Well, yeah, that's exactly what the pro-deal Freepers are saying they can and will do.
I understand that the docks and the warehouses belong to the ports, so those aren't going anywhere.
Not sure about the really nifty cranes.
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.
I haven't decided yet if I mean that both figuratively and literally.
Oh the scandal of it all! What else they got? Someone in the DNC must stay up nights thinking these dasterdly deeds of Bush up!
Well, yeah, that's exactly what the pro-deal Freepers are saying they can and will do.
I understand that the docks and the warehouses belong to the ports, so those aren't going anywhere.
Not sure about the really nifty cranes.
That's why the US companies got out of ports long ago.
And, thus, no bidding by any American company on this deal.
There are people right here on FR working overtime, too. :-)
I read this part...
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday.
...and think that people are extremely reticent to, if not recoiled by the idea of, criticizing C. Rice. For obvious reasons, because that includes me for about the same reasons I'm guessing that others are, too.
HOWEVER, based upon that statement alone, I'm aghast. Read it again. She's saying that "it doesn't matter where in the world these purchases is [sic] coming from."
If Castro's Cuba had made the purchase, then what? How about Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? How about Kim Yong's North Korea? Those are all countries that literally "own" businesses in "their" respective countries, same as the situation with this company from Dubai, owned by UAE.
So, if as Rice says, "it doesn't matter where in the world these purchases is [sic] coming from," then what's the difference?
She could then include that Venezuela and Cuba and North Korea are adversaries of the U.S. but what about business ventures within those nations? How WOULD that be any different than this state-owned Dubai company?
In effect, given Dubai's government, this Port Deal is a deal with UAE. UAE recognizes the Taliban as the rightful government of Iran (I believe I got that right, please correct me if I'm wrong). UAE may be our "good ally" NOW but what about next year, the future? They are almost certainly our "good ally" because the U.S. has devoted indulgences and economic indulgences to such a degree that they're complying and expecting more, as anyone would. By the mere fact, however, that they're now threatening with various accusations that negate the U.S. because the Port Deal is being questioned, well, that's not good. It indicates an emotional untrustworthiness that is demanding and threatening and I'm concerned.
And, what MAKES for a "good ally." Compared with other nations, specifically? I think I perceive the degree of policy involved here but that's just the thing, actually, that concerns me most.
What is wrong here is that you don't have the facts.
UAE is an "allied" (in the WOT) company!!!
If by any chance terrorists do get through this new port deal, the Republicans can kiss it goodbye for a decade. If this is an idea for saving some bucks, then George needs to start sleeping with his hands outside the covers and get some sleep.
It's a stupid risk for a small return - maybe the uproar will yank Bush back to reality.
I begin to think we should limit Presidents to one term. The first term seems to fry their brains and they discover stupidity in the second term.
There is no way I'm going to join Sauron because George Bush screws up - stop howling like it's the end of the world because Subway Schumer says something right for once in his stupid life.
Zell Miller in 2008!
Some in Congress are suggesting that we incentivize American business to step up to this task. Whatever it takes.
I did wonder why Congress hasn't thought of this before, I admit it, why this issue has not been previously anticipated by Congress such that incentives could already have been applied to American based business...certainly should have been visible and also possible to plan for this expiration of the existing U.K. firm's relationship in this Port regard.
The docks belong to the port authorities. For example, the port authority I am most familiar with, Maryland, owns Dundalk and Sea Girt but P&O has the contract to operate.
Similarly, in New Orleans, P&O has the contract for the Napoleon Avenue Wharf, which is chicken feed in comparison to the entire area.
But -- nevertheless -- it doesn't take much area for contraband to come in.
I have asked the question 5 times to different pro-port freepers - would you allow the UAE, or even the Saudis, to buy the WTC site? not one of them has answered.
Rove let this one get away from him.
Do you honestly believe Rove is reviewing port contracts? It was a done deal, and then word got out because it had a hint of national security on it. Whether some people want to admit it or not, this is a very hot topic. I know it is easy to just brush it away as innocuous contract between to private parties, but in this case, the knee-jerks are strangely (and electorally) in unison on this: Frist, Hastert, Ridge, Delay, Coburn, Inhofe, etc... So Bush needs to address it. You know, when I hear that a nation is going to be operating six of our biggest ports, the word "operating" seems to be reeeeally intricately involved. As I said before, let them practice down in New Orleans first, and then we will see about the other five.
Welcome to FR.
Yes, they gave him a report, after the investigation. Before that time, they were required to keep it from him. It's very simple.
The UAE does not recognize Israel. Among other things but the point is...there's incentive THERE (UAE) to do harm. It's nice they've committed and agreed to certain conditions but they also are just as likely to commit and agree to other conditions if the terms are right.
The UAE also recognizes the Taliban as the rightful government of, what, Iran, while it does not recognize Israel. I'm sorry but I perceive the opportunity for disaster here.
Rice prefaced her ".......that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from,......." with the part about the agreement being thoroughly vetted.
What is the likelyhood that a company from any of the 3 countries you referred to could successfully pass the "thorough vetting" process?
Then why the news story?
Agreed.
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.