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.
Figures you would notice something like that. :o)
BTW, hi, brohamie.
There is NO WAY that this UAE-Dubai organization deal was not within the awareness of President Bush.
I'm sure that "by law" all requirements of privacy were observed, that's not what I mean. What I DO mean is that given that correct, lawful procedure, there is just no way that President Bush was NOT AWARE that this was the organization -- the one from Dubai -- that was of process during the process.
The "secrecy" element is procedural and purely formal, in my best guess.
they could answer it. the pro-port forces are throwing around the "racist" term, the "religious bigot" term, all over the place here.
so I ask those same people - would you sell the WTC site to the UAE, or to the Saudis? that's a private transaction too, the Arabs own alot of manhattan real estate now. should they be able to buy the WTC site?
they can't answer it. because if they answer "no", then they will have to admit that they are xenophobes too, they would not allow the WTC site to be owned by Arabs - and the basis for that rejection would obviously be their ethnicity/religion.
if they answer "yes", that they would allow them to own it - they will show themselves as being near insane, believing that the idea of "tolerance" for islam, should extend to the US allowing middle eastern government owned quasi-corporate entities, to own the WTC site.
so they duck the question.
*guffaw*
That was sarcasm, right?
No. The Byrd Amendment comes into play if a foreign country is involved. That is SUPPOSED to trigger a 45 day investigation which didn't happen.
From CFIUS:
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.
And:
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;
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS)
"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."
Check out pages 137-139 of the 9/11 Commission report about UAE royals and Osama. You should be concerned.
they are buying the contracts for port operations.
the basis for the question is not to compare the buying of an operations contract, to the buying of the lease at the WTC (the government owns the land there too). the idea is - if you believe the rejection of the UAE is based on religious bigortry, then I ask you, would you allow them to buy the lease at the WTC site? if your answer is no, then tell us what the basis would be for that rejection?
You're angry because you need to defend a comment? Nevermind. The CFIUS site tells me all I need to know. Oh and, growup. Bye!
I'm getting better at it. :)
I just lOVE how all these Dubai hawks have come out of the woodwork.
Where have you people been since 9-11? Or have I missed the 3,476 threads about the "UAE terrorist threat"?
Iraq-Iran-North Korea-Syria-UAE--"The NEW Axis of Evil! Now with UAE!" LOL!
The Statute. Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
(1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
(2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security.
--------------------------------------------------
It then goes on to discuss the 30 and 45 day requirements.
So, my question to you is why did you omit the requirements necessary for the extended "investigation" to take place?
Excellent question!
One that bears repeating.
Where's your source on 20-25 days?
Yes, I recognize that, but, her full statement concerns me. Because, she's referring to "thoroughly vetted" as resulting in recognizing a state owned business -- something never done by the U.S. before as to managing shipping to/from our ports -- by a state that has known and well professed relationships with terrorist organization/s. I question the "vetting process" if and as this is the result.
;-)
If a municipality has to pay for all this stuff taxes go up.
Never mind, DJ, I'll go with his.
See #232
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.