Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
AP ^ | 2/22/06

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; nationalsecurity; ports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 561-565 next last
To: atlaw
"Under a secretive agreement with the administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports . . ."

BS rhetoric. This process is supposed to be conducted in secret. As far as cooperating, it darned well better, or the deal should be scrubbed.

" The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions."

So?

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.

Whoop-de-doo. Let 'em run their business as they see fit. Dubai has agreed to the requirement.

I hope you all are asking yourselves -- What The Heck? This is becoming some kind of bad joke. And if you are still taking the blasé approach to this, read carefully the following: "Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." The company promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.

This sounds like poor writing to me. The U.S. is trying to keep Americans in management jobs (good for them to try), and the Dubai firm statement has to do with DHS cooperation (which again, is a given).

This is just another in a long line of go-nowhere hit pieces. zzzzzzz

481 posted on 02/23/2006 7:50:15 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
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.

The COO is and American Citizen, why would this person need to be a us citizen? Do the Chinese have to have American citizen handle requests? How about Singapore?

482 posted on 02/23/2006 7:50:25 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
So now the US Customs CIS program and the proposed Cargo Verification regime amount to a lot of hot air?

But -- but -- you don't have to worry because the Coast Guard is in charge of security. And somehow that overrides every other security precaution.

Not to mention that the Mafia runs ports and the Chinese run ports, so why are we complaining now?

I guess if you're being gang-raped, what does one more matter? Just lie back and enjoy it. /sarc

483 posted on 02/23/2006 7:51:02 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Because they apparently know everyone in our country is racist

Oh brother. So now we're falling back on PC balderdash like "diversity" and "multiculturalism." And here I thought I was posting to Free Republic.

484 posted on 02/23/2006 7:51:26 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
And here I thought I was posting to Free Republic.

You are. But part of Free Republic is a hard core of Bushbots who trust that Bush will take care of them, and can do no wrong. Interesting phenomenon.

They don't see ideas in terms of "good" vs. "bad". It's "good for Bush" or "good for the Republican party" that matters.

485 posted on 02/23/2006 7:55:29 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
But -- but -- you don't have to worry because the Coast Guard is in charge of security. And somehow that overrides every other security precaution.

But-but-but, in spite of your blowhard rhetoric, both Customs and the Coast Guard both fall under the Department of Homeland Security ---- which-which-which also happens to be a member of the CFIUS. You-you-you know, the committee required to investigate such foreign financial matters from a national security perspective.

Okay, break's over. Resume the hysteria.

486 posted on 02/23/2006 7:57:33 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
I have looked at all other excuses, have come up with 3
1. Racism
2. Xenophobia
3. Nationalism

Lets hope you fall under #3

487 posted on 02/23/2006 7:57:36 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon; atlaw

I think those fears certainly play a role, but I think this hysteria can all be attributed to politics (Democrats and unions).


488 posted on 02/23/2006 7:59:18 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: CobaltBlue
You are. But part of Free Republic is a hard core of Bushbots who trust that Bush will take care of them, and can do no wrong. Interesting phenomenon.

They don't see ideas in terms of "good" vs. "bad". It's "good for Bush" or "good for the Republican party" that matters.

You're a dolt, Bush is irrelevant, he can't run again. Yea it would be really good for America to p*ss off the UAE lose their support in the WOT, lose intel from them, lose naval bases and the use of air bases in their country because of your misguided fears.

489 posted on 02/23/2006 8:01:03 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon

I have looked at all other excuses, have come up with 3
1. Racism
2. Xenophobia
3. Nationalism
Lets hope you fall under #3

Oh yeah? How about like you, we are afraid of the religion of peace and tolerance:


Posted by Echo Talon to KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
On News/Activism 02/03/2006 1:42:34 AM EST · 5 of 29

The religion of peace and tolerance... yippie!


490 posted on 02/23/2006 8:07:00 AM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Coop; iPod Shuffle; af_vet_1981; CobaltBlue; Echo Talon; JaneAustin
Ok, ok. I hit the histrionics button. The coffee was particularly strong this morning.

But I cannot accept the wisdom of removing from a UAE state-run company the routine security restrictions that are otherwise imposed on businesses operated out of states with no history of terrorism funding, transit, and facilitation.

We cannot lightly dismiss Dubai's inability to police its domestic companies and its own ports. Do not forget the following little curiosity, which was reported on March 4, 2004 (not exactly ancient history):

WASHINGTON - America's relations with Pakistan and several other Asian countries have been rocked by the discovery of the vast smuggling network run by the Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Unfortunately, one American ally at the heart of the scandal, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, seems to be escaping punishment despite its role as the key transfer point in Dr. Khan's atomic bazaar.

Dubai's involvement is no surprise to those who follow the murky world of nuclear technology sales. For the last two decades it, along with other points in the emirates, has been the main hub through which traffickers have routed their illegal commerce to hide their trails. Yet the United States, which has depended on the emirates as a pillar of relative stability in the Middle East and, since 1991, as a host to American troops, has done little to pressure it to crack down on illicit arms trade.

In the wake of the Khan scandal, Washington has at least acknowledged the problem. President Bush singled out SMB Computers, a Dubai company run by B. S. A. Tahir, a Sri Lankan businessman living in Malaysia, as a "front for the proliferation activities of the A. Q. Khan network." According to the White House, Mr. Tahir arranged for components of high-speed gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium so it can be used in nuclear weapons, to be manufactured in Malaysia, shipped to Dubai and then sent on to Libya. (In its investigation, the Malaysian government implicated another Dubai company, Gulf Technical Industries.)

American authorities say that Mr. Tahir also bought centrifuge parts in Europe that were sent to Libya via Dubai. In return for millions of dollars paid to Dr. Khan, Libya's leader, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, was to get enough centrifuges to make about 10 nuclear weapons a year.

Why ship through Dubai? Because it may be the easiest place in the world to mask the real destination of cargo. Consider how the Malaysian government is making the case for the innocence of its manufacturing company. "No document was traced that proved" the company "delivered or exported the said components to Libya," according to the country's inspector general of police. The real destination, he said, "was outside the knowledge" of the producer. One can be certain that if the Khan ring's European suppliers are ever tracked down, they will offer a similar explanation.

Dubai provides companies and governments a vital asset: automatic deniability. Its customs agency even brags that its policy on re-exporting "enables traders to transit their shipments through Dubai without any hassles." Next to Dubai's main port is the Jebel Ali free trade zone, a haven for freewheeling international companies. Our organization has documented 264 firms from Iran and 44 from rogue regimes like Syria and North Korea.

With the laxity of the emirates' laws, there is simply no way to know how many weapon components have passed through. But consider some incidents that our organization has tallied - based on shipping records, government investigations, court documents, intelligence reports and other sources - over the last 20 years.

Paperwork requirements? Why you just keep those over there in Dubai. We don't mind. (momentary histrionics off).

491 posted on 02/23/2006 8:08:20 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: notigar

I'm not afraid of this deal, they aren't doing anything different than Singapore(state owned company) that has a lot of people that hates the US. One person from Singapore come to mind the Administrator or this website "ocworkbench.com" I have talked with him before and he is the MOST Anti-American person I have ever talk to before in my life! or The China Commies


492 posted on 02/23/2006 8:13:12 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: iPod Shuffle

This from the Adulterated Press? I'd sooner believe Baghdad Bob.


493 posted on 02/23/2006 8:13:38 AM PST by Dionysius (ACLU is the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

You didn't watch Tommie Franks last night on Hannity & Colmes did you?


494 posted on 02/23/2006 8:14:57 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
A broader excerpt provides more context, in my view:

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.

This part makes it sound to me like the Bush Administration understandably wants to keep this out of U.S. courts (see GTMO, NSA "domestic spying") if at all possible. This way, if DP World refuses to turn over documentation, the contract can be revoked (as I read it).

495 posted on 02/23/2006 8:17:36 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Whoop-de-doo. Let 'em run their business as they see fit.

This is precisely the problem. I hope you read carfully that article I quoted in post 491, and consider the wisdom of letting Dubai run its state-owned businesses here in the US as "they see fit."

496 posted on 02/23/2006 8:18:09 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
And Franks was elected to do what, exactly?
497 posted on 02/23/2006 8:19:27 AM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

the security concerns, whether it be with the ports or this WTC hypothetical, don't involve the Emir of the UAE personally issuing an order to blow anything up. the security concerns come from a foreign entity, in the middle east, being seen as the gateway for terrorists to exploit, to conduct such an operation.

as far as the WTC goes, I ask again - would you allow the UAE to buy the lease for the site from Silverstein. why not?


498 posted on 02/23/2006 8:20:35 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Coop
You-you-you know, the committee required to investigate such foreign financial matters from a national security perspective.

The low level munchkins approved it and therefore I should just accept that?

Two words: Able Danger.

Two more words: slam dunk.

Get it?

499 posted on 02/23/2006 8:20:38 AM PST by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
This is precisely the problem. I hope you read carfully that article I quoted in post 491, and consider the wisdom of letting Dubai run its state-owned businesses here in the US as "they see fit."

As a government contractor. Subject to all U.S. laws, rules, and contractual obligations.

500 posted on 02/23/2006 8:21:03 AM PST by Coop (FR = a lotta talk, but little action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 561-565 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson