UAE Running American Ports?

[LilacDragon]

I would post the link, but it is an AP link and has a copywrite, so you are going to have to bare with my interpretation of this rather important(?) bit of news.

Last week, London based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased by Dubai Ports World, giving DPW contracts dealing with the running and security of U.S. Ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philidelphia!

The UAE was a financial and operational base for the hijackers that carried out the September 11th attacks and was a transfer point for nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

HS Secretary Micheal Chertoff did several television interviews this weekend and was quoted ""We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint,"

But Rep. Peter King - R - N.Y. - says "I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," King told The Associated Press.

Am I the only one who things that handing over the security of our National Ports to a company with even remote ties to terrorists is troubling to say the least? Is this yet another case of the current administration again helping out it's Arab friends?

[CARLA]

Just scares me to death. :-3 What the hell is he thinking..??? I know the answer to that, he's not thinking..

[Accountable]

I've been watching this on tv all day. I never knew that most - most! - of our ports are owned and run by foreign gov'ts and companies. China owns most of the west coast ports.



I'm honestly torn about this. The previous owners were British. No American companies even bid for the sale. TSA (fed gov't) will still be in charge of security and screening. The White House press conference said that shipments are thoroughly checked before they leave the port of origin, thus making it not as necessary to have thorough checks here.



These are things I've heard. I'll have to think hard about this.

[spot]

LilacDragon wrote: Am I the only one who things that handing over the security of our National Ports to a company with even remote ties to terrorists is troubling to say the least? Is this yet another case of the current administration again helping out it's Arab friends?I may be missing a crucial detail here. Britain is a part of the Bush Administration's "coalition of the willing". So is the UAE. In what way is UAE ownership any different to British ownership?

[Accountable]

spot wrote: I may be missing a crucial detail here. Britain is a part of the Bush Administration's "coalition of the willing". So is the UAE. In what way is UAE ownership any different to British ownership?
My guess is that the Brits are proven friends and allies with a history of generations, and the UAE started cooperating 4 1/2 years ago. It's not an on/off switch, no matter how loud the 'fer us or agin us' crowd hollers. It's more of a continuum.







Stand by for irony:

China's not an ally at all, just a business contact.

[Accountable]

spot wrote: I may be missing a crucial detail here. Britain is a part of the Bush Administration's "coalition of the willing". So is the UAE. In what way is UAE ownership any different to British ownership?
My guess is that the Brits are proven friends and allies with a history of generations, and the UAE started cooperating 4 1/2 years ago. It's not an on/off switch, no matter how loud the 'fer us or agin us' crowd hollers. It's more of a continuum.







Stand by for irony:

China's not an ally at all, just a business contact.

[spot]

Accountable wrote: My guess is that the Brits are proven friends and allies with a history of generations, and the UAE started cooperating 4 1/2 years ago. It's not an on/off switch, no matter how loud the 'fer us or agin us' crowd hollers. It's more of a continuum.That's a wildly unfair assertion - the United Arab Emirates is a direct continuation of the Trucial Sheikhdoms which bonded with Britain in 1853. We've not had anything but cooperation from them since that treaty was signed. That's over 150 years of unbroken ties. Where's the on/off switch in that?

What exactly did "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" mean, if it didn't cover areas like this? Go on, I'll put the question again. In what way is UAE ownership any different to British ownership?

[Accountable]

Haven't there been UAE ties to terrorist groups pre-9/11? I'm certain I've heard that bandied about on the various news shows I watch and listen to, though I'm a bit busy to do the research now.

[spot]

Accountable wrote: Haven't there been UAE ties to terrorist groups pre-9/11? I'm certain I've heard that bandied about on the various news shows I watch and listen to, though I'm a bit busy to do the research now.State ties? No. Two September Eleventh hijackers were United Arab Emirates nationals, that might be what you're thinking of.

Are you suggesting that having nationals among the September Eleventh hijackers precludes business relationships between their State and the US, where security interests are concerned? That would really mess up US/Saudi relations, if you consider that fourteen of them were from there. Would you consequently have the same reservations if it were a Saudi company, or are we really more concerned about State relations?

[Accountable]

spot wrote: State ties? No. Two September Eleventh hijackers were United Arab Emirates nationals, that might be what you're thinking of.



Are you suggesting that having nationals among the September Eleventh hijackers precludes business relationships between their State and the US, where security interests are concerned? That would really mess up US/Saudi relations, if you consider that fourteen of them were from there. Would you consequently have the same reservations if it were a Saudi company, or are we really more concerned about State relations?
I'm suggesting, as I said in the beginning of this thread, that I'm torn. I'm taking in all the information before I make a decision. Frankly, I'm leaning toward acceptance. It fits my ... psyche (or whatever) better.

[LilacDragon]

Well, I must admit that I am not as educated about these things as Accountable and others and most of what I do know I get from the media. In my defense, I do listen to various media sources and try to glean as much as possible instead of basing my opinions on what I hear on the local 5:00 news.

I didn't know that China ran our West Coast Ports and for the record - I am against that also. I find it very sad that no American companies bid for the contracts to run our ports and wonder if such American companies even exist.

I think that American ports and the security associated with them should be handled by American citizens. NOBODY in the world has a vested interest in our security but US! We have soooooo many people out of work that could use the jobs associated with something of this magnitude.

And NO, I don't think that at this point in time, handing the running of something in our country that is so sensitive, security wise, to a Middle Eastern country is a wise move. If you want to call that racist, well, so be it.

[spot]

LilacDragon wrote: I think that American ports and the security associated with them should be handled by American citizens. NOBODY in the world has a vested interest in our security but US! We have soooooo many people out of work that could use the jobs associated with something of this magnitude.Part of the thread has noted that these ports' management is already out of US hands, and has been for a long time.

The reason you see foreign ownership of what were originally US enterprises is that the US economy runs a balance of payments deficit. Every year the US earns from abroad less than it spends abroad. The dollars pile up in foreign hands. All they're good for is buying stock in or ownership of US companies, which in turn sucks even more US dividend payments out of the country. Some people would attribute much of this to the short-term capitalist policy of downsizing which puts so much manufacturing into foreign production units and so little income into domestic wage packets. It's death by a thousand profit margins.

The way to fix this is to export more and import less, or at the very least to be aware that the US is selling its children's inheritance by continually living beyond its means.

[golem]

spot wrote: Part of the thread has noted that these ports' management is already out of US hands, and has been for a long time.

The reason you see foreign ownership of what were originally US enterprises is that the US economy runs a balance of payments deficit. Every year the US earns from abroad less than it spends abroad. The dollars pile up in foreign hands. All they're good for is buying stock in or ownership of US companies, which in turn sucks even more US dividend payments out of the country. Some people would attribute much of this to the short-term capitalist policy of downsizing which puts so much manufacturing into foreign production units and so little income into domestic wage packets. It's death by a thousand profit margins.

The way to fix this is to export more and import less, or at the very least to be aware that the US is selling its children's inheritance by continually living beyond its means.


So is the UK but in the UK we don’t have any natural resources to fall back on.

[spot]

golem wrote: So is the UK but in the UK we don’t have any natural resources to fall back on.Here's the comparisons. The UK position is in the Pink Book, you can download it at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/P ... 140&More=N and the chart is at the beginning of Part 1 Chapter 1.

The US position is at http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2 ... 05_fax.pdf and shows as the ochre area which closely follows the Balance on Goods blue line.

The US deficit is currently accumulating at between 6% and 7% of Gross Domestic Product. The rate of accumulation of the UK deficit is currently somewhere around a third of that - roughly 2%.

In other words, the average man woman and child in the UK is taking on a debt of around $1,000 a year that has to be paid off one day either through extra work or taxation. For the average American man woman and child, the figure is $2,500.

Last time I looked, median-average wages between the US and UK were about equal, within 10% of each other. I take the median-average since proportionate taxation of income among the rich in the US seems not to exist.

[golem]

spot wrote: Here's the comparisons. The UK position is in the Pink Book,

The US position shows as the ochre area which closely follows the Balance on Goods blue line.

The US deficit is currently accumulating at between 6% and 7% of Gross Domestic Product. The rate of accumulation of the UK deficit is currently somewhere around a third of that - roughly 2%.

In other words, the average man woman and child in the UK is taking on a debt of around $1,000 a year that has to be paid off one day either through extra work or taxation. For the average American man woman and child, the figure is $2,500.

Last time I looked, median-average wages between the US and UK were about equal, within 10% of each other. I take the median-average since proportionate taxation of income among the rich in the US seems not to exist.


Look at the gross figures in the CIA World Fact book, especially gross national debt.

It shows the true state of the UK economy and how it is a house built on sand.

[spot]

golem wrote: Look at the gross figures in the CIA World Fact book, especially gross national debt.

It shows the true state of the UK economy and how it is a house built on sand.Perhaps you'd like to explain that in sufficient detail for your point - which may, as far as I know, be true - to make sense?

[golem]

spot wrote: Perhaps you'd like to explain that in sufficient detail for your point - which may, as far as I know, be true - to make sense?


Here’s the bottom line extracted from the CIA World Facts book – it’s as good a source as any and any errors are probably common across countries and so cancel out.

Take the gross external debt of the UK – shown as being

$ 7,107,000,000,000. as of June 2005

Compare that with the US figure of $ 8,837,000,000,000, for the same date, but the US has 4 times the population of the UK not to mention vast untapped natural resources.

Then look at the disastrous economic policies of NuLabour which create a dynamic internal economy in the UK – but all, based on wealth and money from other nations and mounting debt.

Good grief, Brown has had to issue 34 billion pounds worth of Gilts (government bonds) to cover the 2005 – 2006 budget alone with similar sums being raised in previous years.

If the UK were to be a family they would living ‘on plastic’ with a reducing income and mounting debt. OK the US has problems as ewell but at least they have the means to work around them – the US has vast resources that it can exploit.

We have virtually none.

[spot]

The gross external debt is the total amount invested by foreign owners in domestic investment. As you say, they're roughly the same for the UK and the USA. Some of it's foreign owned money held in UK stocks, some's in Treasury bonds, some's direct investment. What you're ignoring is that UK money is held abroad too - the gross external investment. The CIA World Handbook shows the figure for one, but not for the other.

If you go back to the Pink Book (the URL is in the earlier post), Chapter 8, figure 8.1, you'll see two lines for the International Investment Position. One's Liabilities - the gross external debt, which as you say is of the order of $7 trillion. The other's Assets - the gross external investment. The two lines are practically superimposed. The net balance is practically zero.

Now, tell me what relevance the gross external debt has, in terms of your argument. Your "based on wealth and money from other nations and mounting debt" is simply not true. My original 2% UK borrowing compared to 6%-7% USA borrowing is accurate, and to that extent I agree we're currently overspending, but not at all to the extent that you've tried to imply by pretending that the gross external debt is some kind of albatross round our neck.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "the US has vast resources that it can exploit. We have virtually none", unless you're comparing the relative voracity of our respective drives toward Empire. Do you mean mineral? They're cost-neutral at best, during development. If you want to suggest longer-term benefits, I think you need to enumerate a bit.

[golem]

spot wrote:

The gross external debt is the total amount invested by foreign owners in domestic investment. As you say, they're roughly the same for the UK and the USA. Some of it's foreign owned money held in UK stocks, some's in Treasury bonds, some's direct investment. What you're ignoring is that UK money is held abroad too - the gross external investment. The CIA World Handbook shows the figure for one, but not for the other.


The UK 'money' that is held abroad is actually not a positive thing at all. That money actually gives the holder a lot of p[ower over domestic policy - China for example has a whole lot of dollars. If China decided to reduce its dollar holdings, or anounce as it recent did a decision to diversify into other currencies as well that hits the dollar.

I just wonder to what extent foreign holdings of dollars affects US policy, especailly the aquisition of strategic items such as the ports, the subject of this thread.

The same applies to Sterling. What's more the stocks and bonds that are held by investors arrepresent spent wealth by us. They're LOANS made to us, like all loans they have to be serviced. Try looking at the cost of servicing government stocks and bonds. Or rather don't. You may not sleep for a while.

spot wrote: If you go back to the Pink Book (the URL is in the earlier post), Chapter 8, figure 8.1, you'll see two lines for the International Investment Position. One's Liabilities - the gross external debt, which as you say is of the order of $7 trillion. The other's Assets - the gross external investment. The two lines are practically superimposed. The net balance is practically zero.

Now, tell me what relevance the gross external debt has, in terms of your argument. Your "based on wealth and money from other nations and mounting debt" is simply not true.


I wish that was the case but it isn’t.

The debt that people are carrying as individuals in the UK is humungous and is funded mostly by foreign loans either directly or by investment into UK finance houses. The average owed by every UK adult is approximately £25,052 (including mortgages) which accounts for the 01/Feb/06 total standing at £1,186 BILLION pounds. Just where do people think this money comes from?

In fact even today The BIS has warned that the Bank of England's NuLabour driven inflation-busting tactics are largely responsible for the dangerous pile-up of household debt, which last year passed £1,158 billion, £30 billion more than the country's total economic output.

spot wrote:

My original 2% UK borrowing compared to 6%-7% USA borrowing is accurate, and to that extent I agree we're currently overspending, but not at all to the extent that you've tried to imply by pretending that the gross external debt is some kind of albatross round our neck.


But it is. If, or rather WHEN the bubble bursts then that is when the interest rates will shoot up, that’s when the pound will fall, that’s when the unemployment will rocket, that’s when as a nation we will have to pay for the damm fool strategy that NuLabour have been running.

Granted that the US also faces a big-time balance of payments issue but at least they’re recognising it unlike Brown and NuLabour who I’m starting to think actually don’t see the real problems that are there writ large and clearly on the wall.

spot wrote:

Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "the US has vast resources that it can exploit. We have virtually none", unless you're comparing the relative voracity of our respective drives toward Empire. Do you mean mineral? They're cost-neutral at best, during development. If you want to suggest longer-term benefits, I think you need to enumerate a bit.


Yes, I mean mineral resources, also food production, oil production which could be ramped up, coal, transuranics, the whole nine yards. In fact the US could quite easily ‘pull up the drawbridge’, let the dollar go to whatever level the rest of the world wanted it to be, and effectively say ‘Yar Sucks Boo’ to the lot of us without having any significant fear of going either cold or hungry. Inconvenienced for a while maybe, a change in standard of living for a bit but that’s about all.

It’s something that a good many people should bear in mind before slagging the US off, we actually need them a dam sight more than they need us.

[spot]

golem wrote: Granted that the US also faces a big-time balance of payments issue but at least they’re recognising itKeep going, this diatribe against Mad Socialism is entertaining. In what way are the Americans recognising it, and what are they doing about it? Apart from invading the rest of the planet, of course. Are they cutting their damned military budget? Are they increasing taxation of the rich? Are they dismantling their social welfare net?

[golem]

spot wrote: Keep going, this diatribe against Mad Socialism is entertaining. In what way are the Americans recognising it, and what are they doing about it? Apart from invading the rest of the planet, of course. Are they cutting their damned military budget? Are they increasing taxation of the rich? Are they dismantling their social welfare net?


Not really a diatribe against Socialism as there’s no way that the NuLabour shower of shysters could be called socialist, more ‘Gerrymander-ists’ and if such a word doesn’t exist then it should to describe what this lot are up to!

As for the US military budget, let’s not forget that the US tax payers are right now substantially funding a war that was not created by them nor even by the West, and that if the UK government not to mention a few others who directly benefit from the environment that the US is trying so hard to maintain were putting the investment into this war and not messing around trying to buy votes with taxes both the US tax bill might be reduced and a better outcome result.

Funny old world when you think about it. So many ready to slag off the US ad yet even more ready to grab the benefits that they bring.

It’s like the anti-vivisection enviro-fascists. All to quick to scream blue murder at the thought of a few rats being used to produce safe medicines and products for us to use, yet quick enough to whinge that they want the safest and best medication and fail to notice that they are wearing leather shoes.

[spot]

I suspect that the indicator you were fishing for earlier, when you were talking about debt, nationally, wasn't the External Debt (as my previous post explained), but the National Debt (on which each nation pays out tax revenue as interest payments). You wanted to compare it in magnitude between the UK and the US. So, here's one way of doing that.

As an indication of how relatively large is the National Debt currently accrued by the UK and the US, consider the following rough numbers (or look up more accurate ones):

The National Debt of the UK is $856 billion, 40% of GDP

The National Debt of the US is $7605 billion, 65% of GDP

Total tax revenue in the UK is 37.4% of GDP

Total tax revenue in the US is 29.6% of GDP

Permanently increasing national tax revenues by a tenth of their current level (not that it could be done, or that it wouldn't violently affect the GDP figure, but as an indication of the scale of the debt) would result in the UK paying off its National Debt in 10 years, and the US paying off its National Debt in 22 years. Increasing national tax revenues by a proportion of GDP, instead, would leave a slightly smaller differential, but the implication is the same. I chose the first option as approximating the same degree of hurt and outrage on the people being taxed.

As for your final post above, the accumulated propaganda involved in "NuLabour", "shysters", "a war that was not created by them nor even by the West", "directly benefit from the environment that the US is trying so hard to maintain" and "ready to grab the benefits that they bring" speaks for itself. You support these overbearing war criminals in charge of national policies. Fine. One day, perhaps, their respective countries will try them. Until then, we can simply disagree on what's happening.

[golem]

spot wrote: I suspect that the indicator you were fishing for earlier, when you were talking about debt, nationally, wasn't the External Debt (as my previous post explained), but the National Debt (on which each nation pays out tax revenue as interest payments). You wanted to compare it in magnitude between the UK and the US. So, here's one way of doing that.

As an indication of how relatively large is the National Debt currently accrued by the UK and the US, consider the following rough numbers (or look up more accurate ones):

The National Debt of the UK is $856 billion, 40% of GDP

The National Debt of the US is $7605 billion, 65% of GDP

Total tax revenue in the UK is 37.4% of GDP

Total tax revenue in the US is 29.6% of GDP

Permanently increasing national tax revenues by a tenth of their current level (not that it could be done, or that it wouldn't violently affect the GDP figure, but as an indication of the scale of the debt) would result in the UK paying off its National Debt in 10 years, and the US paying off its National Debt in 22 years. Increasing national tax revenues by a proportion of GDP, instead, would leave a slightly smaller differential, but the implication is the same. I chose the first option as approximating the same degree of hurt and outrage on the people being taxed.

As for your final post above, the accumulated propaganda involved in "NuLabour", "shysters", "a war that was not created by them nor even by the West", "directly benefit from the environment that the US is trying so hard to maintain" and "ready to grab the benefits that they bring" speaks for itself. You support these overbearing war criminals in charge of national policies. Fine. One day, perhaps, their respective countries will try them. Until then, we can simply disagree on what's happening.


WHOO HOO! :wah:

No, Spot, I meant precisely what I wrote.

I'm not looking at THE National debt, I'm looking at overall nation debt, there’s a big difference.

And as for comparing the UK with the US – the really important dimensions to me relate to how close the bottom line figures are compared with the huge difference in populations and even more important, the natural resources available in both nations. Whereas with a little belt tightening and a tad of discomfort the US could be self sufficient the same can not be said for the UK.

Nor for that matter for the whole EU. That is why I suspect Jacques Chirac is so keen to brown-nose to the African states – he’s wanting a strategic alliance with nations who DO have the natural resources that the EU lacks – but that’s another matter.

Moving on you write --- “You support these overbearing war criminals in charge of national policies” – well that’s a not unusual interpretation of what the leaders of the coalition nations are doing but it’s a shame it’s a false interpretation.

Who, where, and how are they war criminals?

Despite all the propaganda garbage the war is not illegal as no war can ever BE legal so no war can be illegal!

Don’t confuse war-like acts pursuant to instructions from a qualified international forum such as the UN security Council with actual war. There is a massive difference.

Furthermore there have been no criminal acts that have come to light that have not been investigated and where guilt found, appropriate punishment given to the guilty – except of course in the case of the enemy illegal combatants who instead of being summarily executed in line with the Hague convention have been banged up in order to extract “intel” in the hope of preventing bloodshed.

My thoughts centre around the idea that if someone in mufti engages in an act of war against a uniformed combatant then the guy in mufti should be shredded.

But back to the thread --- the fact remains that having a situation whereby a foreign company can purchase a strategic resource such as ports of entry into a country seems at best ill advised. In the UK we have lost control f far too many strategic resources, take water for one – to foreign owners. The US government should see what’s taken place in other nations when foreign interests have bought out strategic resources and bear in mind an old Dutch proverb ---

“Ein shep het den straand ist en beken fur den see” Forgive my awfull Dutch but it figuratively translates into “A shipwreck is a beacon for others”

[spot]

golem wrote: I'm not looking at THE National debt, I'm looking at overall nation debt, there’s a big difference.The External Debt figure is one side of a diversified balance. Compare it to a personal comparison: I have a business. If it does badly, I'm the only one whose income suffers. I want to avoid this. I sell an interest in my business to raise capital, my External Debt, and invest that capital in other businesses, my External Assets. I've spead my risk. The two columns balance each other. If I liquidate, I'm solvent. The National Debt, on the other hand, is like my credit card, the further I accumulate debt on it the higher my interest payments get. To free myself from it, I have to transfer future income or assets. Your belt-tightening seems to me to be irrelevant to the figure you chose to work with. To become economically isolationist, all the US needs to do is sell its foreign assets and buy back its internal assets. The External Debt returns to zero and it cost nothing to do it.

By all means discount the Nuremberg declarations with "the war is not illegal as no war can ever BE legal so no war can be illegal". That seems to be the position of the current US administration as well, so you're not alone in your view. If you really want to go over "Who, where, and how are they war criminals?" we can have a thread on that issue.

"having a situation whereby a foreign company can purchase a strategic resource such as ports of entry" ignores my sole reason for entering this thread - that the ports are already in foreign ownership - by a UK company - and that the transfer to the UAE is to a new owner in good standing with as long a history of cooperation with the USA as the UK has. In what way is UAE ownership any different to British ownership?

[golem]

The National Debt is NOT the same as the external debt that the UK in its entirety owes to overseas finance institutions. That debt could be seen as investment at a pinch – or extended credit which is very much closer to reality.

The UK is in deep trouble but is being masked by the activity within the UK domestic economy and that is 100% down to the disastrous profligacy and incompetence of NuLabour as will soon be seen as the financial cycle continues as it is presently set to do.

Already Brown has had to renege on his ‘Golden Rules’ and redefine success in order to avoid being shown to have failed and furthermore the manner in which maintenance of infrastructure and services have been interchanged with investment would make a cat laugh. Or maybe cry.

HOWEVER – the thread is about ownership of strategic assets by foreign institutions. For one thing there is the little matter of the Dubai Ports World (DPW) being an active participant in the illegal boycott of Israel and on Tuesday last, a DPW official admitted that the government of the United Arab Emirates owns DPW and does indeed enforce the boycott of Israel.

Notwithstanding the US laws regarding this, once goods are offshore it still raises interesting questions about shipping costs and the use of Bonded ports and the possible impact if a non-contracted (i.e. non in-house) port has to be used and the additional shipping costs involved.

And that’s just for starters.

[spot]

golem wrote: an active participant in the illegal boycott of IsraelPerhaps you could expand on "illegal", in this context? Which law are you referring to?

[golem]

spot wrote: Perhaps you could expand on "illegal", in this context? Which law are you referring to?


There is legislation in place in the US that makes this boycott illegal.

It opens up some interesting questions especially as I wrote in connection with goods that have any connection with Israel passing – or rather NOT passing through the freeport in Dubai, and the implications thereof.

[spot]

golem wrote: There is legislation in place in the US that makes this boycott illegal.I can't find it. Perhaps you could give it a name?

[golem]

spot wrote: I can't find it. Perhaps you could give it a name?


In 1977, the US made compliance by American companies with the Arab boycott - actually any boycott of any US ally - a crime. The Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance, an arm of the US Commerce Department, has fined three American companies in just the last year for violations related to boycott requests from the UAE.

The URL for details of this is

(www) .bis.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/Default.htm

[spot]

golem wrote: www.bis.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/Default.htmI'm glad I asked - I missed this week's news reports on the issue, I'm glad I've read up on it. I didn't know the US used such legislation quite that selectively.