A storm in the port

Although this issue was covered below, I must admit to a certain lifelong fascination with transportation. Clearly that alone makes me an expert, so I'll foolishly pontificate some more on this. Besides, things are getting serious when Bush starts threatening a veto.

Everyone cares about port security. My goal here, after babbling a bit, is to offer a solution. First, allow me to unload something. It's flat amazing people like Chuck Schumer are capable of such levels of xenophobia. After all, isn't the tired old refrain something like, "why attack Iraq, they had nothing to do with 9/11"? But, just as there's no direct evidence Saddam helped Osama, there's no direct evidence the UAE government did, either. The only thing they have in common are their shumaggs.

But there was indirect evidence. So if the solution is to mandate that no transportation business can be done with any countries even indirectly connected with attacks on America, why did we allow British-owned P&O Ports to move containers? Shoebomber Richard Reid was from England, and terror cells there were connected to AQ in Iraq.

Such a plan would also leave out any future port business with German companies, since the Hamburg Cell was instrumental in the 9/11 operation. And, since the originial "Planes" operation was dreamed up by KSM and Yousef while in the Phillipines, scratch them off the list, too.

Broadly speaking, don't forget Canada. Their GWoT cooperation has been spotty, and the Millenium bomber tried to enter America via Vancouver. Yet in 1999 Bill Clinton allowed a Canadian Transportation company, CN Rail, to acquire an American railroad, the Illinois Central. CN hauls the very containers everyone is worried about, coming off ships and moving by train through the heartland. We've been trusting those Canadians all along!

Here's a suggestion for resolving this. Why not have DP World just spin off the American ports operation to a new subsidiary based in America, staffed by Americans? Congress could help by drafting legislation to that end.

Fixed? Well maybe, as long as we can stop the new American company from hiring illegal aliens.

THE GRAY LADY SPEAKS

The New York Times put on their journalistic thinking caps and churned out an excellent un-biased story on the ports deal. They covered the obvious drawbacks, but actually managed to find some people in the shipping industry to quote:

The opposition to the deal brought expressions of befuddlement from shipping industry and port experts. The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago, and foreign-based firms already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals in the United States. They include APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore and operates terminals in Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; Dutch Harbor, Alaska; and Seattle. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign governments or foreign-based companies.

Regarding APL Limited--definitely a sign of the times. Their history dates to the 1800s as an American-borne steamship company known as Dollar Lines. So what does APL stand for? American President Lines. Ironic and kinda sad, I reckon.

HELP WANTED AT AP: FACT CHECKERS 2/22/06

Regardless of whether the port deal is the right thing to do, we need our media to present the facts correctly.

The AP’s latest update contains this passage:

The first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company is set to be completed in early March.

As the New York Times article from above illustrates, APL already runs ports in this country, and that company is a wholly owned subsidiary of NOL Group (Neptune Orient Lines) which is controlled by members of the government of Singapore.

MORE 2/22/06


This story has perhaps the strangest coalitions on each side than seen in recent memory. Jimmy Carter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly for, Hillary, Peter King, Hannity, and Schumer against. It's also separated some of us in the blogosphere, hopefully not leading to permanent hard feelings. One thing can be said conclusively--it certainly managed to bury the Cheney Quailgate story.

Here's perhaps another sign of the apocalyse:

If you smell something rotten, don't hold your nose quite yet – your country's life may depend on taking a closer sniff. It turns out that CFIUS is chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow – who joined the Treasury from CSX Corporation, which just happened to sell its foreign port assets to Dubai Ports World in 2004 – just before the old Snow-man took his government job. So I suppose that what's good for CSX is good for America, as they once said of General Motors?

This from World Net Daily, no less. Remind me to make sure my liberal friends see that, since they like to call it World NUT Daily.

But she's got a partial point. Snow and Sanborn should indeed be 'persons of interest' here. Both hail from CSX, along with Sanborn's additional resume entry for DP World. This 'insider angle' has provided me a boil-down point to this whole convoluted mess:

Specifically--did the presence of Snow on the CFIUS review team have any bearing on the deal's approval, and, what role did Sanborn play behind the scenes to get 'er done? Was his recent appointment at DOT a quid pro quo of some sort? Was the initial review thorough enough, or did they know the outcome before it began?

Businessmen are gonna do what they do. But if 'what they do' comes at the expense of American national security, we need to draw a hard line. The only public way to review this would be under Congressional hearings.

SPEAKING OF PORTS 2/23/06

Both Dubai and Singapore may soon be hosting other port operations. Check out this proposal for "Space Ports" in both countries.


DELAY OK 2/23/06

Karl Rove says a delay is ok:

When asked if Bush would accept a slight delay in implementing the takeover of P&O, Rove said: "Yes, look, there are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week.

Funny we've not heard one hoot nor holler from Britain, Netherlands, Germany or all the other countries DP World will assume port operations from P&O Ports. There appear to be two possible reasons:

One, we represent the largest bullseye so they aren't concerned. Possible, but Europe also has a bullseye. It's smaller but much closer, therefore much easier to hit. If having the UAE controlling their ports does bother them, perhaps they are simply too gripped in fear to say anything after the Paris and cartoon riots.
Another possibility is they're quite used to foreign companies operating their ports, so the story amounts to much ado about nothing.

I think it's a combination of both, but mainly the latter.

MORE 2/24/06

Gotta admit, this post makes sense.