>-------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- >From: Public Citizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: The Real Scandal with the Port Sell-Off Deal >Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 > ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=1&url=http://www.tradewatch.org/> >[] > > >Action Alert February 24, 2006 >Port Deal Petition: The Real Scandal with the Port Sell-Off Deal >Will you sign the petition? >Tell Congress to cut the Arab-bashing and deal with the real issue: when >it comes to who controls our national infrastructure, certain things >should not be globalized, privatized and sold off for profit. ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=2&url=http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713>Sign > >the petition here. >Dear Fair Trade Supporter, >The hoopla over the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Dubai Ports World company >acquiring control of six U.S. east coast ports is both overdue and off target. >Both President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are in the >wrong: If Bush wants to make homeland security a reality and not a slogan, >he needs to stop privatizing, globalizing and selling off our national >infrastructure. >Frist and Congress need to stop bashing Arabs and Dubai Ports World in >particular. Whether a private company is domestic or foreign, the bigger >issue is what sets their priorities: ensuring our security or making a >profit? After 9-11, the Bush administration replaced the private, >for-profit security firms conducting passenger screening at our airports >with a new government agency whose only bottom-line is security. >We need your help to cut through the propaganda and force our >representatives to deal with the real issue: public vs. private operation >of our critical infrastructure. >Many of us only realized that the control and operation of our ports was >being sold off to private and often foreign corporations because of >this recent deal. Lets use our voices to send a really loud wake-up call >to our elected officials. > ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=3&url=http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713>Can > >you sign this petition to Congress and forward it to your friends? >Petition statement: >Please stop the Arab-bashing regarding the UAE port acquisition and >instead investigate the real issue: our government needs to prioritize >improving our weak port security system. >This means taking more responsibility for operating our ports with >security as the focus, rather than having private companies from any >country running our ports with the focus on their private profit. There is >too much at stake. >Sign the petition here: ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=4&url=http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713>http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713 >If we do not act now, not only will more of our nations infrastructure >and essential services be privatized, but this unsafe situation will get >locked in place through several backwards trade agreements. President >Bush is getting public relations points today for backpedaling on the >threat to use the first veto of his presidency in defense of the UAE port >deal. However, right now the Bush administration is also negotiating a >General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade >Organization (WTO) and a Free Trade Agreement with the UAE that, if >completed, would handcuff our elected officials from protecting us against >this outrageous sell off of our basic infrastructure.[1] > >The multinational corporations that have written the administrations >trade policies are working feverishly to use the GATS, one of 17 >agreements enforced by the WTO, to lock-in rules that would forbid >Congress, governors or state legislatures from changing the rules for >ports managed by private companies. If this WTO deal happens, what is now >basically a Bush administration blunder would become the permanent >WTO-enforced policy of the United States.[2] >If we work together and quickly, we can tamp down the finger pointing >against Arabs and ramp up the questions about our how runaway >globalization, privatization and trade policies are threatening our >wellbeing. We cannot let free trade and corporate globalization ideology >trump security. >Sign the petition here: ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=5&url=http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713>http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713 >Thank you for all that you do, >The Global Trade Watch Team >p.s. This critical message of sane policy solutions amid the political >ruckus is one that the public must hear. We think that John Nichols from >The Nation got it best, and weve pasted the article from his online blog >below. Please forward this petition and Johns article to all of your >friends and family. >Corporate Control of Ports Is the Problem >The Nation Online Beat >By John Nichols > ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=6&url=http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=62081>Read > >John's Blog Online >The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United >Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American >ports -- as well as the shipment of military equipment through two >additional ports -- is not that the corporation in question is Arab-owned. >The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a >corporation that is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, >or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the >hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11, and that has stirred broad >concern. But, even if the sale of operational control of the ports to this >firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea. >Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and >they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected >officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port >authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization >schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes >and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the >basic operations at the nation's ports. >In the era when the federal government sees "homeland security" as a >slogan rather than a responsibility, allowing the nation's working >waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work. It is no secret >that federal authorities have failed to mandate, let alone implement, >basic port security measures. But this is not merely a federal failure; it >is, as well, a private-sector failure. The private firms that control so >many of the nation's ports have not begun to set up a solid system for >waterfront security in the more than four years since the September 11, >2001 attacks. And shifting control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, >Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia -- along with control over >the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through the >ports at Beaumont and Corpus Christi -- from a British firm, Peninsular >and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., to Dubai Ports World, is not going to >improve the situation. > >Unfortunately, the debate has been posed as a fight over whether >Arab-owned firms should be allowed to manage ports and other strategic >sites in the U.S. Media coverage of the debate sets up the increasingly >ridiculous Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff -- who babbles >bureaucratically about how, "We make sure there are assurances in place, >in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a >national security standpoint" -- against members of Congress -- who growl, >as U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, did over the weekend about the need >"to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else." >There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this >controversy about who runs the ports in perspective. >First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to >making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise >their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists. >Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned >about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor >stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure >that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as >responsible oversight by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, >in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of >modern, efficient transportation services. >Sign the petition here: ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=7&url=http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713>http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2713 >---------- >[1] U.S. Begins FTA Talks With UAE, Oman, Despite Labor Violations, >Inside U.S. Trade, March 11, 2005. >[2] For more information about the GATS, go to: ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=8&url=http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/gats/>http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/gats/ > > > ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=9&url=http://www.citizen.org/trade/about/>About > >GTW | ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=10&url=http://www.citizen.org/contact/>Contact > >Us | ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=11&url=http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=994>Write > >Your Rep | ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=12&url=https://www.citizen.org/join/>Support > >Us > >Stay informed and speak out when it counts. ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=13&url=http://action.citizen.org/signUp.jsp>Sign > >up for the Public Citizen Action Network or other online announcements. If >you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from Public Citizen in the >future, please ><http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=86879539&url_num=14&url=http://action.citizen.org/unsubscribe.jsp>click > >here. >Public Citizen employees are member SEIU Local 500. We support the right >of workers >in the United States and around the world to organize freely. Union Yes! >Copyright © 2005 Public Citizen. All Rights Reserved >215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, 3rd Floor >Washington, DC 20003
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
