Rant # 7 - Muslim Port Management... Are you serious?

Are we seriously considering this? Yes, in fact it has been approved.

A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.

A government-owned operation named Dubai Port World (or DP World) has recently been purchased by Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of London for $6.8 billion. A map showing where DP World operates other shipping facilities can be found here. The merger, up for review by the U.S. Senate banking Committee, and needing approval from the Department of Homeland Security's foreign review was just given the blessing of the U.S. Government. The committee, run by the Treasury Department, also includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security. Meanwhile, The United Arab Emirates said on Friday it was a close ally of the US in its war on terrorism as well as trade. "We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.

Pictured is Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman, Ports, Customs & Free Zone Corporation.

The White House Vehemently Defends Decision

A White House spokesman said the process was "vigorously reviewed." Others in Washington say they either doubt the merits of that review or they simply don't care, based on the principle that "We have to have American companies running our own ports. ... Our infrastructure is at risk" according to Barbara Boxer, Senate Democrat from California.

DHS Secretary Micheal Chertoff responded, "We have a very disciplined process, it's a classified process, for reviewing any acquisition by a foreign company of assets that we consider relevant to national security. We don't take a risk. What we do is we require a very careful review – we have the FBI involved, we have the Department of Defense involved – of what the challenges are. We have, in fact, dealt with this port before because we deal with it overseas as part of our comprehensive global security network," Chertoff said.

A full transcript of the most recent White House briefing can be found here.

"We've built in, and we will build in safeguards to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen. And, you know, this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment." But most legislators and other members of government regulatory agencies aren't buying it. The issue that raises the most concern is that the United Arab Emirates has known ties to terror groups, and several of the 9/11 hijackers were from or bankrolled by entities within the UAE. U.S. 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.

Senators React in Bipartisan Opposition

As a result, Senator Robert Menendez, D-N.J. is preparing legislation that would forbid any companies owned or controlled by foreign governments or primarily based in foreign nations from operation port facilities in the United States. In fact, he believes the Bush Administration, when it comes to the national security of our international ports, "just does not get it." Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal; the port handles about 12 percent of the nation's cargo traffic.

"No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history," Menendez said in a prepared statement. "We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."

Shareholders of Peninsular and Oriental Steam, based in London, England approved the sale Monday, Feb 20, 2006. The British firm, the world’s fourth-largest ports company, runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

U.S. officials have said money for the Sept. 11 attacks was wired through the United Arab Emirates' banking system. Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But plans for the merger are moving ahead as expected, despite a growing clamour in the U.S. Congress from both sides of the political aisle:

Rep Mark Foley, R-Fla., said, “Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free-trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11."

Pictured is Senator Mark Foley, R-FL

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat.

Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. said, "at a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism."

And Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said today, "Handing the keys to U.S. strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror."

Foley, Fossella and Schumer and Coburn were among seven lawmakers who wrote to Snow expressing concern that the Bush administration was not giving the case appropriate attention and urging him to make the Committee on Foreign Investments undertake a full 45-day investigation. Other Senators who signed the Letter were Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Shays (R-CT) and Dodd (D-CT).

The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?

Well, the Brit's Owned it, Right?

First of all, this is not just about "foreign ownership" of our ports. There seemed to be no problem when Brit's owned it. We are, after all fighting a war against terrorism with the British running with us all along the way. Britain is considered by many in the adminstration to be a greater ally than even our northern "neighbor" Canada. But maybe there should be some concern about any foreign ownership, or management of port facilities inside the United States. It stands that our airport security is not being bid out to companies in Afghanistan; it is likely that some top-notch government security corporation in China would not be allowed to manage our baggage check.

Then why should out international ports be an exception?! U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year but only about 5 percent of containers entering the United States are examined on arrival. While 95 percent of all international commerce enters the U.S. through the nation's approximately 360 public and private ports, nearly 80 percent of that trade moves through only 10 ports. By far the biggest loads pass through Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York and Oakland.

U.S Ports are Unsafe, and Broadly Unchecked

In February of 2005, an Inspector General issued a report stating that the Department of Homeland Security has not focused efforts on protecting the nation's most vulnerable ports.
The department distributed $517 million in grants for port security between June 2002 and December 2003, but less than a quarter of the money had been spent as of September 2004, the inspector general found in an audit, according to a report in today's New York Times.
The audit says "the program has not yet achieved its intended results in the form of actual improvement in port security."

So time and time again, officials throughout the twisted web of government Bureaucracy have called attention to this massive loophole in our nation's safety infrastructure, yet we have taken few steps to solve the delinquent checks and systemic frailty. I could be going out on a limb here, but I believe it is possible that the Bush Administration green-lighted this sale knowing that Congress and other concerned parties would pick up the slack on squashing the deal. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has gained some political capital in the mideast for its efforts to lower some of the roadblocks to the bustling American Economy. It appears that some measures have been taken to close up Border Security at our port shipping facilities, but the task is far from over, and even further from acceptable.

Principle Over Reason

The principle of whether our ports ought to be managed by foreign companies is a sensitive one, and a question with billion dollar answers no one wants to be responsible for. Personally, I wouldn't panic if I knew that the British Prime Minister was head of security at the Port of New York. But I must ask myself if the principles of sovereignty and security are more important than the short-sighted conclusions of an ultimately human and potentially flawed investigation. I must also ask myself how anyone with a right mind could approve of the facilities management sale of our ports to a government directly influenced by our greatest enemies. I ask those who hold the authority to bust this deal between P&O and DP World: what is the economic benefit in gambling with a force beyond our control?

Misgiving #4: Secretary General Clinton? Savior of the U.N.

I have always appreciated the fact that the United Nations was easy to despise. It's egalitarian dreams of utopian humanity agreeing together in perfect Communism was always enough fodder to make a level-headed American queezy.
"Pardon me, where is the little boys room?"

But lately, I've been noticing a trend in media sentiment toward the eminent turnover of U.N. authority to a new Secretary General on December 31st. As recently as January 14, 2006 BBC reported that former U.S. President Bill Clinton was jaunting around the Isles humbly touting his "friend" Prime Minister Blair as being capable of doing "good... in the world and that's the most important thing."

When asked on BBC2's Newsnight if Mr Blair should run for UN secretary general, Mr Clinton responded: "That would suit me. He would be a good one."

But Clinton himself, as Secretary General of the U.N.? It has been talked about in U.N. circles and among the former president's insiders for more than two years. And now, according to a United Press International report, Clinton "definitely wants to do it."

Since his own retirement in 2000, the former President has himself done many "good" things, running around the world's elite circles raising cash for impoverished tsunami victims, hurricane Katrina's thousands of homeless, and campaigning for world debt relief and fighting HIV/AIDS. Even current Secretary Kofi Annan has shown his appreciation globally for his buddy. It must be nice to get the stamp of approval from a leader that normally cannot find any respectable words for our current American leadership.

Very respectable for any former world leader to do with his valuable time, I must say. After all, Clinton's "down time" is worth millions, as he encouraged Tony Blair: whatever Mr Blair did after leaving Number 10 he could expect "immense rewards" from speaking engagements, books and directorships.

Clinton would know... despite heart surgeries in the past couple years, Bill Clinton has still been hitting the podium — for speeches around the world. He rakes in about $125,000 per speech in the U.S. and as much as $250,000 for those given abroad. In 2004 alone he earned about $6 million from book royalties and speaking engagements. So all of this mouth-flapping seems certainly aimed at bolstering his world-prestige and acutely designed to predestinate him as a prime candidate for the next Secretary election. Could all his banter about Tony Blair possibly be a only a viel of his own career intentions? Read this report of a recent appearance by Clinton before the world body.

Former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms is raising the possibility that former President Bill Clinton may want to succeed Kofi Annan as U.N. Secretary General when Annan retires. "I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake." After a Middle East U.N. Secretary-General (Boutros Boutros Ghali) and an African (Kofi Annan) it is generally considered Asia's turn to fill the post, U.N. experts say; no American has ever been U.N. secretary-general. Nonetheless, the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget, so that is possibly a moot precedent.

A Clinton candidacy is likely to receive overwhelming support from U.N. member states, particularly the Third World. All of the diatribes against "American aggression" and "Bush follies" are, I believe aimed specifically at distancing Clinton from the stereotypical American stygma. Diplomats in Washington say Clinton would galvanize the United Nations and give an enormous boost to its prestige. But the former president's hopes hang on a crucial question that will not be addressed until after the presidential elections: can he get the support of the U.S. government -- a prerequisite for nomination?

My God, let's hope not. He's just too likeable... and that scares me.

BlogBlurb - Level-headed Islam

I find it astonishing that a Danish newspaper prints a cartoon, depicting a bomb in the headdress of Muhammad, and the world erupts in protest... VIOLENT protest!

I think they just proved the cartoonists' point.

Most muslims are not violent and are peaceful, freedom-loving individuals living all over the world. I remember the betryal I felt when Christian fundamentalists were blowing up buildings and shooting abortion doctors in the 90's. I was disgusted with the fact that out-of-line militias were making a bad name for our peaceful faith. There was nothing I could do but pray that God would put it to and end. Eventually, it made its way out of the news. And for the most part, Christianity is seen as a peaceful faith, albeit a little extraordinary at times.

However, there are 164 verses in the Koran that speak of Jihad, that is annihilation of those that resist the faith; the unbelievers. While those that practice terrorism are those that take the Koran most literally, I do not believe that all other muslims can distance themselves as far as they would like from those that do these horrific things. The "peaceful" muslims are those that interpret Islamic law in the most philisophical of ways, translating the truths of the Koran into a way of life very different than it has been taught for 1,700 years. Only recently did Jihad become a "mental and spiritual war against the world" to the peaceful. They are to Islam what the United Methodists are to the Christian Church. Liberal, philisophical, post-modern retranslation. The problem is that such teaching does not exist in a dozen or so entire nations that embrace the most literal and traditional forms of Islam, which call for killing those opposed to Muhammad and "Allah".

I do not agree that the cartoonist should have displayed the cartoon in such a brash way. But the violent protests that have proceeded are only proving his point. And I don't see anyone else pointing out this ironicity. Even moreso is the instance of an Egyptian magazine printing the same cartoon 4 months earlier during Ramadan. Yet there were no violent protests then. Secretary of State Condi Rice is now contending Iran and Syria have propagated these outbursts at demonstrations to earn global clout for their agenda.

Fortunately for us, 1.1 billion of the 1.2 billion Muslims are "liberal, philisophical" and "post-modern" or we'd all be dead.