It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Arab organization takes charge of american shipping

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM
For those who haven't heard, America's major shipping ports will be outsourced to Dubai Ports World. Although it is a company based out of the UAE, our supposed ally, it may become potentially easier to ship large weapons of mass destruction from middle eastern terrorism groups. Why would the current administration allow suck a lapse in port security?

"We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country's weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation's maritime cargoes are inspected. "

"Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action. The country's ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda."

The thing I have trouble dealing with is that nobody really knows where the UAE stands. Although it is said that the UAE has cooperated before with operations to screen shipments for nuclear material, it is also said that the country provides asylum and financial assistance to terrorist organizations. This position of neutrality seems to cater to the almighty dollar, and the needs of port security come afterward. This compels me to believe that a large sum of money might be able to slip a nuke or two past port security. Without internalizing our security providers there is no way to audit the system.

White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Company
By Ted Bridis and Devlin Barrett
The Associated Press
Washington - The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

Reading further into the above articles, both political parties agree that this may not be a good idea. US Lawmakers pointing out discrepancies in the conduct of the UAE, raise even more questions as to the stance of their government toward the war on terror.

... US lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in US efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials...

To me it seems a matter of national security, to the administration, a need to appease the UAE, rather like our need to appease the Saudis. However, I am really quite confused about the stance of the UAE in all of this. As well, I am wondering why the administration allowed this lapse in judgment to occur, amidst the war on terror. Could the government be opening a back door to terror on purpose, or to pad their pockets? Could the government be allowing another 9-11 incident to occur? The administration says they want national security, but their actions seem to state otherwise.

link to Dubai Ports World website

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Eyeofhorus]" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Mod Note: Surround your snippet and link to an external source with these new tags: [ex] --> Begin external source content
[/ex] --> End external source content

[edit on 20-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:59 AM
Why don't we just HAND them a few nukes while we're at it. The WHOLE of the muslim world is seething at America, and the best we can do is give them SIX MAJOR PORTS ON THE EAST COAST?!?!?!

Uhhh, does not compute...please help me to understand this lunacy.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:27 PM
This has also been reported on ATSNN:

I get the impression from the aTSNN post that this is already an outsourced situation as the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. is a London-based firm.
Also, a company in the POrt of Miami has sued to block the sale.

[edit on 20-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:44 PM
The price of free trade!

We have KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) controlling our prime Naval base. Strangely they bid the lowest price and then held our defence capability to ransom until their higher costs were paid

The biter bit?

[edit on 20-2-2006 by Strangerous]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 08:52 PM
Ahhh o well as long as we still have spies and bigger secruity precautions hopefully our country will be fine. But since Bush is more interested in money then national secruity you never know.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:17 PM
There is something very fishy here. Don't the neo-cons realize this deal is
political suicide. Maybe they feel that they are so powerful that they can
do anything they want with no repercusions. Maybe they are right.

This is just more than a simple business deal with the Arabs. Stay tuned!!

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:53 PM
A few weeks ago a new "bin laden" tape is released stating a truce or there will be another major attack on US soil. Now this week we SELL control of out major import/export ports to the UAE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? sounds very VERY ODD!

On another note my dad works at the port in baltimore and manages the crews that inspect the cars coming off of the ships. Hopefully nothing will happen.

Our local news has been covering it and our local government is VERY displeased!

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 12:28 PM
A little update for the subject. Apparently the deal comes with some seemingly intangible safeguards, that go along with the deal. However, I am more concerned with what the article says about this potentially crippling blow to our damaged economy, not to mention the loss of power on the world market.

Port deal ‘includes safeguards’
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006


A deal for a state-owned Dubai company to manage major US ports includes security safeguards, the US homeland security chief said, but a Republican senator urged a probe and called the Bush administration 'tone deaf politically' for supporting it.

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:46 AM
I think you guys need to get some perspective.

The ports were owned by P&O, P&O sold to the UAE company so the UAE inherited the ports - not 'US sells ports to UAE'.

It's free trade, the US has forced this system of unregulated competition on the World via WTO, IMF etc - it's fine when the assumption is you're the ones with the capital and can buy it all up. When someone else holds the capital and uses it the US reverts to its traditional xenophobic protectionist position and claims a 'special case'.

I don't see you have a choice unless the US is now planning to overturn the whole WTO agreement and if you do please can we have our soft drinks and snack industries back?

new topics

top topics


log in