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.
Senator Tom Coburn wants more information and so do I
As he should and it's not a "political" tin ear decision if the press would put out the facts(i.e DPWorld is not "controlling" the ports, they are not in charge of security, etc.etc)
FR's comics page shows up.
Seek restitution from whom? When companies seek to buy out others, it is always contingent on regulatory approval. The United States requires it, Europe requires it, everyone requires it. Look, if a person goes out and purchases a popular established bar and then isn't able to secure a liquor license in his own name, the new owner doesn't get to sue the licensing board for breech of contract.
I won't join you in tearing down Reagan.
And I certainly don't care one iota whether Clinton was as bad as Bush, nor Carter, nor Hillary, nor anybody else.
Wrong is wrong.
Whoop-dee-doo! It's a golf paradise!
But guess what?? They're STILL Muslims who want to own U.S. ports.
Then how did 1992 senate that was very slightly controlled by the Democrats pass Clinton's massive tax increase? Bush is weak when in comes to taking his message to the people as are the republican senators - either that or they are corrupt.
I won't join you in tearing down Reagan.
LOL! You don't get.
" now THAT is a surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Hey -- I love and agree with you ALL! (except all those who oppose me and my evil genius [twisting handlebar mustache].)
But foreign entities already own US ports as well as ports of very friendly allies. It seems to me sooner or later we have to effectively deal with this security issue.
This isn't a bash Reagan thread, nor should it be a bash Bush thread either, but I know that's impossible since many participants do little else besides bash Bush.
No, I don't "get" people who feel like they need to tear down a dead hero in the hope that it will make themselves look better.
It doesn't work.
When the deal is approved by a British court(P&O's home base) on March 2nd, DPWorld will be in control of P&O's worldwide assets, that the done deal.
The interesting part is if the contracts are nixed is what DPWorld does with those assets, since they legitmately acquired them. They could just close them down and put Americans out of work for giving the finger to a country that has US troops and is a popular and safe port of call for US Navy ships.
Peter King on Scarborough now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1582492/posts?page=1
House GOP Leaders Line Up Against UAE Port Deal
Yes Reagan was a great president. Unquestionably there were things he did wrong. But when you look at the political landscape that he had to work with it's hard not to defend him.
I defended Regan(for the most part) then and I have defended (for the most part) Bush today for similar reasons.
BTW Reagan's amnesty was a citizenship amnesty. Bush's amnesty is not.
The same way they keep any classified information out of the hands of those who are not cleared to receive it.
If there was one Democrat left they would still be putting out that tired excuse.
"The Buck Stops Here" is now "We're Never Accountable".
IF everything you have posted here is true, JUST LOOK at the number of folks you have convinced.
Then try to imagine the difficulty POTUS will have convincing Americans.
You don't get it, Dane. You really don't.
UAE is an ARAB country. That does not sell well here and thank God and their worship of their Allah for that.
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.