<p>An article from Forbes a year and a half ago sheds some not very reassuring light on the subject:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0412/086_print.html[/url]”>http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0412/086_print.html</a></p>
<p>From barron’s nytimes posted article:</p>
<p>“We have naval visits there and landing rights,” said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which has set a briefing on the subject for Thursday. “We have to move carefully in considering the implications of what we do.”</p>
<p>There it is.</p>
<p>And we just might need those “landing rights” real soon, hmm, Mr. President?</p>
<p>If you don’t take care of your friends you will soon find yourself without any. That would be very bad policy. As your article said–we have two friends in the ME and the UAE is one of them.</p>
<p>Here is a letter than members of Congress sent John Snow re: the port deal and a request for the 45 day review, as required by law.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Dubai_Ports_letter.pdf</a></p>
<p>That’s the only comment you have, barrons, after reading the entire article? That we need to do whatever our “friends” want?</p>
<p>I’ll admit that the globe is pretty devoid of friends of this administration at the moment.
This deal will go through, no matter what, as Bush doesn’t give a **** what congress or the American people want.
Rumsfeld told the press that he hadn’t heard about the deal either, until after the weekend. Wow. Even though much of our military equipment goes through the ports in question, he wasn’t consulted?
So neither Bush nor Rummy knew. </p>
<p>I guess if this was just considered a rubber stamp deal, no need to bother the higher-ups!</p>
<p>friends, hmmmmmm, remember when Saddam was our best friend? And look how that turned out</p>
<p>I hear Dole is going to become a lobbiest for Dubai…</p>
<p>And why can’t we take care of our own ports, are AMerican incapable of that? guess Bush and his people thinks Americans are good enough to take care of our own land</p>
<p>barrons, don’t you think Americans should take care of our own security on AMerican soil? guess not</p>
<p>We are supposed to trust that this country has been properly vetted? They have done such a spectaular job vetting some employees</p>
<p>And has anyone tried to find stuff on UAE online…most stuff is their own propoganda, very little information on much else</p>
<p>no election, leaders are called Highness, and this deal is with a country to manage our land our security, and does the coast guard actually go on land to search cargo?</p>
<p>Anyway, the UAE deal is likely to go the way of Harriet Miers, the best qualified to do the work. We’ll just have to settle for second best.</p>
<p>CGM, why do you have a problem with a leader called “Highness”? Given your current level of satisfaction with U.S. government, I would’ve expected you to post something more like “Practice Safe Government, Use Kingdoms”.</p>
<p>Dubai is actually an incredibly fascinating, wildly successful and progressive place. It’s literally a financial powerhouse, an economic wonder, and has sustained absolutely enviable achievements. We could learn a LOT from their leadership, as well as from their citizens. I’m sort of hearing there’s a shortage of office space, so many companies from everywhere else are trying to get a presence or a foothold there, space leases faster than anyone can build it.</p>
<p>Their own citizens are cared for very well - at birth, everyone gets a piece of land, and they’re set. Foreigners cannot own land, although it is possible to own a home, or a commercial business (I think you have to then lease the land). I don’t know what happens when the land runs out. </p>
<p>Their retail sectors are ridiculously interesting - I cannot wait to see how this turns out - from what I understand of the master plan, they have one section where all the car dealers are based, one section for clothing/textiles, another for technology, another for furniture, and so on. Shoppers don’t have to travel all over the city to buy a new car, or a computer, because all like vendors are in exactly one place. So a car buyer merely has to walk down the street from one to the next. I’m hearing that everyone who can afford to go travels to Dubai to do their shopping. </p>
<p>Even Madeline Albright’s lobbying firm is representing Dubai…anyway, you should really look into this very interesting country, as well as all the others we do major trade with.</p>
<p>Oh - I forgot to add - I’m a bit worried that the Dubai leadership might start questioning if THEY have properly vetted US.</p>
<p>The ignorance here over how the US ports actually work is astounding. Until most of you get a little more educated on the subject it is pointless to argue. The political grandstanding is doing no one any good and could alienate those we need in times of trouble.</p>
<p>The Dubai leadership? The ruler is a sunni Islamic dictator.
Their biggest trade partner is Iran. Some see this as a benevolent dictatorship, but the citizens are not free. There is no democracy.</p>
<p>There is no way they would allow a foreign government to take over the operations of any of their ports, airports or anything else.
You can’t even visit this country if your passport has an Israeli stamp on it. No foreigners can own land in this country. Everything is government owned and controlled.
It may have some beautiful hotels and fun shopping for the rich, but to call this country progressive is a mockery of the word.</p>
<p>and barrons - maybe you’d better call up your Republican senators who are fighting this thing and tell them to get “educated.” It seems that they aren’t crazy about a foreign government with a dubious relationship with terrorists having access to the management of our ports. I guess everyone who doesn’t think this is hunky dory needs educating.
Fine. So lets take that 45 days that is legally required when dealing in a foreign government and have those who approved this deal really talk about port security with Congress and the American people. It would be a very good conversation to have. Tell Bush and Rumsfeld too, 'cause they weren’t in the loop. I doubt that Bush could tell you “how ports actually work.” But I’m sure he’s confident that they’ll do a heck of a job!</p>
<p>Your condescention is astounding.</p>
<p>thank you asap. I was going to say what you did, but you said it better</p>
<p>The truth will come out more about the UAE. </p>
<p>Lets talk about human traffiking, the little boy camel jockeys,
how they treat foriegners, etc</p>
<p>We shall see</p>
<p>Boy barrons, just keep spewing the company line</p>
<p>Best line on this subject I’ve seen is the capsule: Offshoring the off shoring.</p>
<p>Don’t like that nearly as well as the latest chapter of Cheney’s biography: “Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.”</p>
<p>Obviously since some Republicans disagree there is no company line. I never said the UAE is a model society or government but it is a friend of the US and better than 99% of the regimes in that area. In your world we would not have any business with China or any other place with different ways from Singapore to Saigon (AKA…). Well, that idiocy is thankfully behind us–at least most of us who think a world doing business together is a big step to a safer world.</p>
<p>Doesn’t anyone think it’s a little odd that we are supporting the socialists? After all, this is a state-owned company, where the state “owns the means of production”. Why not a U.S. government-owned and operated corporation to work the ports? Or is it that we only support socialism abroad?</p>
<p>I guess it’s okay if we are being culturally sensitive and pc and not xenophobic. ;)</p>
<p>Back to my original question: why not let the American ports make the decision who they will sign a contract with now that the business they are currently working with has been bought out?</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t the government run the ports? If we are willing and ready and even eager to allow a foreign government to do so, why are we reluctant about our own? </p>
<p>Or is it easier (better?) to trust a foreign government, in this case the UAE government, because they don’t have any messy democratic processes to contend with?</p>
<p>Mini, it’s more like multiple governments run ports in their entirity, which is how the entire chain of commerce in international trade works. </p>
<p>To use the example of WalMart importing jackets, chances are those jackets are sewn in Korea, but are shipped overland to China for loading at one of those larger ports. The jackets are loaded into a container, most likely owned by U.K., but leased by a company in Australasia. Most likely, an NVOCC based in Africa leases the container space from Australasia, then “sublets” the space out to WalMart, either on a sustaining contract or a one time shipment. </p>
<p>Then, the container is likely loaded onto a ship registered to the government of Germany, Albania, Liberia, or any number of other countries - could even be China. But the crew could be from literally anywhere, multiple countries even. So already there are multiple governments involved in the export of WalMart’s jackets, and the container ship hasn’t even left port yet. </p>
<p>Plus jackets are small, and a container is either 20 TEUS or 40. So most likely WalMart’s jacket order doesn’t fill the entire container, even given the size of their trade, and the NVOCC loses money if the container isn’t full. So most likely other items are placed into the same container - maybe it’s shoes destined for Nordstoms, who knows - bottom line that container will be filled with other goods from yet other countries, shipped overland into the same port in China, or shipped from a nearby port but under another countries’ jurisdiction.</p>
<p>Since the vessel is headed for the U.S., all of the paperwork, including export declaration, bill of lading, etc. is filed through our Customs AMS system: it arrives instantaneously, and is immediately digested by MARAD, ONI, DHS, the Coast Guard, the International Trade Commission, and a bunch of other agencies. This data is very comprehensive - if, for example, motor vehicles are on loaded onto the same vessel, even the VIN numbers will be listed. </p>
<p>Once the vessel has clearance to leave the foreign port enroute to the U.S., it probably follows a trade lane that takes it around the horn of Africa. Along the way it may stop at literally MULTIPLE other ports - either to pick up or unload more containers, exchange crew, refuel, etc. It may stop somewhere in Africa or South America or any number of other places along the way. </p>
<p>Once the vessel finally enters U.S. waters - usually two weeks or so after it first left its point of origin - all the paperwork is in place at its port of destination. </p>
<p>Most major U.S. ports are going to have dry-bulk terminals, liquid bulk terminals, heavy container corridors, and any number of other designations: and any or all of them are going to be under the operation of China, U.K., or some other country. The vessel will be sent wherever it’s supposed to go, and, once docked, the container is going to be unloaded by cranes operated by terminal management that may be from still other countries. </p>
<p>But even pulling into port involves a few other countries. Container ships are huge; even at deepwater ports they displace a lot of water; they cannot simply sail up to the port entrance and stop. Usually, tugs sail out to meet them and bring them in, and, these tugs may be registered to Mexico or Canada or Albania or who knows where, and with equally disparate crews. </p>
<p>Since WalMart most likely doesn’t send an employee running down to meet the vessel, some third party intermediary (might be Asian owned or European, depending on the geography) is probably going to unload the container via crane, and, the jackets are probably going to sit in a warehouse at the port (owned or leased by yet other counties) until WalMart’s trucks come get the jackets. (Los Angeles alone has something like 19 acres of warehouse space at its port.)</p>
<p>Bottom line, by the time someone stands in line at WalMart to buy a jacket, upwards of 30+ countries may have been involved in some way in the total chain of commerce. And, of course, anywhere along the way, there are probably at least a few weak points in the chain where a terrorist could potentially intersect with WalMart’s container.</p>
<p>At any port - either here or in other countries, multiple other countries are going to be leasing, owning or operating some part of the chain of commerce: it could be the vessels, tugs, cranes, the stevedoring, warehousing, crews, or even the dozens of businesses housed at ports to serve the vessels (ship building and repair, fueling) etc. It would literally be quite impossible to try to untangle these relationships, and of course it would be economically disastrous to even consider it.</p>
<p>CGM, re the “truth” about “UAE”, ignorance is a very, very dangerous condition. You’re making assumptions not supported by any fact, and even worse, you’re oddly uncurious about this very interesting and vibrant section of the world. </p>
<p>I’m wondering if you can imagine the dire consequences if the citizens of UAE - or any other country - made the same assumptions about the U.S., and were able to influence their country’s economic and trade policies on the basis of those assumptions.</p>
<p>The danger to this country isn’t planes flying into buildings, the danger is in our cultural and practical ignorance - not only about the societal and economic practices in rest of the world, but how even basic things work within our own borders. </p>
<p>Ignorance due to lack of information, exposure or education is understandable, however, voluntarily blinding oneself is unforgivable. If we insist on remaining sheltered and uninformed, we’ll lose to the terrorists no matter how many buildings are left standing - actually, we won’t have to worry much about the likes of bin Laden, we’ll just do ourselves in.</p>