UAE managing our ports

[DanMa1156]

The current dust-up is political. We have lots of offshore operational control ALREADY in our ports. It's been going on for over 10 years. Here's the way I look at this stuff --- I could care less what "nationality" runs our port facilities --- as long as they are AMERICANS ... because:

When it concerns security and/or the national interest --- Where does it stop??? Hello ???

"Outsource" port operations??? Don't stop there --- if it's more "efficient" (???) ...why not "outsource" the airlines ... shipping lines .... trucking lines ... telecommunications companies .... nuclear plants (oh, wait !!! you mean there is a "law" against that ???) .... electrical supply utilities .... water, food manufacturing ..... hell, why don't we just hire out the military requirements of the U.S. ??? You guys could work for .... say, Mexico ???

It would be cheaper ..... isn't that what it's all about??? :icon_rast

When I said efficient that doesn't necessarily implicate cheaper. They feel they can get more done by improving somewhere along the lines. The reason it's ok to "outsource" (wait, this company was already owned by foreigners anyway!) is because that the DHS and USCG will maintain their presence there no matter what. The owners don't change that. Being that they are arab (referencing my earlier post) will only create a sh1t storm (which it has) which will end up making them absolutely guarantee nothing happens in their interest. What does this mean? Ramped up security at their port and awareness from the nation of the other ports around the nations from the American taxpayer -- meaning better and more thorough inspections nationwide. I think this could end up being a good thing all around given the long-term effects. It is in their interest for no security breach to happen. They'll (the whole region) never touch anything American (read: valuable assets) again if it happens.

 

[A4sForever]

.....the DHS .....will maintain their presence there no matter what.......

I know ... that's what concerns me.

Dan, I love ya, kid. But would this be the same DHS that is currently in overall charge of airport security and screening ...???

 

[squeeze]

Let me say it slowly so you can grasp it. Dubai... Ports... World... is... not... an... independent... company... They... are... a... state-owned (big word, watch out)... and... state-controlled (another one)... company.

That means we are allowing a foreign government a controlling interest in a major US trade artery.

Also,
"In approving the purchase, the administration chose not to require Dubai Ports to keep copies of its business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to orders by American courts. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate requests by the government.

Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Dubai Ports agreed to give up records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at the U.S. ports, according to the documents. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment. It also pledged to continue participating in programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials." -Yahoo

Jesus, even that partisan hack Sean Hannity thinks this is a bad idea.

 

[The Chief]

I know ... that's what concerns me.

Dan, I love ya, kid. But would this be the same DHS that is currently in overall charge of airport security and screening ...???

Hillary? Hmmm... Did not hubby Bill sell (for campaign contributions) the Long Beach Navy Yard to the Chinese Government? As I remember the Navy had hardly left and the Chinese were in there. But wait, they are on our side - no? Well, we are perhaps not a very good ally as we did buzz that Chinese figher with your warplane, downing the fighter - according to our democrat friends. Another example of our CIC being a cowboy.

But back to the politics - Mayor O'malley of B'more said he would not allow UAE to run Port of B'more (he is running for Gov of MD), he would demand that American company run the port. Guess he does not know that the Chinese have been running major ports of the port for some years now. In fact, the Chinese are running terminals in almost all major U.S. port. Some say it is a Chinese Company - COSCO - (Chinese Ocean Shipping Company) - but in fact, a Chinese Government owned company.

For those that may not have noticed, US bottoms have all but disappeared from the high seas. Even APL (American President Lines) is now a wholly owned subsidary of Neptune Orient Lines, a Chinese owned company, based in Singapore.

Guess what I am saying is "Pick your own poison".:icon_rage :icon_rage

 

[Goober]

Hillary? Hmmm... Did not hubby Bill sell (for campaign contributions) the Long Beach Navy Yard to the Chinese Government? As I remember the Navy had hardly left and the Chinese were in there. But wait, they are on our side - no? Well, we are perhaps not a very good ally as we did buzz that Chinese figher with your warplane, downing the fighter - according to our democrat friends. Another example of our CIC being a cowboy.

But back to the politics - Mayor O'malley of B'more said he would not allow UAE to run Port of B'more (he is running for Gov of MD), he would demand that American company run the port. Guess he does not know that the Chinese have been running major ports of the port for some years now. In fact, the Chinese are running terminals in almost all major U.S. port. Some say it is a Chinese Company - COSCO - (Chinese Ocean Shipping Company) - but in fact, a Chinese Government owned company.

Good on ya Master Chief...you were reading my mind exactly.:icon_smil

 

[DanMa1156]

I know ... that's what concerns me.

Dan, I love ya, kid. But would this be the same DHS that is currently in overall charge of airport security and screening ...???

It is... but what I'm saying is there will not only still be a government prescence there (DHS/ USCG) but there will be more public accountibility now that the public is aware of foreigners owning their ports (especially Middle Easterners - sorry for not being PC, but it's true) and the company will never ever make it if there is a second of breached security. You know the media is going to be on their case like a hobo on a hot dog if something happens, no matter how small. While I see all of your points, and once was vehemently opposed to it, I still feel like people are making a bigger deal of this than it should be made.

A4's, I love you to.

 

[bellebeast1]

President Bush stated that the UEA also helped with the finding terrorists pre 9/11--its also in the 9/11 commission report--UEA is the country we went through in order to try and get people from the afganistan goverment since we didn't acknowledge their existance. They've been an ally since the first desert storm.

 

[Benson]

President Bush stated that the UEA also helped with the finding terrorists pre 9/11--its also in the 9/11 commission report--UEA is the country we went through in order to try and get people from the afganistan goverment since we didn't acknowledge their existance. They've been an ally since the first desert storm.

Its the U.A.E.(United Arab Emirates)* for future reference.

 

[H20man]

Personally, I really don't like the deal, but like DanMav has said, it is going to change the uppermanagement, not the guys on the ground or on the ships, and not the US and International Laws that Apply.

Plus I dont think you are going to be uprooting any longshoremen unions any time soon.

Honestly I hope this starts a more thorough look into the state of our maritime industry, as the situation with our deep water shipping is horrible.
SHIPPING STATS check the total down there in the corner.

You all should be happy we have the Jones Act, this is a very vital part of our National Security and the international community does not like it.

pulled this from the MARAD site.

To encourage a strong U.S. merchant marine for both national defense and economic security, the nation's domestic waterborne commerce is reserved for vessels built in the United States, owned and crewed by American citizens, and registered under the American flag. U.S. laws governing the domestic transportation of passengers and cargo by water are generally known as the Jones Act, named after Senator Wesley Jones (R-WA), the sponsor of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. The Jones Act continues to be the foundation for America's domestic shipping policy.

I know that before I started my education here at KP, I had no idea this act existed, and I'm glad that it does exist.

Or how about Flags of Convenience. This has severely hurt our maritime industry and can actually pose security problems.
Perfect Example:

Maersk

Maersk Sea-Land: US division of a foreign company.

Guess where some of those ships are: Prepositioned
Guess what their carrying: Our military assets
MPS: the reason Maersk maintains Sea-Land.

They also operate one of the larger terminals of the LA-Long Beach port.

Oh yeah, another example is American Presidential Lines (APL). US flagged ships, owned by a foriegn company.



As for the container inspection situation: That is not going to change anytime soon.

If you expect them to take the time to inspect each one of our boxes that came off in Long Beach your mad; not to mention how fast you rotate in and out of ports.

We were done with 2 Chinese ports in less than 48 hours, total time in port was about 8-12 hours.


In Japan we hit 2 ports in less than 24 hours, with an 8 hour turn around time in each, that means all tied up at 0800 and last line at 1600, which during that time hundreds of containers have been loaded and unloaded as well as restowed to various positions on ships.

The chinese ports were the only ports that provided us with a detailed shipping manifest, informative but really a waste of trees, most important are the reefer and hazardous manifests.
*We had a lot of Christmas related cargo coming over in September. :icon_tong
_________________________________
I have attached a project that my group did for our logistics class last year, our job was to create a new security feature, we chose the maritime industry and tackled the container inspection problem, i have attached our paper which has a lot of information regarding port statisics, if you would like to see our power point as well PM me.


Also an interesting tidbit, all Liquid Natural Gas brought to this country is done completely by foreign flagged ships (absolutlely no US Flagged ships) and the industry is growing at such a pace that we are now in a situation that we need to have US flagged LNG ships.
__________________________________________________
Here are some links for further information and research.
http://www.usmm.org/
USCG
IMO
MARAD STATISICS INDEX

____________________________________________________
So ends my rant on the status of the US Maritime Industry :icon_rage

Below is the picture of the ship I was assigned to last year.

 

[Blacky]

I'm sure you had a good point to make, H2Oman, but after realizing that I would have to scroll my mouse wheel down three times before getting to the end of your post, I stopped reading. Just the nature of the beast, man.... Shorter = better.

Seriously, tho, I think I'm gonna side with A4s on this one. The real issue is not this particular deal, but rather where does this stupid practice stop. Ports, then airlines, then what....? It doesn't seem to smart to start selling out vital parts of our infrastructure to foreign businesses (allies or not), just to save money. Why can't we do it just as efficient or better? It's time for Americans to sack up and realize that to continue to enjoy certain freedoms and security in today's world, it's gonna cost a little more. Quit whining about money and for God's sake, quit selling off all our stuff!

 

[DanMa1156]

The real issue is not this particular deal, but rather where does this stupid practice stop. Ports, then airlines, then what....? It doesn't seem to smart to start selling out vital parts of our infrastructure to foreign businesses (allies or not)...

just to save money...

Why can't we do it just as efficient or better?

1. This particular port is already foreign owned.
2. It's mutually beneficial; any economic deal is, otherwise, one nation/firm wouldn't agree to it. Their efficiency will likely lead to greater tax revenue for the U.S./State/local governments over the long run.
3. Ask a businessman. Who knows why U.S. firms can't do it. I'd bet they can but don't want to deal with the red tape of the government, or there are other industries which firms make more money per capita. Why invest your money in a port when you can make more money on real estate, or anything else for that matter? The fact is that the highest bidder was a foreigner, not an American. What incentive do the current owners have to sell if they know their market value on the outside is greater than within U.S. investors? They're not going to sell to a lower bidder.

The laws of economics:

"no such thing as a free lunch."
&
"Incentives matter."

Nuff said.

Edit: I do feel though that vital infrastructure should be kept American owned, or at least, have some form of government intervention where, in an emergency the government can comandeer needed equipment... which I believe is the case here. Say we went to war with the UAE, do you think the Government would hesitate a second to take over this port? I don't.

 

[squeeze]

President Bush stated that the UEA also helped with the finding terrorists pre 9/11--its also in the 9/11 commission report--UEA is the country we went through in order to try and get people from the afganistan goverment since we didn't acknowledge their existance. They've been an ally since the first desert storm.

You mean this 9/11 Commission report?

“Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarke’s call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such a clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke’s phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ‘Mike’ thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.”
...
“Days before overhead imagery confirmed the location of the hunting camp, Clarke had returned from a visit to the UAE … His visit included one-on-one meetings with Army Chief of Staff bin Zayid, as well as talks with Sheikh Muhammad bin Rashid, the ruler of Dubai. Both agreed to try to work with the United States in their efforts against Bin Laden. … On February 10, as the United States considered striking the camp, Clarke reported that during his visit bin Zayid had vehemently denied rumors that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan. … Subsequent reporting, however, suggested that high-level UAE officials had indeed been at the desert camp. CIA memo, ‘Recent High Level UAE Visits to Afghanistan,’ Feb. 19, 1999. Gen. Shelton also told us that his UAE counterpart said he had been hunting at a desert camp in Afghanistan at about this time.”
...
"Bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emirates."

And in related, recent news...

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Senator Carl Levin, the ranking democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9/11 commission's assertion the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem" for the United States.

Levin told Bush administration representatives, "Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9/11 commission." Nobody raised a hand.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[pittflyer]

The following are not all encompassing by any means and there is obviously more to it than definitions, but it is interesting to start with these simple ones and analyze THIS policy from an academic standpoint. There's been many comments so far on this post, none wrong by the way, just opinions which makes this great, but where does the ideology fall?

Isolationism: A national policy of having no political and economic relationships with other countries.
Multilateralism: The condition whereby many countries work together to accomplish international objectives.
Unilateralism: The condition whereby a nation works alone to accomplish international objectives without the aid or approval of other countries.

"Let me say it slowly so you can grasp it. Dubai... Ports... World... is... not... an... independent... company... They... are... a... state-owned (big word, watch out)... and... state-controlled (another one)... company."

Are we, big-daddy-U.S., not doing the same thing throughout the world in the name of Multilateralism?

 

[luckechance]

IMO This entire deal is a non-issue. For all the kicking and screaming that has gone on in washington, does anyone know what this company will actually do at the ports it will be running? In case you were wondering:
1. The ports of New York/New Jersey are owned by the Port Authority a quasigovernment agency. The Port Authority contracts out the actual day to day operations of the port.
2. Basically what they do is move the boxes off of the ships to the rest of our transportation network. The ship is cleared by customs before a single box moves off the ship.
3. The day to day work is done by either the ILA or the ILWU (east coast or west coast) and those unions are not going anywhere, ever.
4. This new company would only deal with the boxes after thay had already cleared our pathetic security measures.
5. The real problem in our ports is that nobody knows whats in the boxes. The current facilities are not large enough to open up all the boxes and maintain the proper flow of boxes to keep our economy humming.

I've sailed on container ship's off of both coasts.

 

[bellebeast1]

“Even after bin Laden’s departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. "Bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emirates."

Makes it sound like the UAE knew it had some traitors--not the whole government

And in related, recent news...

assertion the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem" for the United States.

From what I understand after doing studies on the 9/11 and looking through other FBI released info, the UAE handed over about 50 known terrorists to the US. (of Course this was done two years ago, and it was in the archive building so I'm not sure if I have access to it on the internet so I can't prove it) however, everytime they went to Afganistan and said something to the goverment there, the government warned Bin Laden to move--that the US was after him again.

The Saudis on the other hand were giving bin Laden money through charity organizations etc. We do buisness all the time with them. And they didn't help us until after 9/11. What's the difference?