Arab Owned Ports?

Hmmm. What American company would be capable of running port operations like this… Hmm…

Can anyone say “Halliburton”?

Wonder what articles JTF would link for that one…

Since this kicked off with an op-ed, here’s one today that I find pretty interesting…

I’d say this story indicates the administration is floating a trial balloon on backing down on this issue - we’ll see what happens:

EXCERPT:

Mr. Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House acknowledged Wednesday. The matter didn’t rise to the presidential level, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. “The president made sure to check with all the Cabinet secretaries that are part of this process, or whose agencies or departments are part of this process,” said Mr. McClellan.

Another quote from the story immediately above:

Back at the White House later, he added, “If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is: This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that’s an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through.”

If I was Bush, the next comment would be this: “We are not fighting against Muslims. We are fighting against extremists. I challenge everyone to ask yourself, if you are being an Islamophobe. We have judged this to be a minimal security risk.”

JeffR

[quote]DeskJockey wrote:
Since this kicked off with an op-ed, here’s one today that I find pretty interesting…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/21/AR2006022101575.html[/quote]

For those too lazy to click the link:

Port Security Humbug

Wednesday, February 22, 2006; A14

YOU KNOW THERE’S something suspicious going on when multiple members of Congress – House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, future presidential candidates of all stripes – spontaneously unite around an issue that none of them had known existed a week earlier. That appears to be what happened last weekend after politicians awoke to the fairly stale news that the London-based P&O navigation company, which has long managed the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, had been taken over by Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called the deal “tone-deaf politically at this point in our history.” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called for the White House to put a hold on the purchase. Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) seconded him, implying that Arab owners posed a major security threat – as did everyone from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) to Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R).

At stake – in theory – is the question of whether we should “outsource major port security to a foreign-based company,” in the words of Mr. Graham. But those words, like that of almost all of the others, sound, well, tone-deaf to us. For one, the deal cannot “outsource major port security,” because management companies that run ports do not control security. The U.S. Coast Guard controls the physical security of our ports. The U.S. Customs Service controls container security. That doesn’t change, no matter who runs the business operations. Nor is it clear why Mr. Graham or anybody else should be worried about “foreign-based” companies managing U.S. ports, since P&O is a British company. And Britain, as events of the last year have illustrated, is no less likely to harbor radical Islamic terrorists than Dubai.

None of the U.S. politicians huffing and puffing seem to be aware that this deal was long in the making, that it had been reported on extensively in the financial press, and that it went through normal security clearance procedures, including approval from a foreign investment committee that contains officials from the departments of Treasury, Commerce, State and Homeland Security, among other agencies. Even more disturbing is the apparent difficulty of members of Congress in distinguishing among Arab countries. We’d like to remind them, as they’ve apparently forgotten, that the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally that has cooperated extensively with U.S. security operations in the war on terrorism, that supplied troops to the U.S.-led coalition during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and that sends humanitarian aid to Iraq. U.S. troops move freely in and out of Dubai on their way to Iraq now.

Finally, we’re wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of “democracy promotion” in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn’t understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.

[quote]“Mr. Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House acknowledged Wednesday.”
[/quote]

LOL ! Good strategy!!! Just tell America that the President has been out-of-touch with events (again). Yep, that will go over really well.

People seem to be up in arms over this issue. Check out these viewer emails to CNN:

I have noticed that many commentators that oppose extra screening for Arabic men on airplane also oppose this deal.

Pure hypocrisy from many of the Bush bashers.

[quote]I have noticed that many commentators that oppose extra screening for Arabic men on airplane also oppose this deal.

Pure hypocrisy from many of the Bush bashers.[/quote]

Hmm. That answer is a little too “nuanced” for me. You aren’t French, by any chance?

Just kidding.

The UAE is one of only three countries in the whole world, that recognize the Taliban as legitimate. I can’t think of a single good reason why we should allow one of the countries that harbored the 9-11 terrorists, to own the company that controls six of our biggest ports.

Can you name one good reason why this is a good idea?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I have noticed that many commentators that oppose extra screening for Arabic men on airplane also oppose this deal.

Pure hypocrisy from many of the Bush bashers.[/quote]

Not that I am against extra screening for Arab males, but there is a difference between individual rights and handing over operation of your ports to a state owned muslim company. I just don’t see how this is a good thing.

The best reason against the (non) argument relating to security is that apparently UAE is one of our strongest allies in the middle east w/r/t the War on Terror. Their diplomatic ties with the Taliban were used to our advantage, according to Tommy Franks. And the fact that it is a government-owned company actually strengthens the idea that it will hew the government line w/r/t being an ally. Apparently much of our military shippage to Iraq goes through the Dubai port, run by this same company.

The main problem with this issue politically is that the administration was caught flat-footed because this decision wasn’t something anyone who reviewed it saw as controversial – probably due to the fact that the reviewers are insular bureaucrats rather than political-minded folks, and are used to thinking of UAE as an ally rather than as a scary Arab country. They followed the Congressionally mandated review process, which doesn’t reach the Presidential level, and gave it the go ahead. Now they’re behind the eight ball politically, and they’re trying to get the pro UAE facts out there, but the media already has its meta theme.

We’ll see if they can grab this political bull by the horns, but it doesn’t look good.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The best reason against the (non) argument relating to security is that apparently UAE is one of our strongest allies in the middle east w/r/t the War on Terror. [/quote]

Oh really? Read this article.

“UAE royals, bin Laden’s saviours”
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency’s director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

article here, note the date:
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm

Our “strongest allies” hob-nob with Osama Bin Laden? Our “strongest allies” are one of three nations in the whole world who recognize the Taliban as legitimate? Sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.

Also, if Bush was out of the loop on this deal, why did he say he would veto any bills blocking the deal, on Tuesday (his first ever veto)?

Never let it be said that I won’t evaluate new information that arises. The UBL link to some in UAE is definitely troubling. More below.

However, your question isn’t a hard one to answer. If he were unaware of the review previously and subsequently learned that there complaints in Congress against a country he considered a strong ally in the war on terror, and was worried about the implications of withdrawing the offer w/r/t international anti-terror work in the Persian Gulf, I can see him taking that tack – especially as a 2nd Term president who is less concerned with the politics than with what he’s trying to do in the middle east.

Anyway, here’s more on that troubling stuff:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02_19-2006_02_25.shtml#1140669268

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I have noticed that many commentators that oppose extra screening for Arabic men on airplane also oppose this deal.

Pure hypocrisy from many of the Bush bashers.

Hmm. That answer is a little too “nuanced” for me. You aren’t French, by any chance?

Just kidding.

The UAE is one of only three countries in the whole world, that recognize the Taliban as legitimate. I can’t think of a single good reason why we should allow one of the countries that harbored the 9-11 terrorists, to own the company that controls six of our biggest ports.

Can you name one good reason why this is a good idea?[/quote]

Because they won the bid?

To show the world we are not biased against Arabs?

I think the deal should be closely evaluated. If there are real reasons to kill it it should be killed.

Simply because it is an Arabic country is not good enough.

Ties to Bin Laden are very disturbing. Of course the Bin Laden family is huge and wealthy and has ties to virtually everything.

This whole issue is idiotic. Bush is absolutely right on this. Port security is done by the government, not by the port owners, who anyway, if you know anything about the UAE, are good capitalists who are only interested in making money, not killing people. David Brooks put it well:

It’s come to my attention that many of the foreign goods we import into our country are made by foreigners who speak foreign languages and are foreign. It’s come to my attention that many varieties of hummus and other vital bread schmears are made by Arabs, the group responsible for 9/11. Furthermore, it’s come to my attention that the Chinese have a menacing death grip on America’s pacifier, blankie, bunny and rattle supplies, and have thus established crushing domination of the entire non-pharmaceutical child sedative industry.

It’s therefore time for Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist and Peter King to work together to write the National Security Ethnic Profiling Save Our Children Act, which would prevent Muslims from buying port management firms, the Chinese from buying oil and mouth-toy companies, and the Norwegians from using their secret control of U.S fluoridation levels to sap our precious bodily fluids at the Winter Olympics.

In other words, what we need to protect our security and way of life is a broad-based, xenophobic Know Nothing campaign of dressed-up photo-op nativism to show foreigners we will no longer submit to their wily ways.

Never mind ? the nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is already here.

There was no bid!

From what I’ve read, DP World(the UAE company) took over P&O(the British Company) and it’s operations. This transaction was approved by John Snow’s Treasury Dept. John Snow is the former chief executive of CSX, a company who sold it’s port properties to DP World a couple years ago. Looks like another backroom good-old boy deal from the Bush administration.

Not only did the deal go through, but the administration even made some concessions to the new company. For instance, the administration agreed to forego such routine requirements as keeping business records on U.S. soil(where they would be subject to court orders) or designating a U.S. citizen to accomodate government requests. These are unprecedented among maritime companies.

How could the Bush gang have NOT seen this outcry coming? Or, did they think it would just slide under the radar like countless other deals that have been made? The first time you get caught is almost NEVER the first time you did something wrong.

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
There was no bid!

From what I’ve read, DP World(the UAE company) took over P&O(the British Company) and it’s operations. This transaction was approved by John Snow’s Treasury Dept. John Snow is the former chief executive of CSX, a company who sold it’s port properties to DP World a couple years ago. Looks like another backroom good-old boy deal from the Bush administration.

Not only did the deal go through, but the administration even made some concessions to the new company. For instance, the administration agreed to forego such routine requirements as keeping business records on U.S. soil(where they would be subject to court orders) or designating a U.S. citizen to accomodate government requests. These are unprecedented among maritime companies.

How could the Bush gang have NOT seen this outcry coming? Or, did they think it would just slide under the radar like countless other deals that have been made? The first time you get caught is almost NEVER the first time you did something wrong.[/quote]

That’s not quite right. DP World bought P&O directly from P&O’s owners – there was nothing in that for the Bush Administration to approve.

The sale of the company likely triggered some language that defined a change of control at P&O as a technical transfer of the contract relating to the ports under either the law or the contracts themselves. This triggered a review requirement under whatever the 40 year old law is that requires the review.

So, they followed the review requirements and whatever departments were required to review this – at least Treasury and Defense, among the others – vetted it below the presidential level, as is always the case with these matters from what I’ve read. And no one at that level apparently thought anything of this – definitely not enough to flag it for the administration (do you really think Karl Rove would have been caught unprepared for any political fallout, as they obviously were, if anyone had flagged this for Presidential attention?).

As for the “concessions” – I guarantee you that no one thought much of them at the time. Those are not the first, third, or eighty fifth things one would think about if one weren’t focused on suing and/or prosecuting something after the fact. I’m sure they were viewed as minor, boilerplate terms of the contract that whoever was in charge of negotiating decided weren’t important.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
There was no bid!

From what I’ve read, DP World(the UAE company) took over P&O(the British Company) and it’s operations. This transaction was approved by John Snow’s Treasury Dept. John Snow is the former chief executive of CSX, a company who sold it’s port properties to DP World a couple years ago. Looks like another backroom good-old boy deal from the Bush administration.

Not only did the deal go through, but the administration even made some concessions to the new company. For instance, the administration agreed to forego such routine requirements as keeping business records on U.S. soil(where they would be subject to court orders) or designating a U.S. citizen to accomodate government requests. These are unprecedented among maritime companies.

How could the Bush gang have NOT seen this outcry coming? Or, did they think it would just slide under the radar like countless other deals that have been made? The first time you get caught is almost NEVER the first time you did something wrong.

That’s not quite right. DP World bought P&O directly from P&O’s owners – there was nothing in that for the Bush Administration to approve.

The sale of the company likely triggered some language that defined a change of control at P&O as a technical transfer of the contract relating to the ports under either the law or the contracts themselves. This triggered a review requirement under whatever the 40 year old law is that requires the review.

So, they followed the review requirements and whatever departments were required to review this – at least Treasury and Defense, among the others – vetted it below the presidential level, as is always the case with these matters from what I’ve read. And no one at that level apparently thought anything of this – definitely not enough to flag it for the administration (do you really think Karl Rove would have been caught unprepared for any political fallout, as they obviously were, if anyone had flagged this for Presidential attention?).

As for the “concessions” – I guarantee you that no one thought much of them at the time. Those are not the first, third, or eighty fifth things one would think about if one weren’t focused on suing and/or prosecuting something after the fact. I’m sure they were viewed as minor, boilerplate terms of the contract that whoever was in charge of negotiating decided weren’t important.[/quote]

But the boilerplate is what was specifically changed. Somebody deemed it important enough to negotiate in the first place. The vague agreement to provide information that was agreed to is pretty different from actually having access to the same records on U.S. soil. Either way, somebody should have been aware of the possible political implications of this deal, especially when negotiating away from the standard boilerplate agreement.

As far as nobody at that level thinking anything of it, that’s obvious. But, when you have people at that level who are intimately connected to the industry in question, it looks suspicious in retrospect.

Our answer should not be just, No! It should be, Hell No!

Straw argument. Nobody credible is opposed based on UAE simply being Arabic, that I know of… That’s not the issue whatsoever, as far as I’m concerned. It’s weird to hear this racism argument coming from the Right, who typically say it’s perfectly okay to pick up Iraqis during sweeps and detain them indefinitely without any charges… that destroying an entire city (Fallujah) was justified, based on the murder of 4 contractors, and so on.

Listen up: UAE is one of only three nations in the entire world, who recognize the Taliban as a legitimate organization. This is the third time I have posted that information, and I suppose it will be ignored for a third time since nobody seems to have a good reply. The UAE has documented ties to terror, including being the origin of two of the 911 hijackers. Here’s more:

“Sept. 11 report ties bin Laden to UAE”

WASHINGTON (AP) – The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission’s report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaeda leader.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission’s assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem"for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal “looked very carefully” at information from the intelligence community.

“Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in,” Kimmitt said, “the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company.”

“Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission,” Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-23-911-report-uae_x.htm

I’ve got an idea, why doesn’t Bush sell the control of our airport security to Egypt? Maybe Pakistan can take over FEMA? Maybe Syria can buy the control over our bridge and tunnel maintenance? Are these good ideas too? Maybe a little common sense is called for?