Posted on 02/20/2006 3:14:17 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The federal bureaucracy has made a strategic mistake that threatens to cost the President dearly. The question is not whether the ill-advised decision taken last week by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (known by its acronym, CFIUS, pronounced syphius) will be undone. Rather, the question is: By whom -- and at what political cost to Mr. Bush?
In the latest of a series of approvals of questionable foreign takeovers of American interests, CFIUS has given the green light to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to acquire contracts to manage port facilities in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company, Dubai Ports World, would do so by purchasing a British concern, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (“P and O”).
Experts have long identified America’s sea ports as weak links in the chain of our homeland security. With their proximity to major U.S. population centers, expensive infrastructure vital to the regional and, in many cases, national economy and their throughput of large quantities of poorly monitored cargo, they are prime targets for terror.
As a result, a case can be made that it is a mistake to have foreign entities responsible for any aspect of such ports, including the management of their docks, stevedore operations and terminals. After all, that duty affords abundant opportunities to insinuate personnel and/or shipping containers that can pose a threat to this country. Even though the company in question may not be directly responsible for port security, at least some of their employees have to be read in on the relevant plans, potentially compromising the latter irreparably.
At least the previous foreign contractors were from Britain, a country that was on our side before September 11, 2001. The same cannot be said of the United Arab Emirates, whose territory was used for most of the planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks. While the UAE’s government is currently depicted as a friend and ally in the so-called war on terror, its country remains awash with Islamofascist recruiters and adherents – people all too willing to exploit any new opportunity to do us harm.
Since a column raising an alarm about CFIUS’ decision appeared in this space last week, three new factors have come to light that compound the strategic folly of the UAE deal:
O First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?
O Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign “clients,” like the UAE.
O Then, there is the matter of financing the DP World takeover of Peninsula and Oriental. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. It must be asked: Who will the foreign investors be, and might they have malign intentions towards the U.S.? If American sources of capital are being sought, will the possible danger this transaction may create for this country be properly disclosed? For that matter, will the underwriters, Barclays and Deutchebank, reveal to prospective funders the real risk that the deal will ultimately fall through?
In fact, that seems virtually certain now that talk radio, the blogosphere and the public have become aware of – and white hot about – this transaction. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and of Capitol Hill have made known their determination to prevent the transfer of control of U.S. ports to the UAE. In particular, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have been quick to seize on this issue as an opportunity to burnish their national security credentials at the expense of President Bush and his party.
So, the question recurs: How long will it take before Mr. Bush cuts his losses? This could be accomplished in one of three ways: He could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase – withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.
Call it a Harriet Meirs moment. Politics being the art of the possible, it is time to recognize that the Dubai Ports World deal is neither strategically sensible nor politically doable. It is time to pull the plug, and to reform the secretive interagency CFIUS process that allowed this fiasco in the first place.
BS, this deal has been known for months and is above board, it's only after your hero hillary started the hyperbole and her lapdog press jumped on did it become an "issue".
Timely too.
its amazing. its like the political operation never tunes into Rush or talk radio, or reads a blogs or FR, to see what people - their supporters - are talking about.
If we wait for a technical "majority" NOTHING would get done, but still, the President has wielded NO domestic leadership at all -- especially when you think about Reagan's accomplishments with the opposite numbers.
"How hard is it to break a seal, tamper with the cargo, and reseal it?"
Might have to ask the UN about that one.
I agree it'll only be a "lose-lose" (instead of a "lose-lose-lose") IF Bush somehow quashes the sale to the UAE company. I'm still not sure he can or will do that.
Either way, though, you're right---the Republicans lose big time politically---on this issue and the immigration/border issue.
Yeppers, Plus there are US troops stationed in the "evil" UAE that she will probably visit.
The below link is from USA Today and per posting rules can only be linked.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day...
However, this deal is suspect regardless of who exposed it to the public.
And if it's so "right," why then is the President going to pull the plug on it?? (OH WANNA BET??)
What?
That isn't my line. I didn't say that. Don't post it to me. Don't change the subject.
Me:I suppose you don't think unless Schumer, Hillary, Gaffney, Peter King tell you to.
You: Tsk, tsk. Nasty, nasty. Well, name call all you like. I have a tough skin, I can handle it.
Your case doesn't rest. You're the one who is nasty by your(using your own standards) and you're also hypocritical.
O First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World – on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?
O Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign “clients,” like the UAE.
I do believe MARAD is involved in the Military movement aspect...DP World got it's players into position well in advance of it's moves!
that the plug wasn't pulled today, tells me the administration plans to fight. its going to be a mess.
Why don't you answer the question? Do you contend that if Shumer or Hillary favor a policy, the thing to do is automatically do the opposite?
Reagan was terrible domestically.
He gave us sandra day o'conner for a pc political promise and then anthony kennedy. Reagan should have nominated bork in scalia's spot.
Two out of three of reagan's supreme court picks have caused more harm to this country than you can imagine. A lot of laws that we care about would be different without those picks. If he had just picked a conservative instead of O'Conner affirmative action in colleges would have been reversed and countless other laws.
And I suppose you feel the Saudis aren't "evil" either??
Btw, we haven't seen you fight tooth and nail for an issue (one more international one) since....you were a FROBL.
Are you sure you're a U.S. citizen?
Yep especially with your parroting of hillary/schumer talking points.
FROBL?
I given no indication that I even deserve that question.
Answer these questions: Do you beat your wife and kick puppies?
wow, and Rush Limbaugh's too.
Oh, wow. I hope you're a kid who learned this in school, rather than an adult when Reagan was president.
Got it. You won't answer. Why am I not surprised?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.