Talk:Dubai Ports World controversy

Does management include security?

I have read dozens of news articles since the story broke. I have yet to see even one which indicated that Dubai Ports World (or UAE, or the sheik who runs it) would be placed in charge of port security at any US seaports.

Are there any sources I've missed? Or is everyone just assuming that port management includes port security?? --Uncle Ed 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The people against the deal often seem to be confusing the two terms. Bayerischermann 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

President Bush has stated that port security is a government responsibility, so I've gone ahead and added that argument to the article. --Random User 12:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.120.73 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality regarding this issue

I think the two major sides are the U.S. federal government and its critics:

• US federal goverment position:
  1. it's no big deal and was properly handled at lower levels
  2. there are no security concerns
  3. Port security is handled by the Coast Guard
• critics of the deal:
  1. It's a major issue and should have been handled at higher levels
  2. There are critical security concerns
  3. Letting DB World buy the British firm would put port security in the hands of a foreign (and hostile) power

But UAE is a military ally of the US... Bayerischermann 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Russia was allies with the US in WWII. The point being that some people think giving away port security management to UAE would allow them to have the US by the balls if relations ever soured. . MPS 21:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Impossible. The majority of critics are members of the USFG. The two sides seem to be those who support the deal (Bush administration, etc) and those who oppose it (A lot of prominent Congress people, etc.). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

MPS, you make a circular argument: you wrote giving away port security management to UAE. This assumes that the deal would give away port security management. I think the article should not assume this but explore the assertions of deal supporters and deal opponents:

• deal supporters say security isn't managed by P&O and won't be managed by DP World
• deal opponents say (or assume) that port management includes port security

We need to google up the quotes by advocates who make both points. And I'm also interested in anyone making the assertion that even if "management" is distinct from "security" there is still some relationship which bears scrutiny. Uncle Ed 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't quote me... seriously... I can't say I am really impassioned about this controversy. Whatever it is that we are giving away... some people think that this is something that we shouldn't be giving away. I agree with Uncle Ed that whatever the arguments/POV are, they should be well sourced and the substance of what they are critiquing (security vs management) should be specified . MPS 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have included, in the 'External links' section, references to the vews of a lot of the supporters and critics of the deal, that were mentioned in the article --Jibran1 06:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I happen to support the DPW deal... but I must admit that this article is wildly tendentious. In this section, each objection is followed by a response given the imprimature of authority. For example:

• Review and approval of the acquisition by CFIUS was not sufficiently transparent and thorough, and never reached the proper level within the administration. In fact DP World received a unanimous approval and followed the letter of the law exactly.

Another example:

• Joining the debate, the Anti-Defamation League has protested the deal, stating that "The UAE's boycott of Israel alone should torpedo this deal"[17] In fact, the largest Israeli shipping company, Zim Israel, supported the deal. (see below)

Again:

• “America would not be in control of her own security” In fact, nothing changes under the deal.

Each of these responses begins with "in fact," which is as much as saying that there is no dispute: “Some say that objects just float around the room; in fact, gravity pulls everything towards the center of the Earth.” But of course, despite my own support for the deal and my belief that these responses are correct, the issue is still in controversy.

It would be much more professional to replace those "in facts" (and similar phrasing) with something along the lines of "supporters respond that," maybe even following up by counter-counters from opponents and c-c-cs from supporters. That would allow readers to decide for themselves who had the better argument, instead of lecturing down at them.

I do not believe Wikipedia should leap into a dispute on one side... even one I personally support. Dafyddabhugh 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

News

• DPW also appears wired into the Bush administration. Last month, George Bush nominated one of DPW's senior executives, David C. Sanborn, to serve as maritime administrator, an important transportation appointment reporting directly to Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta. Mr. Sanford, a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DPW in 2005. Before being nominated to be maritime administrator, Mr. Sanford served as DPW's director of Operations for Europe and Latin America. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48907]

The name

I orginally crated this as DP World ports security controversey. I'm fine with correcting the mispelling, obviously. I'm also fine with removing "ports security" although I think that thats what the controversy aspect is really about. But the article on Dubai Ports World is titled DP World so I think we should change the title to DP World controversy, unless the article on the company has its title similarly changed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears that article was changed as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The elephant in the room (anti-Arab sentiment)

This page manages to describe the issue without once addressing the obvious: that Dubai is being opposed because its an Arab gov't and is held (erroneously) to support terrorism. Shouldn't we discuss this somehow? Marskell 12:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that the main issue is not currently addressed in the article. Yes, there may have been inadequate awareness that the deal went down, but most critiques of the deal also contain an implicit concern that Dubai Ports World is UAE owned, and that UAE is an Arab country where lots of terror funding has gone through. We may want to include a description of current US relations with UAE, from air basing and other ways US trusts UAE. The article should also include that UAE is a banking center so funding of all kinds goes throuh UAE. Keep it NPOV, but represent the content of the POVs that are being batted around in the news. MPS 21:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I decided to modify the opening sentence to bring the elephant out into the middle of the room and maybe give it a name. The significance of Dubai being Arab or cozy with terrorists (or erroneous perceptions to that effect, depending on your POV) is going to have to be articulated fully within sections labelled "Pros" and "Cons" at some point, I think. Pvl 04:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stating "historical and cultural ties with terrorism" is a POV itself and, yes, an erroneous one. The UAE has as much a tie to terrorism as the U.S. does to the KKK. The Sheikhs do not fund it, express support for it verbally, allow terrorists freedom in the country etc. etc. 9/11 hijackers used the banking system? Presumably they also used the American banking system. Banking systems aren't countries. Marskell 08:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That was Fuzheado's addition actually, not yours Pvl. Marskell 08:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a POV, but it can document POVs, even erroneous POVs, if they are widespread or held by influential leaders. MPS 14:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thx for the tip. I removed what had been a POV presented as a statement of fact. Marskell 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree: this article -- the reason for the controversy -- is difficult to understand unless the reader implicitly knows about the Islamophobia or anti-Arab sentiment present in the U.S. political discourse at the time. I've altered the title of this Talk section so that other editors interested in improving the article can find this discussion more easily. 2001:48F8:9021:159:E49D:C6FF:FEFF:E2B6 (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Describing the elephant

Would someone read the UPI story at Dubai_Ports_World_controversy#External_links please? It has a lot of info that hasn't gotten into the article yet, and I just don't have time right now. Thanking you in advance... --Uncle Ed 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely a lot to be said for the arguments on both sides. I've tried to inject some substance (and neutrality) into the pros and cons lists to give others something to work with as they flesh the arguments out. One idea that interests me is associating particular commentators with the particular arguments. If you've listened to talk radio commentary on the ports deal, you've probably noticed that Rush Limbaugh supports the deal basically because he's impressed by Dubai's economic development, and Bill O'Reilly supports the deal because blocking it would cause the U.A.E to waver as allies in the GWOT. There are certainly other examples, but those two stick out right now as commentators with pet arguments. Pvl 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Enemy?

From the article (deleted text is marked like this:

Several commentators and politicians have: branded the UAE (which includes Dubai) an enemy of the U.S. -- a curious claim, since UAE/Dubai is a key staging area for the US military and Halliburton personnel transiting to and from Iraq. This charge seems to be based in part in guilt by association, in that some of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE.

I didn't know which advocates called this claim "curious" so I cut and pasted it here, pending discovery of the source. --Uncle Ed 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Curious claim" replaced by?.... "Several commentators and politicians have: branded the UAE (which includes Dubai) an enemy of the U.S. when it is in fact an ally," makes sense to me. Marskell 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Democrat letter

Three Democratic senators signed a letter declaring that:

• Dubai ... has been named as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components that were shipped to Iran, North Korea and Libya, which were sold by Pakistan's nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.
• The UAE was one of only 3 countries (including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. (pdf)

You might also add that the UAE also offered asylum to Saddam Hussein. The evilness is hard to ignore. Marskell 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Facts or arguments?

Cut from "arguments against the deal":

• port operators inevitably perform tasks with port security implications, such as preparing manifests for port security officials and cooperating to enforce port security policies;
• the U.A.E. still bears the stigma of supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda both economically and diplomatically prior to 9/11;
• the U.S. government vets foreign state-owned enterprises by a more political standard than private firms (the failed acquisition of Unocal by the Chinese state-owned CNOOC offers recent precedent);
• the U.A.E. participates in the Arab League boycott of Israel (federal statute prohibits Americans from aiding the boycott);
• antipathy toward Arab and Islamic regimes among the American public imposes an extraordinarily high burden of proof upon supporters of the deal.[1][2]

Please re-write the above, so that they constitute arguments. Recititing a fact does not make an argmuent.

For example:

1. I. M. Scarry asserted that some tasks port operators perform have port security implications, and that although he trusted the private British firm he still distrusts the UAE because it gave political support to the Taliban after 9/11.
   • The reason this (made-up) example is an argument, is because it draws conclusions from premises. It's also a good POV description because it names the person making the argument. Surely there's a Democratic senator who espouses a position like this we can quote.
2. The U.S. should not aid the boycott of Israel, and this deal would benefit the UAE which participates in the Arab League boycott of Israel, so the deal is against US law and thwart US foreign policy
   • This example likewise states two premises and draws conclusions.

I leave the rest, because I'm out of time. Please don't just "put all the points back" but fix them up. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 13:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Arab League boycott of Israel

Shall we include some of the quotes, like:

• Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in a Feb. 28 letter to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, "If Dubai continues its anti-Israel activity, it must be grounds for the cancellation of the deal." [3] --Uncle Ed 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubai International Capital?

Isn't Dubai International Capital involved in this story? Kingturtle 20:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Concern of POV slant

My concern is mainly with this paragraph:

"Surprisingly, Israel's largest shipping firm, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, came out in support of the deal. This is despite the U.A.E.'s backing of an Arab boycott of Israeli shipping. The company sails under the flags of other countries to avoid the boycott.

"During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World... We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future." Zim Integrated Shipping Services CEO, Idon Ofer, February 22 2006. [4]"

Firstly, the word "Surprisingly" is not supposed to be used in encyclopedia articles. Does everyone agree? My other concern is that some of the wording in this paragraph is irrelevant to the subject matter. And what is the message of this? Are you (the writer) trying to push an agenda or describe a situation. However, I didn't delete the entire paragraph, but just some of the wording in it.--Inahet 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a slant here. Certainly the term Surprisingly is emotionally-laden. It was perhaps intended to insinuate the idea that (a) the boycott should not be made a factor in the issue; or (b) that while it's okay to make the boycott a factor, reflagging handles it. Either way, it sounds like an argument to dismiss the Arab boycott as a factor.

I'd like to know which groups want to include or exclude the Arab boycott from the port controversy. When we all read this article 6 months or 2 years from now, we'll want to know what factors of the deal were of interest to the various parties who favored or opposed the deal. Let's take a more timeless view. Uncle Ed 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Status of the boycott

Answering my own question:

Dubai's government may formally subscribe to the Arab boycott of Israel, but a state-owned company at the center of a controversy over its bid to take over some U.S. port operations says it routinely works with Israeli firms.

It's a contradiction increasingly apparent in the region: Several Persian Gulf states, especially ones entering international markets, mostly ignore the boycott even though they haven't formally ended it and don't recognize Israel.

Countries like the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part, have also ended secondary boycotts, meaning Israeli products not shipped directly from Israel are allowed to enter their markets.

Several U.S. senators raised the question of the boycott this week as a new twist in the uproar over whether allowing Dubai Ports World to run port facilities in several American cities posed a security risk. U.S. law prohibits companies from cooperating with the boycott.

DP World is owned by the government of Dubai, which on its books supports the boycott. But the boycott has crumbled over the decades, and the UAE does not force DP World to bar Israeli goods and companies from the European, Asian and Mideast ports it manages. (NewsMax)

Apparently the boycott is not total. Still, to some deal proponents or opponents it may be relevant. That is, certain advocates have a point of view about it. Let's describe their POV in the article. --Uncle Ed 14:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree that if this boycott is a factor in the opposition of the deal then it should be explained in the section where it is concerned (i.e. criticism of the deal).--Inahet 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting and expanding

I've started to do some editing on this article, so I added some paragraphs. None of it has specific sources, but I'd prefer paragraphs or sentences people find objectional get tagged and not deleted, as i could probably find a few sources.

The major issue that I see not being really addressed is that most people are upset that it's an Arab country with ambiguous and alleged relations to terror. While sometimes the argument is couched in terms of "foreign vs. domestic", it seems to actually be "US-Ally vs. non- or unclear-US-Ally". I've tried to talk about it, but maybe that's a discussion for the talk page.

Also, this is my first non-minor edit, so I'm looking forward to seeing what yall do!Dkatten 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work, Dkatten. Thanks! --Uncle Ed 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DP World concedes

"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," DP World's chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey said. (AP, March 9, 2006)

False references

I'm a little concerned that the wikilinks to alleged supporters/opponents of the deal might give the impression of being real references. Perhaps the person that added them could include the reference to where the support or opposition were expressed? Slinky Puppet 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have included, in the 'External links' section, references to the vews of a lot of the supporters and critics of the deal, that were mentioned in the article --Jibran1 06:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarities with the failed CNOOC-Unocal deal

Perhaps someone could comment on the similarities between this and the CNOOC-Unocal deal, which also failed because of political opposition from the US. --60.234.137.41 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested additions

I've made a few edits, I hope they're acceptable to the regular editors. Most were disambiguating or wikilinking to ca=larify the article for non-USA readers. Things I identified as still missing include:

• at the beginning of the chronology, can someone identify when these port operations were originally sold to foreign interests?
• A better link than executive branch to who approved the takeover in the opening paragraph (that link is about government in general, not the USA).
• Several of the city articles for these "major ports" have a transportation section which does not even mention a container port (noticed while disambiguating cities for an international readership). Davisville, Rhode Island does not even have an article.
• Are any other US ports operated by other foreign-owned companies?

Most of these questions are probably easier-answered by someone familiar with the USA. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:George W. Bush administration scandals

I just removed the insertion of the above category from this article. However unpopular the deal is among some circles, there is certainly insufficent evidence of a "scandal" to justify the insertion of this category at the moment. 172 | Talk 07:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of POV

Cleaned up POV wording in Opposition section. Also added category on Controversy as appropriate. Took out last paragraph of Opposition as POV in support of Deal which belongs in following section on support thereof. --Northmeister 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This covers both sides?

Some opposed to the sale have argued that no foreign company should be permitted to own such strategic assets while others argue that in the age after the 9-11 terrorist attacks port security should remain in the hands of American firms under American control.

Some have argued it needs more editing while others argue that the editing needs to be increased. :). --Tbeatty 16:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, my bad. :). --Northmeister 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"how much more expansion do we need?"

The question was asked in an edit summary removing the {{current}} tag. To someone outside the USA, this article does not tell the end of the story.

• Has Dubai Ports World disposed of its USA assets?
  • To whom? (it suggests Halliburton without stating the deal is concluded - that article does not mention ports)
  • Did they make a profit or a loss on the on-sale?
• Were laws changed to prevent a similar situation occurring again?
• Has there been fallout for any other foreign-owned or operated ports or other infrastructure?
• Has there been any impact on investment markets by a perception that major US assets cannot be taken over by international or multinational companies based outside the USA?
• Has the US-UAE alliance in the War on Terror been affected?
• Has public opinion changed about either the executive government or the significance of ownership of assets they take for granted?

These are questions a reader might seek to answer when reading this article in a few years time that are not yet addressed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush's Connection with Dubai

The United Arab Emirates gave the Bush administration $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina weeks before a state-owned company there sought U.S. approval for its ports deal...The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The executive chairman of Dubai Ports World, Ahmed bin Sulayem, is not listed among donors. Retrieved from http://seattlepi.com/national/1151AP_Ports_Security_Katrina.html

removed text

70.112.141.154 removed "however, it should be noted that the British company is privately owned, and the other in question is owned and managed by the government of UAE" from the "Support for the deal" section and Northmeister put it back with the comment that it is true. I have removed it again, as the comment that "The support section does not seem like a good place to argue against support" appears true, and the sentiment is reflected in the last two bullets of the opposition section just above. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I support your move. Good work. --Northmeister 02:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality?

A few things, as you appear to favor the DP World deal going through: "Those who expressed opposition to the deal included:" Is how you address the papers/magazines/people who oppose the deal. "Editorial support for the deal comes from most respected publications" Is how you introduce those who favor the deal going through. My main problem is with the "most respected publications" implying that one should listen to these sources over the opposing sources.

My second problem comes with the bullet point examples of arguments made by critics of the deal. While in the "Support for the deal" section the facts are laid straight out, in the "opposition", each fact is immediately refuted, as if the author is making an argument and NOT stating the facts. In my opinion, if you want to put in these refuting points, put them: 1. In the "Support" section. 2. With proper citations.

Thanks --TheDarkForest 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree especially with the first point. "Editorial support for the deal comes from most respected publications like .... Tony Snow [6], Thomas Friedman [7], Rush Limbaugh [8], Jimmy Carter [9], John Warner [10] and Bill O'Reilly." I'm assuming this was put in as a joke. I'm erasing those points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.31.136.131 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the removal as the removed text was properly referenced and does in fact show that those authors were supportive. I'll have a look at making the language used more neutral. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security?

I suppose it really depends upon your motavating factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.155.8 (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dubai Ports World controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301020244/http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/27.html to http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/27.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060313171317/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11657573/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11657573/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131080732/http://obama.senate.gov/press/060221-obama_statement_17/ to http://obama.senate.gov/press/060221-obama_statement_17/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131104041/http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251838 to http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=251838
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/21/103107.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)