Posted on 02/23/2006 3:37:41 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
After a rather rude (and criminal) disruption, I'm back. Let's return to the ports, shall we?
Lesson One of Portgate: Scream "Islamophobia/xenophobia" often enough, and people will start to back down.
Lesson Two of Portgate: Mislead and mischaracterize your critics often enough, and people will start to back down.
Here are two key talking points being pushed by defenders of the port operations deal with the UAE (via my friends at Power Line, who received a White House fact sheet on the matter):
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Is Always In Charge Of The Nation’s Port Security, Not The Private Company That Operates Facilities Within The Ports. Nothing will change with this transaction. DHS, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and other Federal agencies, sets the standards for port security and ensures that all port facility owners and operators comply with these standards.
The Transaction Is Not About Port Security Or Even Port Ownership, But Only About Operations In Port. DP World will not manage port security, nor will it own any ports. DP World would take on the functions now performed by the British firm P&O – basically the off- and on-loading of cargo. Employees will still have to be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. No private company currently manages any U.S. port. Rather, private companies such as P&O and DP World simply manage and operate individual terminals within ports.
Okay, let me repeat again:
The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.
Many retreating politicians, pundits, and bloggers are all too eager to overlook the dubious business-as-usual approval process that supposedly vetted the deal's risks thoroughly. The supporters of, and retreaters on, the deal are also silent about the unprecedented, Islamic law-compliant funding scheme that allowed state-owned Dubai Ports World to force its more experienced rival to drop its bid for P&O. (The underwriters of Dubai Ports World's $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" --Barclay's and Dubai Islamic Bank--were both cited as probable conduits for bin Laden money.)
When Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy challenged the port deal on Feb. 13, he noted and I quoted:
This is not the first time this interagency panel - called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) - has made an astounding call about the transfer of control of strategically sensitive U.S. assets to questionable purchasers. In fact, as of last summer, CFIUS had, since its creation in 1988, formally rejected only one of 1,530 transactions submitted for its review.
Such a record is hardly surprising given that the committee is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose institutional responsibilities include promoting foreign investment in the United States. Treasury has rarely seen a foreign purchase of American assets that it did not like. And this bias on the part of the chairman of CFIUS has consistently skewed the results of the panel's deliberations in favor of approving deals, even those opposed by other, more national security-minded departments.
Thanks to the secrecy with which CFIUS operates, it is not clear at this writing whether any such objection was heard with respect to the idea of contracting out management of six of our country's most important ports to a UAE company...
CFIUS has been a rubber stamp for foreign acquisitions of US assets and interests from its founding, and there have been strong calls by Congress to make the process more transparent in the post-9/11 era. In fact, last fall (as Dubai Ports World was preparing its bid for P&O's US port operations), the non-partisan GAO issued a report concluding that CFIUS had taken an overly narrow view of national security that could undermine the effectiveness of U.S. laws on foreign investment.
Summary of the report:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The 1988 Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act authorizes the President to suspend or prohibit foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies that may harm national security, an action the President has taken only once. Implementing Exon-Florio can pose a significant challenge because of the need to weigh security concerns against U.S. open investment policy—which requires equal treatment of foreign and domestic investors.
Exon-Florio’s investigative authority was delegated to the Committee on Foreign investment in the United States—an interagency committee established in 1975 to monitor U.S. policy on foreign investments. In September 2002, GAO reported on the implementation of Exon-Florio. This report further examines that implementation.
What GAO Found:
Foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies can pose a significant challenge for the U.S. government in implementing the Exon-Florio amendment because while foreign investment can provide substantial economic benefits, these benefits must be weighed against the potential for harm to national security. Exon-Florio’s effectiveness in protecting U.S. national security may be limited because the Department of the Treasury—as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States—and others narrowly defines what constitutes a threat to national security and, along with some other member agencies, is reluctant to initiate investigations to determine whether national security concerns require a recommendation for possible presidential action. Some Committee members have argued that this narrow definition is not sufficiently flexible to protect critical infrastructure, secure defense supply, and preserve technological superiority in the defense arena. The Committee’s reluctance to initiate an investigation—due in part to concerns about potential negative effects on the U.S. open investment policy—limits the time available for member agencies to analyze national security concerns. To provide additional time, while avoiding an investigation, the Committee has encouraged companies to withdraw their notification of a pending or completed acquisition and to refile at a later date. However, for companies that have completed the acquisition, there is a substantially longer time before they refile to complete the Committee’s process; in some cases they never do, leaving unresolved any outstanding concerns.
By way of background, after parties involved in a transaction notify the committee, CFIUS conducts an initial 30-day review of the deal, and then decides whether to undertake an additional 45-day investigation. If an investigation is conducted, the committee must provide a report and recommendation on the transaction to the president, who must then act within 15 days. The GAO report found that the White House has used its authority to divest an acquired company from its new owner only once, in 1990. Four hundred seventy proposed deals have been referred to CFIUS between 1997 and 2004, 451 of which led to successful acquisitions.
It wasn't Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton demanding more accountability from CFIUS for its secretive risk evaluation process and questionable national security assessments. It was Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who held hearings in October--one of which the Treasury Department skipped out of altogether:
Shelby’s concern over Treasury’s absence from his first hearing escalated to frustration when Sarbanes noted some anonymous quotes from an administration official critical of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report recommending that Congress step up its oversight of CFIUS.
“National security cannot take a back seat to world trade. Everything in America is not for sale,” Shelby said. “I’m very supportive of the president, I trust the president, but we in Congress have a role to play here. I’d never cede all congressional power to the executive, no matter who the president is.”
Oh, and by the way, it wasn't some hysterical, hypocritcal Democrat who challenged the conflict of interest inherent in keeping the Treasury Department as the lead chair overseeing CFIUS. It was Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, who proposed legislation shifting the CFIUS chair to the Pentagon, to ensure national security is its priority. Sens. Shelby and Inhofe also proposed a measure allowing Congress to reject CFIUS approvals.
Among other things, the GAO report recommended that Congress expand the time available to CFIUS to review and investigate acquisitions, from the standard 30 days to the full 75 days allowed under current law. This national security-protecting move was opposed vociferously by business interests. William Hawkins, senior fellow for national security studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, reported:
...[E]ven this modest reform was opposed by a coalition of business groups (Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Securities Industry Association, et al.) opposed to any, even national security, constraints on private enterprise. In a letter to the Senate committee, these special-interest groups argued "amendments are unnecessary" to the present CFIUS process -- the best evidence the system is not working.
It is not "Islamophobic" to remind you all of this important context as the White House pushes forward with the deal, citing CFIUS's approval in order to argue that "there's nothing to worry about."
Nor is it some sort of betrayal of the president to do as GOP Sens. Shelby and Inhofe have done, and push for greater transparency, accountability, and commitment from CFIUS to national security concerns.
Nor is it Chicken Little-ish, knee-jerk-ish, or un-American to oppose any final approval of the Dubai Ports World transfer until and unless these steps are taken.
***
Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove tells Fox News Radio that Dubai is a "great military asset" and "vital to our security." Meanwhile, the WSJ reports today:
Dubai is believed to have been one of the most important conduits for Iran's nuclear technology acquisition program, according to U.S. court cases and interviews with experts in the field. The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a nongovernment advocacy group, last year published a list of 38 weapons-related smuggling cases since 1982 in which the goods moved through Dubai and the other islands that constitute the United Arab Emirates. Most of the illicit goods crossing Dubai go through its ports.
More generally, according to sanctions experts and numerous U.S. court and regulatory cases, Iran uses Dubai to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. The UAE doesn't recognize those sanctions.
Iranian front companies in Dubai routinely obtain prohibited U.S. goods, federal court records show. In one undercover investigation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that resulted in a November 2005 guilty plea in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the representative of an Iranian front company was caught on tape assuring an undercover agent posing as a businessman not to worry about sanctions regulations.
"You are going to export to Dubai, which does not have any regulations. It's a free, uh, country for importing, exporting," said Khalid Mahmood, according to his guilty plea. Asked if the equipment would then be shipped to Iran, Mr. Mahmood replied, "Once it comes here, we'll ship it anywhere in the world, no problem."
Similarly, in 2003, UAE officials refused a U.S. request to intercept a shipment of nuclear technology bound for South Africa by a smuggler named Asher Karni, according to University of Georgia sanctions expert Scott Jones, who works with U.S. agencies on proliferation issues. Mr. Karni was convicted of violating sanctions against weapons of mass destruction last year in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The UAE also was believed to be a nexus for Pakistan's nuclear program and hosted at least two front companies that forwarded material to Islamabad.
More from the Counterterrorism Blog here, here, here, and here.
US News on the UAE as the "criminal crossroads."
Andrew McCarthy takes on both sides of the debate.
Hugh Hewitt looks at the job opportunities page at Dubai Ports World's website.
Judith Apter Klinghoffer wonders why Republicans ducked the DPW hearings in the Senate today.
Latest from Reuters.
Read Rusty Shackleford on the differences between allies and "friends."
LGF: DP World Chairman Not Overly Concerned with Terrorism
Side note: Neil Bush loves Dubai.
Frank J. finds some humor in it all.
***
And now this: "Bush would accept slight delay in ports deal-Rove."
***
Previous:
No more business as usual
Bush digs in
Sen. Frist on the port sellout
How the port sellout was financed
Chuck Schumer hearts Halliburton
Protect our ports: steam builds
Banned in the UAE
Our ports, our sovereignty
LOL!!!!!!!!
Malkin suffers from the same thing that happens to so many talking heads when they move into the big time...she takes herself too seriously.
I like Michelle, she's cute and she's a logical, independent and informed thinker. This was a good post.
Quite true. But it isn't a "reward". To legally drive a car on the public roads, I have to have government approval, hence my driver's license. The little car with the bad picture in my wallet isn't a "reward".
Some of us reeeeealllly want to cut off our nose and both ears to spite our face.
The tactic is called "trend journalism". To portray a movement of opinion in a way one wishes it to move.
One of the canards is the "union" card to inflame anti-union folk, and to deflect attention from all the REpub criticism. Not at your link "Sister" makes a reference to union behind the push but that which she links to has no such statement.
the CARLYLE gang.
Gotta give Rush his props for not caving in to the hysteria.
Heck, pal, we don't want that. We just want lockstep with Bush.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that regardless of the issue that is being so passionately debated that WE HAVE RULES!!!!
The British company. They wanted to sell some stuff. Happens all the time.
Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen's political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign.
Senator Clinton's campaign took $4,500.
Senator Dodd, $2,500.
Congressman Fossella, $9,500.
Senator Boxer, $6,000.
Senator Lautenberg, $9,000.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000.
Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen's political action committee.
"Heck, pal, we don't want that. We just want lockstep with Bush."
You weren't around here during the Harriet Miers drama, were you?
I just want to cut off easy access.
Sure was. And I was around during the sale of the ports to COSCO. Quite a different reaction when Clinton was in office.
i have reservations about this deal but my question is, arab vessels do not call @ israeli ports(nscsa & usac), israeli carrier zim does not call @ mideast ports, does anybody know how this will affect the operations if the deal goes through...
You bet. We will certainly loose easy access to our Navy staging and logistics bases in the Middle East.
(That would be the nose, or at least one of the ears.)
But you didn't ping Laz!
I'll be damned if I let the media stampede me on this issue, especially when I find out that the whole flapdoodle has been orchestrated by the longshoremen, and when Tommy Franks supports this as he has had dealings with UAE intelligence and values their support.
Michelle Malkin specializes in stirring up xenophobia. I don't care if she is insulted by it and thinks that is spin; it is the truth. If she isn't ranting about immigration she is criticizing the President because he isn't anti-Arab enough.
Pfui. I don't think she is that great a writer, either.
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.