Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (158733)	2/23/2006 3:11:03 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793520

Tommy Franks Defends Dubai Ports Deal Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2006 10:05 p.m. EST newsmax.com Former CENTCOM commanding general Tommy Franks said Wednesday that the Bush administration was right to approve a deal for a United Arab Emirates-based company to run six major U.S. ports. "We have more U.S. Navy ships using the port in Dubai, Jebel Ali, than any other port outside the United States," Franks told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." The former Iraq war commander explained U.S. reliance on the Dubai port facility by saying, "We know he difference between an enemy and a friend." "The Emirates is a friend," Franks aid. "That is the best run port that I've ever seen." Gen. Franks said the Dubai company had three essential qualities that commend it for the task of running U.S. ports: the capacity to handle the job, the inclination to do it right and security, which he noted "will remain, in any case, in the hands of the United States Coast Guard."

To: LindyBill who wrote (158733)	2/23/2006 3:19:44 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793520

This seems to be a good explanation: The DP World Port Sale: Overblown Fears February 22, 2006 counterterror.typepad.com In an election year, it certainly makes for a powerful rallying cry: "They want to turn our port security over to Arab states!" Indeed, politicians on both sides of the aisle have already been leaping to skewer the administration for approving the Dubai Ports of the United Arab Emirates (DP World) taking over the operation of six U.S. seaports. But moving beyond the politics of the situation, the fears surrounding DP World's purchase appear overblown. First of all, after this sale, DP World won't suddenly become our only recourse for port security. There is in fact a layered set of security checks that operates independent of DP World. These checks include the following: A 24-hour Manifest Rule that requires sea carriers to provide U.S. Customs with detailed descriptions of the contents of containers bound for the U.S. a full 24 hours before the container is loaded onto a vessel. This allows U.S. Customs officers to assess risks and scan the containers in overseas ports before they enter the U.S. The Coast Guard remains responsible for port security regardless of who manages the ports, while Customs and Border Protection maintains responsibility for container and cargo security. As containers enter the U.S., officers on the ground screen the containers using imaging and radiation detection technology. These security procedures will not change even if DP World takes over port operations. Whether or not one believes that these security procedures are sufficient, the fact remains that we won't be left any worse off. Just as the security procedures and those who are charged with carrying them out will remain the same, we are unlikely to witness a change in the composition of the workforce at the six ports that DP World would run. Robert Palaima, the president of Delaware River Stevedores, pointed out that when the British company P&O Steamship Navigation Co. ran the ports, there wasn't a sudden infusion of British workers. He doesn't expect that this will change once the partner is based in Dubai rather than Britain. (My colleague Victor Comras noted DP World's rapid expansion; this makes it more likely that they will simply use American employees.) A third reason that security concerns are overblown is that DP World isn't exactly a fly-by-night operation that came out of nowhere to buy up P&O. Rather, it is a multi-billion-dollar operation that bought up the British company for a whopping $6.8 billion. DP World operates ports around the globe. If a terrorist attack came through one of its ports, its entire business could be shattered. That is a high price to pay, and means that DP World has at least the same kind of incentive that any other company would -- indeed, perhaps more of an incentive -- to ensure strong port security. And a final consideration is the manner in which the administration has attempted to "push the borders out" over the past few years to guarantee better port security. Security screening has shifted to the port of origin, with checkpoints along the way to ensure the cargo's continued safety. This means that a significant portion of our port security is already handled by ports outside the U.S. Thus, it's not clear why the present port acquisition has caused more of an uproar than the expansion of DP World's operations into Europe, Latin America, East Asia and Australia. To be sure, the UAE had a spotty record on terrorism pre-9/11. It was one of only three governments to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, and two of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from the UAE. However, the UAE's cooperation has greatly improved since then. The State Department has described UAE as providing "staunch assistance and cooperation" against terrorism, and the UAE has been involved in several key al-Qaeda arrests. Interestingly, one of these arrests, of Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri, directly enhanced maritime security. Al-Nashiri was one of the men charged in the 2000 USS Cole attack, and as Richard Miniter notes in his book Shadow War, he was so vital to bin Laden's attacks at sea that Arab intelligence officers jokingly referred to him as the "al-Qaeda admiral." The UAE was also the first Middle Eastern state to sign onto the Container Security Initiative. Much of the scrutiny that the DP World purchase has drawn centers on the fact that an Arab government will now have a hand in running U.S. ports. But many Arab states are vital allies in the global war on terror. A closer examination of the facts makes it appear that the port security situation will be largely unchanged after DP World takes over. To that extent, I agree with Senator McCain that the UAE "has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully." We are facing very real security issues at present. The problem with the media storm swirling around the DP World sale is that it belittles an Arab ally without making us safer, and some of the alarmist claims that have been made may desensitize Americans to far more important issues that we face in the global war on terror. Posted by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross at 08:44 PM \| Permalink