perspectives

WHY NO-BID CONTRACTS FOR SECURITY TO CHINA? PHILLIPINES?

The afternoon headlines read U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. to Scan Nukes. I have nothing against Hong Kong or the Phillipines, but why is the BUSH Administration so anxious to give NO-BID contracts for our homeland security to foreign countries??? Did they not get the message on the Dubai Ports deal?

I know little about this, but it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to see their our red flags about this judgment. The article I read makes points that certainly without knowing any more make one's hair stand on end [Associated Press]:

"Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.

The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S. radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs agents present.

The administration is negotiating a second no-bid contract for a Philippine company to install radiation detectors in its home country, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. At dozens of other overseas ports, foreign governments are primarily responsible for scanning cargo.

While President Bush recently reassured Congress that foreigners would not manage security at U.S. ports, the Hutchison deal in the Bahamas illustrates how the administration is relying on foreign companies at overseas ports to safeguard cargo headed to the United States.

Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator and among the industry's most-respected companies. It was an early adopter of U.S. anti-terror measures. But its billionaire chairman, Li Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years.

"Li Ka-Shing is pretty close to a lot of senior leaders of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party," said Larry M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies China security and economic issues. But Wortzel said Hutchison operates independently from Beijing, and he described Li as "a very legitimate international businessman."

"One can conceive legitimate security concerns and would hope either the Homeland Security Department or the intelligence services of the United States work very hard to satisfy those concerns," Wortzel said.

Three years ago, the Bush administration effectively blocked a Hutchison subsidiary from buying part of a bankrupt U.S. telecommunications company, Global Crossing Ltd., on national security grounds.

And a U.S. military intelligence report, once marked "secret," cited Hutchison in 1999 as a potential risk for smuggling arms and other prohibited materials into the United States from the Bahamas.

Hutchison's port operations in the Bahamas and Panama "could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC (People's Republic of China), or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas," the now-declassified assessment said."

People are already commenting:

"Giving a no-bid contract to a foreign company to carry out the most sensitive security screening for radioactive materials at ports abroad raises many questions," said Sen. Charles Schumer."

"A low-paid employee with access to the screening equipment could frustrate international security by studying how the equipment works and which materials set off its alarms, warned a retired U.S. Customs investigator who specialized in smuggling cases."

"Money buys a lot of things," Robert Sheridan said. "The fact that foreign workers would have access to how the United States screens various containers for nuclear material and how this technology scrutinizes the containers — all those things allow someone with a nefarious intention to thwart the screening."

"We must not allow an unwarranted fear of foreign ownership or involvement in offshore operations to impair our ability to protect against nuclear weapons being smuggled into this country," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "We must work with these foreign companies."

We have opportunities to work with companies and organizations all over the world in mutualistic partnerships, but why at this time of global turmoil, would officials of this country choose to sell NO-BID contracts of our most sensitive homeland security needs as a way of pioneering globalization? We've had many examples this year of homeland security incompetence, so this doesn't come as news that one feels confident that every implication has been thoughtfully considered. This is especially concerning, when the BUSH administration has been responsible for eroding our reputation throughout the world to its all-time lowest, at least in my life time.

CAN ANYONE ENLIGHTEN ME? Have I missed something? HELP?

Debbe Kennedy
Founder, Global Dialogue Center
www.globaldialoguecenter.com

IRAQ and BUSH: Applying Peter Drucker's Insight

In commemoration of the lives lost in the war...2548 "military coalition" deaths, estimates of 40,000 troops maimed and over 100,000 civilian casualties, including women and children.  In war, truth is the first casualty.  -- Aeschylus

When BUSH came to office he was often characterized as "charismatic" on the stump. He promised lots of things, used lots of phrases and mastered his rhetoric to engage and excite people about the possibilities. At least enough to get him into office two terms.

Six years into this repeated pattern, one realizes the record of actual leadership results is poor. What is even more disturbing is that our acceptance of his saying one thing and doing another has become more "in our faces." In recent weeks on CNN, they actually now report as they did yesterday that lastest BUSH speech on Iraq was designed to "shape public opinion" about him and his war.  Hmmmm, shouldn't we expect our president to do more than this? Shouldn't we be wanting a president that is leading us, not misleading us to boost his ratings? Shouldn't we be wanting truth over rehtoric? Shouldn't we be demanding factual updates vs. phrases and empty words thrown out at us like hog feed?

Peter F. Drucker, the father of modern management, warned to beware of the "charismatic" leader in his book The New Realities. It serves as a reality test and yardstick with which to measure the effectiveness and ineffectivess of leadership today:

"Charisma is "hot" today. There is enormous amount of talk about it, and an enormous number of books are written on the charismatic leader. But, the desire for charisma is a political death wish. No century has seen more leaders with more charisma than the twentieth century: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao. What matters is not charisma. What matters is whether the leader leads in the right direction or misleads. The constructive achievements of the twentieth century were the work of completely uncharismatic people. The two military men who guided the Allies to victory in World War II were Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. Both were highly disciplined, highly competent, and deadly dull.

Perhaps the greatest cause for hope, for optimism is that to the new majority, the knowledge workers, the old politics make no sense at all. But proven competence does."

The "charismatic" attempt to win the hearts of minds of people across the world appears to fall on deaf years. The majority have had it.

Could it be we are at last longing for COMPETENCE to solve the many problems we face?

Debbe Kennedy
Founder, Global Dialogue Center
www.globaldialoguecenter.com

QUESTIONING OUR HUMANITY: What is wrong with US?

In so many directions, we watch human suffering---so much of it the result of failed policies, practices of greed, power, indifference and a lack of concern for others. While our officials outwardly spend their worry about billions being placed into the hands of other officials, governments and corporations, the realities are screaming out to us. Do you ever see the QUESTIONS of HUMANITY looming in front of you? Tugging at all you know is right? Do you find yourself regularly, asking ...

WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?

This morning the headlines read:  An Iraqi woman wails after a raid by U.S. soldiers, in Baghdad. U.S. soldiers late Monday night raided a house in west Baghdad, broke doors and window and arrested one person, police said. In the past 24 hours, police have found the bodies of at least 85 men killed by gunfire execution style in a gruesome wave of apparent sectarian killing, the Interior Ministry said Tuesday. They include at least 27 bodies stacked in a mass grave in an eastern Shiite neighborhood. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

I never seem to be less than stunned by Bush's reactions to the implications of his self-proclaimed war. Yesterday he said insurgents were trying to ignite a civil war by escalating the violence. Really? It is interesting how easily he points the finger, forgetting he was he who ordered the first act of violence. Violence begets violence.

"I wish I could tell you that the violence is waning and that the road ahead will be smooth," Bush said in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies at George Washington University. "It will not. There will be more tough fighting and more days of struggle, and we will see more images of chaos and carnage in the days and months to come."

What seems to slip by us is how can we expect less than such violence? The BUSH administration began the violence with bombs. His response is fascinating for a loudly-professed man of faith?

Where is it that Jesus suggested that bombing, killing, maiming are the answers?

Still as we watch the deaths mount, why is it that we do not question our own sense of humanity? Why is it that we sit helpless and watch our global family in such distress? Why is it that we look to those who have repeatably shown their poor leadership to somehow save us?

Another example of this same human indifference and helplessness came like a bolt to me in a piece about KENYA:

  Recently, a sad and well-done, desperate story ran on CNN about the drought in KENYA. It shared the story of the dying children and focused in on the death of one boy as it showed the dire situation. "We lost our cattle. Now are children are dying," a helpless mother said as she held her young children near death.

Christian Aid reports... In Kenya, 3.5 million people are in need of urgent help. Although drought may be the immediate cause, Christian Aid believes that it is poverty itself that leaves people vulnerable and without alternatives when a disaster strikes.

"This food crisis is the result of a massive drought hitting families living in chronic poverty," Jasmine Whitbread, chief executive of Save the Children.

An exhausted elderly woman sitting in the dirt, her legs swollen with elephantiasis, told how she had not eaten for two days. A woman sitting next to her had resorted to eating bark, soil and tree roots. 'What else could I do?' she asked. 'We are starving.'

At the end of the CNN documentary, the final word spoke loudly of our human weakness to look outside ourselves to solve problems that we could solve with just a little switch in human consciousness and collective action. It said...

"When will the rains finally come?"

Is it the rains that holds the end to human suffering? Is it more killing and deals with foreign governments for billions that will meet the human needs of all people? 

No, all is within. We all have the power to change things for good. Not just by changing our attitudes ... but by changing our actions, our consciousness, our votes, our behaviors and having the courage to use our influence. Imagine the power that lies if we all banned together?

"Everyone has inside of him a piece of good news. The good news is that you don't know how great you can be! How much you can love! What you can accomplish! And what your potential is!"  --- Anne Frank

What will you do differently today to stop the anguish of others?

I leave you contemplating these questions myself.

Debbe Kennedy
Founder, Global Dialogue Center

PORTS DEAL: More RED FLAGS

NEWS FLASH! Reuters reports this AM  that "Some U.S. politicians say the UAE has in the past been sympathetic to Islamist militants, noting that two of the September 11 hijackers came from that country. Additionally, they report that "President George W. Bush, however, says the UAE is a staunch ally in the U.S.war on terrorism and he has vowed to veto any legislation that would block the ports deal." This is the same President that assured us last week that if there was any threat to the American people this deal would not go through.

More RED FLAGS
Watching this situation unfold leaves one in disbelief. Perhaps, it has always been this way and it is now all becoming clearer to me. What is most disturbing is seeing all the ways the American people are distracted, so few even realize or perhaps care about the far-reaching implications related to this deal. It is clear that either way, poor leadership and unsatisfactory management has led us into a terrible situation with negative implications looming any way you turn. It is not all the fault of the Bush administration, but they have certainly contributed to bringing it to a crisis. It is not just the ports deal. It appears to reflect decades of complacency and inaction; greed and misuse of power. As new red flags unfold one watches...wondering, praying, hoping that what you see is somehow not true and wanting to see how you could do your part to influence change.

According the analysts the political furor was bound to provoke businesses in the world's biggest oil exporting region, which is an increasingly important source of financing for the huge U.S. current account deficit.

"It's American double standards. Do you think that businesses and governments here won't react and even retaliate?" said Wadah Al Taha of the National Bank of Abu Dhabi.

"American businesses in the UAE warned on Wednesday that trade worth more than $8 billion between the United States and the United Arab Emirates could be in jeopardy."

"Dubai Ports officials said they were pushing ahead with plans to integrate British ports group P&O which runs the U.S. ports. A Dubai Ports spokesman said the company would soon announce the de-listing of P&O now that shareholders had approved the $6.8 billion takeover.

Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem and Chief Executive Mohammed Sharaf fly to London this week to discuss integration of the two companies which make up the world's third largest ports group."

It seems all the hype and rhetoric here about "45-day investigations" has little bearing on this deal coming down. It appears the we may be $$GREEN$$ - RED color blind, influenced by a maze of poor alternatives we created for ourselves.

WHAT NOW?

"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage---to move in the opposite direction."  --- Albert Einstein

GENIUS and COURAGEOUS IDEAS PLEASE?

Debbe Kennedy
Founder, Global Dialogue Center
www.globaldialoguecenter.com

Related...
Giving Away Our Ports, Tax Dollars and Jobs
Our Ports and a War of Minds

GIVING AWAY OUR PORTS, TAX DOLLARS AND JOBS

Does anyone know a good reason for us to have a foreign country managing our strategic ports???

I have truly been trying to find some redeeming fact why anyone in their right mind would think this was a wise judgment for the US before or after a 45-day investigation. Even if we made some different decision prior to 9/11, it is inconceivable experiencing that event and knowing the realities of our economy that this could be a sound decision at this particular time. Certainly, without much thought at all, one can use COMMON SENSE to see the RISKS involved, knowing that history proves nations are fickle --- they change their minds about who they like. This is especially true under the current administration, who has led the plummeting worldwide opinions of the US to at least an all-time low in my lifetime. Choosing at this moment to sell the operations of our ports to a stated-owned company of a foreign government, nestled in the midst of a part of the world where the US policy and practice is less than popular, makes no sense --- please correct me if I'm missing something.

Why would the President of the United States, at this moment in history, be approving a deal to give any level of control of operations at any of our strategic ports way to any foreign country given a choice???

Why would the President of the United States, at this moment in history, be pouring billions of our tax dollars into a foreign country in a reported 20-year contract, when we can't employ our own people and give them homes?

Why would the President of the United States, at this moment in history, put our country at such far-reaching risk and vulnerability?

Imagine how vulnerable we would be in aiding those fulfilling the threats we've heard of economic jihad if control of operations of our ports, God forbid, had a weakness in the system ---- not too far different than the weaknesses, poor management and leadership we have witnessed in recent months with Home Land Security in our own country.

Doesn't this give you chills?

Now is the time to think, question and stand UP and let your voice be heard.

If I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you have ideas how to stand UP share them.

Debbe Kennedy
Founder, Global Dialogue Center

www.globaldialoguecenter.com

Related posts:

OUR PORTS and a WAR OF MINDS

BUSH REGIME: Raising Our Expectations for Leadership