What about the ports that are already controlled by foreign interests?

[ChazII]

After being told by different members that this should have its own link. I am attempting my first thread. Please be patient. Be back in a momement with the link. I don't even know if it is a reliable site. This is what I am hoping that some DUer can help explain. What you see below is the first I have read about this. However, I live in a land locked state.


Link: http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia/

Government of Saudi Arabia, Saudi individuals and establishments

Head Office Riyadh, KSA

The National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA) was established in 1979 to meet the transportation needs of Importers and Exporters in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East.

And look at the ports where they control berths:

Marine Terminals

Baltimore, MD

Halifax, Canada

Newport News, VA

Houston, TX

New Orleans, LA

St. John, Canada

Houston, Texas

Savannah, GA

Wilmington, NC

Port Newark, NJ

Brooklyn, NY

Where’s the outrage?

[BootinUp]

1. I guess Hillary's bill is kinda DOA then. n/t

[cdsilv]

2. The US gov't should nationalize control and security of our ports.

yeah, global trade and all that, however you don't give foreign control of the secret service to the lowest bidder. Or perhaps we should.

I really think the US is ready for another round of isolationism. FTW.

We got our own (we really do, if we were to utilize all of our resources..)

FTW. Go suck eggs. Don't like us but yet want our aid? Not gonna get it anymore.

FTW.

[annabanana]

13. huh... you should take a look at this!

runtime approx. 17mins.
http://festival.sundance.org/2006/watch/film.aspx?which...

The horse is out the stable and over the hill..

[Jayhawk Lib]

3. There are several

west coast ports controlled by the Chinese....

[nonconformist]

4. I don't like any of this stuff.

It should be common sense that the ports should be ran by American companies. I can't imagine a more blatant example of conflict of interest.

That said, many of us were completely unaware of this. There hasn't been "outrage" before because the American people, by and large, simply did not know. Now we know, and there's outrage.

[ChazII]

6. I agree wholeheartedly but

I guess I am irked the the media did not make the control more of an issue. To be honest, I was more busy with my studies in 1979 so maybe they did and I just missed it. Yes, hopefully we will not keep making this same error.

[mac56]

5. At the very least, there needs to be a comprehensive review.

Just because we may have made a few mistakes doesn't mean we're obligated to keep making them.

[oneighty]

7. Is controlling a berth

the same as controlling the whole port?

I can understand leasing a berth only.

I am cautious about visiting unfamiliar sites.

Welcome to DU.

180

[eleny]

8. 9/11 changed everything

[madrchsod]

9. it`s about the paper work

and access to it. the uae deal included that the paper work-did not- have to be stored in the usa and that the usa had only the right to access information if the uae "felt like it". these two provisions are included in all other contracts with other off shore companies running our ports-storage of records on us soil and unrestricted access by us officials.
if you have seen that god awful movie-"sum of all fears" that is how they got the bomb into the usa..they had someone on the inside who took care of the paper work. so i ask why did the government give the uae this deal they gave no one else-no or little access to the paper work? feel safer now?

[MercutioATC]

10. Thank you!

I've been quiet about this because it's actually working against Bush, but this is NOT a new practice. (it is also NOT about "control of the ports" or "security").

For decades, port operations (loading and unloading and such) in this and other countries have been managed by private companies. It's great that Bush's base doesn't understand it and has made it an issue. However, we should realize it for what it is.

[annabanana]

12. (Dubai company is not a "private company")

It is wholly owned by the Royal Family of Dubai. And that special little paperwork agreement (offshore records) is a real stinker.

[MercutioATC]

15. My point is that there are a LOT of foreign port management companies

that manage U.S. port operations.

It's valid to question UAE Royal Family ties to terrorism in the same way it would be valid to question ANY port management company's ties to terrorism. However, MOST of our large ports' operations are managed by foreign entities and it's never been an issue before...for a pretty good reason. We're talking about port operations management, not port security. The Brits, or Chinese, or UAE (depending on the port) contract to manage the OPERATIONS of the port (contracting with workers to load and offload cargo, etc). The U.S. is still in charge of security...officially through Customs and the Coast Guard. If we're gonna worry about the UAE doing port operations management, shouldn't we also be worried about the Chinese?

My point is that we're concentrating on the wrong issue. If we want security, the port operations management company doesn't provide it. Customs and the Coast Guard do. Neither have the latest technology. Neither have adequate equipment to scan cargo. Neither can really provide "security" at out ports.

The issue is essentially a strawman, IMO...one that's apparently working in our favor, but a strawman nonetheless.

[Laelth]

11. "Where's the outrage?"

Just so you know, I get really nervous when I see a phrase like that. Watch Fahrenheit 9-11 and you'll know what I mean. Right wing talking points often come with that tag line.

And I could care less whether companies from other countries run some port operations in the US. I want Bush to go down, and I'm not choosy about which meme works to accomplish this goal. I have no desire to "explain" to the American people that it's really OK to have foreign companies running the ports.

Why, I wonder, are you invested in making sure we all understand this? :hi:

-Laelth

[annabanana]

14. Good first thread!

Owning a warehouse at a port isn't the same thing as being the "port operator". I have no problem with companies maintaining facilities at our ports... I just don't want a foreign government RUNNING the whole show at any port.