Posted on 02/20/2006 4:13:19 PM PST by Dane
A team from Dubai's DP World is expected to start meetings on Tuesday with groups which have expressed concerns about its takeover of P&O Ports' US operations as it seeks to head off political opposition to the deal.
The company, owned by the Emirate of Dubai's Ports, Customs and Freezones Authority, is set to meet representatives of some of the five US port authorities where P&O has operations, and national politicians who oppose the deal.
The team is thought to include some of the many US citizens who work for DP World, including Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer, who has been one of the main actors in Dubai's transformation into a major shipping hub.
They hope the meetings will erode support for efforts to reverse the approval already given for the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which approved the takeover in January. The efforts gained momentum last week when Senators Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez introduced legislation which would prevent a company controlled by a foreign government from taking over a US port facility.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I find it very strange that the MSM is not reporting what the Unions involved at ports think about this.
No, the contract was just for moving containers from the ship to the dock. The link you posted was about truck drivers on our highways, and that is certainly a concern, but not at all connected to this contract for container movement at the ports.
I'll answer your two posts in one. First off, the Dubai company isn't investing in the US. They are taking over a contract that we had with a British co.
Secondly, it's nice that the Dubai co. is investing in security, but the bottom line is that security at our ports is the responsibility of our Coast Guard, and will remain that way.
Yes. They are. Otherwise CIFIUS would not have heard ruled on it.
UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
UPDATE 3-US Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not object.
Is that a joke? I miss the point. We all know that the MSM would never report anything that is favorable to this admin.
BTW, I have heard Union workers from the ports call in to talk shows, and none of them think this is a big deal.
Of course, every gov't agency that might have even a remote interest in the situation reviewed it. But that only means that they were thorough, not that there is any cause for concern.
CIFIUS reviews all foreign acquisitions on American soil. That is what this is.
No. Only certain agencies are on CIFIUS. They are the ONLY ones that have reviewed this. The review takes 30 days.An "investigation" is 45 days. This one took only 25.
http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/8192.pdf Federal commercial laws promote national ownership of business throughout the country. Foreign businesses, except those seeking to sell to the UAE Armed Forces, must have a UAE national sponsor. Agency and distributorship laws require that a business engaged in importing and distributing a foreign-made product must be owned 100 percent by a UAE national. Other businesses must be at least 51 percent owned by nationals. Companies located within the UAE's nine free zones are exempted from agency/distributorship, sponsorship, and national ownership requirements. However, if they lack 51 percent national ownership, they are treated as foreign firms and subjected to these requirements if they market products in the UAE.
5. Significant Barriers to U.S. Exports The UAE maintains non-tariff barriers to trade and investment in the form of restrictive agency, sponsorship, and distributorship requirements. To do business in the UAE outside of one of the free zones, a foreign business, in most cases, must have a UAE national sponsor, agent or distributor. Once chosen, sponsors, agents, or distributors have exclusive rights. They cannot be replaced without their agreement. Government tendering is not conducted according to generally accepted international standards. Re-tendering is the norm. To bid on federal projects, a supplier or contractor must be either a UAE national or a company in which UAE nationals own at least 51 percent of the share capital. Federal tenders are required to be accompanied by a bid bond in the form of an unconditional bank guarantee for five percent of the value of the bid. Except for companies located in one of the free zones, at least 51 percent of a business establishment must be owned by a UAE national. A business engaged in importing and distributing a product must be either a 100 percent UAE owned agency/distributorship or a 51 percent UAE/49 percent foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC). Subsidies for manufacturing firms are only available to those with at least 51 percent local ownership. The laws and regulations governing foreign investment in the UAE are evolving. There is no national treatment for investors in the UAE. Non-GCC nationals cannot own land. Only one stock is currently open to foreign investors and is capped at 20 percent total foreign ownership, although limited participation by foreigners in a few mutual funds is permitted. There have been no significant investment disputes over the past few years involving U.S. or other foreign investors. Claims resolution is generally not a problem, because foreign companies tend not to press claims, believing that to do so might jeopardize future business activity in the UAE. 6. Export Subsidies Policies The government does not employ subsidies to provide direct or indirect support for exports. 7. Protection of U.S. Intellectual Property The UAE is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a contracting party to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and has signed the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (patent, trademark, and related industrial property). In April 2001, the UAE was placed on the "Special 301" Watch List following the registration of a number of U.S. patent-protected medicines in violation of assurances from the UAE government that unlicensed copies of patent-protected medicines would no longer be registered. Discussions aimed at resolving this issue are ongoing.
You don't get it. This isn't a "foreign acquisition". A company based in the UK sold out to a co. based in Dubai. No US assets were sold to anyone.
LOL!!! Oh Lord! THEY are the foreigners, not us. Dubai had to be cleared to run an interest in the US. The ports ARE a US asset.
And the laughs just keep coming.
Have you even a clue about what the difference between facts and bluster is?
Never mind - I know you don't.
LOL! Have you a clue?
The US ports are an AMERICAN asset that a foreign power bought the right to run. To operate on US soil, they have to be approved. By CIFIUS.
Um I don't understand the link. All I know is a Muslim country with indirect ties to terrorist organizations will be managing ports in a city that has experienced three of its buildings being blasted. Ask yourself, under those conditions if the Gipper were president would he have approved of this deal?
I have no idea what Reagan would do; I don't channel him from the grave.
As for the "indirect ties," do you feel the same way about Boston, NYC, and Newark's airports? I mean, they let those guys through security, right?
How about American Airlines. They let them on the planes, right?
Well, a stevedore company doesn't like it.
Firm sues to block foreign port takeover
UAE Co. Poised to Oversee Six U.S. Ports
From the link directly above:
The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.
Looks like the 'Bot Fax Machines/Blogs must have gotten their Talking Points...the Kneepad Brigade and Dribble Chalice drinkers are crawling out with ANY scrap of info to hang their faith on!
Funny...Business-types LOVE this deal...those that favor America and it's security HATE it!
I wonder what this might mean...
Witness the crucible...we've already burned away their pathetic reliance on Illegal Infiltration...now we burn away their Globalist aspirations, to reveal...what a LOT of Conservatives have known for a VERY long time about the Business Lobby types.
Two wrongs don't make a right and you certainly don't make things better by carrying on the same destructive behavior.
It's just so obvious what we're setting ourselves up for here and sooner or later the people of this country who keep supporting this president no matter what he does are going to have to make a choice: a man and his career or the nation, its laws and its national security.
What destructive behavior?
Are you aware that UAE already handles a tremendous amount of freight that comes into this country now?
Perhaps you can point out a few times they've lapsed and let nuclear bombs in?
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.