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.
If you look at recent events, from bombings to beheadings to cartoon flag burnings, they all should be studied from behind a loaded gun, IMHO.
Discretion is the better part of valor. Safety off.
Yes. Kings been having a cow about this since early last week. That was why I did a search on CFIUS online. It peaked my curiosity and I wanted to know what it said.
EXCELLENT OBSERVATION!
I see what you are. I'll stay away from your posts with pleasure and please don't post to me again. Conforming to my request would be proper Internet etiquette.
TSA would be much worse had Bush caved in to democrat demands for more unionization and such.
And yes, TSA has prevented numerous terrorist attacks.
I know; you know that I know you are a troll.
I'll stay away from your posts with pleasure and please don't post to me again. Conforming to my request would be proper Internet etiquette.
This isn't your house; as long as you continue to post misinformation on this forum, I'll post to you any time I want to.
EXCELLENT OBSERVATION!
Not really.
For one state to try and kill the former leader of another state is certainly reason to go to war and I would have supported that completely. Actually, that should have been Clinton's response.
Don't you understand? Every single topic, regardless of what it is, has to have something to do with BORDERS.
By guaging a poster (You) who is actually on a war-footing with a lot of supposed Conservatives, Americans that post a lot here, I'd say America has forgotten 9/11/01 and actually believes the war on our shores is over now because of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Huh? You are so out of line here. George Bush has done more to improve the security of this country than any other single person I can name.
Yes. Looks like it's going to happen, which is good.
I'll second that...(since Reagan, of course)
The POTUS has made a boo boo here.
See Rush Limbaugh's web site and listen on many links!!!
I understand exactly how Ports work, what Longshoreman do and why it was horrible to allow Chinese Communists to entrench themselves in our Western ports. Which is why, in a war with elements in every Mohammedan nation, the UAE is someone that can be a friend over there, but has NO business owning operations over our ports. Period. No stinking Communists, no stinking Jihadists.
or
Documents obtained by the AP show the Bush administration's conditions for approving a ports sale
Which makes a snappier headline?
Actually, I only see one headline, and it looks like any of a thousand I see at the supermarket checkstand. The other statement looks like a line item on a typical agenda sheet for a mid day business meeting, right in between c) yawn and e) order lunch.
I've been reading hundreds of posts and about a dozen articles to fill in the people in my daily life who usually haven't even heard of the issues of mass importance discussed/dissected on these pages, their own mostly unwanted but annoyingly accurate personal data miner of sorts.
Other than the 21 knee pop salute being given an eerie Teen Idol competition status, I have yet to hear anything remotely significant on how UAE businessmen owning an American port operated by American union longshoremen is going to make it any easier for a hidden bomb to be loaded on a container. WTF difference does it make who owns it - the country that spawned the shoe bomber and george galloway, or an arab country, one we're not at war with in an area where we're trying to create financial diplomacy?
Which deal is better, the one where we gave Turkey $Billions$ and they left us hanging in a very dangerous way, or the one where we normalize relations in an area critical to our security to do so, that costs us nothing.
But there I go getting off topic.
I would like to hear/read someone convincingly describe how much easier it would be under UAE ownership than British to shoot up Ted Kennedy with the Bubonic Plague, Ebola, Flesh Eating Bacteria, Small Pox, and the Bird Flu, load him in a refrigerated (hey, I got a heart!) container with a couple dozen cases of fortified wine, ship him off on a whirlwind round trip to France, Germany, Somalia, Venezuela, China, and back to Massachusets, all without ever breaking the seal on the container.
How exactly is that going to be easier now than it was before?
That's what I want to know.
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.