of terrorists? They aren't state sponsors of terrorism the way Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq-under-Hussein, or Iran are. No one buys something to destroy it when they can destroy it for free. I need some proof that they're actively grooming or supporting terrorists in order to consider the state a terrorism risk. (should we ban business with California because that's where John Walker Lindh came from? No.)

6) One of the ways we overcome tyranny is by spreading, encouraging, and engaging in freedom. Capitalism is economic freedom, where two willing partners exchange an item or service for currency- one side values the item more than the currency they possess, the other party values the currency more than the item or service they possess. Doing this deal furthers their affinity for us. Face it: economic self-interest is a powerful motivator, and an honest one. Of course, as one of those parties, we have the ability to decide we would rather not participate in capitalism with UAE, but that's hypocritical and stands to diminish our relationship abroad.

Now, there is an objection I can find to the UAE, lest you think I'm their biggest cheerleader:
The UAE funded the Zayed Center. The Zayed Center was a center of xenophobia, conspiracy theories, and encouragement for terrorism. It is now closed thanks to international exposure. I'd like to be sure that the UAE does not currently fund other centers with similar beliefs: Freedom of speech is fine and well, but objectionable speech does not have to be funded by governments and should not be funded by those we do business with.

EDIT: second objection to the UAE: They fund HAMAS.Not surprising given the rhetoric of the Zayed Center.

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support ... that contributed more to consolidating our people’s resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation“.

The HAMAS statement continued: ”the sisterly UAE had ... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF ... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies.“ Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: ”One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by itai195

The amount of sheer stupidity this port deal is bringing out from all quarters is utterly mind-boggling. DP World would get to hire American union labor and compete to unload cargo at six U.S. ports, OMG OMG. It doesn't run, control, own, etc any port, it's just one of several companies at each port that competes for stevedore operations.

I agree. My only complaint was the lack of substantive information on the matter and the misinformation in general. I also don't appreciate yet again how the current administration has handled PR. When I get this feeling in my stomache, it gives me pause for thought.

Interesting that this deal is bringing out so much protectionist sentiment when, while many of you apparently weren't looking, 20% of U.S. industrial assets were purchased by foreign investors over the last couple of decades. Apparently many of you additionally failed to notice that billions of dollars worth of our national debt is owned by foreigners. This is what open markets, free trade, and globalization are all about. Economic cooperation is perhaps the best way to bring people together peacefully.

While I agree in part that economic cooperation will bring the "haves" together, this often leaves the "have-nots" behind. So when you say "people", I'm skeptical. I have many sociological experiments we call history to use in making this claim with confidence. The US enjoys a comparably low dichotomy. Power corrupts. Combined power can corrupt the collective. I often wish I could concern myself with 20% of U.S. industrial assets sold to foreign investors, and the billions of dollars worth of our national debt under foreign ownership, but I also have to be a communications expert, a father, a son, brother, husband, softball coach, musician, and fellow poster. While you seem rather cocky in your education on the details of globalization, it seems you forgot to consider some of the implications. What do I know, maybe you're busy too.

Apparently a lot of Republicans who didn't care about the issue of shoddy port security during the 2004 election also really care now.

In your fair assessment of this issue you've forgotten to include the irony of the Democrat jumping on racial profiling like it was free beer.

or Monique.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I haven't weighed in yet, but I've been asked my opinion.

There are a few things worth paying attention to here:

1) The UAE, British, Hong Kong, or any other country who has a company that 'runs' a port does simply one thing: take the shipping containers from ship to dock. That's it. That's all.

2) Security will still be the responsibility of Customs and the Coast Guard.

3) Federalizing a business function tends to run it into disfunction and debt. What government-run business runs profitably and effectively?

4) The UAE are some of our best friends in what is otherwise a dangerous region of the world. The UAE lets us dock there, lets us maintain an airfield there, and right on the other side of them is Iran. I'm glad knowing we have such local access should Iran put action behind their current rhetoric.

5) When has the UAE government, in recent years, been in the aid of terrorists? They aren't state sponsors of terrorism the way Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq-under-Hussein, or Iran are. No one buys something to destroy it when they can destroy it for free. I need some proof that they're actively grooming or supporting terrorists in order to consider the state a terrorism risk. (should we ban business with California because that's where John Walker Lindh came from? No.)

6) One of the ways we overcome tyranny is by spreading, encouraging, and engaging in freedom. Capitalism is economic freedom, where two willing partners exchange an item or service for currency- one side values the item more than the currency they possess, the other party values the currency more than the item or service they possess. Doing this deal furthers their affinity for us. Face it: economic self-interest is a powerful motivator, and an honest one. Of course, as one of those parties, we have the ability to decide we would rather not participate in capitalism with UAE, but that's hypocritical and stands to diminish our relationship abroad.

Now, there is an objection I can find to the UAE, lest you think I'm their biggest cheerleader:
The UAE funded the Zayed Center. The Zayed Center was a center of xenophobia, conspiracy theories, and encouragement for terrorism. It is now closed thanks to international exposure. I'd like to be sure that the UAE does not currently fund other centers with similar beliefs: Freedom of speech is fine and well, but objectionable speech does not have to be funded by governments and should not be funded by those we do business with.

EDIT: second objection to the UAE: They fund HAMAS.Not surprising given the rhetoric of the Zayed Center.

On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support ... that contributed more to consolidating our people’s resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation“.

The HAMAS statement continued: ”the sisterly UAE had ... never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF ... The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies.“ Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.

The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: ”One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.

vmarks; I definitely appreciated the above. I'd like to learn more about it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I agree. My only complaint was the lack of substantive information on the matter and the misinformation in general. I also don't appreciate yet again how the current administration has handled PR. When I get this feeling in my stomache, it gives me pause for thought.

I do agree with that, they could do a much better job of explaining the deal than they've done.

I often wish I could concern myself with 20% of U.S. industrial assets sold to foreign investors, and the billions of dollars worth of our national debt under foreign ownership, but I also have to be a communications expert, a father, a son, brother, husband, softball coach, musician, and fellow poster. While you seem rather cocky in your education on the details of globalization, it seems you forgot to consider some of the implications. What do I know, maybe you're busy too.

Perhaps I was a little harsh, but this is one of my favorite reading subjects lately. I don't always have time to keep up with this stuff either.

In your fair assessment of this issue you've forgotten to include the irony of the Democrat jumping on racial profiling like it was free beer.

or Monique.

The Democrats are also being idiots, trying to seize an opportunity to triangulate and move to Bush's right. But while that's the kind of political spinelessness I'm used to seeing lately, the about face on port security from the right really caught me by surprise. I'm glad the issue of port security may finally get the attention it deserves, assuming this DP World deal doesn't pose too much of a distraction.

[Kevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060224/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop a United Arab Emirates company from taking over management of its container terminal at Port Newark in New Jersey.

The authority, jointly owned by the states of New York and New Jersey, argued that the deal under which state-owned Dubai Ports World would take over management from the British company P&O violates the terms of P&O's lease.

[aberdeenwriter]

What I'm missing here is a realistic 'blueprint' for terrorism.

Every large company has established rules, regulations, policies, procedures and safeguards they must follow and enforce.

In some industries the government requires compliance with laws which dictate company policies.

This industry is probably no different than many others we rely on to prevent terrorist incursions into our society and life. And we should take a look at ALL such possibilities.

But no one from the industry or that company or a similar firm or a former employee of either has come forward to show exactly how such terrorism might more easily happen with a Dubai company as opposed to an all-American firm.

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, but I know there are safeguards against it happening. So, in the face of the wild-eyed fears, imaginings and panic that surrounds this issue I am waiting to see exactly HOW terrorists can or can't take advantage of this being a M.E. company to strike a blow on America before I come to a final decision on this matter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

What I'm missing here is a realistic 'blueprint' for terrorism.

Every large company has established rules, regulations, policies, procedures and safeguards they must follow and enforce.

In some industries the government requires compliance with laws which dictate company policies.

This industry is probably no different than many others we rely on to prevent terrorist incursions into our society and life. And we should take a look at ALL such possibilities.

But no one from the industry or that company or a similar firm or a former employee of either has come forward to show exactly how such terrorism might more easily happen with a Dubai company as opposed to an all-American firm.

I'm not saying it CAN'T happen, but I know there are safeguards against it happening. So, in the face of the wild-eyed fears, imaginings and panic that surrounds this issue I am waiting to see exactly HOW terrorists can or can't take advantage of this being a M.E. company to strike a blow on America before I come to a final decision on this matter.

There are approximately 829 total port terminals within the 6 ports in question and it's my understanding that Dubai World is only going to be managing approximately 24 of them. This would've been useful information a few days ago. It seems the amount of increased risk in this is not as great as it seems. However, There is still some ambiguity involved here because the actual ship manifests which detail the cargo are depended upon a great deal and are primarily handled by management. Still trying to avail myself of some more information on this as we go. As it stands today, I'm still in favor of making a patient and disciplined decision on this issue. i.e. not this month.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There are approximately 829 total port terminals within the 6 ports in question and it's my understanding that Dubai World is only going to be managing approximately 24 of them. This would've been useful information a few days ago. It seems the amount of increased risk in this is not as great as it seems. However, There is still some ambiguity involved here because the actual ship manifests which detail the cargo are depended upon a great deal and are primarily handled by management. Still trying to avail myself of some more information on this as we go. As it stands today, I'm still in favor of making a patient and disciplined decision on this issue. i.e. not this month.

If they really are our allies they would be willing and able to recognize if there are unreasonable risks involved with their operating our ports. However, they HAVE said they are willing to do whatever we ask to make this deal acceptable to us.

[tie]

It seems like a big mistake to me. Here's a story from today:

Coast Guard Raised Concerns About Port Deal

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," said the document released today at a Senate briefing into the port deal. It showed that Coast Guard analysts were worried about the backgrounds of employees of the company, Dubai Ports World, as well as the potential for foreign influences over the American ports and their use for terror operations.

I'm amazed that our attitude towards port security is still so lax (not just referring to this deal). It seems we can't learn a lesson until it is too late.

[Gene Jockey]

I was OK with CNOOC buying Unocal and I'm OK with this.

Paranoid BS.

[Gene Jockey]

Double Post

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Gene Jockey

I was OK with CNOOC buying Unocal and I'm OK with this.

Paranoid BS.

I don't know that you have enough information about the matter to warrant anyone giving your post serious consideration.

Why should we take your word?

[aberdeenwriter]

OK. Here's ANOTHER deal killer. The UAE participates in a boycott of Israel, a boycott because Israel is hated by Muslims. This is state sponsored apartheid directed at a nation and a race of people.

The USA justly refused to do business with South Africa because of their policy of state sponsored racism, i.e. apartheid.

We should stop ANY business with nations and/or companies that support racism.

Nope. This is not acceptable.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/13984742.htm

Posted on Tue, Feb. 28, 2006
Economic boycott of Israel further complicates ports deal

BY JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The United Arab Emirates' participation in an Arab League economic boycott of Israel raised new complications Tuesday for a deal that would place a state-owned UAE company from Dubai in control of operations at six U.S. ports.

The pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League called on the Bush administration to scuttle the deal and during a senate hearing Democratic senators peppered the company's chief operating officer with questions about its views toward Israel.

The new furor erupted as President Bush reiterated his confidence in the company, Dubai Ports World, which is to take ownership of terminal operations at the six U.S. ports this week, but has suspended making any changes at them pending a 45-day government review.

Meanwhile, more lawmakers from Bush's own Republican Party called for greater congressional say in approving such transactions, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Democrats will oppose it and demand a vote on it.

Democratic senators, citing a report in the Jerusalem Post, noted that DP World's parent company, the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corp., enforces the Arab boycott against Israel.

DP World chief executive officer H. Edward Bilkey told the Senate Commerce Committee that he "imagined" that the company's state owners do participate in the boycott. " I do not have influence on the government of Dubai," he said.

But Bilkey, a U.S. citizen whose family tree includes a former New Jersey senator, suggested that the boycott only applies to goods shipped to Dubai. "We serve everyone," Bilkey said, adding that Israel is one of DP World's main shipping customers worldwide.

"Do you have any Jewish members of your board?" asked Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

"No, sir," Bilkey replied.

"I didn't expect any," Stevens said.

The Anti-Defamation League said in a statement that Dubai's support for the boycott "should torpedo any deal with the United States on port operations."

U.S. companies are prohibited from taking any action that supports the Arab boycott of Israel and the government been trying to persuade Arab countries to end the policy for years.

The port transaction has become a political albatross for Bush. Almost daily, new revelations spark new rounds of criticism over the deal and the way the administration approved it in January after a 30-day review that opponents say was cursory.

DP World is expected to complete its acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British firm, this week and assume all of its port operations worldwide, including at terminals in Miami, Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey, Baltimore and New Orleans.

But Bilkey told senators that DP World would not operate U.S. ports until after a new 45-day national security review is completed by the Bush administration. He also assured them that the company was taking steps to retain the P&O management team for its North American operations and that it would assist U.S. officials with port security.

Administration officials on Tuesday spent part of the day tamping down a furor over a Coast Guard document from December that raised concerns about "intelligence gaps" related to the DP World acquisition of P&O.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate appropriations committee that the Coast Guard document was "an early report." He said the Coast Guard and his department concluded that the deal "does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in U.S. ports."

But several Republicans, while saying they welcomed the new review, voiced exasperation at the administration's handling of the deal. Some, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Rep. Peter King of New York, said they were considering legislation that would permit Congress to block such deals in certain circumstances.

Bush, speaking to reporters after meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, said that despite the pending 45-day investigation, his position in support of DP World hadn't changed.

"If there was any doubt in my mind, or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward," he said.

But with public antipathy still high toward the deal, Reid said Democrats would not support it.

"The American people will not accept the United Arab Emirates, a country which was only one of three countries to recognize the Taliban, a country which boycotts anything dealing with Israel. We're not going to agree to that.

"And the president can say he approves it any way he wants - there will be a vote in the Senate on this. He will not get by trying to jam this down our throats," Reid said.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Gene Jockey

I was OK with CNOOC buying Unocal and I'm OK with this.

Paranoid BS.

And are you okay with domestic spying? Are you okay with secret prisons where America tortures prisoners without giving them any rights?

If these are okay because of the paramountcy of national security, then why not cut off a deal like this (which the Coast Guard at least thought was a security risk)?

[aberdeenwriter]

One MORE reason it shouldn't go through.

Thursday February 23, 2006

The UAE and Viktor Bout

One way to determine how a person or entity will act in the future is to see how they have acted in the past. As the debate over the UAE ownership of ports heats up, it is worth looking at how the leaders there have handled another important security issue related to radical Islamic terrorism—Viktor Bout. The response is deeply troubling.

Viktor Bout, the world’s largest illegal weapons dealer, made $50 million selling weapons to the Taliban, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. He continues to feed murder and mayhem across Africa by selling weapons to rogue regimes and nonstate actors. And he continues to maintain several dozen aircraft, registered to different and constantly changing companies, IN THE UAE—one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Bout and 30 of his companies are designated by the U.S. Treasury Department and the United Nations Sanctions, meaning every country is bound to freeze the assets of those companies and individuals. Yet the UAE has made no move to go after Bout’s aircraft, even though one of his designated companies, IRBIS, continues to fly openly, and has not even bothered to change its name. His aircraft sit on the runways of Sharjah, and his pilots continue to fly daily from there, including recent flights for the U.S. military and its contractors.
The United States, for the past EIGHT YEARS has been asking the UAE to crack down on Bout’s illicit activities there, with no results. The latest high-level U.S. delegation was in UAE last week, asking the rulers to please shut down IRBIS, as required by UN charter. The answer was that the rulers would continue to study the issue.

Not a very auspicious way of handling a know aider and abettor of terrorist organizations, one with an outstanding Interpol red notice and one designated by the United Nations. It does not build confidence in the ability of UAE rulers to handle future problems.

One of the reasons is that Bout has a partnership with a member of the UAE’s ruling family, a prince who ran an airline with him and has reportedly helped insure that Bout’s operations are untouchable. If it happens with Bout, one can only imagine other terrorists with business or family connections receiving the same kind of protection, perhaps with deadlier results.

http://www.douglasfarah.com/

[aberdeenwriter]

bump

[Gene Jockey]

For old time's sake.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I don't know that you have enough information about the matter to warrant anyone giving your post serious consideration.

Why should we take your word?

Because I had been following the P&O acquisition for quite a while before this blew up. I read trade papers; they're full of useful information.

OK. Here's ANOTHER deal killer. The UAE participates in a boycott of Israel, a boycott because Israel is hated by Muslims. This is state sponsored apartheid directed at a nation and a race of people.

The USA justly refused to do business with South Africa because of their policy of state sponsored racism, i.e. apartheid.

You realise that Israel, by defining itself as a "Jewish State" systematically excludes Arabs from full citizenship. You know, state sponsored racism.

One MORE reason it shouldn't go through.

UAE ≠ Dubai. I'll note your failure to acknowledge that the US Navy has trusted DP World to protect their interests for more than 16 years and went on record repeatedly to say how happy they were with DPW's services.

Originally Posted by tie

And are you okay with domestic spying? Are you okay with secret prisons where America tortures prisoners without giving them any rights?

Hell no. I think the wiretapping issue is a travesty and I think the prisons in Cuba and elswhere are a slap in the face of democracy. You can piss right off.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Gene Jockey

For old time's sake.

I lured you back. You are soooo predictable. The only reason you are here is because you were thoughtlessly insensitive in a lounge thread and were called on it. So you chose this as the place where you'd salve your ego?

You realise that Israel, by defining itself as a "Jewish State" systematically excludes Arabs from full citizenship. You know, state sponsored racism.

You ARE the tool aren't you? Hahahaha! The Palestinians hold all the cards and you either DON'T realize it or you are intentionally helping to perpetuate a false impression. Either way you are a tool.

Hell no. I think the wiretapping issue is a travesty and I think the prisons in Cuba and elswhere are a slap in the face of democracy. You can piss right off.

You only know what your SPIN MEISTERS want you to know about the wiretapping and Guantanamo.

Now why don't you bring up a thread about why the US should stay out of WWII.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally Posted by abe

I lured you back. You are soooo predictable. The only reason you are here is because you were thoughtlessly insensitive in a lounge thread and were called on it. So you chose this as the place where you'd salve your ego?

Yeah, I figured this post was the one you deleted a reference to after I looked at my post history. I really just bumped this thread back from the dead because of the post by tie. I don't like being lumped in with the supporters of THE WAR ON TERRAR just because I happened to agree with our idiot president on one issue. But I addressed the other comments as long as I was at it. This whole thread is moot now anyway, so that's all I have to say.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Gene Jockey

Yeah, I figured this post was the one you deleted a reference to

You'll never know for sure. Hahaha!

This whole thread is moot now anyway, so that's all I have to say.