On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and the
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There is
absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our nation's
security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true nature
of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of their
banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious causes, the
fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our ports and not
a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various ports'
management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States may
very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their customary
secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed acceptable.
There are means of publicly vetting these important issues without
compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for a matter
of such great public concern, complete secrecy is counterproductive
regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and public review. In this
instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater than the risk of sensitive
exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of current
hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and media spheres
(both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is buying
a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the various
ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to be sure)
and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases offered by the
states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in charge
of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the type
of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected by
the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely a
non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment to
dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by the
American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to become a
longshoreman has had to either go through the International Longshoreman's
Association on the East Coast or the International Longshoremen &
Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the union is no easy
task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any attempt by the UAE
(or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a non-union member on
the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down to
the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's Port
Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the lifted
beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out loud,
"You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to observe
the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride in what
they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to happen to
their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly. These are the
men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by the UAE's DP
World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The idea
that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly container
into a port is an idea founded without understanding the disconnect between
the port operator and the inbound inspections system employed by the USCG
and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have if
we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice president,
Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong.
I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or
feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities and
pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing to the
wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports after
the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly racially
profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should disqualify them
from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously. With little doubt and
much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East, a
region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the future
safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede one
of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be certain
and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not necessarily
based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a port operator.
With a longer and more detailed public look at both the role of a port
operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become clear that this is
not at all the security risk that it first seemed to be. But, to assume
otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without such further review is
wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest on
The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make an
important security decision with long term implications. We cannot possibly
make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while hyperventilating
into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and
the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There
is absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our
nation's security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this
consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true
nature of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of
their banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious
causes, the fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our
ports and not a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various
ports' management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States may very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their
customary secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed
acceptable. There are means of publicly vetting these important issues
without compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for
a matter of such great public concern, complete secrecy is
counterproductive regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and
public review. In this instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater
than the risk of sensitive exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of
current hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and
media spheres (both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is
buying a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the
various ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to
be sure) and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases
offered by the states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in
charge of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the
type of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected
by the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely
a non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment
to dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by
the American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to
become a longshoreman has had to either go through the International
Longshoreman's Association on the East Coast or the International
Longshoremen & Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the
union is no easy task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any
attempt by the UAE (or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a
non-union member on the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen
onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down
to the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's
Port Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the
lifted beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out
loud, "You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to
observe the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride
in what they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to
happen to their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly.
These are the men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by
the UAE's DP World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks
afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The
idea that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly
container into a port is an idea founded without understanding the
disconnect between the port operator and the inbound inspections system
employed by the USCG and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have
if we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice
president, Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's
wrong. I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or
wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities
and pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing
to the wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports
after the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly
racially profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should
disqualify them from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously.
With little doubt and much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East,
a region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the
future safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede
one of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be
certain and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not
necessarily based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a
port operator. With a longer and more detailed public look at both the
role of a port operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become
clear that this is not at all the security risk that it first seemed to
be. But, to assume otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without
such further review is wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest
on The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make
an important security decision with long term implications. We cannot
possibly make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while
hyperventilating into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/



Nice one. His last 2 paragraphs say it all.

Looks like the Senate is acting responsibly, although I disagree with a
timetable for the review as Hillary suggests.

======================================
From: http://tinyurl.com/o8t2y

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...p_world _news
Senators from both parties said a state-owned Dubai company's takeover of
facilities in six major U.S. seaports should be delayed, and President
George W. Bush's top political adviser suggested the administration would
welcome having more time to persuade lawmakers.

Congress needs more time to review the deal, said John Warner of Virginia,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrat Hillary Clinton
of New York said legislation would be offered next week to order a further
review of at least 45 days. ``That may be the first step to try and
understand this matter,'' she said.

Their comments capped a 90-minute briefing of the panel by Bush
administration officials who approved the $6.8 billion sale of London-based
port operator Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, based
in the United Arab Emirates.

DP World would gain control of most operations at ports in New York, New
Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans through the
acquisition of P&O. DP World spokesman Andrew Rice said today the company
plans to complete the purchase by March 2. Bush said after a Cabinet meeting
today that the deal doesn't pose a security risk to the U.S.

======================

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of
several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one
daily conclusion: Breathe.


More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the next
few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the skids
have been greased.

Hope so...another juicy scandal.


Rather than politicizing this why now wait for the facts Harry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of
several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one
daily conclusion: Breathe.


More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the next
few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the skids
have been greased.


If there is any behind-the-scenes negotiating taking place, it most
certainly has more to do with the UAE's geographically strategic importance,
than any potential money made from the deal.

Consider that just 2 weeks ago, Ahmadinejad threatened to shut down the
Strait of Hormuz in the event that Iran is attacked. The Strait is less
than 20 miles across, and it's nearly impossible to protect oil tankers as
they move through the 1-mile wide shipping channel. They're susceptible to
suicide gunboats, and Iranian silkworm missiles.

Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop the
silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The only
country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a defense
system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation
of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to
one daily conclusion: Breathe.

More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the
next few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the
skids have been greased.

Hope so...another juicy scandal.


Rather than politicizing this why not wait for the facts Harry?

Maybe tomorrow...

Maybe tomorrow? Will we wake up tomorrow to read another slanderous and
untrue report, this time about Bush and the UAE schemed up by the Democrats?

Harry, all folks want are facts........unbiased and sans political bias from
either side.

This issue is too important to make it political.

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection
Serve Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation
of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to
one daily conclusion: Breathe.

More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the
next few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the
skids have been greased.

Hope so...another juicy scandal.


Rather than politicizing this why not wait for the facts Harry?

Maybe tomorrow...

Maybe tomorrow? Will we wake up tomorrow to read another slanderous and
untrue report, this time about Bush and the UAE schemed up by the
Democrats?

Harry, all folks want are facts........unbiased and sans political bias
from either side.

This issue is too important to make it political.

There is nothing political about the following:

The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be taken
against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a small
island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians occupy it, and
should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island will be
critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase in the
war on terror.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of
Dubai Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation
of several of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to
one daily conclusion: Breathe.


More rationalizations...

Oh...look for some interesting $$$ connections to be revealed in the next
few days between the "Great Bush Family" and the UAE...I think the skids
have been greased.


If there is any behind-the-scenes negotiating taking place, it most
certainly has more to do with the UAE's geographically strategic
importance, than any potential money made from the deal.

Consider that just 2 weeks ago, Ahmadinejad threatened to shut down the
Strait of Hormuz in the event that Iran is attacked. The Strait is less
than 20 miles across, and it's nearly impossible to protect oil tankers as
they move through the 1-mile wide shipping channel. They're susceptible
to suicide gunboats, and Iranian silkworm missiles.

Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

Sounds like a very plausible explanation.

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:12:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Our Navy can protect against the suicide gunboats, but in order to stop
the silkworms, we need AWACS and Patriot missile batteries nearby. The
only country that can provide a suitable base of operations for such a
defense system is the UAE. And that's the reason for the port deal.

NOYB, we already have basing rights in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, *and*
the UAE.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.



The port deal is not about financial gain of Bush or his friends. It's
about greasing the palms of an important ally prior to our next phase in
the war on terror.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:26:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The UAE will become a critical ally should military action need to be
taken against Iran. Currently, the UAE and Iran are in a dispute over a
small island in the Strait of Hormuz named Abu Masa. The Iranians occupy
it, and should we come to blows with Iran, the control of that island
will
be critical to keeping the shipping lanes open in the Strait of Hormuz.

Look at a map, NOYB. Iran's occupation of the Tunb and Abu Masa Islands
would be untenable in the event of war. We already have basing rights in
UAE, Qatar, and Oman.


Yes. We also have military bases in the UAE as of last July...which makes
the UAE a critical ally should we come to blows with Iran.

The port deal was done to ensure that the UAE remains cooperative when the
shooting starts.