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.
And I told you: I didn't see that on CFIUS site.
Where did you get that from?
The 20-25 days might be on top of some other time. In any case, I don't care, the issue was Bush's knowledge.
No doubt.
In the meantime, I will place my own faith in people like Bill Frist and Denny Hastert. You know, elected officials, accountable to the public.
Once it goes under a federal agency, it's there forever. Any future attempt to privatize it would meet with resistance at least as fierce as what Bush faced when he proposed reforming Social Security. We're talking tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of new federal employees, and extremely high paid ones at that. Longshoremen are probably the highest paid union people there are (excepting professional sports and actors "unions") - the average salary is over $100,000 per year. Billions and billions of dollars per year to be found in the federal budget to pay for it.
If we want to turn over all of our port operations to the feds, that's a legitimate debate. But something tells me that many of the same conservatives who are ripping Bush over this and ripping him over spending and government growth will rip him even harder if he allows the ports to be nationalized.
You mentioned I set up a false dichotomy; if we make it illegal for foreign companies to be involved with our port operations (which is what Congress is proposing), and if we can't find an American company willing to take on these operations, what else is there to do besides what I mentioned (nationalizing the ports or shutting them down)? What am I missing?
I keep hearing the admin talking point that we will send the 'wrong' message if we don't allow this deal to go through. So, does that mean we, as a country, are not allowed to refuse an "ally"? I would like to have more info on this subject.
...In a letter to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees earlier this year, Scheuer says his agents provided U.S. government officials with about 10 opportunities to capture bin Laden. All of them were rejected.One of the last proposals, which he described to the 9-11 Commission in a closed-door session, involved a cruise missile attack against a remote hunting camp in the Afghan desert, where bin Laden was believed to be socializing with members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates.
Scheuer told CBS News he wanted to level the entire camp. "If those princes were out there eating goat with Osama bin Laden, then maybe they were there for nefarious reasons," he said. "But nonetheless, they would have been the price of battle."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468496/posts
It's the quite obvious question about the ugly reality or perhaps portent of reality that no one can answer. If they could, they'd apply the harsh reality across the board. It's not like one happening with the same players is going to be much different than another, where these issues of fidelity and desperations of violence, AND possibilities for destruction of the U.S., are concerned.
No. CFIUS is very clear about that too.
To assist in making this determination, Exon-Florio provides for the President or his designee to receive written notice of an acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation by a foreign entity. Once CFIUS has received a complete notification, it begins a thorough review of the notified transaction. In some cases, it is necessary to undertake an extended review or "investigation." An investigation, if necessary, must begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days.
In any case, I don't care, the issue was Bush's knowledge.
If it didn't comply with the law, you should care.
And the above does NOT say it has to be kept secret from the President.
I think I may have some of this figured out....
Jimmy Carter is for it! Bob Dole is for it!
Who else is on the payroll and commands high $$ and secrecy...
Colin Powell, Anthony Zini, their associates, Kissinger and Assoc, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and on and on and on....
IOW, the former powerful of State and Defense (Cencom).
I know Powell and Zini are mega millionaires as a result of their Middle East relationsm Carter and Kissinger as well.
Look to the money and the Govt sell-out crowd!
...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.
Thought-provoking post!
I want your source on 20-25 days, too.
I got that one wrong. Someone corrected me on it. Fact finding has been difficult at best (especially since I had no knowledge of this subject to begin with).
Yes, exactly. I've heard a lot of very accurate fact sharing and pointed, well expressed concerns on this one day's television alone, and all from Republicans -- Governors, Congressmen (no women) and Senators. All say they want this "deal" revoked by the President to avoid...the obvious override of a Presidential veto, both of which I am sure will occur.
I don't support this Port Deal. I'm a Republican and I voted for President Bush. He needs to get with the program. I'm concerned.
Why don't we cross that bridge if and when we get there.
I have a lot more faith in American capitalism than I do in Emirate of Dubai integrity.
JMHO.
Awesome metaphor.
Rush always says to 'follow the money' but this time he wants everyone to ignore it?
"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."
What part of the UAE is buying NOTHING don't you and others understand??? I'm sorry to sound snappish but DARNIT, they will continue to LEASE the port space the company they are buying did.
Why must a company manage a port? Why don't they mjust hire a competent port manager. I think many municipities do.
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.