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.
The contract involve security clearances and had national security implications. I can not say more. As does control of a port.
She's Sec. of State, that's her job.
A majority in the senate is 60 seats not 51 seats.
It is a myth that a majority is 51 seats.
41 democrats can stop any bill or judge. That is why they need Harry Reid's approval. Democrats have 44 seats plus jeffords.
If the vote is 59-41 for cloture the 41 votes is a filibuster.
You're absolutely bound and determined not to actually take a look at the law on this issue.
What are you? Obviously not a lawyer.
Share-holder? Manager? Surely not just an employee.
Any contract providing security for a U.S port or airport should be cancellable whenever a significant change of control occurs with the originating contracting parties. Unilaterally by the US government if this somehow escapes the review of due diligence by both the buyer and seller. Our security's what is to be sold - we have an active interest.
"The contract involve security clearances and had national security implications. I can not say more."
I'm calling BS. How many P&O employees are cleared for CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, or TOP SECRET information?
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.
I respond in kind to you and you complain?
LOL!
Filibusters aren't likely to happen on this issue -- 2006 elections are too close. Couple dozen seats up for grabs.
What are you? Obviously not a lawyer.
Share-holder? Manager? Surely not just an employee.
Nope, just not a knee jerker taking the hillary/schumer talking points hook, line, and sinker.
Too bad Bernard Kerik had personal issues because he would have been a strong conservative at homeland security.
Kerik from a policy point of view would have been perfect.
I am using this as an example of an attainablity clause. And trust me they are checked. Military hardware moves through these ports.
Well, DAYUM, Dane, is she really SoS?
lol
I rest my case -- on this particular point.
"I am using this as an example of an attainablity clause. And trust me they are checked. Military hardware moves through these ports."
In other words, you have no evidence that these employees (who will not change, BTW) hold security clearances.
Any ship departing to the US is mandated to present it's manifest to us or our agents, the world over.
On occasion a ship has been stopped at sea, outside our territorial waters.
Shipping containers are tested for explosives and/or radiation when they are loaded onto container ships in the countries of origin.
The very thought of ships lining up to wait inspections at our ports is a logistical nightmare that could never be managed.
They tried to slip this one under the rug.
It's a lose-lose-lose proposition had they pulled it off.
Instead, only a lose-lose because now the conservative trust Dubya even less, plus the 2008 DEM candidate will STILL use it to demonstrate the GOP's "wrecklessness" regarding domestic security.
Of course then they'll (Hitlery?) bring up the border debacle...
How hard is it to break a seal, tamper with the cargo, and reseal it?
Some do, that I know. But all have back ground checks. It depends on what moves through the terminal. A grain elevator does not have the security concerns as Barbers Cut that moves US Army Tanks.
Very convenient...
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.