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.
This is one of the biggest feeding frenzies I have seen in a while.
I still do not understand the entire issue, but as far as I can tell (and correct me if I am wrong)
1. Great Britain is selling the business to UAE. We are not selling anything.
2. They are taking over the physical operations only.
3. Nothing is new about the way this is done.
4. The only thing that will change is the name on the top of the paycheck.
5. Longshoreman are upset
6. This entire deal is not extrodinary, not new or unusual, has been known since November, but MSM has not reported on it until now. (A timing issue?)
7. The law requires the President not to be involved in or aware of this decision process until it is a done 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.
"...to the extent possible"
"...al reasonable steps"
"...pledged to continue participating"
I have statements like these. They sound like "definite maybes."
Well, you'd think that given the circumstances and the WOT, the government could have given some tax bennies or the like to make the contract more palatable. That's the kind of thing that has me raising eyebrows.
I believe Congress passed a law that says the President must be notified and some type of formal investigation begin if, and only if, any of the agencies doing the vetting of the sale have a concern with respect to National security, which, in this case, apparently none of them voiced any concerns, therefore the President was not in the loop.
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.
Yep! I hear ya.
So again, if we refuse to allow DP World to take over these leases, who is going to run these ports? American companies are not interested in doing it. Based on my information, the other players in this business are based in Hong Kong (Communist China) and Singapore (the Singapore company was outbid by DP World, IIRC). If the Congress gets it's way, not only will those other companies be shut out, all foreign operators already doing port operations in the US (COSCO in Long Beach comes to mind) will have to be bought out by the feds (the headlines there; "There goes Bush, growing the government again!"), unless they write in exemptions (there the headlines will be, "Bush is selling out to the ChiComs!" ). And just how will Congress justify that?
So it comes down to nationalizing all of our ports, or shutting them down. Which is it going to be?
Thanks.
So how did they become public if it's so unusual?
It's a leak. Hurry, call Fitzgerald..LOL
Hannity seems to be questioning more than others.
O'Donnell is a POS.
Yes, on paper. So is Saudi Arabia. Yet, where did most of the 9/11 terrorists come from? Where is the Wahhabi money coming from? Saudi Arabia is a two-edged sword and call me nuts, but if the reality was that UAE were too, then I wouldn't wake up tomorrow after learning about it wondering about it for any more than a few seconds.
"Corporate welfare!!! Not only is Bush helping out his big business cronies with his tax cuts for the rich, now he's just flat out giving our money away to them!"
I didn't see that on CFIUS site. However, I did find this:
Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:
the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government;
This deal was only given a review and NOT an investigation. Since DP World is owned by Dubai, it should have had an investigation. Hmmmmm
Rush said that, huh?
Well, I guess that settles it. El Rushbo has spoken. /sarcasm
Yes, tax perks and deregulation are the way to get American business moving, including port business. But that's the whole fight in Congress and has been for years.
Tax cuts for the rich don't you know...
Except it wasn't "thoroughly vetted". It was given a 20 to 25 day review according to reports. See post 174 about CFIUS rules.
Well, I will leave the partial information research to you. I just can't get all worked up.
I think it's a false dichotomy, but given the choice between putting P&O management temporarily under the aegis of a US corporation or even a US agency, or approving the transfer to the Emirate of Dubai, I vote for the first alternative.
Howlin - Member since 07/01/1999
iPod Shuffle - Member since 12/13/2005
IMHO, you're being foolish, iPod.
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.