Now, this is the first sober article I've read regarding this issue. Thanks for not jumping headlong onto the xenophobia bandwagon.

However, the proposal still makes the same silly, unsupported assertion that -- simply because DP World is based in Dubai, UAE -- the company is somehow more at risk of being "infiltrated by sleeper agents." Substantive argument, please? Or are we to believe that every Arab secretly hates us, and they all conspiring against us?

Please. A terrorist organization can infiltrate DP World, P&O, Kraft Foods, General Motors, Exxon-Mobil, Raytheon, Boeing, or any other multinational corporation with equal ease if they really want to. The key is properly funding our law enforcement agencies, so that they can detect and limit terrorist actions. Forcing the corporate mailing address to have a US Zip code may give an illusion of enhanced security, but that's all.

By the way, have a visit to the DP World website: http://www.dpiterminals.com/dpworld_main.asp and look at the management team. How many Arab names? I count one, along with Ted, George, Matt, and Vijay among others. Filled to the gunnels with raving Jihadis, yep.

As for the proposal? Meh. Politics is the art of compromise, or so I am told ad nauseum. I'm sure some compromise like this will happen. Its not a shining moment of high principle, that's for sure.

I linked from Bush Defends UAE Port Takeover Despite Mounting OppositionI think you have an excellent idea.

For the most part I'm going to punt on the Second Head, that of the Political Dimension, and leave it to others to dissect. But on the First Head, that of the National Security angle, let me hold forth:

Wrong target, people.

If you are upset that an Arab Nation is going to be responsible for the Security of our Ports, rest assured that this will not be. As Dafyyd notes, APL manages the ocean shipping port in Seattle, but security is provided through Coast Guard, FBI, Port of Seattle (a local govenment layer separate from [and larger than!] the City of Seattle) as well as the thousands of people who work on site.

DP World operates ports in China, Hong Kong, and Australia...
[http://www.dpworld.com/subcats.asp?SubCatID=1&CatID=1]
all ports which ship things TO the United States. This being the case, they already have in their posession all information/ability to send terrorist related activity our way, and when the Bush administration says that they are a valuable partner in the GWOT, it's because DP World is already heavily cooperating with the U.S. to protect our ports by screening cargo before it ever gets to us. Keep this in mind: We are already dealing with this company, and they have already proven themselves as VERY helpful allies doing in foreign ports exactly what they would be doing in local ports.

So look at the Worst Case Scenario: Terrorists infiltrate the UAE and DP World to the point that they actually work proactively to destroy America. What could they do as property managers in New York that they could not already do as property managers in Hong Kong? Nothing directly... perhaps they could be a source for information gathering, but they already have access to that information today as operators of these other ports. They know our layouts, they know our proceedures, and they know our schedules... just like the operators of all the ports and all the shipping companies worldwide. In order to comply with our security, they have to be told what our security demands, after all.

I love the idea of Congressional Investigation on this issue! Let the facts come out in Congressional Session, not just on the cable TV talk shows and America will learn that there ARE Arabian nations who work with us to make America safe... and that there are already lots of controls in place to avoid ANY corporation from using their access to our ports to do us harm.

I'm very suspicious that this whole thing is blowing up something like three months after the business decision was made. I know there are valid fears about Arab Nations and companies involved in our Nations' security... valid because it is Arabs who publicly threaten our security and promise to hide amongst the regular population to do so. But I have to wonder who benefits from this storm of fearmongering at this late date in the process.

Dafyyd, you want an American company to run the operations on this end? How about we ask the guys running CAIR to do it? No? Why not... they are Americans. Bunch of 'em are Citizens. How about we get a French corporation to do it? No? The problem isn't the Nationality, it's the trustability. If you don't trust any foreign based corporations, and it makes you feel better, go ahead and add a layer of management. But remember you have to do it for ALL of our ports operated by companies based offshore, not just the UAE. But I submit to you that the DP World as a company directly owned by the political leaders of the UAE would be more responsive to our security demands than some publicly traded company run by brits of the mold of George Galloway.

Mr. Michael

Will UAE move the ports to the Gulf? I assume no. Then what is the problem?

Dafydd, I like your analysis of the problem and proposed solution.

I, like most everyone else, was shocked when I first heard about this deal.

Just for starters, I was unaware that the ports were operated by foreign companies.

If this deal was negotiated 3 months ago, where has the wonderful, competent MSM been during that time? What have they been reporting on? Certainly not this.

I am willing to trust the President if he says this is what should be done. What scares me more than anything else, is that Jimmy Carter thinks it is a good deal.....and he is always wrong! Scary stuff for sure.

I HAVE A SIMPLE SOLUTION: Let's get P&O - the current British owner - or Ports World (the impending Dubai owner) - to sell the USA port operations to MAERSK - a DANISH shipping company.

They're one of the LARGEST shipping container companies in the world, and already manage dozens and dozens of major ports; in fact, Maersk's APM TERMINALS division is the THIRD LARGEST port operator in the world.

I think most Americans trust the Danes - and would LOVE to see the Danes get this business, especially NOW!

IOW: Let's not just "BUY DANISH!"; let's SELL SOMETHING TO THEM, TOO! WE CAN "PROTECT OUR PORTS" AND HELP AN ALLY IN NEED AT THE SAME TIME!

Re: reliapundit - the astute blogger [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 22, 2006 07:24 AM

> I HAVE A SIMPLE SOLUTION: Let's get P&O - the
> current British owner - or Ports World (the
> impending Dubai owner) - to sell the USA port
> operations to MAERSK - a DANISH shipping company.

Yeah, that'll make us much safer. You wouldn't want to reward countries that have been helping us track terrorists and track their money, like UAE has, with any profits from a LEASE. UAE is in a variety of businesses and friendly to the West, because unlike their neighbors, they only get 7% of their income from oil.

I am glad to see a credible blog actually looking into the issue carefully and even-handedly. I fear you will be in the minority, however, as the Laura Ingrahams, Sean Hannitys, and NRO Corners of the world unite in a chorus of shrieking about the port deal before the considerations you rasie can even see much of the light of day.

I'm a conservative and I listen to and read those folks all the time, but I'm often struck by their "hair trigger" approach to issues like this one.

Well, I'd certainly feel safer if Americans ran the ports. After all, what's the chances of an American blowing up a building? Or trying to blow a plane out of the sky? Or fighting for Al Qaeda?

Oh wait.....nevermind.....

The one question I haven't heard anyone answer, or even talk about, is Israel. The UAE, like all Arab nations, participates in an economic boycott of Israeli products. If the UAE takes control of certain ports in the US, will they forbid any shipments from/to Israel passing through those ports?

If so, then irrespective of any other aspects of this deal, it's unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

In an odd way there is a security benefit to be had from having a UAE-owned company run the ports. The members of congress seem to be very confused about who, exactly, is responsible for security at the ports and, while the commercial operations of the ports where being managed by the Brits it was all-too-easy to assume, vaguely, that somebody was probably lookling after it. But with the Dubai Ports running the ports it is much more likely that security measures would be observed more formally.

There are compelling geopolitical reasons why we must show the UAE, as a relatively moderate and pro-western Arab country, that we trust them enough to do business with them. But it will not be insulting to remember Reagan's advice: "trust... and verify."

"The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant." I think this is wrong, particularly in this case. First, we're talking about a company that is *government owned*. Would the consultant assert that ownership is irrelevant to control? Surely, this would be a strange theory of corporate governance.

Even absent government ownership, the location in which a company is based is certainly relevant, because the government of that country has high leverage over the company's operations.

Photoncourier:

And of course, they recruit workers from the UAE, as Hugh Hewitt has pointed out.

That is why I'd like to see an American "buffer company" sitting in between.

Dafydd

The buffer company idea is interesting, but what would 'independently operated' actually mean? Specifically, who hires and fires the executives? If it isn't the parent company, then what does their "ownership" actually mean? And if it *is* the parent company, then those executives will most likely follow the direction they get from their owner.

Photoncourier:

I'm thinking like Haliburton owns KB&R, or like Japanese keiretsu: DP World would be a holding company, which normally doesn't have control over the day to day management of the subsidiary, but can hire and fire the top executives (they own a controlling share of the stock).

We could certainly include a clause in the contract that if DP World replaces senior executives in the American subsidiary, under some circumstances, the administration could cancel the contract: this would force consultation by DP before doing anything significant... which would prevent them from firing the CEO and putting Zarqawi in charge.

The point is somebody has to run the ports... and alas, there is no American company big enough to do so on the scale that is needed (I believe all our big ports have non-American companies running port ops.) We need the resources of a gigantic multinational like DP World. I don't think even Haliburton could do it.

At some point, you must trust somebody... or else you just shut all your ports and spiral down into catastrophic economic collapse. Sure, it's possible terrorists could find American executives to collaborate for enough money; but they can bribe British execs just as easily, so keeping the port ops in the hands of P&O is no perfect solution either.

But at least with an American based company operating exclusively in the United States, and the corporate officers being American, there is no legal ambiguity who has legal jurisdiction: the American buffer company would be much harder to infiltrate than an Arab company -- which is currently recruiting UAE nationals to come here to America and work at the ports as executives.

Dafydd

Congratulations, Dafyyd... DP World has taken your advice, and are implementing your plan:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security

The only difference I see is that they are putting a Brit in charge of this branch of the Company and an American in charge of Security. Oh, and they are volunteering for the Corporate equivalant of a Cavity Search...

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)