Questions For "Dubai Dubya"

I just had some thoughts as I read about the continued fallout from the D.P. World story:

- What can we do if freight that we receive at one of our ports doesn't match the vessel’s shipping records (including undocumented cargo or items inconsistent with paper records – i.e., containers that are supposed to contain panty hose according to the records but, upon inspection, contain fertilizer for a dirty bomb)?

- Since apparently no records from Dubai Port World will be kept in this country, as well as the fact that no company representative would be available in the event of any accident at a D.P. World port (terms of the agreement, unbelievably enough, no doubt meant to shield D.P. World in the event of litigation in this country), does that mean that D.P. World is, in effect, automatically absolved from any liability in the event of an accident?

- In the event an accident occurs at a D.P. World port, how would EMT personnel or first responders on the scene know how to treat anyone who is injured or killed (who would they contact to find out what was contained in any damaged cargo according to the ship’s records)? This is important because emergency personnel would need to find out what chemicals caused an explosion, fire, or any kind of gaseous emission from the cargo (e.g., does white smoke emitted from the damaged cargo mean baking soda or anthrax?).

I have a feeling that some of these questions pertain to issues that are addressed as part of “standard operating procedure” at the port (I would hope so, anyway). I would also hope the other considerations I mentioned (and many others) were addressed as part of the review prior to approval of the D.P. World takeover, though considering the fact that Bush didn’t know about the agreement until after it was signed off by the White House somehow – and what does THAT tell you? – and Rumsfeld was apparently in the dark also, I definitely don’t feel “warm and fuzzy” about this deal.

In the Inquirer today, reporter Ken Dilanian filed this report which makes a case for letting the deal go through, though I was troubled by this excerpt (registration required):

"The government of the (United Arab Emirates) is about as pro-American as you can get" in the Middle East, noted the U.S.-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. "If the United States can't do business with the UAE, then the United States cannot do business anywhere in the Islamic world."

Predictably, this aspect of Dubai has not often been reported in news accounts about the ports controversy. Instead, the stories tend to mention that two of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, were citizens of the UAE and that some of the money to fund the attacks was believed to have come through Dubai and its banking system.

All true. It's also true that three American citizens in Ohio were just accused of plotting terror, that several Britons blew up the London subway, and that terrorism money flows through Western banks.

Though the London subway attacks last year were horrific, I’m sorry, but somehow that pales in comparison to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the plane crash in Pennsylvania. I think this is just an attempt to whitewash this story with arguments that don’t stand up considering the free hand D.P. World was given in this sale.

I thought Monica Yant Kinney made some excellent points along the lines of “why should Bush be surprised by the reaction?” in her column today (registration also required):

However, to get the “wealth” perspective on this, I need to present what Andrew Cassel wrote in the business section yesterday (and I love the pomposity in the title, by the way):

Clearheaded look at Dubai uproar

By Andrew Cassel
Inquirer Columnist

The sudden uproar over Dubai and American ports makes me want to drag out that old poster from the '70s - the one with the little hand-drawn flowers and the caption scrawled as if by a kindergartner's crayon.

You may remember a slightly different version. On mine, the message reads:
"War is not good for economies and other living things."

Are we at war? President Bush insists we are; that's why we're not supposed to object when legal rules or civil liberties are brushed aside.

Good point, though I have no idea why Cassel chose to introduce Bush’s illegal wire tapping scandal into this. Somehow I think Cassel really doesn’t either. And we’re fighting an enemy with financial ties to the entities in this deal.

Some in Congress evidently believe it, too. That's why Republicans and Democrats are climbing over each other this week to denounce a business deal involving contracts for some port services and a Persian Gulf-based multinational firm.

“Some port services,” huh? Try “control of six major ports in this country, including Newark,” which terrorism experts have dubbed the most dangerous two-mile stretch in this country.

The Persian Gulf? Isn't that where all those terrorists come from?

Yes, that's about the level of sophistication we're dealing with here. And on the basis of such in-depth talk-show analysis, legislators such as Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton say they'll go to the mattresses to block the deal.

That “level of sophistication” also enraged Ellen Saracini, Fiona Havlish, Grace Godshalk, and others who lost loved ones on 9/11, smart guy. Are you going to tell them that they’re stupid to be concerned about this?

Just as with the civil-liberties issue, however, some clearheaded discussion would be nice before we go tearing up the rule book.

Here's the situation: All U.S. maritime ports contract out for a variety of management services, from stevedoring to accounting.

A famous old outfit

At some of those ports, including Philadelphia's, some services are currently contracted to units of a British-based firm called the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

P&O, as it's called, is a famous old outfit dating back to Queen Victoria. But this year, its shareholders voted to sell out. There were two main bidders, one from Singapore and one from the Persian Gulf emirate Dubai. Dubai won, for $6.8 billion.

Because it involved foreign firms, the deal was reviewed by a government panel drawn from the federal Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, Defense, and Homeland Security.

Oh right…that “government panel” whose members seem to either know nothing about this or, if they do, are choosing to remain silent.

The panel gave the deal the thumbs up. But Congress and several governors are outraged, contending it will leave the ports dangerously vulnerable to terrorism.

Perhaps they are right. Maybe the federal agencies that looked the deal over are corrupt or incompetent - although if that's true, our problems go way beyond the Dubai deal.

Don't misunderstand: I'm not dismissing concerns about port safety. It's obviously worth spending a huge amount of energy and money on, given the state of the world.

But critics have to explain why the port services that Britain-based P&O has been performing - apparently satisfactorily - will suddenly be put in jeopardy because of a corporate ownership change.

Which part is the issue?

Is it because the Dubai firm is partly owned by the United Arab Emirates' government? If so, which part of that is the issue? Ownership by a government, or ownership by Arabs?

Ownership by oligarchical entities that have a track record of intentionally or unintentionally bankrolling terrorists and laundering their money beyond the reach of our government. So the answer is both.

We need to be clear about this because the global economy is filled with national and multinational corporations, financed by public and private investors from all over.

None of whom have the link to 9/11 that the Saudis have.

Moreover, the United States has historically made a point of encouraging open investment across national borders. With relatively few exceptions, we let foreigners buy domestic securities, businesses and real estate - and we encourage other countries to do the same.

And they’d better keep doing it too to finance our debt, but that is a whole other rant.

If we're going to have a new policy, what will it be? No foreign money in our ports? No investment by governments? No Arabs allowed?

Without full disclosure, I would say “no Arabs allowed” works for me.

Whatever we do will have consequences, of course. We can't slam our doors in foreigners' faces and expect them to open their own markets to U.S. firms in return.

Here it comes…

And as the great engine of globalization shuts down, we'll have to learn to cope with slower growth, lower incomes, and a no-longer-expanding economic pie.

I have news for you, genius boy; we’re ALREADY EXPERIENCING ALL OF THAT! I don’t know ANYONE in IT who is seeing an increase in income because of offshoring of jobs, which has flattened wages and severely decreased job prospects for professionals across the board. Of course, the class of privilege that is the true audience you’re writing for only cares about the almighty “return on investment,” even at the expense of an accident at one of our ports that may end up killing a hundred or so people…it’s all about “pearls for swine,” isn’t it?

In other words, we can let the politicians use our national-security worries to erect new walls of fear and nationalism. But we shouldn't be surprised when those walls also start to hem in our own prosperity.

YOUR “prosperity,” not mine…

No accountability, no hearings, no oversight, more "trust us" BS...what a farcical production from the same bunch that brought us the Katrina aftermath and the Iraq War (which is going so well, isn't it, by the way?).