And not just a PR nightmare, but the wrong thing to do. There are only two possible reasons to oppose this - either a thoroughgoing protectionist viewpoint, or plain old-fashioned racism. The former is wrong-headed, the latter is simply vile.
Well, to be fair a third reason would be a demonstrated security issue. But no one yet has produced one. Just a lot of hot air and posturing.
It’s a business deal. Why all the hoopla?
Did you get fired up about the Microsoft fines leveled by the EU?
Just curious if many people just assumed something fishy due to Bush being named in the article.
Well, they don’t have all that much control merely by ownership of a holding company, that I can see. I point out , firstly, that DPW apparently will be managing six out of the current 360 US commercial port facilities. Six relatively large ports, admittedly, but it hardly appears to have a hammerlock on the US economy.
Secondly, AFAIK the port workers and most of the management are locally hired employees, and the port operating company has no particular power that I can see to stop cargo from being unloaded that would not cause it undue financial hardship. One supposes that if they wanted to cripple the port system, they could raise unloading rates to stratospheric levels or fire all the local workers or some such thing, but that would mean that they wish to cut off several major sources of revenue, and would surely result in US government intervention. Thing is, they could just as easily US-bound traffic at the originating ports they control as at US destinations.
Well, if I thought that the owners of Dubai Ports World had any interest at all in DPW other than making money at something outside of the oil sector, that might be a concern. Show me some evidence that this is so, and I’ll consider it.
Private US interests own a significant chunk of the rail assets in Australia. The German Post Office owns DHL, one of the world’s largest express shippers. Very few of the ships calling at US ports have US registration. International transportation, unsurprisingly enough, is perhaps the world’s most globalized industry, and the recent port deal is more of the same. AFAIK, international shipping has been dominated by non-US companies for quite some little time.
It’s interesting to me that some people here are talking about how wrong it is to let “foreign” companies run American ports now, when P&O, a British corporation, has been running these ports for years already and not a peep about it from same…
Yeah…I was assuming the antecedent your quote - “absent a concrete example of a security hole”. But I’m having a hard time thinking what it security issues there could be, given that port security remains completely in the hands of US authorities (Customs, I presume).
Al Qaeda is not a country or even a political party - one cannot “recognize them diplomatically.” I suspect you are thinking of the former Taliban government of Afghanistan, which is hardly the same thing. Those diplomatic ties were promptly severed a week or so after 9/11 when the Taliban proved intransigent over the sheltering of al Qaeda.
Governments? No. European companies, yes. In addition to P &O, Denmark based APM controls terminals in 13 U.S. cities.
The fact that UAE is a government-owned entity is I suppose a question for some, but I have no doubt they maintain a firewall of some sort. Besides these aren’t going to become foreign enclaves. They’re just going to be run by a global corporation that already runs ports all over the world, including Australia, Germany and Romania.
You have it reversed. It is my understanding that it is DPW that will have the indirect economic control. Day to day operations and security will undoubtedly remain purely local American affairs.
Their webpage: http://www.dpiterminals.com/dpworld_main.asp
If what I have read is correct, their merger with P & O should put them among the big four, at about the same level as APM ( Danish ) and PSA International ( Singapore ), while still trailing world leader Hutchison Port Holdings ( Hong Kong ).
- Tamerlane
All good points. However as a principle and in order to ensure no problems with the transportation network in the future I oppose management by interests that aren’t subject to US law.
Yes, the worldwide shipping system is subject to interruption. However in that case the interrupters would be taking on more than just the US. Screwing up US ports wouldn’t involve the rest of the world in that way.
And If I were Australian I would not be all that happy about outsiders owning Australian rail companies.
Not now, but how about 5 or 10 years down the road? Dubai is a small place in an unstable area of the world that we appear to have been doing our best to screw up for the last three years. Can we be assured that Dubai will remain friendly in the face of pressure to do otherwise from its larger neighbors? If the deal is approved and in case of an emergency we can seize control of the ports but why go through that if you don’t have to.
Make it the United Arab Emirates, but the same question remains.
Bush has already addressed this issue:
“I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly’,” he said.
“It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through,” he told reporters.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4737940.stm)
The objections are little more than barely-disguised racism.
See, there never was an al Qaeda government. Al Qaeda was hosted by the Taliban government. Taliban has had close links with America and Saudi Arabia ever since the two co-financed the Afghani Jihad against the Soviets. The close links persisted, and Saudi recognised the Taliban government in the mid 90s. The Taliban even visited the US to talk about oil.
And on preview, thanks Tamerlane
UAE recognised Taliban because Saudi Arabia, the regional super-power, did. When the Americans wanted to use UAE soil for combat operations, the Emarati government was more than willing to oblige
They’re just another company in a globalised industry. And I doubt that they’ll find terrorist activity as lucrative as good business.
I agree 100%. When I talk about propaganda victories we’re handing to al Qaeda, torturing suspects is right at the top of the list. (It’s obviously a bad idea for other reasons, but the propaganda hit we take is one important reason).
John, you’re right that it’d entail our writing new law, not just rejecting an offer; my wording was imprecise.
Daniel
I was surprised to learn that our major ports had been run by foreign companies. The way this story was reported in the news at first, this fact wasn’t mentioned at all, so I suspect it was news to a lot of newsmen. You can say all you want about local control still being in place, but I really don’t like the idea of foreign companies being in charge of essential services, including port control, It still boggles me mind that in many places in the world the waterworks are controlled by foreign interests. You can’t get any more essential than that. This strikes me as a manifestly Bad Idea.
And, just so you know, apparently some security officials in the Bush administration are concerned about how this sale to the UAE company will affect security. This fact reported by that notoriously liberal publication, the Washington Times:
It is a good example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Bush Administration has found it politically useful in the past to whip up irrational fear of terrorists to justify the occupation of Iraq, and demonize their opponents as weak on security. But now, Bushco is being hoist by their own petard when frightened Americans see only evil, wicked Arabs taking over our ports. This is the result of administration’s use of fear to manipulate public opinion, and now it has gotten out of control, and they will pay a heavy price for it. Unfortunately, we all get dragged along for the ride.
Even worse that it’s the ports. How many news stories have there been on the horrible security of our ports, and how it would be so easy to smuggle in a dirty bomb, and how only 5% of cargo is inspected?
Bush is going to have a hard time wiggling out of this one, even though he’s right.
Well picture this Sam
Its no secret that the reason the US is able to be the superpwer that it is because of their economy. Bin Laden knows that, WTC and all that.
Joe Blow comes to work and gets on his computer to find out what he has to do in order to facilitate his little contribution to the flow of goods at his port. He finds his computer screen blank. He gets on the phone to the IT techs and finds out that everyones screens are blank at his port. Oh well, there must be a centralized computer hitch somewhere that might get fixed within a day. Then he hears that 5 other ports are experiencing the same problem. Then it sinks in. Just like the second tower.
Over the next week we find all the data about who owns what and where it is supposed to go has been lost. Millions of transactions based on hard merchandise has been lost. How the hell do you get things moving again. Ships from all over the world are lining up to unload their cargo.
Can’t see an economic disaster unfolding ? It makes the fall of the twin towers look like child’s play.
I like the Clinton approach. No foreign control period.
I don’t get it. How is this scenario enabled by the current situation?
Daniel
What if an evil A-rab driving a crane drops a 30,000 pound cargo container on the IT room at the port? That would do it, I would think.
I’ll only note that this is one more Bush-acting-like-Bush story:
That’s true–but what if, by running the ports, secret A-rab superheroes are able to be within range to fly up and use their superstrength to prevent that 30,000 lb. weight from falling on the IT room?
Or, even better, what if, by running the ports, A-rab IT people realize that you shouldn’t keep all your servers in one location, and that you should have remote backups of your servers, and that you should practice other proper security measures? Then they don’t even have to be superheroes–they just have to be businesspeople!
Awesome!
Daniel