This deal might be bad for the U.S. or it might not - but the secrecy shows that something is rotten in the state of Dubai.
I wonder from where this info "emerged" last week. Any facts to back that up?
This "deal" that was made or given needs to be run down. The deal maker need to be brought before the public at a minimum to explain him or her self. If they exceeded their responsibility then they should be brought before the courts.
A cross referencing article I missed yesterday:
P&O takeover won’t be hit by objections in US: Hughes
Khaleej Times Online ^ | February 21, 2006 | Criselda E. Diala
at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582858/posts
Either kill the deal or else make it a condition of the deal that if it ever happens that a terrorist attack in the U.S. succeeds because of failures of port security at ports overseen by Dubai Ports World, the U.S. will immediately seize all U.S. assets of Dubai Ports World and also invade the United Arab Emirates and turn it into a Disney attraction for gawking infidel tourists.
the editorial writers have no way to know whether they adequately considered questions. There is no evidence they didn't, other than assertions by editorial writers that since the deal is OBVIOUSLY bad, the administration MUST have missed something.
The editorial has some minor factual errors -- like saying the DP World was directly taking over contracts in 6 ports, when in fact they are simply overtaking the company that owns the american subsidiaries that oversee the ports now.
It also simply asserts that arabs can't be trusted to be involved in ports, ignoring that the DP World company is already involved in ports around the world, and no other ally has expressed a concern about this company.
It further ignores the clear law that the administration is operating under (which also belies the assertion that we "learned last week" that formal review was a condition -- I'll get to the later). That law precludes the administration from blocking a deal unless there is actual EVIDENCE that the COMPANY making the purchase WILL hurt security, AND that no existing law is adequate to mitigate the harm from that company taking over. I've seen nobody give that kind of evidence.
What of this "secrecy"? Without seeing the details, it's hard to say what the times is referring to -- it'd be nice if they gave a link to an actual news article in their paper where they might have given us facts, but I don't know if the paper actually COVERED this last week. But I can imagine that the deal included the ability for either side to cancel the deal if the U.S. requested a "formal review", which might be something in some other law which could take months and maybe effect the economics of the deal.
That would not be something "secret", it would be simple sound business practice. I remember several mergers which were terminated by agreements which had similar clauses allowing the deal to be cancelled if the U.S. raised formal objections thus driving up the costs of the merger.
In short, this editorial is still way more heat than light, weak on the facts, full of innuendo, and in the end based on the single recurring proposition of the opponents -- that we just can't trust Arabs to do business with us.
I'll have to review all of the facts related to this point before commenting on it. Not only is this odd, but it's probably illegal. I was under the impression that the U.S. law governing this kind of acquisition requires a formal investigation whenever a company owned by a foreign government is involved.
What were they trying to hide? This deal stinks more with each passing day.
The 45-day investigation is mandated by law when there are national security implications to the transaction.
I highlighted what was likely the source of the Time's seemingly erroneous assertion of a deal not to investigate, note that it is in an "or" clause the includes a clause allowing an investigation. The relevant part is in BOLD within the following, which can be found in SECTION THREE of the large PDF file found by following the link.
To summarise the bold information: The agreement says it is valid if either the CFI decides it doesn't HAVE to investigate, OR if it investigates and the result doesn't oppose the deal, OR if the statutory time for an objection passes without an objection. NOTHING nefarious at all, just ignorant hyperbole from an editorial board that already announced opposition over a week ago and is trying to justify it's position.
Read the ENTIRE OFFER at: Offer of Purchase
2.1 the Offeror having made all necessary filings (‘‘EFA Filings’’) pursuant to the Exon-Florio Amendment, Section 721 of Title VII of the Defence Production Act of 1950, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. Section 2170 (the ‘‘EFA’’) and:
2.1.1 the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (‘‘CFIUS’’) having advised the Offeror in writing of its determination pursuant to Section 800.502 of the United States Department of the Treasury’s regulations implementing the EFA (31 C.F.R. Part 800)(the ‘Regulations’’) not to investigate the acquisition by the Offeror of P&O’s United States operations (the ‘‘U.S. Acquisition’’); or
2.1.2 if CFIUS determines to investigate the U.S. Acquisition pursuant to Section 800.503 of the Regulations, the President of the United States having not announced a decision to take action against the U.S. Acquisition by no later than midnight on the fifteenth (15th)calendar day after the completion or termination of the investigation by CFIUS or, if the fifteenth (15th) calendar day is not a business day, no later than the next business day following the fifteenth (15th) calendar day, pursuant to Section 800.504 of the Regulations;
or
2.1.3 ninety (90) calendar days have elapsed since the Offeror submitted an EFA filing which CFIUS has accepted as complete;
I think if Bush would just allow a longer review time, it would satisfy a lot of people up about this issue.
Today the Gov of Alaska announced two oil deals:
A tax settlement, 20%, for produced oil in Alaska, and
a stranded gas contract deal for the TransAlaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
The Pipeline deal will dry up a good-sized chunk of oil investment money for the next decade so the Pipeline may be built. $20 billion. The tax deal will encourage the smaller oil companies to develop the smaller fields in Alaska that the biggies are not interested in.
Like a relationship, if there's irreconcilable differences, it's better to find out before the wedding...
DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION
Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.
The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.
Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company
Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
“While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”
Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:
“Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”
Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.
Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.
-- ENDS --
Henry K doesn't want his name all over the report, then slammed in the news and TV
If the Longshoremans union is against it, its probably a good deal for the country.
I understand port security is a separate program that is run by our government, but it's so unacceptable right now, how can we make more room for hanky panky with a deal like this?
If people worry that we will be treating Arab states unfairly, then let's just scrap ALL foriegn operated ports! The majority of our ports are still American owned. We can do this. We're a sovergn nation. Do it now, and we have a hill to climb...Do it later, and it'll be a mountain. No pain, no gain
Read this and realize our congress was the culprit - not Bush:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583784/posts
Some people inside the inner loop have more passion about their utopian "Flat World" economic ideology than they do about the long term good of the GOP (or, if you prefer, the more generic term "the Right"). Norquist and the DoS Arabists (as well as other cells of Arabists in other departments and services) may have been a value add back in the Reagan years, but these days they are a liability. The failure of the leadership to realize this is a bonehead move. Nothing is more important in the long term than keeping the faith of Main Street. If Main Street is not with us, we're hosed. I know the idologues who post here will flame me, but I really don't care. In fact, I formally invite them all to take a hike and either go join the Dims or form their own party - maybe they can call it the "Flat World Party," the "Fast World Party," or perhaps the "Bottom Line Party." I say to them all, don't let the door hit ye on the arse.