NationStates Jolt Archive

But it has now emerged that a second Dubai-owned firm is already providing shipping services in the US.

The other company - Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS) - has been owned since January by the United Arab Emirates investment firm Istithmar.

ISS, whose clients include the US Navy, has had extensive interests in the US for many years.

It arranges pilots, tugs and dock workers for shipping companies and works with the US Customs to ensure the smooth arrival and departure of vessels at ports such as New York, New Jersey and San Francisco.

LOL, pwnt. Globalisation > You. :D

This really makes the current argument look really foolish, doesn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4794230.stm

Thanks for letting me know. I'm considering writing to my congressman now.

Thanks for letting me know. I'm considering writing to my congressman now.
LOL, don't let a little thing like rules of fair trade get in the way of xenophobia. What next, worried they'll be coming over there to take your jobs and your women? :rolleyes:

And they have much less control over the ports than DPW would. Anyway, an investment firm doesn't follow any of the UAE's prohibitions about dealing with Israel, so it matters even less. An investment firm is probably not going to do anything to endanger it's investments. If you look at the firms clients, I doubt all of them are arab.

LOL, don't let a little thing like rules of fair trade get in the way of xenophobia. What next, worried they'll be coming over there to take your jobs and your women? :rolleyes:
My women? Ok, now I'm definitely writing to my congressman. I'm going to ask him to nuke them.

Why would the third largest port operator in the world endanger its investments by committing acts of terrorism in one of its client countries? It's just common sense, this is the world of business, and such things have no place there. I am shocked there is even a debate about this. The very fact that the US has said "whoa, hold on, these guys are Arabs, there may be something fishy about this..." when talking about one of the largest multinational conglomerates of its type, has humiliated it in the eyes of the world.

And they have much less control over the ports than DPW would. Anyway, an investment firm doesn't follow any of the UAE's prohibitions about dealing with Israel, so it matters even less. An investment firm is probably not going to do anything to endanger it's investments. If you look at the firms clients, I doubt all of them are arab.

And why would one of the largest shipping conglomerates in the world do something to endanger its investments?

Why would the third largest port operator in the world endanger its investments by committing acts of terrorism in one of its client countries? It's just common sense, this is the world of business, and such things have no place there. I am shocked there is even a debate about this. The very fact that the US has said "whoa, hold on, these guys are Arabs, there may be something fishy about this..." when talking about one of the largest multinational conglomerates of its type, has humiliated it in the eyes of the world.
Here's why the DPW deal was blocked.

1) Part of it certainly had to do with 9/11 and the war on terror. The general public doesn't trust Arabs much.

2) Some people believe that it's possible that DPW might unintentionally hire terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and they might put in for a transfer to the US. Fact is that alot of people in the middle east don't like us.

Here's why the DPW deal was blocked.

1) Part of it certainly had to do with 9/11 and the war on terror. The general public doesn't trust Arabs much.

2) Some people believe that it's possible that DPW might unintentionally hire terrorists or terrorist sympathizers and they might put in for a transfer to the US. Fact is that alot of people in the middle east don't like us.
1) Democracy is never absolute, it is moderated. One function of a democratic government is to make a judgement as to when the people are making a collective error of judgement, and over-rule it. It doesn't matter if a clear national cross-party majority joined the KKK tomorrow and demanded Arabs Out, the government's role must be to make the sane decision, not automatically the one people want. So the fact that the general public does not trust Arabs, should not be relevant to the decision making process.

2) That's just silly. The US government has a process for granting work visas. The company in question is not relevant, the process either works well, or badly. A terrorist could slip through the net by being hired by WalMart as easily as being hired by DPW.

1) Democracy is never absolute, it is moderated. One function of a democratic government is to make a judgement as to when the people are making a collective error of judgement, and over-rule it. It doesn't matter if a clear national cross-party majority joined the KKK tomorrow and demanded Arabs Out, the government's role must be to make the sane decision, not automatically the one people want. So the fact that the general public does not trust Arabs, should not be relevant to the decision making process.

2) That's just silly. The US government has a process for granting work visas. The company in question is not relevant, the process either works well, or badly. A terrorist could slip through the net by being hired by WalMart as easily as being hired by DPW.
1) These guys want to be reelected.

2) Maybe, but Walmart doesn't really hire alot of people out of the middle east.

1) These guys want to be reelected.

2) Maybe, but Walmart doesn't really hire alot of people out of the middle east.
1) Populism is not necessarily in the national interest. Sometimes you need the courage to make an unpopular decision and run with it. Building nuclear power plants, declaring war, approving a contract, etc. These decisions should be open to debate, but the results treated with caution.

2) Neither does DPW. Multinationals use local staff. P&O/Nedlloyd/Maersk used American dock workers, only thing that changes is the holding company. It'll still be the same guys showing up to work, being paid the same wages, just from a differently-named account. I work for a multinational infrastructure engineering company of this sort (indeed a while back I unsuccessfully applied to both P&O Nedlloyd and Maersk), and there isn't a great deal of international mobility. The guys in the UK won't see the guys in the US, let alone the guys in Dubai.

The other thing is the recruitment process - how many companies hire people and send them off to an international office of their choice within weeks or months of starting? I know what my boss would say if I requested a transfer to Florida. I also know what hand gestures he would use.

This is always useful:

UAE/Dubai Ports World Acquisition

DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.

The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction.

This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports.
DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
o Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
o Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
o Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
o New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
o Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
o Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
o (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)
*Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.

P&O and DP World made a commitment to comply with current security programs, regulations and partnerships to which P&O currently subscribes, including:
o The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);
o The Container Security Initiative (CSI);
o The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting (BASC); and,
o The Megaports Initiative MOU with the Department of Energy

All P&O security arrangements will remain intact, including cargo security cooperation with CBP, compliance with USCG regulations (ISPS and MTSA) regarding port facilities/terminals, and foreign terminal operations within CSI ports.

Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (March 2005). As a result, CBP officer are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operation within CSI ports.

So virtually every argument thrown against this deal has been utterly invalid, with the only real complaint being that the President did not conduct the process transparently. Ironically enough, the Administration probably tried to conceal it for the fact that it waould cause an uproar.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5437

So virtually every argument thrown against this deal has been utterly invalid, with the only real complaint being that the President did not conduct the process transparently. Ironically enough, the Administration probably tried to conceal it for the fact that it waould cause an uproar.
[/url]
Actually, the transaction and all were public record. The actual negotiations were not because those were carried out between two private companies. But everything else, i.e. the DP bid for the British company, the control over the US ports, etc. was public record. The US government didn't bother to release an announcement simply because there was no reason to do so, there are millions of things that go on in the public record for which there's no announcement but that you can go and take a look if you need to.

Actually, the transaction and all were public record. The actual negotiations were not because those were carried out between two private companies. But everything else, i.e. the DP bid for the British company, the control over the US ports, etc. was public record. The US government didn't bother to release an announcement simply because there was no reason to do so, there are millions of things that go on in the public record for which there's no announcement but that you can go and take a look if you need to.

I agree with this, but given the predilection in the Congress towards using what would normally be considered a minute entry in to the public record as a weapon, the Administration should have acted differently for politics' sake. Personally, I think the uproar over Bush's "silence" is rather ridiculous since it was in fact on the record and was not a problem until very recently.

I saw it on CNN in mid-January. There was a special report on an economics spot. The report named the competing bidders, their bids to date, and said DPW was a firm favourite and that their competitors in Hong Kong and Singapore probably wouldn't match their cash. Bizarrely they named Maersk as a potential buyer staying out of the contest, seemingly overlooking the fact that the Maersk group owns the whole lot under a bewildering array of nested entities. The fuss only started late in the day when it was a done deal and people realised "wtf omfg the new owners are black!" :rolleyes:

Watching it from outside the US, it was a cringe-inducing spectacle. Such profound ignorance of the outside world, and in America of all places, of corporate reality. :(

LOL, pwnt. Globalisation > You. :D

This really makes the current argument look really foolish, doesn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4794230.stm

It's always looked foolish to everyone but the demagogues.

Oddly enough, Rush Limbaugh is on the correct side of this one. :eek:

God, how I hate all this crap. It's America a work. :rolleyes:

I would just like to proclaim my full support for George on this. Sad that apparently the rest of the political elite can't quite live up to his comprehension of foreign countries.

While I already disagree with essential infastructure like ports being in the hands of big business, I think that letting muslims get their claws into it is idiotic. And often it can be desireable to say no to big business for the good of the people. I don't see why businesses should get everything their own way.

I think that letting muslims get their claws into it is idiotic.
How does being a Muslim disqualify you from running a business?

While I already disagree with essential infastructure like ports being in the hands of big business, I think that letting muslims get their claws into it is idiotic. And often it can be desireable to say no to big business for the good of the people. I don't see why businesses should get everything their own way.

....

How does being a Muslim disqualify you from running a business?
With the increasing conflict between muslims and non-muslims (Which will only increase further), I think that our governments need to ensure that muslims hold as little power and influence over our societies as possible.

The public reaction to this deal is something that every american should feel ashamed of. The average american still thinks that an american company was managing the ports in question, not a british firm.

Then again, the average person is a idiot that will repeat what ever is shouted at them the loudist, or the most often.

With the increasing conflict between muslims and non-muslims (Which will only increase further), I think that our governments need to ensure that muslims hold as little power and influence over our societies as possible.
Bullshit.

Similar things were said in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, across the Catholic/Protestant divide throughout British history, etc, etc and it was all a load of crap.

With that attitude, you're living in the past.

With the increasing conflict between muslims and non-muslims (Which will only increase further), I think that our governments need to ensure that muslims hold as little power and influence over our societies as possible.

Well it seems people are perfectly content with 'them' controlling their oil, but not their ports.

And is it only Middle Eastern Muslims or do that included white Muslims too?

The public reaction to this deal is something that every american should feel ashamed of. The average american still thinks that an american company was managing the ports in question, not a british firm.
The electricity grid of the US East Coast isn't owned by American companies either. British too. :p National infrastructure is a section of the world economy dominated by non-American multinationals. It's kinda funny people only realise this when they don't like the race of the owners.

Well it seems people are perfectly content with 'them' controlling their oil, but not their ports.

And is it only Middle Eastern Muslims or do that included white Muslims too?
The current situation with oil is unfortunately unavoidable. But we definitely need far more investment in renewable energy if we're to have any hope of ending our dependence on foreign oil. And regarding your second question, I don't look at race as a factor. To me a muslim is a muslim wether they're black, white or anything in between.

With the increasing conflict between muslims and non-muslims (Which will only increase further), I think that our governments need to ensure that muslims hold as little power and influence over our societies as possible.
Sorry man, but the Saudis already own trillions of dollars worth of the US. And they are a lot more volatile than Dubaiatis.

Sorry man, but the Saudis already own trillions of dollars worth of the US. And they are a lot more volatile than Dubaiatis.
I think it was stupid to ever let them get that influence, and it should be removed. I agree with you that the Saudis are more volatile. But why make a bad situation worse?

I think it was stupid to ever let them get that influence, and it should be removed. I agree with you that the Saudis are more volatile. But why make a bad situation worse?

But the Emiraties are... rich. Really really really REALLY stinking rich. They aren't volatile in the slightest- they are some of the most 'Westernised' Arabs around!

Religion has nothing to do with it- to them its a simple business transaction. They would look after the ports.... not the security. Nothing would change for them.

Your objections to Muslims having business influence are similar to objections the fascists and communists had about jewish business interests during the 1930s. :mad:

The whole affair over DP World is extremely disgraceful.

It is clear that the US's opinion is "Attention Arab Muslims: We do not trust you, any of you."

The people of dubai are such dangerous fundamentalist muslims that they decided to build an indoor ski resort, in the desert.

The people of dubai are such dangerous fundamentalist muslims that they decided to build an indoor ski resort, in the desert.
OMG!!! It's a terrorist training camp to carry out attacks in Colorado!!!!!!!!

This is always useful:



So virtually every argument thrown against this deal has been utterly invalid, with the only real complaint being that the President did not conduct the process transparently. Ironically enough, the Administration probably tried to conceal it for the fact that it waould cause an uproar.

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5437
DPW has an official policy of not having contact with Israel. Such policies are illegal in the US.

The whole affair over DP World is extremely disgraceful.

It is clear that the US's opinion is "Attention Arab Muslims: We do not trust you, any of you."

The people of dubai are such dangerous fundamentalist muslims that they decided to build an indoor ski resort, in the desert.

Little known fact: The UAE actually own The World (http://www.theworld.ae/index.html). All of it. Good news, though, is that they're selling off pieces.

DPW has an official policy of not having contact with Israel. Such policies are illegal in the US.
Company I work for doesn't do business with Burma and a list of other places. It runs a load of stuff in the US. So I call bullshit on that.

LOL, pwnt. Globalisation > You. :D

This really makes the current argument look really foolish, doesn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4794230.stm
You realize this means, Bush was right.

You realize this means, Bush was right.
Yes, he was. What, you think I'm some sort of socialist blinded by Bush-hate so much that if he said the Earth was a sphere, I would insist it is flat? :p