Growing criticism puzzles many in shipping industry

[Colorado Blue]

Just about any given time, it's possible to find a Greek-owned ship flying a Liberian flag, employing a Filipino crew and carrying cargo from China into a U.S. port terminal managed by a British company that hires American longshoremen. This is how Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target and others get their socks and stereos for the U.S. consumer.

So, some in the shipping industry have been taken aback in the past week by growing criticism in Washington and in state capitals to a deal that would transfer control over some operations in several major U.S. ports from a British company to one owned by the government of Dubai.

"To be fair, we're on the edge of the world and we haven't done a good job explaining how we work, so people are confused by it," said Art Wong, a spokesman for the port of Long Beach, near Los Angeles.

Wong lived through a similar controversy about six years ago when China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co., an ocean carrier owned by the Chinese government, was doing such a booming business bringing products to the United States that it sought a bigger landing spot at the Southern California port. Before the company could move to a former Navy base, a groundswell of opposition on Capitol Hill over national security concerns killed the deal.

snip

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-te.bz.ship22feb22,0,1262408.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Another point of view. I admit I knew zip about any of this before the Dubai thing came up.

[phantom power]

1. The reaction might have been less if..

our country had any sensible, principled approach to homeland security, and port security as a subset of that. Being also completely ignorant of the shipping industry, I suppose there may be some reason why this is actually just fine. But in an age where (1) we are supposedly trying to improve national security and (2) American unemployment is rising, it just seems intuitively lose/lose to be increasing the control of foreign countries over our ports.

BushCo hasn't provided an actual explaination. All they've provided is their usual stonewalling: "This was our decision, blah blah blah..." And the reason they couldn't provide an explaination is because they don't have an actual policy on homeland security. All they have are slogans and rhetoric.

[tanyev]

3. And (3) Bushco has been beating the fear and terror drum

for 5 years. Now they're surprised that Murricans are suspicious of Arabs and Muslims?

[phantom power]

6. Yeah, I can't say I'm not enjoying the spectacle...

of BushCo being bitten in the ass by the xenophobia they've so lovingly cultivated...

[Nay]

8. Isn't it sweet, though? They whip up the xenophobia and then can't

figure out why Bubba thinks giving the ports to the Ay-rabs is a bad idea!

I just fall down laughing at the whole thing. I am truly living in bizarro world.

[oneighty]

2. Operated by a country

I recall long ago the French company manufacturers of Aqua Lung could not market their product in USA because it was subsidized in a big way by the French Government. Aqua Lung set up a plant in USA named it US Divers and all was fine.

I believe NAFTA and CAFTA adhere to that rule even today.

These port agreements seem to be out of line with other rulings.

Why is that I wonder.

180

[Colorado Blue]

4. Well, I guess it's high time we all learned more about the

way the world actually works.

Now Bush is saying he didn't know about the Dubai thing before "his Administration" signed the deal.

Guess he's as dumb as we are (?)

[oneighty]

5. At one time ships

registered under foreign flags in order to escape the safety standards set by the U.S. Government. Even American owned ships did this.

180

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Yeah, well, as I've been saying...

I spent a large part of my life dealing with the shipping business and have some handle on how it all works. And it is still my considered opinion that it makes little difference in security who the actual terminal operator is.

If anyone is worried about terrorism and terminal operations, look to the smaller operators, many of whom are foreign and their operations are so small that they pretty much run them without supervision. The large ports have so many other agencies and people around that the operator would have a hell of a time trying anything.

The manager of Port Newark was interviewed this morning, and he said he has no problem with this deal. Anybody yakking about this know more about ports than he does?

[Puzzler]

9. I've heard this argument before...

... but isn't there a big difference between allowing foreign owned (and controlled) ships into a US port and handing over the actual management of the ports to a foreign company?

It's like saying, just because Swiss Air flies into JFK, it's the same thing as Swiss Air running JFK. I think not. Or am I missing something here?


-P