Posted on 02/17/2006 7:51:42 AM PST by presidio9
Two U.S. Democratic senators said on Friday they would introduce legislation aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from buying a company that operates several U.S. shipping ports because of security concerns.
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York said they would offer a measure to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Menendez said in a statement.
P&O, the company Dubai Ports World plans to buy for $6.8 billion, is already foreign-owned but the concern is that the purchaser is backed by the United Arab Emirates government.
The UAE company would gain control over the management of major U.S. ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami, sparking national security concerns.
"I will be working with Senator Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments," Clinton said in a statement.
Officials with the United Arab Emirates Embassy in Washington could not be immediately reached for comment.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, has already reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Despite that review, some Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress urged the Bush administration to conduct a more rigorous review. They expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations.
U.S. officials have said the UAE has been a solid and cooperative partner in the fight against terrorism, and have praised the UAE for steps to protect its booming financial sector against abuse by terrorism financiers.
Money for the September 11 attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system, according to U.S. officials. Two of the September 11 hijackers were UAE citizens.
U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year but only about 5 percent of containers entering the United States are examined on arrival.
Similar concerns were raised when a China state-controlled oil company tried to acquire the U.S. oil company Unocal. After pressure from American lawmakers, the foreign company eventually dropped out of the bidding.
I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to me.
COSCO [China Ocean Shipping Company] has, since the signing of an EXECUTIVE ORDER by President Benedict Bill Klinton in January of 1998, has taken over and totally controls the former U.S. Naval Port Facilities at Long Beach, California. This port is the largest container port on the West coast of North America and is a major conduit through with our technology is being transferred to China.But do note that COSCO does have control of some ports. IIRC, COSCO was implicated in an import scheme involving illegal automatic firearms.COSCO is intimately linked with the WAMPOA-HUTCHINSON GROUP of Hong Kong ...
The WAMPOA-HUTCHINSON GROUP controls the PANAMA CANAL and is linked to the PLA like a Siamese Twin.This is a main reason WHY OUR COUNTRY is in such deep peril-at the hands of our TRAITOROUS Politicians, Democrat or Republican notwithstanding.
http://educate-yourself.org/tw/coscocontrolslongbeachshipyards17sep04.shtml
http://www.house.gov/hunter/jul6-98.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/200408/26/eng20040826_154891.html
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. ... What I plan to show tonight is a direct link between the White House fundraising with China and assets that have gone in favor of Communist China that could pose as a national security threat to the United States. I have intelligence reports that state so. I have facts that also state so, and I would like to make that case this evening. ...Cosco has been attendant at Long Beach since 1991. The proposed lease agreement would turn over 145 acres of port property and grant Cosco a much more significant presence at that port, which I have discussed.
Cosco ship, Empress Phoenix, had attempted to smuggle in some 2,000 AK-47's fully automatic assault weapons, the same kinds of weapons, Mr. Speaker, that were used in the bank holdup in Los Angeles that placed our law enforcement agents in great jeopardy, the same companies in port at which we recently found down off the border, M-2 fully automatic weapons going to Mexico to disrupt their elections which are going to take place over the next 90 days and cause anti-American, antireform legislators and affect the elections in Mexico City. That the Chinese regime is not steadily a U.S. ally.
Concern about this pattern of behavior last year prompted Inhofe and California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter to use an appropriations bill to prohibit COSCO from seizing the Long Beach Naval Port. But this did nothing to prevent COSCO from taking over a civilian port or even negotiating a port deal with Los Angeles. Speculators are only too glad to work out a land swap. Informed of COSCO's latest plan, Hunter tells Insight, "I'm going to write a letter to the secretary of the Navy and tell him such a land-swap deal using the Navy base as trade bait for an alternative location for COSCO is an attempt to circumvent Congress' intent."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_18_15/ai_81139194
Bush MUST get ahead of this thing and kill the deal. The longer it goes on them ore it's going to hurt him and the Pubbies. On this one the DemonRats have effectively out flanked him to the right and taken the high ground.
Damn the media.
Republicans were the first one out against it not the dems.
Al gore being for more saudi visas gets no press and hillary was silent.
I was hoping that would turn up for that post. LOL
so what, they are private sectors unions - mostly workers in the trades and in construction. they work hard and deserve good wages.
the Dems could care less about this issue as a national security viewpoint - it works politically for them, so they are using it. our guys, like King and others, are sincere and hopefully they will get it done.
The Dems have latched onto this to flail Bush with because they WERE paying attention to the polling numbers on the NSA spying non-scandal. They heard the public. We want protection. Now if we can just knock some wax loose in "other" ears...............
I totally understand that, but where was their "outrage" in the first place with a foreign company operating in our ports.
And also I am sick and tired of the chuckie schumer talking point that the UAE is taking over the ports. They are not. They are just one of the many foreign companies operating from there.
Thats what is so amazing. 97% of all Americans believe this is an outrage and that Bush still hasnt called a press conference to say it wont stand. Its a slam dunk..unless of course its part of the ole payola.
To: snowsislander
The way I understand it the UAE firm is basically a shipping company and as does the company they plan to buy, they would lease dock space and have berthing rights. No different from other shipping companies. Of course they would be responsible for securing cargo in and out of a port, the cargo that is related to their company. No differently than the company they plan to buy and all companies who lease dock space. I know for a fact the Port Authorities are in charge of security for their port. Private companies who lease space in order to conduct commerce are responsible for the security of their assets is what I"m thinking is the case.
At first I actually thought this UAE company was going to take charge of these ports till I followed up on it some.
Now I believe this entire thing is being blown out of proportion using 'buzz' words to make Bush look like an idiot. Does anyone here actually believe Bush would do anything to endanger our national security after all we've/he's been through??
24 posted on 02/17/2006 3:09:07 PM CST by blogblogginaway (..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I think its working its way up the political chain. I think someone at Treasury was paid off to approve this, I really do.
I can't remember where I read it today but only 1 in some 1500 deals have been denied by this " secretive U.S. government panel" . That speaks "money" to me.
ONLY Senator Coburn's attention to this has me giving it any credence at all.
I don't know enough yet.
Yeah the P&O shareholders were paid off, in a legitimate business transaction.
The Treasury Dept. did not intiate the sale of P&O to DP World, but you already knew that and still decided to inject a DUmmie conspiracy theory into this thread.
Exactly right --- the democrats are grandstanding... but we do need to know more. At least, I need to know more.
who approved it?
The P&O shareholders did. P&O(the British company that had the port facilities was bought out by DP World, which was a legitimate business transaction).
If anything maybe your animus should be directed at the P&O Shareholders who did the "evil" deed of selling their company in the first place.
BTW, where was your outrage when a foreign firm, P&O, had facilities in US ports to begin with, hmmm.
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.