| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Overseas Firms Entrenched in Ports
So reads the headline in today’s Washington Post:
The decision by Dubai Ports World to abandon its effort to take over terminal operations at six U.S. seaports was a victory for the numerous politicians who have thundered in recent days that foreign companies have no business handling U.S. port operations.
But foreign firms remain deeply embedded in nearly every major port in the country. And transferring ownership of those operations to U.S. companies could cause serious problems in an industry in which nearly all of the shipping is controlled by foreign interests. An immense amount of capital from those foreigners will be required to expand the nation’s port system in coming years as global commerce continues to burgeon.
[...]
But whatever the security ramifications, foreign ownership dominates the maritime industry, including the U.S. facilities where giant ships dock and unload thousands of containers filled with products for U.S. consumers.
“There is no other part of our critical infrastructure that is owned by foreign interests the way the maritime infrastructure is,” said Stephen E. Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and a port security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Because of the Dubai ports flap, the public has learned that the majority of terminals at U.S. ports — especially big ones such as Los Angeles and Long Beach in California, and New York and New Jersey — are managed by companies from Singapore, Taiwan, Denmark, South Korea and other countries. And as President Bush pointed out in defending the Dubai Ports World deal, the port-management company targeted for takeover, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., is British.
In this highly globalized business, crews typically come from Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, flags are often Liberian or Panamanian, and few large container ships are owned by U.S. interests. (A 1920s-era law called the Jones Act requires ships plying routes between U.S. ports to be U.S.-owned, but they are minor exceptions.)
There is an important reason why terminals are usually managed by foreigners: The shipping companies themselves are largely foreign, and they have generally sought to control terminals so that they can be certain of having the most reliable, efficient facilities possible for loading and unloading their vessels quickly to reduce costly time in port. That arrangement has suited local port authorities; they want to ensure that their ports will draw enough traffic to generate revenue and employment.
“Why are there so many foreign terminal operators? There are no global American liner companies anymore — that’s really the crux of it,” said Peter Shaerf, managing director of AMA Capital Partners LLC, a merchant bank that specializes in transportation.
Read the whole thing.
Congress – specifically, those who are against foreign firms being involved in port management: are you paying attention?
Sidenote: Wouldn’t it have been nice to see this article a week ago, rather than now?
Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics blogs about this as well, and has some good questions going forward as well as a DPW deal “post mortem” link roundup.
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Hysteria over UAE port deal continues
- The latest on the UAE port deal
- Americans oppose UAE port deal
- UAE port deal and strange bedfellows
- Disinformation campaign on the UAE port deal?
- The UAE port deal: I support it
- Bush veto threat on bill that would stop port sale to UAE company
- Your feelings on the UAE port deal
RSS feed for comments on this post.
47 Responses to “Overseas Firms Entrenched in Ports”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
The WSJ has a good article and their own solution..well kind of!
“Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them “to a U.S. entity.” We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.”
Yeah, about the only US company large enough to handle this is Halliburton. I can’t wait to see all the liberals heads exploding when they realize that their “get Bush” posturing on this has led to Halliburton getting more business. It’s called the law of unintended consequences, get used to it guys!
LOL – exactly, Severian!
Democrats were so dismayed over the withdrawal of Dubai Ports World that they resorted to making themselves look like idiots. There they were in the US Senate yesterday demanding an up or down vote on a deal that was already dead. I guess the Democrats are getting use to beating a dead horse. They were the ones that all of a sudden became hawks on national security. Now that they have made their political hay, will they go right back to being against the War on Terror? After all, they never really cared one bit about port security. It was all about smelling an opportunity to get back at the Bush administration. Halliburton one of the American companies being proposed as a candidate to take over the US ports. This will be fun to watch the Democrats go into melt down.
Sister T is it possible to have some cheese on hand to go with the whine we will start hearing from the Democrats?
Rueters News Service … Wash. D.C, 3/10/06: “Observers on capital hill today noted that Democratic leaders, including Chuck Shumer, have called for an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate, intended to block any possible future McDonalds franchises within the shopping malls of the Mars pioneer settlement, projected for completion by the summer of 2097. Shumer said that chief among the concerns of the Democratic caucus was the possibility of Security concerns, and made a specific point of assuring that his party will take every measure to protect the American people from the threat of the Hamburgler. Ronald McDonald was not available for comment”…. In other news… “Venus declares war on Brooklyn”… “Janet Reno arrested at Rap concert”… “General Franco spotted at Disney World”… “President Condi Rice signs bill providing free transportation for Liberal immigration to France”….”Entire City of San Francisco annexed by Syria”… in Sports….
- Bang
How is this turning into a Dem-bashfest all of a sudden? What about the Republicans who were pretty much ready to turn suicide bombers to stop Dubai from acquiring the ports? You guys are capable of a more reasonable post-mortem on this issue rather than harping on partisanship. I know the liberal blogs reacted to the ports deal in a very conservative way and it still baffles me. But now that the issue is over, you could probably focus on the bigger picture here than mere political bickering since that doesn’t really help, IMO.
We’ve said as much Raj. We are tired of pandering politicians.
What Jim was noting is something that we perceive and that is that Democrats are NOT interested in offering solutions but to tear down either Republicans or the President with inaccurate accusations at every turn. While yes, Republicans joined them in this one and may join Democrats in future issues it DOESN’T make it write #1 and #2 it doesn’t wipe the Democrats PATTERN of doing this clean.
If it doesn’t help…. convinve the Democrat leadership to stop with the inaccurate accusations at every turn. Then we won’t have to continue setting the record straight with liberals every day. As for the Republicans…. if they turn this time into additional times they will lose their support from conservatives and I hope they are reading this.
“… political bickering…”
- Lets see Raj. What political bickering would you be reffering to?
- Slick willey trying to balance shooting his wifes political stance in the foot, and still manage to keep the 1.5 mill his buds in Dubai have floated him and his library….
- How about shumer and the gang calling for an up or down vote on an issue that no longer exists, just to make sure if a living person doesn’t understand it was a political “gotcha” on Bush, they will now…
- How about Hillery calling any efforts at border security “Police Statist tactics by an Administration out of control….”
- It seems that the Dembulbs just can’t make up their minds if they’re FOR defense/security or AGIN’ it.
- You just can’t make this stuff up. So excuse me all to hell if I laugh a bit at the clown car act of the tinhat crowd….
- Bang
Raj, you are right to a degree.
The republicans did turn against the President and distance themselves from him.
From what I have heard it was because they got blindsided by the Administration on this port deal and before they knew what was going on the President lashed out and said he will veto if it doesn’t go through. Which in turn, I believe, made them angry with the administration…not to mention because of the poor way this was put out and no one knew very much about it, the public was almost all dead set against it, which put added pressure on republicans.
Raj I believe this is far from over though. This will have repercussions for the US. UAE has other holding and deals in the making, Boeing being another one for like 7.9 Billion dollars. This very well could cause UAE to pull out of that also.
As for Halliburton taking over, didn’t Reid say something to that affect not long ago, that he would rather Halliburton take over control of the ports and not UAE?
So will there be further debate on other foriegn run ports now? Doubt it.
US security is going to be a very big issue for the elections coming up. Illegals coming into this country, Immigration, ect. are going to be playing a larger part in the debates in my opinion.
Here is another aspect of the ports that we seem to forget about:
“In a civil suit filed in July, prosecutors in Brooklyn accused the International Longshoremen’s Association, the 65,000-member union that supplies labor to ports from Florida to Maine, of being a “vehicle for organized crime” on the waterfront.
Packed with tales of corruption, embezzling and extortion, the complaint accused union executives of being associates of the Genovese and Gambino crime families.
The U.S. Attorney’s office asked a judge to seize control of the union, remove its officers and “put an end to the conspiracy among union officials, organized crime figures and others that has plagued some of the nation’s most important ports for decades.” “
I’m not sure where the meme “only Halliburton could do it” came from. They probably could, although it’s not clear to me that it’s a great fit with their business model, but plenty of other companies could as well, especially if we assume that the current management personnel and IT systems transfer as part of the sale. Financial Times suggested today that the Blackstone private equity group might be interested. I also think FedEx or UPS might find it attractive, given their focus on broader logistics solutions; also, a major railroad might want to play, given the importance of the rail-sea connection.
- In other news of the bizzarro, Wefah Duefar Bin Ladin, the young aspiring singer actress neice of Usama Bin Laden, Infamous leader of the Jihadist terrorist group al Qaeda, is rummored to be possibly in line for her own reality TV show. Hollywood insiders have speculated if she’d possibly interview her Uncle for one of the early shows.
- Wefah has posed for what will be considered scandilous pictures, sans a great deal more than just her burkah. al Qeada has not said whether they will declare Ms. Bin Laden an infidel, or call for her beheading. No doubt the boss will have something to say about that.
- Bang
Sounds like an opinion piece David. Can you give us a link as I tried to find it and couldn’t.
From my experience, businesses wouldn’t be able to expand or diversify (like Fed Ex) into shipping containers that quickly and easily. They haven’t even been studying the issue as they wouldn’t have known about it (the sale of the British company ownership of the contract to the UAE company ownership)
I’d want more than some journalist’s
speculationtheoryguess that X company ‘might’ want find it attractive.“…US security is going to be a very big issue for the elections coming up.”
Someone in Hillery’s camp needs to whisper in her ear. Shes still preahing pre-9/11 red meat for the Libertarians.
Pam – You can’t control the drug trade and protect your turf if you aren’t in charge of the port Unions. Its just good business, mob style.
- Bang
Baklava..can’t link the FT piece since it’s a subscriber-only site and I have the paper version. I think FedEx and UPS are very familiar with container shipping; at a minimum, they are major customers for container freight…UPS is the biggest railroad customer in the country and this is predominently packages which are consolidated into containers. The guess that FedEx or UPS might find this attractive is mine; the FT reference was for the Blackstone possibility.
Link it and I’ll subscribe….
I think Fed Ex and UPS are very familiar with container shipping also… just in the business model they have. Fed Ex has a single hub in the united states and has a very specific operation and it would require a diversification to do shipping containers at a port.
AGAIN.
Speculationguessing on your part or some journalists part doesn’t make it so. YOU can continue to justify the thetheoryspeculationguess but unless these companies TRULY DO want to get in on the deal then it remains just that.. hopeful speculation.Thanks for the admission in your last sentence. It was very responsible.
- Guys/Gals, the whole port deal is an “Investment”. Any number of large corps or “holding” companies have the bucks. But generally corporations that are into investment opportunities tend to stick with enterprises they have some history or associated expertise in, just from a business common sense position.
- Since its a stock holding “board of directors” thing, a lot of US concerns might be interested. Not really a problem, and though the Halliburton thing is fun to speculate about, the irony, its really not apropos, unless they would be interested in a rather smallish port investment, which they well may be. On the other hand if it were really a true on the ground port operations buy out, then someone big enough with world operations experience on a large scale like Halliburton would probably be one of the few US groups that could bid for it. Be interesting to see how this goes and what effect it has on all the other foriegn companies already holding positions in American ports.
- Bang
I just heard that the UAE is rethinking it’s plan to join the World Trade Organization. The result is that a lot of donations/loans to countries that need it won’t be getting it.
I’m fairly confident that the UAE running the dock would not have created an increased security risk. I’m also fairly confident that all the ruckus over this did create a security risk, since we basically slapped a (sort of) friend in the face for no reason.
And now they are talking about slapping MORE of our allies in the face! This is not the way friends act.
Schumer bears part of the blame for this fiasco, but the administration is much more at fault. Most of the time, people blame Bush for things that are not his fault. Not this time. I can’t believe the press heard about this before Bush. He really needs to fire whoever was in charge of this study.
The only thing I can say is if UPS or Fed Ex could make money operating shipping terminals in US ports they would be doing it. But with both companies having a pretty good sized fleet of aircraft why would they use ocean going ships as they would be to slow for both of them. The containers they use for ground shipped packages yes they use tractor trailer rigs and several hub systems and they both use containers that are made to fit in aircraft the same as the airlines use. Believe me I worked for UPS loading containers on their aircraft.
This is not only about port security it is also about NAFTA. NAFTA, that’s where we export our standard of living, while importing low wages. bush and the other Plantation owners love NAFTA because their labor costs go down as their profits go up. Of course the rest of us have to work harder and harder to afford a gallon of gas. Peace
Remind me, who was it that signed NAFTA into Law?
Hey Steve you need to quit sniffing the gas fumes when you are filling up it can cause drain bamage oh I am sorry you have to have something to damage.
- It depends on what the definition of “Clinton” is……
- Bang =
Too funny Sanity
What is steve doing owning personal property like a car or moped? steve is a big socialist. He should only be riding socialist conveyances like transit buses, that is unless Ray Nagin is in charge, then he’ll have to hoof it.
On the other hand if steve is buying gasoline for the hurricane lamps lighting his house, then just wait for Darwin to take full effect.
I understand where you guys are coming from – you think Democrats are doing what any partisan opposition party does in any democratic system – try to discredit/disapprove any action the administration takes. I disagree with the democrats’ reaction on this issue as well because of the tone that reaction has taken in the MSN. To me it looks like they are trying to ape the Republicans which is inconsistent with their previous stances on related defense issues. I agree with them on the Iraq war (which I am deadly against). But everything said and done, I still believe that a post-mortem of this issue should hold the bigger elephant in the house responsible – the republican lawmakers who spoiled the party for Bush and Dubai. Dems’ reaction is irrelevant here. Hence I just think the bashing of democrats is kinda moot. Its like Huffingtonpost (I’m a big fan of that site) obsessing with Dick Cheney’s hunting fiasco.
NAFTA, is a bad deal for all working Americans, and was pushed by the Capitalists, then signed into law by Clinton. Clinton also took money from the UAE to support the port deal. My opposition is to the export of the American Standard of Living and the importing low wages. Any politican who supports NAFTA, no matter their party, are wrong and should be voted out of office. Peace
Raj,
I’ve personally dealt with Airhead Huffington and her ex-husband. Airhead Huffington is an empty suit. The left loves her because she was perceived as what she never was, a conservative. She is a liar and it quite like Hillary Clinton in many respects, and is just as unethical.
The donkeycrats are irresponsible. They take no responsibility for any of the evil they do, especially Mr. Edward Moore Kennedy.
Characterizing anything that democrats do as evil isn’t a very healthy opinion. Nor is calling Arianna airhead acceptable to me because I like the way she sometimes constructs and expresses her opinion. I am with the American liberals when it comes to social issues, primarily because of my secularist beliefs. So, we’ll have to agree to disagree on these issues.
But having said that, I’m kinda tired of the liberals’ and democrats’ obsession with issues like NSA Wiretapping and Dick Cheney’s shot. Also, I find it extremely cheap when they do the same thing what I’m accusing you guys of doing – finding political partisanship no matter what. Every democrat is rejoicing that the republicans now have almost abandoned Bush and this stems from Bush-hatred, whereas this is probably one of the few things I think Bush got right.
- One thing that every thinking/voting American should keep in mind, something lurking just beneath the surface in the mixed bag Dubai port deal, is an aspect of the whole kerfluffle I mentioned a bit about earlier.
- The surest way I know of to put America in the porcelein fixture, in terms of our economy, inflation/reccession/employment/GNP, is to slide down that paranoid slope of “protectionism”, and its evil twin isolationism. The great public works programs of FDR, slowed the decent and feed people, some 25% of all Americans were unemployed at the height of the misery, but it took the massive industrialization of WWII to really turn it all around and get us back on track.
- You may start hearing a drum beat in this area, even now we’re agonizing over foriegn investment as an offshoot of the port investment dustup, but heres the best argument against it I think you’ll ever see.
- One of the prime movers and cause of the original recession in the late 20’s, up to the middle 30’s, was the wide spread call for, and much of the trade legislation that expanded and supported, protectionist/isolationist policies.
- In this day and age when a global participation has become absolutely key to maintaining a healthy economy, it would be even more devastating if we fall in that trap. Homeland security can be safe-guarded without wild-eyed reactionary policies, and over the top xenophobic/racist based partisan politics.
- Pay special attention to the “Liberals/Progressives” in that area, because they do not like open free trade, and capital investment, for any number of parochial reasons. Of course with a dead economy, people like Steve would have a lot of company. Company, and a miserable situation, his warped ideas, and anti-everything American, would help create.
- Beware the seditionists….
- Bang
ONe thing you have to look at is that Bush is not running for re-election, but there are plenty of republicans that are in 2006..and they just distanced themselves from President Bush, which might help them in re-elections if you think about it.
- Reposting that one paragraph that got out of sequence….
- One of the prime movers and cause of the original recession in the late 20’s, up to the middle 30’s, was the wide spread call for, and much of the trade legislation that expanded and supported, protectionist/isolationist policies.
- The great public works programs of FDR, slowed the decent and fed people, some 25% of all Americans were unemployed at the height of the misery, but it took the massive industrialization of WWII to really turn it all around and get us back on track.
- My bad
- Bang
- sanity this is just one issue that the President and Congressional Republicans were on opposite sides on. Even there it was a partisan for the Dummycrats. The Pres. didn’t realize, or wasn’t made aware off by the lower level people that decide such things, that this could be a “gotcha” issue for the Dems, who have been desperately looking for any way they could shed some of the weak on terror reputation they’ve so richly earned.
- You can bet they won’t get that chance again, so I doubt you’ll see anymore than the usual backing away thats normal for any election year, particularly with a final term President.
- Remember that even though they’re in the same party, Congressional Republicans should be independent anyway. Its not the job of Congress to serve at the will and pleasure of the Executive. We just tend to assume they will.
- Bang
I have a suggestion. How about we all (who had supported this deal) start an online campaign called Fly Emirates (hope that doesn’t conflict with their tagline) just like many bloggers were saying Support Denmark during the cartoon controversy? I personally think this would be a nice slap on the face of demagogues like Michelle Malkin who are now celebrating. Excuse my attitude, if you guys like her, but I don’t.
- A rundown of some of the “excellant” results of killing the Dubai deal.
- Argument: We would not control the security at the ports, so we would be more vulnerable.
- Truth: Dubai had agreed to adopt our increased security standards at all their other world wide ports, ports like Shanghai which are a 1000 times more vulnerable than ours are. The threat isn’t from what gets unloaded here, the real threat is what gets put on board there. So we’ve lost thte chance to know whats going on at the other end of the shipping route, the real threat. Dubai was even willing to spend its own money to make the changes. so as a result we’ve lost that visability and we’re less secure.
- Argument: Incoming shipping of containres is a super threat.
- Truth: No ones going to gain possession of an Atomic device and then let it go in the uncontrolled environment of a shipping container. Detonating it in a port wouldn’t be a huge stopping point, since any one of our ports would not stop things that much. Detonating it offshore would have even less effect. They’d bring it in country on a truck across the border and detonate it in a populated area, or by plane, landing in some isolated area and then moving it to a high population area. This argument is just fear mongering on an uninformed public.
- Argument: Same with biological weapons.
- Truth: The last thing anyone that wants to attack us with bio weapons would do is put it in a shipping container. They will try to mail it or again bring it in country by truck or plane, where they can unleash it in a large population center. Another stupid argument.
- Argument: Dubai as an owner of the port would have access tyo the security program.
- Truth: Of course they would have. At their own ports where they have any control of things. What were they going to do, blow up their own ports. More stupid than could be believed.
- Dubai was even going to pay for the increased security requirements we set as a requirement out of their own pockets.
- So we basically lost the security visability and control we would have had at no expense to us, and insulted a trading partner who has been loading and unloading all of our miltary ships and cargo in the Iraqi campaign since the beginning.
- Thank you to all the bloviating partisan BS of both sides of the aisle. With leadership like this who needs enemies.
- Bang
Exactly Bang! Which is why I get so tired of all the hand wringing, looking over their shoulder to see what the other guy/gal is doing/saying. Are there none that can make an analysis, conclude the logic or lack of it without referring to the party mantra first and foremost?
I understand the unity that that type of support demonstrates but for me, it shouldn’t be riding in the front seat.
From the very onset people that think (if I may include myself) as we do, said the political aspect was the only thing that would be a “problem”. Another reason to be reasonable instead of political, as if that required explanation.
I just shake my head at the lot of them.
Iraq is close to civil war. Support the troops and bring them home. Peace
keep dreaming steve…keep dreaming.
I do declare, this young lady has feelings of adequacy. Steve, somewhere there’s a village that you are depriving of an idiot.
support the troops steve?
tell me what have you done to support the troops?
Do you actually read the reactions of troops and talk to any of them?
Before you start quoting one or 2 that hate bush that I know you will scour looking for to post, I am talking about more than one or two you will dig around and try and bring up…I will talk about those one or two also, but I am talking about the majority of troops.
steve: Jersey and California are close to the ocean too.
“That would be both coasts if you’re looking at a map”
75% of the troops want to be gone from Iraq within 12 months. They’ve convinced me. Support the troops and bring them home. Peace
Proof steve.
You keep saying things without backing your words.
I will step out on a limb, and will say I don’t have hte numbers, but will look if i have to, but I will say the MAJORITY of the troops want to finish thier mission FIRST.
Want opinions and see what the troops are doing, come visit the site below.
A little on what it is about:
MilTracker
READ GOOD NEWS FOR ONCE.
I can damn near guarantee 100% would like to be home with the wife and kids tomorrow, but there’s that little issue of responsibility and as sanity and others have stated a thousand times, the mission won’t be over until it’s over.
The democrat solution for port security is increased apropriations from the general fund. This is one time where a user fee is indicated. Pass laws that mandate security requirements, and fund those by a fee on the goods coming in the port. This would have the additional advantage of not increasing the tax burden on domestic businesses and of placing security costs where they belong.
Walter, interesting point but wasn’t the UAE going to finance the security?