The Sum Of All Fears

Bob Elsdale 'The Stand - Off'

 

I was hoping for a balancing view, for some sound arguments why we are maybe overreacting in our bipartisan outcry against the Dubai port deal--remember, it's the concern we all share that Jihad observing Muslims manage to bring a nuclear bomb into our country (go and watch Ben Affleck in The Sum Of All Fears to refresh your memory), hidden in one of the many million containers entering our country through our ports every year, succinctly summarized by liberal blogger Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist: "The problem here is that we are giving a foreign company and country (it's state-owned) control over a vital national security concern. What's worse, is that we're considering giving it to a country/company that has links to non-state actors. The same non-state actors that blew up the WTC, the Pentagon and the Cole. [...] The UAE still has ties to al Qaeda-not to mention that it was a focal trans-shipment point for material from the network of AQ Khan in Pakistan. P&O, to the best of my knowledge, has links to neither."

So, I was encouraged when I read, "...if she says this is an okay deal, I believe her..":

Former Representative Helen Delich Bentley, after her life as a very popular and tough Congresswoman in the 2nd District of Maryland 1985-1995 (the port district), is now a consultant for the Baltimore Port Authority. When she speaks on these matters I listen. HDB has been covering the port since her earliest days in Baltimore, when she was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun assigned to cover the port (1945-1969), and long before she became politically active. She is also the former Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission, U.S. Gov't. (1969-1975).
This is a woman who is extremely outspoken when she doesn't think something is a good idea. She is a fighter, she is one tough broad - take my word for it - I worked for her for nearly five years. If she says this is an okay deal, I believe her. [...]
She always put her constituent's and her district's interests above her own political affiliations. And the Port of Baltimore is her baby.

But, alas, no such luck.

Why? Because the respected expert on Maritime matters ex-Rep. Helen Delich Bentley (R-MD) (HDB for short) tells us, that Dubai Ports World won't actually be running the port of Baltimore, or any other U.S. port for that matter. In fact, all that it would be doing, as explained in a Feb. 18th letter to the "Baltimore Sun" is "hiring the longshoremen to load and unload the cargo from the vessels". The Maryland Port Authority, an agency of the state, she underscored, would continue to "run the port of Baltimore's public terminals and be the spokesman for the port in general." Bentley added that this transaction only means that the "UAE's Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle cargo coming off or loading on to ships in the six ports where P&O Ports has contracts. Baltimore is one of those ports."

So all that would happen is, that a Jihad observing Muslim, responsible for the bidding and keenly aware of a dirty nuke hidden in container GTH-US-SATAN-02, lowers the bid, thus hiring equally Jihad observing members of the longshoremen union, who then dutifully and diligently 'handle' this precious cargo--straight to the final destination of the eagerly anticipated 'divine' retribution.

Jim Clancy, no need for the soda vending machine anymore; shows us how real life is always so much more straight forward.

My good friend Ed Morrissey adds a crucial perspective by highlighting (1) the risk of access to sensitive information and (2) that DP World is not the government of the UAE; there is no knowing which certain Jihad observing members of DP World's workforce may decide when and how to abuse its newly acquired access--there isn't really in any other company either for that matter, but the specific deal with DP World is not only one small step but one giant leap closer to The Sum Of All Fears:

While DP World would not handle port security -- tasks that will still fall to DHS and the Coast Guard -- the management of port operations gives DP World and the UAE government access to a lot of information that could be used by terrorists to attack us. Port managers have to know security protocols, procedures, and personnel, all of which could be used by infiltrators to gain access to sensitive areas or to sneak weapons through what safeguards exist. And while the government of the UAE has been supportive of the US, the feeling isn't unanimous; DP World may have trouble keeping its less-enthusiastic citizens from gaining important posts in their organization.

At any other time, this would not be an insurmountable problem, but the fact is that we are at war with Islamists around the world, and some of them gather in the UAE. Handing operational control over our ports to a state-owned corporation from the same region that generates the terrorists seems like an exceedingly bad idea at this time, and the administration has not done any work until now to make a case for the opposite.

And in case you think I am paranoid, let's not forget:

- The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

- The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

- According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

- After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden's bank accounts.

- Finally, form one of my earlier posts ""Gold is a huge factor in the moving of terrorist money because you can melt it, smelt it or deposit it on account with no questions asked," said a senior U.S. law enforcement official investigating gold transactions. "Why move it through Dubai? Because there is a willful blindness there." Exactly my point.

Rescind Mr. President. Faith is a misplaced emotion in the long war on terror, and the assurance that U.S. ports will be secure when they are managed by a firm owned by a government in one of the most volatile parts of the world, is worthless.

The idea that an Arab country with an active al Qaeda organization, even when that country is a strong ally of the US as the UAE is, can be trusted to operate a border facility of enormous complexity and thus vulnerability cannot be sold to the public or defended as a thoroughly vetted for security concerns. Dubai POrts World, if successful int he acquisition, would instantly become a focus of terrorist ambition and attempted infiltration.

It is a long war, and even our allies in the Muslim world have to understand that homeland security will interfere with the otherwise ordinary flows of commerce.

The Bush Adminsitration needs to back away from this deal as quickly as possible.

The President however is adamant that this is not a political issue, and threatens to veto any objections.

Michelle Malkin, who has been on the story from the beginning, receives an important tip regarding the finance of the port deal:

I work as a corporate lawyer at a large law firm that has a speciality in Islamic finance. The real reason Dubai Ports World is undergoing the transaction is because of an Islamic finance vehicle called the sukuk.  The sukuk is essentially a commerical paper type of Islamic financle vehicle--it is essentially a "fake" bond to work around the Muslim prohibition on interest.

Now comes the interesting part.

As you might know, Dubai has recently christened (my word) its stock exchange.  It hasn't been very successful thus far--so they've been looking to
acquire really high profile items to trade on it. (Note: they also tried to buy the Refco assets after Refco collapsed).  If the Dubai Ports World sukuk goes through, it becomes the largest publicly traded sukuk in the world.

As a result, Dubai instantly becomes the place to go for Islamic finance in the world--and folks specializing in Islamic finance stand to make a great deal of money.

UPDATE I: Michelle Malkin is not relenting and takes various calls for moderation to task. And as Hugh Hewitt puts it wryly, she's having great fun with one aspect of the outcry.

I am just surprised why the President would react so strongly when he apparently didn't know much about the deal until recently. Begs the question what else is at stake. Not surprisingly, the White House and supporters planned a renewed campaign this week to reassure the public the sale was safe. Senior officials were expected to explain at a press conference Wednesday what persuaded them to approve the deal, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company.

The plot thickens: The Jawa Report calls the whole squabble a Red Herring, "The real issue is the shameful state of port security, part of an overall slackening of security measures. [...] we currently check perhaps 2 percent of containers entering the US on a good day. [...] The bottom line is that Islamist terrorists don't really need help from a middle eastern company to penetrate security at our ports." You've got my attention! Whilst Rusty disagrees with his co-blogger and rightly questions the sincerity of our so called allies.

UPDATE II:  Could it be that this is why the President responded quite so abruptly--remember, he didn't know about it until the proverbial hit the fan. Imagine if he had been briefed on the deal along these lines--except 'Myth #4 of course... (courtesy of Dick Meyer of CBS News):

Myth #1: An Arab company is trying to buy six American ports.
No, the company is buying up a British company that leases terminals in American ports; the ports are U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local labor. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports.
Several companies will lease terminals at a single port. In New Orleans, for example, the company Dubai Ports World is trying to buy (P&O Ports) is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals.
P&O Ports does business in 18 other countries. None of them are in righteous lathers about the sale of the business to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World already operates port facilities all over the world, including such security-slacker states as China, Australia, Korea and Germany.

Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company.
No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department.  Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel.
Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.

Myth #3: American ports should be American.
Well, it's too late, baby. According to James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation (a place really known for its Arab-loving, soft-on-terror approach), "Foreign companies already own most of the maritime infrastructure that sustains American trade…" Thirty per cent of the countries port terminals are operated by companies that are, um, unAmerican.
At the port of Los Angeles, 80 per cent of the terminals are operated by foreign companies. Chinese companies operate more than half the terminals. So why is this suddenly a threat? After all, political outcry managed to scupper the deal a few months ago in which a Chinese company was going to take over the Unocal oil company.
Remember the global economy? Internationally, 24 of the 25 largest companies that operate port terminals aren't American. That means just about every container that enters a U.S. port has come from a foreign-controlled facility.
Go to any port in the country and you'll be lucky to see a single giant vessel with U.S.A. on its stern. Foreign-owned airplanes fly into American airports every hour. Many U.S. companies have foreign entities among their largest shareholders.
My colleague Charlie Wolfson reports that State Department sources say Dubai Ports World already handles port calls for U.S. Navy ships from the 5th fleet for their regular port calls in the United Arab Emirates -- a pretty high measure of trustworthiness.

Myth #4: The United Arab Emirates has "very serious" al Qaeda connections.
That's what Republican Rep. Peter King says. It's also what the administration said of pre-war Iraq, but that didn't mean it was true. I suppose you could say each and every Arab and Islamic country has al Qaeda issues, but even on that yardstick the UAE is a pretty good player and by most accounts, getting better.
Politicians have been quick to point out that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. And we're turning over our ports to them? Well, by that logic, we shouldn't let Lufthansa land in our airports or have military bases in Germany, because that country housed a bunch of the 9/11 hijackers as they were plotting.
Yes, Dubai has plenty of blood in its hands, especially as a source or courier for terror funds. To my knowledge its crimes were not government sponsored. It is not a rogue state. It has been among the closer and more cooperative Arab allies for the past two years (another conspiracy theory: Bush is paying them off at the expense of our safety).

Well, Gina Cobb is not impressed and picks one by one each 'Myth' apart, concluding, "I don't fault Meyer for trying to make the best case possible for the ports deal.  After all, the administration still stands behind this deal, and deserves at least some benefit of the doubt in a close case. But having heard Dick Meyers' attempt to make the case, I'm still waiting to hear any compelling reasons why this is a good idea."

But then Mark Noonan @ Blogs for Bush is impressed by Meyer's 4 'Myths': "The anti-deal argument is rapidly being reduced to tatters and shreds. The only thing it has going for it is political sound-bitism: ie, it sounds bad and it is hard to gin up sound-bite sized arguments to defend the deal."

UPDATE III:  California Conservative has changed its opinion from con to pro:

FIRST OF ALL, we should’ve smelled a rat when Chuck Schumer was sounding, uncharacteristically, tough on terrorism and in favor of racial profiling. Given his track record, along with that of most Democrats, it should’ve been a warning to proceed with caution.

SECONDLY, more details have been coming out. In fact, yesterday, we linked to a story that called for a cooling off. Good advice.

THIRD, as we started to consider the controversy with greater circumspect, last night’s episode of The Factor with Bill O’Reilly made some excellent points, which gave some words to our growing apprehension.  In his Talking Points Memo, O’Reilly argued:

“A company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates has bought a British company that does work in some American ports. This has caused shock and awe on talk radio and on Capitol Hill, where some elements on both the left and the right want to kick the Arab company out. The Emirates, along with Jordan, is America’s best Arab ally in the war on terror, so let’s cut through all the bull and grandstanding.

If the Bush administration fires the Emirates company without cause, it spits in the eye of a strong Mideast ally. Talking Points believes we will actually lose the terror war unless we build alliances in the Middle East. There’s nothing Bin Laden would like more than for the US to alienate the United Arab Emirates. We have to give the new company a chance to work in our ports, but with strict oversight. As for the demagogues insisting we kick the Arabs out of the ports, one question: is that smart? The answer is no, that is not smart. It would hurt us dramatically in the war on terror.”

In his inimitable way, in just a few sentences, O’Reilly pinpointed the key reasons for moderation. We cannot “spit in the face” of our allies, and expect them to help us going forward.

Read the complete post by California Conservative in the interest of allowing for an informed debate; there are some good arguments in support of the President.

Mark in Mexico has an important post where he follows the money, and quotes a well worth a read article from The New York Sun.

However, if you are still undecided, this should really seal your conviction that the President must be right after all. Ahem. Ann Coulter is sure to be close by.

UPDATE IV: From AP:

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

UPDATE V: Media Lies, calls us xenophobes and adds: "...we've already done that with China, which is certainly not friendly toward us, and with Singapore, which is a Muslim nation."

There are some major differences which need to be pointed out, and I shall post on Friday dealing with His Majesty King Abdullah, his friendship with the President, and the willful blindness of the Saudi aristocracy which I am personally familiar with.

UPDATE VI: I have published Part II of this post, called Dubai Ports - The Bigger Picture.

UPDATE VII: Liquid tells me that the UAE government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

Newsweek shows us how Dubai has helped us against al-Qaeda. This I have to read.

Homeland Security objects to the deal. US Intelligence Agencies backed the deal.

Reax across the Blogosphere:

Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin (2)  Hugh Hewitt, Hugh Hewitt (2), The Anchoress, Instapundit. Decision '08, Daniel W. Drezner, The Glittering Eye, JunkYardBlog, Tom Maguire, BrothersJudd Blog, Blogs for Bush, California Conservative, Alamo Nation, Daily Pundit, Sister Toldjah, Unclaimed Territory, Andrew Sullivan, KOTP Blog, ProfessorBainbridge, The RCP Blog , TigerHawk, Ace of Spades HQ, Lawyers, Guns and Money, Small Town Veteran, TKS on National Review Online, Right Wing Nut House, One Hand Clapping, The Strata-Sphere, Begging to Differ, The Moderate Voice Debbie Schlussel,  The American Mind, La Shawn Barber's Corner, Crooks and Liars, A Blog For All, Macsmind, Daily Kos The Corner on National, Vodkapundit, Expose the Left, Gateway Pundit, Right Wing News, Debbie Schlussel (2), The Sundries Shack, Environmental Republican, Big Lizards,Catallarchy FullosseousFlap, Washington Post, Flopping Aces, The Next Hurrah, Leiter Reports, Hyscience, The Moderate Voice (2), Rantings of a Sandmonkey, Financial Times, Big Brass Blog, Middle Earth Journal, Miami Herald, QandO, Hullabaloo, The Counterterrorism Blog, The Strata-Sphere (2), Reuters, MyDD, Ezra Klein, Think Progress, The Washington Monthly, The Reaction, The Strata-Sphere (3), Reuters, The Reaction (2), Time

Comments

[Mrfixitforyou]

I am sure I am not the sharpest tack in the box but how many true allies do we have in the middle east? Few. And with all the access the UAE gives us, what would we do without it. What if, because of this refusal to complete a done deal, they withdraw our rights in their ports and their country? We would be in a mess then. I think this will come back and haunt us eventually.
Why not listen to our President at least some of the time. Making decisions today with today's information is the best we can do. We cannot go back and make or un-make decisions over again as yesterday's theories become today's truth or fiction.

[James]

Regarding myth #2, the scary thing is how underfunded and basically neglected the US Coast Guard is...

[North by Northwest]

Mario - I enjoyed reading your fresh analogies of the Religion of Peace, or Pax Islamica, which of course means: Peace, only after each and every soul on this globe has either been converted or killed.

[Mario Badino]

Islam is an ideology aimed at dominating the world. What makes it apparently different from Nazism or Communism is that Islam comes under the flag of religious belief.
Democracy stems from the quest for LIBERTY, it is a bottom-up process : freedom loving people devised Democracy as the best way for governing themselves. The idea of bringing democracy to "submission" minded peoples is doomed to the bitterest of failures, as adamantly demonstrated by the rise to power of the obscurantist forces of Hamas in Palestine, Shia clerks in Iraq and the coming to prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Though sanctioned through publicly held polls, that is not democracy : it is tyranny under the travesty of democracy.
Submission minded peoples are bound to be governed either by fascism ( Baath ) or fundamentalism. They still belong to the old ages of SUBJUGATION and that is that's what Islam is all about : THE WILL TO SUBJUGATE, the worst scourge that keeps haunting the humanity since the very beginnings. Believing that Islam is just a religion like many others is a lethal misjudgment.
Human societies of all kinds thrived upon slavery per millennia and LIBERTY is the antithesis that the human spirit devised for escaping SUBJUGATION.
LIBERTY is very new in human history. It is enough to have a look at the world today – “only” 215 years after the First Amendment was established – to understand that LIBERTY is still a toddling and very frail newborn in human history.
For the “true believers” the world is divided into two sides: Dar El Islam ( the house of the believers) and Dar El Kufr ( the house of the infidels ). The FIRST duty of a believer is to conquer the land of the infidels and submit them.
Submission comes in three choices: 1st is conversion, 2nd is dhimmitude, 3rd is being decapitated.
Would the US have allowed a USSR owned company to run its ports? Well, what the US is doing now is by far worse.
However, those who believe that not LIBERTY but to be rich should be the main purpose in human life, won’t find themselves restrained under Islamic rule. There are no provisions in the Qur’an against being rich and wealth is indeed praised and recommended.
Islam is akin to HIV : it takes a very long time for the infected host to recognize the lethal enemy and too often when he does it is too late. There is something in HIV that misleads the immune system into trusting the newcomer as a family's member while in reality it is an alien.
Business is business. And what about US open investment policy? Goddamn those who dare to say that DPWorld's takeover of US ports’ management is not business as usual.
Never seen glittering Dubai’s streets? The big cars and limos, gold and jewels everywhere, the flavor of greenbacks all around, whole armies of obsequious servants, and all the brands of the world available to so-called brand-conscious people, well : isn't that what the most of us are dreaming of and, since we share the same dreams, who dares to say that they aren’t akin to us?
In the West unabashed LOVE FOR GOLD stands on top of everything, while LOVE FOR LIBERTY lags by far behind in the values’ ladder. That’s why we get so easily fooled by the virus of “submission”.

[Liquid]

A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported.

UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports

[MarcH]

Alexandra,

Your reporting on the UAE port deal has been, as usual, very complete and well done. I’m beginning to suspect that you are an attorney (no offense).

In analyzing this question it may be helpful to review two other matters which involved similar issues.

1. I’ve previously commented on various news/opinion blogs on the GAO report of Department of Homeland Security(DHS)/Customs and Border Protection failures in the CTPAT program. CTPAT was a process whereby DHS certified that certain importers had high counter-terrorism cargo security standards and could therefore receive expedited inspection at US ports for their cargos. A 2005 GAO report showed that, over a long period of time, DHS had failed to insure that these privileged importers really had the required high security standards.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05466t.pdf (the GAO report)

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0505/052605cdam2.htm

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1701/documentid/3054/history/3,2360,655,1701,3054

2. I would also suggest that the Saudi “Visa Express” matter was analogous. As readers may recall, prior to 9/11 DoS gave Saudi nationals special and unprecedented ease of travel into the U.S. by issuing them visas with practically no scrutiny. It is alleged that DoS officials tried to hide and continue this practice after 9-11. This matter was detailed in Joel Mowbray’s articles and in his book, “Dangerous Diplomacy.”

[MarcH]

Another reason to distrust the UAE

Gd forgive me for referencing Huffington Post, but here goes. Michael Smerconish is a Philadelphia talk show host, attorney, former low level Bush I official, and author of "Flying Blind: How Political Correctness Continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post 9/11." All in all, he is a fairly reliable conservative.

Smerconisch has an interesting article in Huffington Post on references to UAE in the 9/11 Commission Report. The information in the report suggests that, pre-9/11, UAE royal family members were observed by CIA consorting with Bin Laudin at a camp in Afghanistan. UAE royals were then given a confidential warning by the U.S. about this activity. Very soon thereafter the camp was disassembled, thereby depriving the CIA of an opportunity to target Bin Laudin.

I don't think that Smerconish’s conclusion, that the UAE royal burned the CIA surveillance, is a slam dunk, but it does create at least a reasonable suspicion in my mind that that's the case and therefore these people should not be entrusted with a position at our ports.

http://www.mastalk.com/mastalk/readOfTheDay.jspx

[Alexandra]

Antimedia,

Gee, all those links, and I don't get one. Is that because I wasn't opposed to the deal?

What a nonsensical comment to make in view of the fact that I post California Conservative's 5 lengthy paragraphs in the main post defending the President's decision on this, and finish by saying:

"Read the complete post by California Conservative in the interest of allowing for an informed debate; there are some good arguments in support of the President."

As for all the links they are also divided in opinion, and missing yours was a simple oversight, and you know I am truly sorry for that. I have made amends immediately.

[antimedia]

Gee, all those links, and I don't get one. Is that because I wasn't opposed to the deal? As Kenny suggested, I took my time and learned a little about ports before panicking. Lo and behold, Dubai is not the first foreign country to own a freight-handling business that runs the port operations of major American ports. Both China (not exactly our friends) and Singapore (a large Muslim country with terrorists in it - shudder) own such companies and have run US ports for years.

Why did no one complain when the Chinese were running our western ports for all these years - long before the eeevvviiilll W took office? Could there be a little political opportunism at work here? (Not to mention a great deal of ignorance at work.)

If anything, this whole kerfluffle highlights how vapid and useless Washington is. Instead of passing laws with teeth in them and actually implementing real security measures at our ports, our wonderful elected politicians would rather wring their hands (in front of a camera, if at all possible) and worry about the company that is owned by Arabs, as if Arabs have cornered the market on corruption. Once the details are known, and cooler heads prevail, they'll move on to the next "crisis", where they can milk some more "face time" in front of the nation.

[Alexandra]

Don,

Ah the Saudis...I think it will be easier if I write a post about it, this comment will get too long.

Being "a good person off the blog", whatever that means, does not make me blind to the fact that nearly all the terrorist money and gold has been filtered through Dubai with His Majesty being well aware of it, and turning a blind eye. In fact Saudi is full of 'the turning away Sheikhs', it could almost become a dance if they were all not so fat that it makes the imagined analogy ludicrous.

But Don, I will put up a post today and give you my reasons. "A good person off the blog"...hahahahaha you make me laugh! You think I just 'play' the badie?

By the way real life is much more like this Ben Affleck movie than you may care to believe.

UPDATE: I have posted my response in my part II called Dubai Ports - The Bigger Picture

[don surber]

Sad commentary on the world that people will give up all their beliefs to fear.

Where to begin? Capitalism? Dubia's DP World wants to invest $7 billion in our ports

Osama bin Laden did not buy the World Trade Center

You are saying that all Muslims and all are no better than Osama bin Laden. That is sad

Truly, you are a good person in real life -- offblog. Apply some of that knowledge and wisdom to this situation. You know that life is not a Ben Affleck movie

The people of Dubai no doubt hate this war as much as we do. They are reaching out their hands to help us with this $7 billion investment

Do not slap tht hand

[David Foster]

Forgot the link:
http://www.floridashipper.com/news/article.asp?ltype=feature&sid=799
...really valuable reading for anyone who wants to understand this stuff beyond the headline level.

[David Foster]

Alexandra...also note this very interesting article in a shipping trade publication. I was particularly struck by this paragraph: "DP World’s agreement to buy (P&O) would make the Dubai-based company the world’s second-largest container terminal operator and put an Arab government-owned company in one of the most significant strategic positions in history, equal to Egyptian control of the Suez Canal or Panamanian control of the Panama Canal." I think the Suez/Panama analogy is probably a stretch; but still, when industry-knowledgeable people take this view, we should pay attention.

Also note the concerns the Indian government had in a similar situation vis-a-vis Chinese operation of the port of Mumbai.

[Huan]

we are not the same country as before 9/11
same for many others
pakistan has nearly donne a 180
many arab states are making the turn as well, including UAE and even Saudi Arabia
how much of a nation's pre 911 history should we hold against them?

[weekenderman]

The 9/11 Commission has absolutely nothing to do with this deal, RL (the so-called Roaring Lamb). You're mixing the tragedy of the terrorist attack of 2001 with a moderate Arab nation that has supported our anti-terrorist efforts. Please stop. Thank you.

[RL]

i think that everybody ought to at least read and think about
PAGE 138 of the 9/11 Commission's Report, and think about
the families of the 9/11 victims, before posting any further
uninformed and unhelpful comments on this thread.

Thank You.

i wonder if this deal has anything to do with the recent
survey of 40 of the most unpopular nations in the world,
in which America earned second place, immediately after the
islamoterrorist republic of Iran; and is nothing more than
a desperate and futile attempt to win some brownie-points in a
"popularity-contest" in the arab world and in the arab street ?

hmmm . . .

do you call this sort of a business-deal effective diplomacy ?

[Huan]

Myth #2: The U.S. is turning over security at crucial ports to an Arab company. No, security at U.S. ports is controlled by U.S. federal agencies led by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Control Agency, which are part of the Homeland Security department. Local jurisdictions also provide police and security personnel. Complaints about security at ports should be directed to the federal government.

I find this myth particularly interesting. Who exactly is propagating this idea, that the Bush administration has turned over port security/management to the UAE? Who could gain from this misinformation?

I worry that the Dems could be exploiting this myth. They are viewed as weak on security and the President's strongest poll numbers are on security. What better opportunity to weaken Bush and make themselves to better on security. Just a thought.

[David Foster]

Alexandra...wow! I am impressed with your knowledge.

Do you know right off what % of the total capacity at these 6 ports is represented by P&O?

Also, can you explain the flow of materials from the time the container is unloaded from the ship and the time it leaves the port on a truck or railcar? This would be helpful in understanding the true level of the security risk. Ditto, the process and allocation of responsibilities for reviewing the documentation (usually now electronic) which describes the shipment contents?

[The Dread Pundit Bluto]

Hi, thanks for the link to The Jawa Report, but you should know that I'm a co-blogger there. Rusty Shackleford, the site owner, disagrees with me on this issue and has posted his own take here.

[Alexandra]

David,

To bid competitively, there must be more than one eligible firm

Yes there are many at each port who continuously bid for handling contracts--and once awarded, they then hire the unionized longshoremen to load and unload the cargo from the vessels.

"The firm bidding competitively" is a contradiction in terms.

It actually isn't. The British company P&O Ports is currently only one of many companies who are leasing terminals in the said 6 American ports; the ports are and remain U.S.-owned. To lease a terminal at a U.S. port means running some business operations there -- contracting with shipping lines, loading and unloading cargo and hiring local, unionized labor. In New Orleans, for example, P&O Ports is just one of eight companies that lease and operate terminals. Dubai Ports World is not buying the ports, but one of the licensees, P&O Ports.

[Michael Stickings]

How nice to see the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, coming together in opposition to a thoroughly stupid move by this White House.

[David Foster]

"UAE's Dubai Ports World will be the firm bidding competitively for contracts to handle cargo coming off or loading on to ships"..what in the world does this even *mean*? To bid competitively, there must be more than one eligible firm. "The firm bidding competitively" is a contradiction in terms.

[Kenny Pierce]

My own take is that people are reacting too hastily. I'm not comfortable with the deal, but I don't rule out the possibility that I could be made comfortable. However, if this is a good idea, then the White House needs to fire its communications people and hire somebody competent, because the P.R. has been handled with complete incompetence. I'm certainly not convinced it's a good idea; I'm still undecided pending more information.

The willingness to leap to the assumption that somebody else's motives are vile, is usually a willingness to make a fool of yourself even in your own circle of friends whom you actually know personally. Understanding other people's motives is one of the things at which the human race is most disastrously incompetent; and when a person starts telling you the motivations of somebody he himself does not like, you can pretty safely proceed on the assumption that he's wrong -- unless the accused freely agrees that his motivations are in fact exactly as ascribed. I wish I personally were better at resisting the temptation.

[Liquid]

Thanks Alexandra, nobody has explained that to me before and that helped me to see the bigger picture on how it's all done.

[RL]

A very comprehensive and solid posting Alexandra.
(something that many of us have become used to consistently
expecting from you)

The moral compromises that men, even good and upright men
of faith and integrity such as W, are willing to make for
greed/profiteering never ceases to dissapoint me.
Follow the money trail.

Two interesting, excellent, & highly-reccomended columns at,

centerforsecuritypolicy.org

They are titled,

"Company Policy: This Port Deal Won't Happen"

and

"A Harriet Miers Moment"

globalsecurity.org

[Alexandra]

Liquid,

Many ports throughout the world are owned by UAE-based companies and ALL US ports are owned by foreign corporations.

I do however believe that the difference is that this is the only foreign STATE owned company that would be controlling six ports, in the US.

Having said all that, China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

Singapore, of course, is also a country with a large and radicalized Moslem population that is infiltrated -- inundated is the better word -- by international terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and their affilliate, Jemaah Islamiah; yet no one is up in arms about APL operating American ports.

And now of course, whilst we are looking at a done deal, I would like to believe that the President will be forced to rescind on this agreement, although the chances of that actually happening, let's face it, is very slim.

[Joseph Marshall]

There is absolutely nothing at all inconsistent about this Dubai port deal. From the Battle of Tora Bora forward, the War On Terror has been a part-time job at the White House, pursued if and only if it does not interfere with other, more pressing, agendas of political power and corporate influence.

The most dangerous possible terrorist target–in terms of lives that could be lost in America–is any one of our chemical plants close to a major city, as most of them are. A simple truck bomb, like McVeigh’s in Oklahoma City, could kill thousands if detonated at a plant making, say, anhydrous ammonia.

This has been brought up over and over in Congress, news programs of all sorts have repeatedly demonstrated that reporters can simply drive in the front gate of most plants without even being challenged, and there would be no reason why the White House couldn’t take up the bully pulpit and get this fixed. Have you heard a peep out of them about it? You can ask the Chemical Maunfacturer’s lobby why.

The President has defiantly told us that he will order, if he has to, the screening of every phone call and e-mail in America, to identify people using words like “bomb” and “terror”. So the NSA goes dilligently deviling after everybody who tells someone else, “Dat’s da Bomb!”

But you will never hear a peep out of the White House about the one surveilance measure that would destroy virtually every avenue that funded terrorist cells in this country but gold smuggling and halwala banking: make every electronic fund transaction completely transparent to Government scrutiny.

This has also been proposed since the very first days after 9/11, because the principle is obvious: terrorism costs money. Lots of it. Stop the money and you stop it. Even Bill Clinton suggested this long before 9/11. But it will never happen. Guess why, and guess who doesn’t want it to happen. Besides the terrorists, of course.

Way back when, Charles Schumer made a very intelligent proposal to increase security in the Trucking Industry nationwide. And even Michelle Malkin supported it. Heard much about it lately? And did you hear anything at all about it from the White House?

It’s almost embarrasing to mention, but we still have the longest virtually unguarded borders in the world. They have remained so now for about four and one half years, despite repeated calls to fix this from those in the President’s own party who think fighting terror should be a full-time job.

Further, how much have we heard from the White House about the scathing, and bi-partisan, Congressional criticism of the Department of Homeland Security’s response to Katrina? Are we really ready to cope with someone blowing up one of those completely naked chemical plants?

I don’t think so.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the President has openly threatened to use the veto power for the first time ever in his Presidency. He very badly wants this to happen. I'm as curious as anyone else about the details of why.

But I think I can guess the broad, overall, principle involved: money will go somewhere, to someone who badly wants it, in exchange for power and influence within the United States Government.

[Liquid]

I don't think you are paranoid...

It's absolutely NUTS to go through with this deal. NO 'country' should be in charge of our ports but the USA!

Alexandra, are there any other countries controlling any of our other ports? Isn't it just companies??? I am confused on this one, as someone told me that other companies are doing the job but that NO country has actual control. But maybe you can straighten me out on this.