Arab control of Seaports

[Ghost of BiB]

Again....no American companies that can handle this?

 

Does EVERYTHING have to read "Made in China" on the label?

608435[/snapback]

 

Isn't there an existing contract in place that would have to be violated? BTW, who is running the Niagara Wheatfield power plant?

 

I'm pretty certain that there are several American companies that can handle this. Isn't the one running the port of Miami the one who surfaced this? I haven't dug deep enough to see the how and why this was bid out to an English company to start with, but did they simply sub-contract the actual operations to American Companies? That would be the smartest thing to do. Who is responsible for the individual operations of these ports? The state in question? Or, the Feds? Did the individual ports authorities hire this british company to start with?

 

Maybe someone can explain to me just how this company purchasing the other company holding the contract weakens our security. Is Bin Laden now going to jump out of a cake at the port of NJ? As others said, because of events there is a visceral reaction to this, but practically speaking this public reaction looks like politics as usual from all sides.

 

Hmmm...Operated by American Stevedoring?

 

Typical Bid Document Hmmm, I don't see a Washington DC address mentioned here anywhere. Looks like the NY-NJ Ports Authority runs it's own show. Out of everyone, wouldn't they be the most sensitive? So, where does the responsibility lie? With the Bush administration? Or, with whoever hired out to start with?

[KRC]

I get the same feeling.  I can't find anything objectively wrong with it (I haven't yet heard any real argument against it that doesn't boil down to "Sand !@#$s?  NIMBY.")  But at the same time...it's sitting with me like last week's leftover anchovy pizza.

 

What I'd really like to know is: who are the majority stakeholders in both these companies?  It wouldn't be terribly surprising if the British company were majority Saudi-owned, selling a contract to a UAE company that's majority Japanese-owned, or some such.  Particularly as, while I can see HQ'ing a company in the UAE for tax/economic reasons (in principle - I don't know if there ARE any, but it's possible), the Emirates don't exactly have an extensive maritime history that leads one to believe they could manage six major ports.  Does anyone know that this company is owned by the UAE?

608326[/snapback]

 

This is from their website:

 

In its global operations, Dubai Ports, having signed an agreement with CSX Corporation to acquire its international terminal business and related interests for USD1.15 billion, has become world’s sixth largest global port operator.

 

The acquisition provides Dubai Ports an access to new growing markets in Asia and Latin America, which are forecast to offer the highest volume growth in the port industry. The acquisition also provides Dubai Ports important base in the South East and Fare East Asia notably in Hong Kong, China and Korea and further facilitates its global network into Europe, the Americas and Oceania.

 

A few other tidbits:

 

Company History

 

Management Structure

 

It does not answer the first set of questions you had, but it goes into some of their qualifications regarding operations of ports. You can make up your own mind as to whether they are qualified.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This is from their website:

A few other tidbits:

 

Company History

 

Management Structure

 

It does not answer the first set of questions you had, but it goes into some of their qualifications regarding operations of ports. You can make up your own mind as to whether they are qualified.

608443[/snapback]

 

Impressive company, at least.

 

The one thing that jumps out from that site is how many ports they manage that generate traffic incoming to the US. If they're a threat to national security, it's not going to be because they manage US ports.

 

Or is that too complicated for the knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering crowd?

[KRC]

Or is that too complicated for the knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering crowd?

608451[/snapback]

 

Rhetorical question, right?

[GG]

Impressive company, at least.

 

The one thing that jumps out from that site is how many ports they manage that generate traffic incoming to the US.  If they're a threat to national security, it's not going to be because they manage US ports. 

 

Or is that too complicated for the knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering crowd?

608451[/snapback]

 

Well, there you go again, pointing out that a greater security risk comes from lax controls when someone puts something into an inbound container, and not from a stevedore unloading it.

 

To answer your other question, Dubai Ports is one of the leading COMMERCIAL port operators in the world, and that's why they won the bidding for P&O. They'll be the biggest now. FWIW, I'm not aware of any US port operator that's in the top 5 globally.

 

It also makes a lot of sense that the largest (and probably best) port operators are Asian. If Dubai Ports didn't win the bid, the contract would have likely been assumed by a Singapore govt-controlled company or Hong Kong's Hutchinson.

 

BTW, the bidding process has been going on for a while, so it's doubtful this issue suddenly "came up" last week.

 

But, keep telling yourself folks that this is not anti-arab xenophobia.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Impressive company, at least.

 

The one thing that jumps out from that site is how many ports they manage that generate traffic incoming to the US.  If they're a threat to national security, it's not going to be because they manage US ports. 

 

Or is that too complicated for the knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering crowd?

608451[/snapback]

 

Did I read that correctly? They merged with CSX? Is that the former Chessie System?

[OGTEleven]

I tried to rbing up some points you and Tom stated on a call in show on 101.5. I was basically shouted down and called an idiot.

 

Apparently, our moron of a Governor is now suing saying he doesn't want this to happen in NJ. I stated I thought he was manuvering politically. I was then hung up on...

608392[/snapback]

It might not be fair but the host probably had you pegged as an idiot right away.

 

Screener: "Ed from Jersey on line two."

 

Host: "We don't have time for telephone pole conspiracies, I'm busy with the port thingy...."

 

Screener:  "He promises to talk only about the ports."

 

Host: "This oughta be good."

[Alaska Darin]

Impressive company, at least.

 

The one thing that jumps out from that site is how many ports they manage that generate traffic incoming to the US.  If they're a threat to national security, it's not going to be because they manage US ports. 

 

Or is that too complicated for the knee-jerk reactionary fear-mongering crowd?

608451[/snapback]

Doesn't it stand to reason though that now they'd control both ends of the transaction that it's even more likely to become a problem?

[OGTEleven]

With some people, it always come backs to "hotpockets".  The same people who will denounce any criticism of Bush, or his continuing misguided attempt to govern, are the ones who will cut you off with their "Bush bad" crap...that people here still continue to defend this man is beyond belief.  Now, it is the fault of unions?  Some things never change...

 

As Bush continues to transform our country into a corporate bidding ground, we should all be scared.  When you are putting corporations in charge of your safety, you are screwed.  They are corporations, they exist to make money.  That is their bottom line, not safety.....

608406[/snapback]

Not being against the sale of a part of one corporation to another is proof that Bush is putting corporations in charge of everything?

 

Corporations have been in control of these functions at the ports since before George was president. George Washington that is.

 

If you want to make arguments about Bush helping "corporations" go ahead. When you use this as an example you blow your credibility.

[GG]

Doesn't it stand to reason though that now they'd control both ends of the transaction that it's even more likely to become a problem?

608467[/snapback]

 

Hypothetically, yes. But in the same hypothetical that a British muslim terrorist places a dirty bomb inside a container that is "passed" by British operators on this side of the pond.

 

The question I ask, "What does the Dubai government gain from abetting a terror attack vs US?"

 

If the answer is that it's easier for rogue elements to infiltrate the Dubai operation, then it's a wonderfully detailed long range plan for terrorists to wait for Dubai ports to win a highly contested bidding war for P&O to launch the sleeper cell.

[Ghost of BiB]

COSCO

 

How come nobody is cranked about this? China already "controls" our ports, by that line of reasoning.

 

This is a much ado about nothing. Would someone with an understanding of global commerce operations care to step up? How does one's stuff get to WalMart? Packed into a container in Indonesia, loaded onto a Greek ship flying a Liberian flag and crewed by Filapinos with a German Captain. Gets offloaded by American Union dock workers at a Chinese owned container terminal that is provided oversight by a ports authority, US Customs, the Coast Guard and the commerce department. Oh, and without going into detail there just might be some DOD representation in this process too.

 

Financial sources have been commenting on this acquisition for quite a while. Geeze, ya think a multi billion dollar buyout might have investment implications? Why didn't anyone say anything 3 months ago?

 

I keep riding this horse because of my underlying belief that the press shapes reactionary policy by sensationalizing at the start, and forming opinion before anyone actually researches the entire picture. By the time facts come out, people already have formed their opinion.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Doesn't it stand to reason though that now they'd control both ends of the transaction that it's even more likely to become a problem?

608467[/snapback]

 

Theoretically. But given the continuing rhetoric to the effect that US port security is so porous that anything shipped in a container will get through, wouldn't it stand to reason that only the source is relevant anyway?

 

But "control" in this context is still undefined. Again, it's not like Customs is turning over its port security duties to a foreign nation.

[PromoTheRobot]

If this were the Cold War, would we put an East German company in charge of our ports? I don't think so.

 

This defies all logic, even in the bizzaro world of the Bush White House. We as citiizens are losing our constitutional rights in the name of homeland security, yet large business interests are given whatever they want.

 

And now Bush says "he didn't know" about the port deal??? This whole thing smells.

 

PTR

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If this were the Cold War, would we put an East German company in charge of our ports?  I don't think so.

 

Difference being that the Cold War involved actual nations. Last I checked, the UAE hadn't attacked us.

 

This defies all logic, even in the bizzaro world of the Bush White House.  We as citiizens are losing our constitutional rights in the name of homeland security, yet large business interests are given whatever they want.

 

A foreign company sells maintenance contracts to another foreign company, and somehow it's the American president's fault? I thought it would be the vice president's fault even more, seeing as how the UAE company has ties to Carlisle Group...

 

Or maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that. What sort of shitstorm did I just ignite?

 

And now Bush says "he didn't know" about the port deal???  This whole thing smells.

608651[/snapback]

 

Well THAT'S just !@#$ing stupid. But that's a kind of stupid I've come to expect from these idiots.

[Ghost of BiB]

OK.

 

Just what seems so fishy and smells so bad?

 

A company in the container business works out a deal to buy another company in the container business. The company doing the buying operates globally. The company being bought operates globally. Neither company is owned or is majority invested in by the US.

 

The stock sale is set up by (with others) Morgan Stanley and Citicorp.

 

This has been known about for awhile. Investors sort of keep up with that kind of stuff.

 

The purchased company operates about 100 facilities in 19 nations, 6 of which happen to be in the United States.

 

Neither company "controls" anybody's ports. The operate container yards for the transhipment of containers. In essence, guys driving forklifts and stacking boxes. The guys driving the forklifts are American Union members. In the same ports are also container yards operated by Chinese companies, German companies, Japanese companies, American companies, etc. It's called global commerce.

 

In most cases, the actual physical operations have already been sub-let under contract to American companies. Those contracts are not affected by the sale, they have to remain in place on their own merit or the buyer could get sued for default.

 

Great Britain and Australia have homeland security issues too, and they aren't crying.

 

What's fishy? The only thing I see fishy is the spin.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

OK.

 

Just what seems so fishy and smells so bad?

 

A company in the container business works out a deal to buy another company in the container business. The company doing the buying operates globally. The company being bought operates globally. Neither company is owned or is majority invested in by the US.

 

The stock sale is set up by (with others) Morgan Stanley and Citicorp.

 

This has been known about for awhile. Investors sort of keep up with that kind of stuff.

 

The purchased company operates about 100 facilities in 19 nations, 6 of which happen to be in the United States.

 

Neither company "controls" anybody's ports. The operate container yards for the transhipment of containers. In essence, guys driving forklifts and stacking boxes. The guys driving the forklifts are American Union members. In the same ports are also container yards operated by Chinese companies, German companies, Japanese companies, American companies, etc. It's called global commerce.

 

In most cases, the actual physical operations have already been sub-let under contract to American companies. Those contracts are not affected by the sale, they have to remain in place on their own merit or the buyer could get sued for default.

 

Great Britain and Australia have homeland security issues too, and they aren't crying.

 

What's fishy? The only thing I see fishy is the spin.

608697[/snapback]

 

But...but...but...sand !@#$s! Don't you get it! Friggin' sand !@#$s!

 

The stupidest reason against it I heard was some yahoo on the radio this morning explaining that this deal would fund terrorism with American dollars. Like we haven't been buying their !@#$ing oil for forty !@#$ing years.

[X. Benedict]

But...but...but...sand !@#$s!  Don't you get it!  Friggin' sand !@#$s!     

 

The stupidest reason against it I heard was some yahoo on the radio this morning explaining that this deal would fund terrorism with American dollars.  Like we haven't been buying their !@#$ing oil for forty !@#$ing years. 

608703[/snapback]

 

I don't care what anyone says, I'm not eating any less tabouli.

[IBTG81]

OK.

 

Just what seems so fishy and smells so bad?

 

A company in the container business works out a deal to buy another company in the container business. The company doing the buying operates globally. The company being bought operates globally. Neither company is owned or is majority invested in by the US.

 

The stock sale is set up by (with others) Morgan Stanley and Citicorp.

 

This has been known about for awhile. Investors sort of keep up with that kind of stuff.

 

The purchased company operates about 100 facilities in 19 nations, 6 of which happen to be in the United States.

 

Neither company "controls" anybody's ports. The operate container yards for the transhipment of containers. In essence, guys driving forklifts and stacking boxes. The guys driving the forklifts are American Union members. In the same ports are also container yards operated by Chinese companies, German companies, Japanese companies, American companies, etc. It's called global commerce.

 

In most cases, the actual physical operations have already been sub-let under contract to American companies. Those contracts are not affected by the sale, they have to remain in place on their own merit or the buyer could get sued for default.

 

Great Britain and Australia have homeland security issues too, and they aren't crying.

 

What's fishy? The only thing I see fishy is the spin.

608697[/snapback]

 

 

BiB, you make way too much sense.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

BiB, you make way too much sense.

608733[/snapback]

 

Even if he's never been attacked by a telephone pole, because you've lived in three different places in New Jersey...

[Ghost of BiB]

Something not touched, is if this company is prohibited from operating the yards - who will be permitted? These are lucrative contracts. Is there any possibility that Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc. might want the contract for themselves? Not that there could ever be a profit motive here, or anything. They are RUNNING THE YARD, ANYWAY. So, doesn't cutting out Dubai increase their income?

 

Hmmm. Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring the anti-UAE legislation. Well, should she become President next time around, have fun conducting foreign policy there. Not a Hillary slam, I just think this is very shortsighted for someone thinking about becoming the POTUS. We'll have forgotten this by then, but better bet that the middle east won't. Especially the UAE.