Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement

AP ^ | 2/22/06

[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.

[rahbert]

They worship $$$ so far as I see.

[rahbert]

dig where? Care to share your sources for these "Mohammedan Executives"'s contributions to AQ?

[Sweetjustusnow]

"They're using the acquisition to help them jump-start Sharia-compliant securities trading in their financial markets, using instruments compliant with Islamic Law."

Bingo. You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. This deal is about Islamic expansion, bottom line as far as the UAE is concerned. Once again this administration fails to recognize the history of Islam and it's aspirations for global supremacy.

[rahbert]

Yeah, Mike Gallagher was having fits the other morning.

Typical jingoism and profiling. He's become almost as tedious as Lou Dobbs.

[CobaltBlue]

I caught the tail end of the Senate Armed Services hearing just in time to hear Hillary's statement that she is going to introduce legislation that no foreign government can have an ownership interest in our port facilities, just as they can't have an ownership interest in our airports.

Good for Hillary! (Never thought I'd say that!)

The impression I got from the answers I caught earlier is that the administration is, or believes itself to be, powerless to stop the process now and that it will go forward.

Will be interesting to see how the other committees handle this.

[Sweetjustusnow]

"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."

I've seen the same thing and remarked on this phenomenon as well. I can't understand why people put so much faith in Government, regardless of party. Our founding fathers knew that Government is always the threat to the liberty of the people. Why it is that those of us who question Government are vilified?

[samadams2000]

I agree. You cant cut deal with the A-rabs. Their words are meaningless. Cant Bush understand we demand no backdoor special deals for anyone let alone terrorist sympathizer governments.? (Yes, read the 9/11 commission report- they aint saints people)

[CobaltBlue]

Our founding fathers knew that Government is always the threat to the liberty of the people. Why it is that those of us who question Government are vilified?

Maybe because we're non-conformists? We don't "go along to get along."

[O Neill]

The trolls come out at night and day with only rabid (AB) comments to engage in the affray.

That IS good...near Shakespearean!!

Thanks for the wake-up pings! I dreamed last night of how Billy The Kid was 'gotten rid of' by Pat Garrett, a former member of The Gang, and John Chisholm's business proposition before the Cattlemen's Assn. to hire Garrett for big bucks and a rosier future...'Let's hire a thief, to catch a thief!' We wish to be rid of kooky, 'Jihadist' Arabs for the betterment of the Iraqi people generally (and our honorable withdrawl from the fracas for US) so who better to help us than reasonable, Arab businesses with a will to live and strong financial incentives...

[clawrence3]

Do you want to start a global trade war?!

[CobaltBlue]

Do you want to start a global trade war?!

Who or what are you afraid of?

[clawrence3]

I am afraid of nobody - nonetheless, a world-wide economic recession should be avoided, if possible - now can you answer my question?

[CobaltBlue]

I am trying to get you to explain how requiring American ownership of sensitive assets will start a global trade war. You're the one who says it will, explain how.

[clawrence3]

I would be happy to as long as you are not some kind of wacko who actually wants to start a global trade war - in that case, I'd rather not waste any more time with you - a simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed already.

[O Neill]

...John Chisholm's business proposition before the Cattlemen's Assn. to hire Garrett...

John Chisholm addresses Al Qaida ping...

'You're all Billy The Kid, ya know. You, Bin Laden...you, Zarkawi...ALL of you. You're all Billy bastards!!

[CobaltBlue]

*Sigh.*

Forget it.

[clawrence3]

LOL - it took you longer to avoid the question then answer it - fine. Whomever actually wants to discuss the issue rationally, let me know.

First of all, do I think for certain that Congress nixing this deal will start a global trade war? No, but the risk is there and growing every day this drags out. I think it's fair to say that, at the very least, every other country that allows American port terminal operations will re-evaluate that situation in light of those developments. So far, I know of only one such American company, SSA Marine, which operates in 8 foreign ports (Mexico, Panama, and Chili), so that's definitely where it could start. On another thread, I am researching the following list of port terminal companies - if any of these are American companies operating in foreign ports, the retaliation could just as easily begin there too:

Affiliated Terminals, Inc.
Charleston Heavy Lift, LLC
East Coast Terminal Company
EMESCO Marine Services, Corp.
Federal Marine Terminals
Gateway Terminal Services
Gulf Elevator and Transfer
Hyde Shipping Corp.
ITO Baltimore
INBESCA America, Inc.
Industrial Terminals, L.P.
J.P.S. Express, Inc.
Kinder Morgan/Pinney Dock & Transport LLC
L&L Fleeting, Inc.
Levin Richmond Terminal Corp.
Maher Terminals, Inc.
Manchester Terminal
Maritime Terminal of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Mid-Atlantic Terminal, LLC
Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.
North Atlantic Distribution, Inc.
Pacific Delaware, Inc.
Penn Terminals, Inc.
Pacorini USA, Inc.
Rota Terminal & Transfer
Ruckert Terminals Corp.
Samson Tug And Barge Co., Inc.
Sun Terminal Inc.
Transocean Terminal Operators, Inc.

Second, there may be more serious and direct implications for U.S. companies like Chevron and Unocal operating overseas and for those that do NOT operate terminals directly, like Wal*Mart. Have you considered the law of unintended consequences here?

Lastly, history proves that trade wars escalate over what seems, at the time, trivial matters - despite huge trade deficits, the U.S. has scored small victories over the last decade on beef, bananas, and steel battles - this port issue may just become the straw that breaks the camel's back (no pun intended). And, how many more "sensitive assets" are we going to add to the flames? Necessitating equal, if not escalating, responses by said foreign countries. And, who is to predict where, exactly, the trade wars stop and real SHOOTING wars start? Pretty soon, we have Pat Buchanan's dream world.

I would hope that no reasonable FReeper wants that, but who knows anymore.

[No Surrender No Retreat]

Hey O,
Your welcome my friend.
NSNR-THM

[pleikumud]

Just another example of the press trying to create a scandal where none exists. As Joseph Pulitzer said in 1904, "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself..."

Or as Stalin said, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will accept it as fact. The DemoRat Party and the media are counting on it. But they are losing more votes and customers by the minute.

[Siena Dreaming]

Or as Stalin said, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will accept it as fact

The amazing thing to me is how people on the conservative side believe it too.