Dubai Ports World, Bush and David Sanborn

Just another Bush administration nomination coincidence? Sure...

Transcript from CNN's Lou Dobbs 2/13/06:

Tonight, the United States is about to allow a United
Arab Emirates company to take operational control of
many of this nation's major seaports. The Bush
administration has OK'd a deal that would allow a
company based on The Emirates it take charge of the
ports. Many of them, most of them, vital to this
nation's security. Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dubai
Ports World is set to take control of operations in
ports in the United States. Those ports? New Orleans,
Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and New
Jersey. The deal involving a company from the Middle
East is raising security concerns.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK: How do we know
what checks they take on their employees? do they do
background checks? If a terrorist organization should
decide to infiltrate this new company, headquartered
in the United Arab Emirates, what would stop them.

TUCKER: The UAE was home to two of the 9/11 hijackers.
The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey says it will
review its lease agreements with P & O before
automatically granting the lease the of The Newark
Terminal to Dubai Ports World.

Defenders of the deal note that Dubai Ports World
operates ports all over the globe and that safe,
smooth, port operation are very much in its business's
interests. Security will remain in the control of
local and federal law enforcement authorities, but --
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Ports are
essentially on the front line in the war on terror and
on homeland security. And so allowing a foreign firm
to operate a port is sort of like allowing a foreign
firm to operate a U.S. military air field in a
traditional conflict.

TUCKER: In other words, the United States should
proceed cautiously. The Committee on Foreign
investment in the United States, the same group which
gave the green light to the takeover of UNOCAL by the
Chinese National Overseas Oil Company has reviewed the
deal of P & O and Dubai Ports World and given it its
blessing.

When called for comment, a spokesman would only say --
no comment.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Now coincidences happened but they're rare. So for
that reason, we thought it was worth noting that the
man nominated by President Bush to run the Maritime
Administration is the director of operations of Europe
and Latin American for Dubai Ports World, Lou. His
name is David Sanborn.

DOBBS: And this coincidence and this program looks to
at coincidences intensely, particularly like this and
particularly with an administration that not for the
first time has interesting coincidences reverberating
throughout it. What do they say about this
coincidence?

TUCKER: They don't have any comment about it. We
weren't able to reach David Sanborn today.

DOBBS: Well, we hope that David would talk to us. We
would hope that anyone in the administration would
like it talk to us about this coincidence. And it
would be fascinating to understand why the same
government that thinks there's no problem, this
administration, with turning over ownership to foreign
corporation and companies of our air carriers sees no
problems with having the United Arab Emirates, a
company based there, take over our vital seaports.
It's remarkable. Excellent job of report, Bill Tucker.
Thank you, sir.

Comments

[Clint Walker]

This is just plum scary

[Richard]

It doesn't surprise me at all anymore. They have just shown the world that they are going to do what ever thaey want regardless of how it looks or how we, as Americans, Feel about it.

[Thomas Loser]

This should be the headlines in every major newspaper and it seems to just be ho-hum to most. The people of the USA need to awaken to the implications of this sale.

[rich]

This is insane. People need to stop walking around in a fantasy land. The administration needs some sense knocked into them to allow this. I agree that there has been little to no news on this topic. Where are the newsworthy reporters? Time to take the country back.

[meg]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11474440/

This is the first of this story I've seen on the mainstream media sources.
Too bad Ol' Fristy has to be the guy making the noise about it, making him appear some kind of hero or whatever.

[grandpa]

What if a German national company wanted to run our ports in 1941....would we let them?

[dan the man]

Once again our idiotic president proves why he is a C student, sure he feels safe these ports are no where near his ranch in texas, but i wonder since he says the security would still be handed by us, would he let an ex-convicts brother or sister work in his ranch in charge of his food but of course the security would still be handle by his normal security guards.

[dan the man]

Once again our idiotic president proves why he is a C student, sure he feels safe these ports are no where near his ranch in texas, but i wonder since he says the security would still be handed by us, would he let an ex-convicts brother or sister work in his ranch in charge of his food but of course the security would still be handle by his normal security guards.

[Andrea]

People are being ignorant and racist. People are saying that our national security is threatened because a foreign based company wishes to operate an American port. Wake up!! These ports are currently run my the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, which is a British company. The United Arab Emirates is NOT an enemy or a threat anymore than the British are. The only reason people are threatned is because they are Arab and Muslim. Bottom line, that is racist. I happen to live less then 2 miles from the port of Miami. I can see the port from my apartment balcony, and I feel in no way threatened. I welcome this deal with open arms and an open mind.

[pete]

Andrea = wingunttiest of wingnuts.

[pete]

ahem, that should read "wingnuttiest."

[pete]

Andrea, you're talking about a country (UAE) that is not a liberal democracy and has known ties to terrorists, and you're comparing it to the UK?

I take back what I said, because even crazy wingnuts like Tom Delay thinks this deal is "pretty outrageous."

You are beyond wingnutty, you're batshit insane. I guess being a Floridian explains a lot. lemme guess, born and raised (and educated) there?

[pete]

Andrea and other such fucktards totally ignore Osama Bin Laden <3's Emir of UAE connections, but I bet they SWORE there were OBL-Saddam connections, and probably still do.

[joyce sullivan]

we need to keep this country strong and belonging to our selves..we have given for years and receive nothing back in return..are there no country first elected officials left to defend our way of life.....

[j.joseph]

I keep hearing that there is a "national security problem" with this deal. -- What EXACTLY is the "national security problem"?

[Sansabelt Savior]

I think the national security interest that is at stake is mostly misunderstood in this case. I suspect that much of the concern on the part of the public revolves around the idea of the United Arab Emirates having any kind of control over American ports.

It's my position that there is little reason to think that the company involved would have any reason to do anything other than a professional job, but that this deal still runs counter to the security interests of the U.S.

Like the Chinese bid for Unocal before it, the issue resides in whether companies owned in whole or in large part by foreign states, particularly foreign states not entirely friendly to American interests, should have access to strategic industries within the U.S. While I largely support free markets, I would assert that there is a compelling interest for the U.S. government to assert the necessity that operations within such industries not be left to foreign governments.

J.Joseph, I would ask you what you find unreasonable in that concern.

[Nate]

It seems clear that any company controlling 'operations' of a port would have access to information about what situations 'trigger' a security response. This one fact alone seems of enough strategic value that we should not permit foreign companies (let alone FOREIGN NATIONS as is largely true in this case) to sit in this kind of position. I'm fairly sure that most Americans were unaware that *any* foreign companies were in this kind of position, including the UK.
More of my tirades on this issue here.

[j.joseph]

Sansabelt Savior, the concern you outlined is not unreasonable as long as it is real and justified.

The current 'false' concern with this issue is because of the 'quick' reporting bandwagon. As the follow-up researched reporting comes in, this issue will no longer be of interest and Dubai Ports World will be operating some US Port Terminals in the near future.

[Sansabelt Savior]

Oh, I disagree.

While the quick reporting bandwagon may have obscured the issue, the issue of American control over strategic industries is a real one. Perhaps the hubbub over this deal is what is necessary to get people thinking about a very serious issue that has been neglected in Washington for years, as one administration after another has favored corporate interests over national interests of all kinds, to include national security interests in this case and others.

Do you think there are any industries in which it makes sense to exercise judgment in their control, or do you think that any company or foreign government with the funds to spend on control of vital resources should just be trusted? For that matter, if foreign governments are so trustworthy, why do we need to have security of any kind? Or even a military? Clearly, no foreign nation or foreign national could wish us any kind of ill will. Right?

Think of the savings if we entirely outsourced all of our critical industries. Port traffic is absolutely critical to the functioning of our country. We should have the good sense to maintain control of our vital interests; if we fail to do so, it will be a repudiation of any reasonable idea of national security.

[j.joseph]

If it is a true strategic industry, then I would agree that there needs to be judgement in who controls it.

Do you believe that loading and unloading cargo is a strategic industry?

SECURITY of these facilities is what I believe to be the strategic industry, and this will still be controlled by the US Coast Guard, Customs and Border Patrol.

[Nate]

J. Joseph: did you miss my point entirely or are you ignoring it? Security is more than an inspection process, it is also about intelligence. Any company that controls port operations will have access to critical intelligence that might be very valuable to an enemy. Air traffic controllers are government employees for a reason - they can be hired and overseen through a standardized process that we (the US) can control. If you do not see port operations in the same light as Air traffic control, it may only be because the nuke hasn't been offloaded and delivered to your city yet.

[Sansabelt Savior]

To the extent that ports are integral to our distribution system, upon which we are far more reliant than most people realize, I believe the loading and unloading of cargo to be of significant strategic importance. But make no mistake, the security of these facilities is far more dependent upon the port operator than upon the Coast Guard, which is mostly underfunded and otherwise totatlly unequipped to tackle what is an herculean task.

I have a hard time believing anyone thinks security at our ports is currently adequate. I know I don't, and I'm not at all a believer in the whole "war on terrorism".

I'm not at all a hawk, I'm not at all an isolationist, and yet this deal raises red flags that strike me as being self-evident.

Which industries do you believe to be of strategic value? Can security be achieved through a process that inspects such an infinitesimal fraction of cargo imported into this country, while simultaneously allowing foreign states broad control over these largely uncontrolled ports of entry? Do you believe these inarguably large gaps in our security to be of any national importance? At what point do national interests trump expedience in the service of corporate interests?

I'd just like to see a group of politicians with enough courage to assert the national interest over the narrow interests of monied donors.

This transaction does not include the control of any US Port. It is just for the operation of a few terminals at each of the ports. The terminal provides loading and unloading, container storage and repair. The port itself will still be operated by local/state Port Authorities.

OK, lets say that all employees at over 350 US Ports are government employees, now were more secure? Now a ship shows up to be unloaded, who likely operates that ship? It's a foreign owner that we do not have control who they employ. So now should all ships that dock at US Ports be US government employees too? Say they are. Now our federal shipping fleet arrives at a foreign port to be loaded (not likely unloaded since we do not export nearly as much as we import). Now what control do we have of who works at this foreign port, I guess we will need to take it over and bring in our federal employees.

Wait, there's more. What about the ports in Canada and Mexico. Foreign cargo is unloaded at those ports that we have no oversight over. What happens to it then, its loaded on to truck and railcars and brought into the US. Guess we need to have those ports, railroads, and trucking companies taken over by are federal employees too.

Yes, current security at our ports is definetly lacking and so is security at our borders. But that won't change whether this transaction is completed or not, it won't be better nor worse.

Yes, security is about intelligence. But we need to get the intelligence before the 'nuke' is sitting on a foreign ship loaded at a foreign port, docked here waiting to go off.

[j.joseph]

Not sure why, but my name was not included on my previous post.

[Sansabelt Savior]

So you're saying that we shouldn't exercise reasonable control over our ports because it's a slippery slope that leads to...what exactly?

My position is that no company owned largely by the government of any foreign nation, and in particular any foreign nation with such radical positions as not recognizing the statehood of Israel, should be trusted with interests like the entry of massive quantities of goods into our country. For chris'sakes, the government is making serious plans to eliminate aid to the government of Palestine for precisely the same reason. I would think a little bit of consistency in our making of foreign policy might suggest ours is a government that's driven by reason, rather than a government bought and sold by monied interests.

Moreover, I see no downside to exercising this kind of discretion. Just because we can't control security all over the planet (which, by the way, doesn't seem at all consistent with assertions by the Bush administration), doesn't mean we shouldn't try our damnedest to get it right on our own shores.