Gaps in Security Stretch From Model Port to U.S. (NYT)

[Wordie]

(There are security questions, but they aren't ones that hinge on the UAE deal.)

This article starts out describing a port in the Persian Gulf, which is seen as a "model for the post-9/11 world" by many American officials. There are fences, guards, gamma ray scanners to search the insides of containers to make sure the contents are as specified on shipping records, and even radiation detectors to search for any nuclear material that might be hidden within them.

Gaps in Security Stretch From Model Port to U.S.
By HASSAN M. FATTAH
and ERIC LIPTON
Published: February 26, 2006

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Feb. 25 —
...But those antiterrorism measures still fall far short of what is needed to ensure security, American government auditors and maritime experts say.

...It explains why so many port experts consider as misplaced the furor that erupted this week over whether Dubai Ports World, the government-owned company that operates this port, should be allowed to take over management of terminals in six American cities.

The trouble is not focused at the end of the line — the port terminal at the American shore. It is spread up and down the supply chain at critical points across the globe, no matter what the United States government and partners like United Arab Emirates have so far tried.

Security experts say the far more profound issue is the wide distance between what is needed for effective monitoring in terms of technology and programs versus what is on the ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/national/26port.html?hp&ex=1140930000&en=b82283fddf1a9bc5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It seems to me that the entire ports debate may be very useful for one reason: to raise awareness of how much more effort we need to secure our ports, no matter who is managing them.

[xchrom]

1. great article.

i have to favor nationalizing port security because of that swiss cheeze thing.

but it's complex -- and to make ports truly secure would really step on a LOT of toes.

[Wordie]

3. I think security is already nationalized, and supplied through the

Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard. But with all the claims and counterclaims swirling around, who is to say for sure. I'm not certain quite what to think. The "keep the ports in American hands" theme was really resonating with me (not directed at the UAE company, but all of them), until I read just how many of them are already run by foreign companies. And that there were only two companies that even bid on this contract; the other was Chinese. It seems to me that the article is saying that with containers that come in from all over the world, the actual management isn't really going to matter that much anyway.

And then there's the question of whether I really would prefer a company like Haliburton to get the deal...

I can't help but wonder if we all need a quite few more lessons on how the ports are actually run, in order to really look at this objectively.

[xchrom]

5. yes -- i realize that re: homeland security

and the national guard.

the department of homeland security is too big for my money.
unwieldy as a result.

and thus far they haven't done a good job re: port security.

my other point is that america must stop worshipping at the feet of globalization -- these SHOULD be american jobs -- owned, etc.
and in that context it's not a dubai thing with me.

[Wordie]

6. Well...

actually, what I've read is that the idea that we would lose jobs isn't accurate. The reports I've seen say that the same union people that are there now would remain, and the union would remain, too.

There's an awful lot of misleading information on this deal.

I found a good article that debunked some of this stuff. You might want to take a look:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=192928&mesg_id=192928

[blm]

2. Funny, how this was a major issue Kerry spoke about during the campaign

and media ignored it completely, even when he made an issue out of it during the debates - they just would not discuss the substance of his charges against Bush on any terror issue.

[Wordie]

4. LOL..I think that's one clip that FAUX isn't going to air anytime soon!

I remember him stressing that. But I guess we don't really need any more reminders of how the wrong person is in the White House anyway.

Oh, and the article said we would need to spend $7 billion to really upgrade port security properly, but we just haven't been willing to spend the money.

How much is it that Bush wants for the Iraq war?

[blm]

8. My beef is that media won't acknowledge their own role in covering up for

Bush all these years on the port issue, while Kerry and a few other Dems stressed the point REPEATEDLY.

[Wordie]

10. Yeah...and now the facts about the port deal aren't really being aired,

it's more about the controversy than the actual merits of the deal.

[Quakerfriend]

7. Say NO to gobalization!

ONLY American jobs in America!

I AM SO SICK OF THIS!! The rest of the world, from Central America to Europe has protested NAFTA and CAFTA- They have been out in the streets! We need to be there too!

NO MORE WORLD DOMINATION BY THE CORPORATIONS!

[Wordie]

9. I understand how you feel...

the problem is, who else is there to manage these ports besides big corporations? From what I can see, it requires a fairly large operation in order to do it. I mean, there aren't many mom-and-pop ports management companies!

And I think that this won't take jobs from the U.S. workers, although there are lots of people saying so. Reports have said that the company will retain the existing workers, and honor contracts with the union that's there now, too. Now, there may be more to it that I'm not aware of, so don't take my word as the last one on that.

We all need to take a lot of what's being said about this contract with a grain of salt, imho. And do lots of our own research, because there are lots of people wanting to spin us.

[sattahipdeep]

11. Facts....

"The fact that you are putting a company in place that could already be
infiltrated by al-Qaida is a silly thing to do," said Mike Scheuer, who
headed the CIA unit until 1999.
....
The Bush administration continued to defend the deal Friday even as it
admitted mishandling the decision-making process.

....
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have denounced the Bush
administration for approving the deal through a secretive review
process designed to protect national security in big corporate mergers.

....
"If there was a failure, we failed to recognize there might be a public
reaction," Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters in Richmond,
Va. "Over time, we may recommend improvements in the process so
Congress is better informed about transactions."

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-7/114078417674530.xml&storylist=topstories

QUESTION: Was the State Department involved in discussions over the UAE taking over
management of six ports -- six U.S. ports?

MR. MCCORMACK: The State Department is part of an interagency process which is led
by the Department of Treasury. We did participate in it. This interagency process did a
thorough review of all aspects of this proposed sale. And the bottom line finding was that
there was no basis on -- no national security basis on which to block the sale going
forward.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=February&x=20060217172404xjsnommis0.3468439&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

:hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x523962

[Wordie]

12. Hmmm...

Now that info on what Mike Scheuer said gives me pause. Do you have a link on that?

And what's your point about the State Department?

[Gin]

13. The company that is ready to take over our ports is "STATE OWNED" .

Dubai has deep pockets...whats next? China taking over the rest of the ports?
So.... it's not just another business deal.....another country will be in charge of our ports....am I missing something here?

[Wordie]

14. Well, actually, yes, there are some things that we all missed.

Did you know that China already has similar deals for a significant number of U.S. ports, for instance? Or that foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States? Or that there are few U.S. companies in the port management business anymore?

Foreign management of U.S. ports nothing new
American firms began withdrawal decades ago

Simon Romero and Heather Timmons
New York Times
Feb. 25, 2006 12:00 AM

HOUSTON - In the outcry over who should run America's seaport terminals, one clear trend appears to have been overlooked: American companies began withdrawing decades ago from the unglamorous business of stevedoring, ceding the now-booming industry to enterprises in Asia and the Middle East.

So it is no accident that American companies are not in the top ranks of global terminal operators, who have ridden the coattails of the explosion in world trade. That shift has transferred growing financial clout to a handful of seafaring centers in Hong Kong, Singapore and now the emirate of Dubai.

Indeed, the takeover of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of Britain came down to a battle between two foreign, state-backed companies. One of them, DP World, is owned by Dubai's Maktoum family. The other, PSA, the world's second-largest port operator, is part of the Singapore government's investment arm.

The acquisition price also reflects the advantage that a number of the fastest-growing companies enjoy: their governments' deep pockets. DP World paid about 20 percent more than analysts thought the company was worth. Publicly traded companies that were potential bidders were scared off long before DP World's final offer.

Though two American companies now rank eighth and ninth among the world's top 10 operators, it would not be easy for other American companies to get into the business. The retreat began decades ago amid rising labor costs and slow growth, while foreign companies spotted opportunities.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/0225portsbiz250.html

[WhiteTara]

15. have our ports never been managed by a governmental

agency? Or have they always been in private corporate hands?

[Wordie]

16. I'm no expert...

but what I understand is that the ports themselves are owned by governmental entitities, which then let contracts for space within the port. The port management companies often build the individual terminals, which then are operated under something like a lease with the government. I don't know if this is the arrangement at all of them, and I don't know if it's a new sort of arrangement, or if things have always been done this way.

[WhiteTara]

17. thanks. I sort of thought that

but just wondered.

[Wordie]

18. Here's a link to a thread that seems to contain a lot of info

about how ports operate:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x493956