Posted on 02/22/2006 6:19:30 PM PST by iPod Shuffle
Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
Feb 22 9:03 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By TED BRIDIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bikley told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Yes, isn't it?
They're not conservative. They're not worth the time or the effort.
Okay, I don't get the Michael Fox one........LOL.
"They're not conservative. They're not worth the time or the effort."
I agree
BTW, that address forwards you to PrankPlace.
"The old P&O stockholders balked at the security costs of doing business in post 9/11 America."
So the port operations will actually be safer.
I find it ironic that the UAE has been securing cargo from all over the world that comes here from its port of origin.
If they are no good, I guess we will have to shut down all our ports. /sar
Not being omniscient, no, I don't know why an American company didn't bid.
I have lots of guesses, most of which have to do with taxation on multinational corporations.
Some of my guesses have to do with my experience in the maritime industry a few decades ago when American corporations started chartering foreign flag vessels flying "flags of convenience" in order to evade US Coast Guard regulations and US tax laws.
I don't blame anybody for trying to legally evade taxes or trying to make an honest buck.
But the security of me, my children, and everybody else I know and love should not be sold to the highest bidder.
They probably consider it too much of a headache with all the regulation and union demands.
Then why does DPW want it then?
Not being strident, just asking questions. Not that you necessarily have the answers. But if no American or "allied" (in the WOT) company wanted it, then why would they if it was such a "rotten deal?"
I think your plea would be more likely to succeed if you asked for an atom to be split in half.
It is disappointing to have to agree with you, but, there is obviously something very wrong here.
Uh.....no.
US Treasury - Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)
This order also provides for CFIUS to submit a report and recommendation to the President at the conclusion of an investigation.
Haven't seen a breakdown of who gets what money for this deal.
It is about port management....not a sale of the port.
Its not like they can take anything with them if we kick em out.
...two, three, four...
I'll catch up some day.
There is no doubt that this deal will be completely examined over several months. No one should object to this.
They considered this for 20 to 25 days (according to reports) and gave Bush a report.
and DPW wanted it bad - they paid a market premium for these P&O assets. but of course, we can't ask that question. we are racists and xenophobes don't you know, and now we are responsible for exposing the "secret deal".
No, they can't take it with them.
Actually, they have the bucks to increase security which the other company balked at.
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.