[Mb-civic] Security Programs, Unions Would Stay at Ports - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Security Programs, Unions Would Stay at Ports
UAE Firm Would Operate Facilities

By Paul Blustein and Eric Rich
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; D01

As a furor erupted yesterday over the prospective takeover by a United 
Arab Emirates company of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, 
officials from the company and the Bush administration scrambled to 
assuage fears that the deal would undermine security and anti-terrorism 
efforts at some of America's biggest maritime facilities.

Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of 
Homeland Security, said at a news conference yesterday that Dubai Ports 
World, which won a takeover battle for a British firm that now operates 
terminals in the ports, promised during an internal administration 
review that it would continue participating in security programs 
previously entered into with the U.S. government.

And Michael Seymour, head of North American operations for Peninsular 
and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm being bought by the 
UAE firm, said the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied 
by longshoremen's unions -- an arrangement he said would remain in 
effect. "So it doesn't make any difference whether we are their 
employers, or other terminal operators are their employers," he said.

Those pledges did not quell the uproar in Congress, statehouses and city 
halls over the approval by an administration interagency task force of 
the $6.8 billion takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World. Lawmakers, 
governors and mayors from both parties decried the decision, which would 
put the state-owned UAE company in charge of handling operations at 
terminals in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New York, New Orleans and 
Philadelphia.

Although the deal has been approved by P&O shareholders, lawmakers 
threatened to pass legislation blocking it, and state and local 
officials suggested that they may refuse to allow their port facilities 
to be managed by the UAE firm.

But whatever happens, experts in port operations said they feared 
broader issues about security in the country's docks were being lost in 
the controversy over Dubai Ports World.

Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on 
Foreign Relations, noted that although the company is state-owned, 
several members of its top management are Americans -- including its 
general counsel, a senior vice president and its outgoing chief 
operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, who is a former U.S. Navy officer. 
And since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States has 
increasingly depended on such foreign port operators to cooperate in 
inspecting cargo before it heads for U.S. shores.

"It's a global network at the end of the day that we're trying to secure 
here," Flynn said. "And that doesn't happen by the United States owning 
every bit of it. What we should be focusing on instead is the question, 
are the security standards adequate?"

Robert C. Bonner, who until November headed U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, agreed. Although U.S. dock workers have occasionally been 
caught colluding with drug traffickers, the possibility that terrorists 
or their sympathizers would end up working in U.S. ports is remote 
because of the strong role of unions in hiring, he said.

"I think there's some specter that people from the Middle East are going 
to come over here and operate terminals," he said. "I don't think 
anything like that is going to happen."

Dubai Ports World is one of several foreign giants that operate 
terminals in ports around the globe; other big companies are from 
Denmark, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. Few U.S. terminals are 
managed by American-owned firms.

The pending deal would make Dubai Ports World, which manages maritime 
facilities in Asia, Europe and Latin America, one of the three largest 
port operators in the world. At the Port of Baltimore, for example, it 
would take over operation of one of six terminals, where about 4 million 
tons of cargo carried on 371 vessels passed through last year, according 
to Richard Scher, a spokesman for the Maryland Port Administration.

Dubai Ports World differs from most foreign operators because of its 
state ownership. But if its takeover of P&O goes through, it would have 
to comply with the same security procedures in its U.S. facilities that 
other operators do.

Terminal operators typically lease facilities from a local port 
authority and are responsible for attracting shipping lines to use their 
terminal, where their main task is to move the thousands of containers 
that come in and out onto the right vessels, rail cars or trucks. In the 
process, they must maintain security at the facility, with the 
government providing backup and oversight.

At the Port of Seattle, for example, SSA Marine, the biggest U.S.-owned 
terminal operator, uses an X-ray machine to screen all the containers 
that come in, said Bob Watters, the company's vice president. Customs 
agents, who are supposed to receive advance notice of the cargo on 
incoming ships, have the right to open any container and inspect the 
contents; such procedures are conducted on about 5 percent of all 
containers nationwide. "We also have overall security plans that we have 
to develop and have vetted by the U.S. Coast Guard," Watters said.

Critics voiced strong doubts about whether the existing procedures are 
commensurate with the threat. "There are not enough Customs and Border 
Protection inspectors at the nation's ports to handle the incoming 
traffic that we have now, and our guys at the ports are being told that 
they can't do any overtime," said Charles Showalter, president of the 
American Federation of Government Employees union, which represents 
officers who inspect ships. "That combination often results in 
uninspected ships being left unattended in port overnight."

Concerns over insufficient inspectors worry many security experts far 
more than the issue of who owns the companies managing the terminals.

Flynn cited a litany of unsettling practices, such as the lack of any 
screening for the thousands of truck drivers, many of whom are 
immigrants, hauling containers from the ports of Los Angeles and Long 
Beach, Calif., to railway lines.

"What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly 
realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned 
companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it?" 
Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a 
feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to 
be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101924.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060222/a5a3cfdd/attachment.htm