Nice picture of Condi.....interesting read too.
Posted on 02/24/2006 5:22:55 AM PST by najida
Posted: 24-02-2006 , 11:13 GMT
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left the United Arab Emirates Friday, following a meeting with ministers of six Gulf nations. Rice in the UAEAn official statement by the UAE said that "In addition to the regional issues mentioned in the joint statement of the GCC ministers, the discussions included the on-going Free Trade Agreement negotiations where the two countries reiterated their desire to achieve a comprehensive agreement. The FTA would further enhance the current U.S.-UAE trade relationship, boost direct foreign investment and create job opportunities for citizens of both countries. The UAE is the third largest trading partner of the United States in the Middle East."
However, Rice's visit was overshadowed by a dispute in the United States over an important deal that that would allow a UAE-based firm manage six American ports. US lawmakers have raised questions regarding the deal involving British port operator P&O and UAE firm Dubai Ports World. The US lawmakers have decided to foil the deal, saying an Arab-owned firm cannot be trusted to run ports in the United States.
The Bush administration has backed the deal and following Rice's visit the UAE stressed its resolve to fight terrorism. "The UAE reaffirmed its stance against terrorism and its commitment to continue to support and cooperate with the international community in this endeavor," the statement has indicated.
However, in the latest development in this regard, Dubai Ports World has offered to delay its takeover of the six U.S. seaports, giving the White House more time to convince the skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no increased risks from terrorism.
As part of its new offer, coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it would agree not to exercise control or influence management over U.S. ports pending further discussions with the administration and Congress.
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Nice picture of Condi.....interesting read too.
Condi & ME ping.
Everyone better start yelling that there should be no delay --if the evil MOOOOOOOOSLIMS are agreeing to the delay then it is a bad thing!!!
Part of MEFTA.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584353/posts <- UAE and MEFTA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1538908/posts <- Bahrain
They won't be running any ports in the United States.
The Clintons gave shipping concessions to their Chinese pals, who were also lent $138,000,000 in the 1990's to build ships in Mobile, Alabama,
Chinese companies which now control several terminals on our West Coast, brag about their direct rail connections to Chicago and the East Coast.
I'll bet quite a few Brits were happy to see that P&O was bought by UAE, rather than by the Singapore-China alliance that was going to buy it. [Here's a link to a January 25th UK Guardian article, from that time P&O sale threatens foreign monopoly over UK ports · Singapore-China alliance stands to gain 90% control ]
Getting back to the Clinton Administration which
allowed COSCO's (China Overseas Shipping) ships access to our most sensitive ports with one day's notice rather than the usual four, and it has given COSCO a $138,000,000 loan guarantee to build ships in Alabama. The Administration has made all of these concessions since the coffee with Mr. Wang.[From: SEC. XX01. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION]
Government-run China Ocean Shipping (COSCO -- the Clintons' friends) got an exemption from the US government which exempted COSCO from US laws discriminating against state-owned shipping companies.
However, in the latest development in this regard, Dubai Ports World has offered to delay its takeover of the six U.S. seaports, giving the White House more time to convince the skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no increased risks from terrorism.As part of its new offer, coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it would agree not to exercise control or influence management over U.S. ports pending further discussions with the administration and Congress.
Makes perfect sense. Now the administration can make the case it should have begun making months ago.
The folks in the UAE weren't smart enough to grease palms in order to get special treatment from the Clintons in the 90's, like the Chinese government did.
And why did the U.S. government agreed to exempt COSCO* from laws discriminating against state-owned shipping companies
*China's government owned shipping/terminal company
Things were up in the air, I think
If the Singapore-China alliance had bought P&O, China would have had control over 90% of the British ports.
I think the US already has enough Chinese control of our terminals.
I'm glad to see the competition.
Yes, a month or so ago. Whether it should go through, I don't know, but it was handled poorly politically. That it would be an issue politically, on both sides of the aisle, wouldn't be hard to predict. Equal concern, the fact that this was apparently handled at lower levels of the administration, without informing the White House or Secretary of Defence. It's hard to imagine people in a position of responsibility not realizing that an acquisition by a middle eastern country isn't infor worth passing up the chain.
The UAE should have hired a PR firm, like China did.
APCO Worldwide, which did PR work for COSCO, says they were able to get these results
The U.S. government agreed to exempt [state-owned] COSCO from laws discriminating against state-owned shipping companies.Why did China Ocean Shipping Company, whose ships were used to illegally smuggle arms into the US, get such special treatment?
"COSCO has been able to establish and maintain an open communication channel with the U.S. government and congressional members through the services of APCO."— Mr. Zhang Liyong, President, COSCO Americas, Inc.
Why did COSCO get hundreds of millions of dollars lent to them, to build ships in Mobile Alabama?
(25) On March 18, 1996, Federal agents surreptitiously seized a Poly shipment of 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles in Oakland, California. These weapons had left China on February 18 aboard a vessel belonging to another state-owned company, the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (`COSCO'). Id. In May, Federal agents hastily shut down the operation when they learned that the Chinese had been tipped to its existence. .....Hillary is against UAE owned shipping companies, not Chinese government owned shipping companies --- maybe that is so because she and Bill got money from folks who were connected with Chinese shipping companies.
(26) Smuggling the weapons into the United States has not harmed the fortunes of COSCO.
[1.] In April 1996, with the support of the Clinton Administration, COSCO signed a lease with the City of Long Beach, California to rent a now defunct navy base in Long Beach, California.
[2.]In addition, the Clinton Administration has allowed COSCO's ships access to our most sensitive ports with one day's notice rather than the usual four, and
[3.] it has given COSCO a $138,000,000 loan guarantees to build ships in Alabama.
The Administration has made all of these concessions since the coffee with Mr. Wang. That COSCO participated in the shipment of illegal arms does not appear to have dampened the [Clinton] Administration's enthusiasm in any of these matters.(27) These circumstances strongly suggest that there was a quid pro quo, and that the contributions from Mr. Chung, Mr. Green, and Mr. Trie, may have come from the Chinese government in return for the various government favors described. The President [Clinton] met directly with the Chinese officials whom Mr. Chung and Mr. Trie brought to the White House, and he knew about the suspicious circumstances of Mr. Trie's donations. If the President knew about a quid pro quo, he may have violated section 201 of title 18, United States Code, and the other statutes cited above.
New York isn't even opposed to Arab owned commercial operators, they already have one. This was simply a target of opportunity to attempt to undermine the President.
What makes you think they havent? DP is advised by Barclays Capital and Deutsche Bank, neither lightweights, both able to recomend suitable legal and PR firms, not that DP can't figure that out on it's own. I was referring to the administration's poor handling of the situation. DP's only objective is consumating the transaction. If it turns out there are exemptions to US law in the deal, I'll be disappointed. If firms connected to the administration were involved, more disappointed.
True. By comparison, the Clintons handled the situation with the Chinese shippers very well.
Under the Clintons, the Chinese got all sorts of perks including loans to help build a nuclear reactor to power their "surface warships" shipyards near Shanghai; the Clintons and the DNC got all sorts of campaign money; and Americans got a Chinese-government-run shipyard in Mobile.
The Clintons and the Chinese got pretty much what they wanted....Except for a failure to rent the defunct navy base in Long Beach, California to the Chinese in 1996.
Hillary's "concern" about Homeland security is a joke.
I wish we could "take back" the exemptions we gave the Chinese, because the UAE will be bitter if they don't get what the Chinese got.
I hope you are right. I have said this over and over, but I still don't understand why WE can't handle our own security. We don't have ONE company in this great land of innovation that can do this? I don't believe it.
President Bush, think about your own people FIRST. I feel as if he has stabbed me in the back.
I have had enough of foreign controls. What about us? Why aren't American companies vying for this?
What? We don't have a company that can handle the job?
Of course we do. Let our country reap the profits. We need it.
What if none of them wanted to bid on it, what are you going to do, force them?
"but I still don't understand why WE can't handle our own security"
Uh, when last I checked, the Coast Guard and Homeland Security (who are the ones that handle THE SECURITY) were American.
"This was simply a target of opportunity to attempt to undermine the President".
Exactly!
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.