Recent Arab investments in the U.S. and Canada

[ScreamingEagle]

Are these investments also a threat to American security?

Feb 21 (Reuters) - The proposed takeover of six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, has sparked a political backlash in the United States.

Critics cite the alleged role that the UAE's banking system played in financing the Sept. 11 attackers, as well as the fact that two of the hijackers were UAE citizens.

But Arab investment in the United States is hardly new. Ever since the spike in energy prices in the early 1970s, dollars from oil-producing Arab nations have poured into the United States, at times prompting xenophobic reaction in some quarters as concern grew that vital interests were being auctioned off to foreigners.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is one of the largest single foreign investors in the United States. His major holdings include interests in U.S. tech heavyweight Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and media giant Time Warner Inc. <TWX.N.>. He owns almost 5 percent of Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the largest U.S. bank, and more than 5 percent of the U.S.-based media conglomerate News Corp (NWSa.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

But Al Waleed is hardly alone. As energy prices have spiked again over the past year or so, that inflow of Arab dollars into the U.S. and Canada has picked up. Some recent deals in the United States include:

* February 2006 - Shareholders of UK-based P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research), which operates six key ports in the United States, approve the sale of their company to state-owned Dubai Ports World for $6.8 billion. The Bush administration approves the sale after a classified review.

* January 2006 - Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Colony Capital agree to pay $3.9 billion for Canada's Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR.TO: Quote, Profile, Research), trumping an offer by billionaire investor Carl Icahn.

* January 2006 - United Arab Emirates-based media investment company Istithmar acquires 109 million shares, or 2.39 percent of Time Warner Inc. for $2 billion.

* November 2005 - Istithmar says it has bought New York property 230 Park Avenue for $705 million.

* August 2005 - Dubai's Dubal, owner and operator of the largest aluminum smelter in the Western world, says it will take a 25 percent stake in Canada's Global Alumina Corp.

* January 2005 - The government of Dubai buys a $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler AG (DCXGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), becoming the auto maker's third-largest shareholder. The purchase was made through the government's Dubai Holding company.

* December 2004 - State-owned Dubai Ports pays $1.15 billion for the global port assets of U.S.-based CSX Corp. (CSX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), outbidding the world's two biggest container port operators.

 

[Annie]

Are these investments also a threat to American security?

So for all of the reasons cited above, what?

 

[Hobbit]

Most of these are minority shareholder situations, not total buyouts. And most of them don't have anything to do with having a good measure of control over the most likely point of entry for a nuke into this country.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Most of these are minority shareholder situations, not total buyouts. And most of them don't have anything to do with having a good measure of control over the most likely point of entry for a nuke into this country.

Do you have on your tinfoil hat?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Most of these are minority shareholder situations, not total buyouts. And most of them don't have anything to do with having a good measure of control over the most likely point of entry for a nuke into this country.

In other words, you think we only need to be concerned about majority shareholders from the Middle East? Haha...like that is what it takes for terrorists to get a bomb into our country.

Do you really think ANY terminal owners truly know what is being shipped through their terminals? All they really know is what is declared on the manifests they get from the shippers, other than some spot checks. A declaration on a manifest can be a lie. Terrorists could pack up nuclear bomb parts into crates at some unsuspecting company somewhere in Britain (or any country) and load them into a container with hundreds of other crates. The container is then sealed, loaded onto a truck to be taken to an outbound shipping terminal, where it's hoisted off the truck and loaded onto a container ship to the U.S. In the U.S. the container is unloaded from the ship, placed onto a rig and then trucked to its final destination (still unsealed). On the manifest, they can just declare the contents as machinery or whatever. The container could sit in dock in either the originating port or the destination port for a while, among stacks and stacks of other containers, where it might get checked or it might not. If it is not physically checked, who's to know what's really in any container? Right now I understand we are only physically checking about 5%. What we really need are better security checks. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of our national security forces - and they are NOT under the authority of any foreign terminal owners.

There are many other ways our security could be compromised through the port system. Here is an article that discusses some more of those issues. The best way to attain security (other than a peaceful world) will be to develop a comprehensive system to check every container including a scan of the contents of each one. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...y23feb23,0,4613151.story?coll=bal-news-nation

 

[dilloduck]

In other words, you think we only need to be concerned about majority shareholders from the Middle East? Haha...like that is what it takes for terrorists to get a bomb into our country.

Do you really think ANY terminal owners truly know what is being shipped through their terminals? All they really know is what is declared on the manifests they get from the shippers, other than some spot checks. A declaration on a manifest can be a lie. Terrorists could pack up nuclear bomb parts into crates at some unsuspecting company somewhere in Britain (or any country) and load them into a container with hundreds of other crates. The container is then sealed, loaded onto a truck to be taken to an outbound shipping terminal, where it's hoisted off the truck and loaded onto a container ship to the U.S. In the U.S. the container is unloaded from the ship, placed onto a rig and then trucked to its final destination (still unsealed). On the manifest, they can just declare the contents as machinery or whatever. The container could sit in dock in either the originating port or the destination port for a while, among stacks and stacks of other containers, where it might get checked or it might not. If it is not physically checked, who's to know what's really in any container? Right now I understand we are only physically checking about 5%. What we really need are better security checks. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of our national security forces - and they are NOT under the authority of any foreign terminal owners.

There are many other ways our security could be compromised through the port system. Here is an article that discusses some more of those issues. The best way to attain security (other than a peaceful world) will be to develop a comprehensive system to check every container including a scan of the contents of each one. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...y23feb23,0,4613151.story?coll=bal-news-nation

Bingo-

The administration "misread" the political need to be more forthcoming about the vetting process, Loy said, but members of Congress should be requesting a comprehensive briefing rather than "running to the first microphone."

I'm personally pleased that so many Americans are so concerned about national security. Now if they could focus on some security issues that would actually make a difference !