Mission Impossible Impractical?

Ports Management Deal Gone Bad...


I guess that almost everyone over the age of forty remembers the old TV show Mission Impossible.

I used to love to tune in each week to watch the tape in actor Peter Graves' tape recorder turn to smoke after he had received his latest mission requirements.

"Good Morning...Mr. Phelps...Your mission, if you should decide to accept it, is to..."

Being the God fearing, red-white-and-blue flag waving American TV hero that he was, it seems to me that there was never a single mission that Peter Graves turned down in seven seasons of intrigue ending in 1973.


I wish that I could say the same thing about California Congressman (and so-called Republican) Jerry Lewis seen here.

I've been wondering if Representative Lewis and Peter Graves were not actually separated at birth or something--they look so much alike.

But then I think that we all just got an answer to this rhetorical question, because Congressman Lewis recently acts more like comedian Jerry Lewis than a serious defender of American Freedoms and interests.






Today Congressman Lewis stunned the Republican leadership and President Bush by attempting to outright kill the UAE port managment contract without any further investigation and discussion in the Senate or the House.

Dammit if it doesn't look like the Republican Majority is running scared of the 61% negative public opinion figures resulting from the NY Times and Associated Press demagoguary on the issue.

All I keep hearing Congressmen and pitiful ill-informed citizens say is something like "Can't have no dang foreigners running our port security..."

I've got a news flash for you, ladies and gentlemen...

There is hardly a single port here in the United-By-God-States of America that isn't already FULL OF DANG FOREIGNERS.

They are everywhere.

The ports are overrun with foreign national's, both legal and illegal, just like our construction jobsites are teaming with Mexican carpenters and brick masons.

You can't pick up a container or roll a new Mercedies Benz off of a ship's deck without tripping over a Liberian or Irishman handling the operations managment.

To the NY Times credit, a couple of weeks ago they produced this story about the common practice of foreign port managment.

HOUSTON - In the outcry over who should run America's seaport terminals, one clear trend appears to have been overlooked: American companies began withdrawing decades ago from the unglamorous business of stevedoring, ceding the now-booming industry to enterprises in Asia and the Middle East.

So it is no accident that American companies are not in the top ranks of global terminal operators, who have ridden the coattails of the explosion in world trade. That shift has transferred growing financial clout to a handful of seafaring centers in Hong Kong, Singapore and now the emirate of Dubai.

Indeed, the takeover of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of Britain came down to a battle between two foreign, state-backed companies. One of them, DP World, is owned by Dubai's Maktoum family. The other, PSA, the world's second-largest port operator, is part of the Singapore government's investment arm...

Moreover, the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States. That figure is 90 percent in Britain, a country that used to be the world's biggest shipping power.

Though two American companies now rank eighth and ninth among the world's top 10 operators, it would not be easy for other American companies to get into the business. The retreat began decades ago amid rising labor costs and slow growth, while foreign companies spotted opportunities.

Unfortunately, in their ongoing effort to not be "fair and balanced," the Times buried the story back in their Money/Financial section rather than putting it on the front page with the usual hysteria.

Do yourself a favor and go read the article. If you do read it in its entirety, you'll find yourself knowing more about the ports issue than practically every other American (with the possible exception of ME.)

I took the time to look up PSA international's website and I learned that they already operate nineteen ports in 11 countries--but none yet in the United States. I also learned that PSA is owned primarily by the Singapore government.

So suppose that instead of selling the port operations to Dubai based DP World, owned by the government of the UAE, we let the sale go through to a company in the middle of a region with the SECOND LARGEST MUSLIM POPULATION IN THE WORLD.

That's right, the region including SE Asia, Indonesia, and the Pacific/Indian Ocean Islands is covered up with Muslims, and some of their citizens are not immune to opening a can of "Jihadist whoop ass" every now and then on Australia and the non-Muslims in their region.

What's the difference here?

In wrapping this subject up this morning, I'd like to make two final points to those of you that didn't read the entire NY Times article.

First, the reason that there are few US companies in the business of handling port managment and cargo loading/unloading is due almost entirely to the cost of UNION LABOR. Domestic companies, forced to hire union employees, found that they couldn't make a profit so they got out of the business. Even our imperal Federal Government can't force company shareholders to lose money in the shipping business, or any other business for that matter (remember the recent government induced flu vaccine shortages?)

By the way, the five ports in question were purchased by the British in 1999 and 2000, while the philanderer-in-chief Bill Clinton was still running national security.

Finally, I believe that I have a solution to this problem--IF the media and the politicians will stop collectively slinging mud at each other, settle down, and re-bid the contract like mature adults and businessmen.

As the Times article says, private shareholder owned companies were discouraged from bidding on the contract because of the deep pockets of the UAE and Sinagapore governments.

The bad news was that they (private companies) all dropped out in the last bid solicitation early, leaving only two foreign government owned companies in the competition.

The good news was the price offered for the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of Britain was about 20% higher than expected. What a nice surprise for the current British owners, but what an expensive potential negative windfall it has turned out to be for American politicians--particularly Republicans.

I say that if the project were simply rebid with the stated exclusion of everyone but privately and publicly held companies that meet Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's partisan standards, we could put this issue behind us and get back to the business of running the country and fighting the war on terrorism.

But of course, as usual, nobody in Washington asked me my opinion...