February 22, 2006
THE SOCIALIST RIGHT:
Corporate Control of Ports Is the Problem (John Nichols, 2/21/06,The Nation)
The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of operational control of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.
Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent.
Fun to watch the Right join with the Left in demanding nationalization of the ports nand establish the principle that Congress can intervene to force same.
MORE:
Questions, answers on deal to let Arab company run terminals (Mimi Hall and John Yaukey, 2/21/06, USA TODAY)
Q: How is the company getting the rights?A: Dubai Ports World is in the process of acquiring the London-based company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., commonly known as P&O, which operates the six ports. Companies from several foreign countries, including Singapore and Denmark, run operations at U.S. ports. Officials from the Treasury and Homeland Security departments said Tuesday that they did not know whether the Dubai deal was the first with a Middle Eastern country.
Q: What is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and why did it back the deal?
A: The committee is composed of 12 government agencies, including the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and State departments. Its work is mostly classified, but it reviewed the terms of the deal, and members voted to support it. Clay Lowery of the Treasury Department said members consulted with intelligence officials and gave the matter "extra care" in the approval process. "These guys have built up a track record ... that has been fairly solid," he said of Dubai Ports World.
Q: Who will control security?
A: The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, all part of the Homeland Security Department, would continue to control security at the six ports as they do now at all U.S. ports. Department policy chief Stewart Baker said the company would be required to participate in all government security programs, and the Coast Guard is now conducting baseline security inspections of all the operations Dubai Ports World would control.
Q: How many terminals will Dubai Ports World run?
A: The company bought the rights to operate up to 30% of the terminals at each of the six ports. In Baltimore, for example, the company would operate only two of 14 terminals.
As anyone who watched Season Two of The Wire knows, it's much scarier that corrupt unions run the docks.
MORE:
Dubai firm would be 3rd-largest ports operator (Tom Ramstack and Audrey Hudson, 2/22/06, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
At least 90 terminals at major U.S. ports are operated by foreign governments and businesses, which also have participated in efforts to establish new cargo security standards, according to a shipping-industry source.
The governments of China and Singapore own companies that hold terminal leases along the West Coast. Japanese businesses control dozens of terminals nationwide, and a Danish company runs nearly a dozen major ports on the East Coast. [...]
U.S. companies continue to operate the majority of terminals, but no U.S. company made a bid on the purchase of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [...]
P&O hires the terminal work force and ensures that cargo is delivered or shipped at ports.
Port operators "just make sure every ship and every truck is unloaded," said Mike Bowden, president of International Longshoremen's Association Local 1459 in Mobile, Ala.
Some of the work involves scheduling trains or trucks to pick up and deliver shipments. The operator also allocates storage space for cargo at the ports.
Operators typically tell shippers, " 'This is your warehouse; you put your cargo here,' " Mr. Bowden said.
Work at the ports would continue to be done by unionized longshoremen, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and Customs and Border Protection still would provide security at ports.
China is an enemy that actually has its own nuclear weapons, aren't they the greater security concern? Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2006 7:53 AM
Corporations can be sued for breach of contract, and those lawyer fees do tend to eat up profits. Some nasty penalties for breach of contract in the contract can be a heck of an incentive to perform.
So no, I don't think corporations per se are a bad idea, but this...
Posted by: Mikey at February 22, 2006 8:17 AMSo, does Hutchinson Whampoa still own contracts to handle the Port of Long Beach? This was from back in 1997, folks.
Which is why something is up with this; else, why would Bush risk a heckuva lot of political capital pushing for this ownership change?
Posted by: Brad S at February 22, 2006 8:50 AMWhen I first heard about this, I thought Dubya had gone insane. I didn't realize the management of those ports were handled by a foreign (Britain) company. I also had forgotten about the Chinese doing the same thing in Long Beach. Watching the politico's heads explode, means one thing and one thing only. This has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.
Posted by: AllenS at February 22, 2006 9:19 AMHow can congress stop a British company from selling something it owns (our port authorities) to whomsoever it wishes?
Posted by: erp at February 22, 2006 9:23 AMerp,
They don't even own the port authorities. All Dubai Ports World would own is a contract to operate certain terminals at a port.
Again, something is up.
Posted by: Brad S at February 22, 2006 9:30 AMThis is the key point:
The Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, all part of the Homeland Security Department, would continue to control security at the six ports as they do now at all U.S. ports.
This isn't a national security issue at all.
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 22, 2006 9:58 AMI agree something is up, but I'm just stating the obvious, that congress can't enact a law against something not in their jurisdiction.
Bush should make that clear, otherwise the Dems will use his veto to show that Bush is caving in to Islamists -- because of oil, Halliburton, the Israeli/Jewish cartel and on and on.
Where's the risk in Democrats demanding greater hawkishness?
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 11:45 AMThe only thing the Dems have gotten from yammering about BigOil/Halliburton/Israel Cabal is a certifiable case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
This too shall pass, quicker than we think, and will cause the loonies to come out in full force.
Posted by: Brad S at February 22, 2006 11:56 AMoj,
The risk is that the same people who wouldn't stand for any type of profiling at airports, are now the same people who have a preconceived idea of arabs not being trustworthy.
So we get to profile, no?
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 12:10 PMIs it our national policy to have nothing to do with Arab nations other than buying their oil? That could be our policy. It is one rational policy. I likely would support such a policy. But it is not our national policy.
The hysteria on this issue from all sides is just lynch mob mentality. Even Hugh Hewitt is with the mob--Wisdom of Crowds indeed. Rod Dreher is of course on board with the opposition.
The depth and width of the opposition means that the port deal will not stand, whatever it's merits. No president can resist this volume of opposition.
Bob:
And Dick Cheney will have to resign.... It's just this week's silly story.
Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 12:52 PMOne thing the Bush Admin has shown quite well is that, in general, if you are willing to wait it out, these hysterias will burn themselves out.
The only time they've buckled under was to the Miers Screechers, and joking aside, that had to be a Rove operation to force the various factions to unite around a nominee. (And took off the pressure to name a woman to replace a woman, by showing there really weren't any good replacements willing to take the job...)
The real question is whether any other politican has noticed this, and has the stamina to act on it. My fear with the Inevitable Keating-McCain Administration to follow is that they will not have learned this lesson, and revert to the Clintonian form of appeasing every tantrum thrown.
Raoul,
Not only that, but for a president that hasn't used his veto pen, he is quite the powerful president. Look at the Baker bill that was proposed for Louisiana. Once sold as the answer to Katrina relief, and supported by a good chunk of Congress, Rep Richard Baker (R-LA) has essentially had to throw his bill away after Bush announced he will not support it. Even with no real guarantees for any future money for Louisiana Katrina recovery.
Makes one wonder how much of a power tool the veto really is.
Posted by: Brad S at February 22, 2006 2:49 PMThis is just Rove setting the stage for Halliburton to come swooping in to save the day by taking over the contract instead. Just you wait and see. It all leads back to Halliburton, man.
Posted by: John Resnick at February 22, 2006 4:49 PMDon't forget that the President who used the veto the most in recent times was the weak Jerry Ford. In his case the GOP was such a minority that it was about all that could be done to keep the Dems at bay. Isn't it usually the case, however, that the veto is used by a President when his own party won't follow his lead, or the opposition firmly controls the Congress? That we have had neither (despite a certain level of dissatisfaction with the GOP Senate) these past five years might have something to do with it.
(And I just learned the other day that the major stockholder in Halliburton is that lifetime GOP stalwart Lady Bird Johnson...)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 22, 2006 6:23 PMSpeaking of white knights like Halliburton (!), we should all keep in mind that the P&O sale to Dubai World Ports is effective Thursday, March 2. This means, pay close attention to business news on Friday, March 3:)
Posted by: Brad S at February 22, 2006 7:36 PM