Bush: Port Deal Collapse Sends Bad Message

Associated Press ^ | March 10, 2006 | LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

[indcons]

President Bush said Friday he was troubled by the political storm that forced the reversal of a deal allowing a company in Dubai to take over take over operations of six American ports, saying it sent a bad message to U.S. allies in the Middle East.

Bush said the United States needs moderate allies in the Arab world, like the United Arab Emirates, to win the global war on terrorism.

The president said he had been satisfied that security would be sound at the ports if the Dubai deal had taken effect. "Nevertheless, Congress was still very much opposed to it," Bush said. He made his remarks to a conference of the National Newspaper Association, which represents owners, publishers and editors of community newspapers.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said. "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."

"UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror," Bush added. "They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world.

"They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists," Bush added. "They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan" — the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, he said.

"UAE is a valued and strategic partner," he said. "I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with the UAE."

After a storm of protest in the Republican-controlled Congress, DP World announced Thursday that it would transfer six U.S. port operations to a U.S. entity. The moved spared Bush from a veto showdown with GOP lawmakers. Yet the larger issue highlighted by the DP world controversy — U.S. port security — shows no signs of going away.

"The problem of the political moment has passed, but the problem of adequate port security still looms large," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said.

Republicans and Democrats alike welcomed DP World's decision to give up its aspirations to manage significant operations at the six ports, but they warned that the move doesn't negate the urgent need for broad legislation aimed at protecting America's ports.

"I'm sure that the decision by DP World was a difficult decision to hand over port operations that they had purchased from another company," Bush said.

"There are gaping holes in cargo and port security that need to be plugged," Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., said.

The Bush administration also announced Friday that free trade talks with the United Arab Emirates were being postponed.

The talks, which were supposed to begin Monday, were postponed because both sides need more time to prepare, according to an announcement from the office of U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record). USTR spokeswoman Neena Moorjani refused to say whether the postponement was related to the controversy over the port operations.

Legislation on the issue has piled up in both the House and the Senate in the weeks since the flap over DP World erupted and divided Bush from the Republican-led Congress.

Before the United Arab Emirates-based company's announcement, the House and Senate appeared all but certain to block DP World's U.S. plan despite Bush's veto threats — a message that GOP congressional leaders delivered personally to the White House.

Facing a disapproving public in an election year, a House committee overwhelmingly voted against the plan Wednesday. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., warned the president in a private meeting Thursday that the Senate inevitably would follow suit.

Within hours, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., one of the few members of Congress to back the administration's position on the issue, went to the Senate floor to read a statement from the company.

"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," H. Edward Bilkey, the company's top executive, said in the statement. It was unclear which American business might get the port operations.

The White House expressed satisfaction with the company's decision.

"It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter," said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary "We have a strong relationship with the UAE and a good partnership in the global war on terrorism, and I think their decision reflects the importance of our broader relationship."

The company's decision gives the president an out. He now doesn't have to back down from his staunch support of the company or further divide his party on a terrorism-related issue with a veto.

It was unclear how the company would manage its planned divestiture, and Bilkey's statement said its announcement was "based on an understanding that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

"This should make the issue go away," Frist said.

Even critics of the deal expressed cautious optimism that DP World's move would quell the controversy surrounding that company's plan to take over some U.S. terminal leases held by the London-based company it was purchasing.

"The devil is in the details," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, echoing sentiments expressed by other lawmakers.

DP World on Thursday finalized its $6.8 billion purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British company that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

The plan was disclosed last month, setting off a political firestorm in the United States even though the company's U.S. operations were only a small part of the global transaction.

Republicans were furious that they learned of it from news reports instead of from the Bush administration. They cited concerns over a company run by a foreign government overseeing operations at U.S. ports already deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Democrats also pledged to halt the takeover and clamored for a vote in the Senate. They sought political advantage from the issue by trying to narrow a polling gap with the GOP on issues of national security.

Senate Republicans initially tried to fend off a vote, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction. That strategy collapsed Wednesday with the 62-2 vote in the House Appropriations Committee to thwart the sale.

[MissouriConservative]

Simple.

You seem to be basing your argument on hatred and emotional reactions.

Mine are made with logic, the mark of a good Conservative.

[Paul Ross]

What's the pont?

The deal was inherently contradictory of free enterprise, and hence was manifestly never about free trade.

This was a state-to-state deal. And a further crowding out of the private sector in our country.

[Paul Ross]

Anyone who looks at the deal with any real business sense quickly understands that the only thing that would change is that the longshoremen will be collecting a paycheck from a different entity..

False. The experts at the Coast Guard disagree with you.

And the sad arguments later made based on the statements by the brass hats over-riding the early (by a whole month) opinions do not constitute persuasive considerations.

Even those who were willing to check off on a ton of the deal justifications finally choked on that. Take a look at the even-handed analysis by Kenneth Timmerman in Homeland Transparency.

[indcons]

Reply to FReeper R.W.Ratikal's post (#254). Post addressed to most FReepers who addressed me on the original post. Some rambling thoughts:

"Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money."

I agree.....enhanced foreign investment is a sign of a booming economy and confidence in the American democratic system (and legal protections).

"But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport."

The bulk of the white and blue-collar force in the Middle East (be it Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or even Qatar) consists of Americans, Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and other Asians). Americans, Europeans, and Indians make up a bulk of the executive ranks (in that order of preference). Asians and poorer Arabs like Egyptians make up almost 100% of the labor force. As a result, the barbarians are quite confident that they can manage high-tech operations (they do have the necessary manpower and that may include some/several Al-Queda sympathetic Arab suits).

Re: the port deal specifically, the UAE should have expected this backlash from the public. They should have also thought twice about recognizing the Taliban, financing AQ Khan's nuclear blackmarket, funding Hamas, and supporting every Wahabbi cause in he last 30 years. You reap what you sow; nations and people, and not just Arab ones, have long memories. The Arabs are paying the price (justified IMO) for their past sins.

There will be retaliation from the UAE; let us make no mistakes on that point. However, these retaliations will be in the form of canceling a few contracts (like the one with Boeing) rather than any demands that the US leave UAE ports or stop using their military facilities. The security relationship is symbiotic and I doubt that the UAE would be willing to harm diplomatic or trade relations in the long run.

That said, this issue was mishandled in its entirety by both the Executive and by Congress. The President's aides let him down in this case by not preparing an effective case for the American people. The WH paid the price for the lack of communication. That said, the president accomplished a LOT in February on the foreign policy front. It will up to him to placate the UAE and prepare for the coming crisis in Iran.

Congress screwed up this issue up too. Their knee jerk and highly politicized reactions do not speak well of their competence. The Democrats used the DPW deal to get to the right of the Republicans on security; they demagogued this issue from the very beginning and spread lies in order to mislead the public. The Republicans had no other option but follow the Democrats on an important political issue in an election year.

IMHO, this entire fiasco is an event in which there are no winners. Everybody lost to varying degrees and not a single side distinguished itself with its behavior.

What do y'all think?

[veronica]

I can't believe he's pushing this crappy deal.

[redgolum]

If you didn't like the way opponents of the port deal were labeled ignorant racists by the ruling class, just wait to hear what we'll be called when Bush's floats his amnesty scheme.

And that is my fear as well. There were to be made to support this deal, but the talking heads all started to scream "Racist bigots!". Someone is asleep at the switch in the PR department.

[Earthdweller]

"IMHO, this entire fiasco is an event in which there are no winners. Everybody lost to varying degrees and not a single side distinguished itself with its behavior."

Yes..this was a bad thing all around. Growing pains? (I'm trying to be optimistic...really I am)

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm not averse to business with moderate Arabs, just security business.

Hillary! and Schmuckie thank you for continuing to propagate that myth...

[BigSkyFreeper]

the UAE supports Hamas

A weak argument born on hysteria. Lots of our allies support Hamas, many of them harbor terrorists, yet we continue to do foreign investments with them and vice versa.

[Siena Dreaming]

Re: the port deal specifically, the UAE should have expected this backlash from the public.

Why in the world do you think they should have expected a backlash? Similar deals are done every day.

The difference is...this time Chucky and Hillary took advantage and demogogued. And loads of Freepers bought into their rhetoric.

[Siena Dreaming]

it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

Sounds like you do not know Dubai. They are one of the most advanced, high-tech countries IN THE WORLD. Hard to believe for those who don't travel, but they rival NY or London in these areas.

[indcons]

Agreed. You may be interested in reading my post #264.

[river rat]

" Where may one go, to get a definition of "Moderate Muslim"?

Regarding UAE, let's see...

1. We park our Navy ships at their ports.
2. We use theri aior strip for our military aircraft.
3. They actually sent troops to Iraq. (the only Muslim nation to do so.
4. They wer the first Arab nation to insitute the requirements we put in place for shipping to the US.
5. They sent $100M for Katrina victims.

Let me know when you want me to stop?

1. Parking ships is a business deal between the U.S. and Dubai --- a welcomed deal, but not more.. Have you forgotten that we also made calls to ports in Yemen - until they attacked the USS Cole.

2. Same scenario -- we also used airstrips in Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- until they decided we should cease that activity...once we decided to invade Iraq.

Number 1 and 2 really simply point out that a "Muslim ally" is far less reliable over the long haul, simply because being a Muslim exerts a lot of pressure on ANY relationship with a non-Muslim -- particularly if conflict with another Muslim is involved.

3. Your statement appears to be FALSE.
This link shows NO UAE participation with troops in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

I could not find any link that confirms your statement that UAE sent troops to fight WITH the coalition in Iraq against the enemy...
I do recall reading that Jihadists captured in Iraq fighting against the coalition were UAE citizens or carrying UAE passports.
I'm sure you also recall that the UAE had citizens play an active role with Saudi Arabians as terrorists that perpetrated the 9/11 action against America.

4. Again, no more than a business arrangement..
The cynical may even suggest that it was a necessary but temporary "accommodation" to secure a needed advantage.

5. They sent $100M for Katrina victims.
Again, a welcomed gesture, but not much more.

You haven't begun to answer the original question -- Where may one go, to get a definition of a "Moderate Muslim"??

Pakistan has shed far more blood as an "ally" in our WOT, would you consider Pakistan as a "Moderate Muslim" country?

Saudi Arabia has been defined as a valued and long time "ally" in the WOT, would you consider Saudi Arabia as a "Moderate Muslim" nation?

Question still stands.
There appears to be a inability to define the term "Moderate Muslim"....at least I haven't found one that passes rational scrutiny.

Semper Fi

[indcons]

Excellent post, river rat. Kudos.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Actually, I think parsing words, making self justifying rationalizations and defending the indefensible escalated this fiasco.

Actually buying into left-winged media lies escalated this fiasco.

[BigSkyFreeper]

...it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

This statement shows you know nothing about the UAE. Dubai City looks like Las Vegas with it's flashy neon lit gambling casinos and multibillion dollar resort hotels and night clubs.

Drinking, sex, gambling, and dancing. Four things the radical Muslims adamantly oppose.

Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, and IBM all do business there. Radical muslims hate anything to do with "The Great Satan".

[ScreamingFist]

percentage of UAE votes AGAINST america at the UN: 2004: 87.5% 2003: 100% 2002: 82.4% 2001: 100%

It's OK to PO France, those dirty leftist FROGS (with nukes). And it's OK to PO Russia, those filthy commies (with nukes). And it's OK to PO Germany, those back stabbing, money grabbing youths of Hitler (that house our nukes).

But don't PO the arabs in DUBAI!!!!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!!!

[indcons]

Thanks for your post. I would modify it to "post-9/11 growing pains." The US is the world's greatest capitalist country; this incident will pass and trade will resume. Positive results - it may even teach the ChiComs and Saudis a lesson or two.

[freema]

Made you feel better, too, eh? : )

[indcons]

"Why in the world do you think they should have expected a backlash? Similar deals are done every day."

True. I thought the rest of the paragraph explained why. Here's why:

"[...] They should have also thought twice about recognizing the Taliban, financing AQ Khan's nuclear blackmarket, funding Hamas, and supporting every Wahabbi cause in he last 30 years. You reap what you sow; nations and people, and not just Arab ones, have long memories. The Arabs are paying the price (justified IMO) for their past sins."