Posted on 03/01/2006 1:20:56 PM PST by STARWISE
The Dubai Ports World deal can’t work.
Dubai Ports World, the subsidiary of the United Arab Emirates, has now asked for a 45-day review from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to investigate security concerns over the control of six U.S. ports. This is to the good, calming calls for congressional action as well as subsequent threats of a presidential veto. Many lobbyists have been hired, charges alleged, fact-sheets disseminated, and polls put in the field. Still, questions remain to be asked, questions that none of the above D.C. responses have addressed.
(snip)
But better than asking questions, a back-channel message should be sent to the UAE to withdraw this deal, much as China withdrew its UNOCAL bid last year. This deal will not stand public deliberation; it confuses things.
(snip)
Never has the president been further from the base on these issues than now. But, by having the UAE withdraw its offer, the issue will be taken off the table — it can be corrected and ended; otherwise it will live and bleed for at least another 45 days.
(snip)
No matter how many assurances we are given that our government will remain in charge of this security, the cargo will be managed and coordinated by a foreign-owned company whose country has anything but a strong record in preventing terrorism. In short, when all the smoke is cleared, the UAE is not a country of tried and true reliability like, say, Great Britain. There is a difference between Great Britain and the UAE, many differences in fact, and we should not be instructed otherwise.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Everything that has been thrown against UAE, is also true of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and many other nations, whom we deal with still and who has helped us with the WOT.
It is hardly "crass" as you call it, for a company to buy out another one; it's done all the time.
Seventeen of the murderers of 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. We still do business with that country.
The shoe bomber is an ENGLISH CITIZEN. P&O is an ENGLISH FIRM. P&O has run the terminals, now in the mix, for years! Why didn't you complain about that?
What would a "DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION" be?
*ping*
to 160
"Talking about keeping things secure, I wonder why there hasn't been a similar backlash against the Chinese controlling ports on the west coast?"
Because unfortunately Bill Clinton sold it to them, and the MSM doesn't care about him. While lots of folks here objected at the time, there were plenty of the free trade crowd patting Billy Jeff on the back even then.
The U.S. government should buy all foreign port operations back, and auction the operating rights of each port to American companies. Plain and simple. It may cost some now, but at least we won't spend money on government investigators' salaries for them to hang out dockside as long as these contracts drag on.
Yes, why? Some - the ones on the other side of this issue - believe that the surest way of maintaining allies is by maintaining mutual transactions that bring value to both parties. In other words, parties that profit from one another through commerce generally don't like to engage in activities that would jeopardize the cash cow. The Left will use this issue to round up all the fear mongering types on the Right and get them to shut down commerce [read globalization or the spreading of capitalism...the primary mechanism of freedom that's even more important than an elected representative government].
So I ask, just as you did: why do the DUmmies dirty-work for them? Why? Because someone like Michael Savage or Sean Hannity told you that "you really should be alarmed"?
BTTT
I am concerned more about the container's content at the point of origin that I am about its arrival here.
Well, then, let's just stop importing anything, right?
I'm not a fearmongerer here. Security begins at origin and completes at its destination. Nothing more than that.
Yeah--I'm done with it because it's hopeless, the folks who are wrong on the simple facts continue to be wrong because they have no problem being wrong, and seem proud of being wrong, and how are you going to debate that? Let them mebrace their stupidity.
Here's another one, and worse in my opinion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588247/posts#comment?q=1
I understand the issue at hand quite well. yes, I also know we have security personell abroad. Yes, American longshoremen unload the containers.
Exactly the point of my post, and this thread. Why make it any worse by bringing it to a vote?
"It is hardly "crass" as you call it, for a company to buy out another one; it's done all the time."
Right. 'Very bold', seems to fit better in this case. Safe to assume DPW knew that American ports would be involved in the deal, and that we're still a nation at war, and the amount of stir it's causing.
"Seventeen of the murderers of 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. We still do business with that country."
Who says we should be holding the Saudis any less responsible for their part? Not me, or any others arguing this side of the issue. Deflecting the topic: SA didn't buy the contracts, UAE did.
"The shoe bomber is an ENGLISH CITIZEN. P&O is an ENGLISH FIRM. P&O has run the terminals, now in the mix, for years! Why didn't you complain about that?"
Completely OT, deflection, and invalid argument:
GB did not willingly aid Reid by witholding financial documents involved in the investigation. Reid was not linked to state-run British enterprises.
I've shot this one down at least 3 times, and can't understand why it keeps coming back up. 'Smoke-and-mirrors' tactic to try and excuse UAE's involvement.
"What would a "DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION" be?"
How 'bout someone picking up a phone, and asking DPW to rescind the contract?
I think they might understand the reasoning, given the following considerations:
1) No less than two of the State Port Authorities involved have already filed suit attempting to block it.
2) This is obviously a 'hot-button' issue with Congress and the people of this country, who would like to see it awarded to either a domestic firm, or at least one based in a nation with no direct ties to 9/11.
3) DPW may be the best firm available to execute the contract itself, but has no direct strategic bearing or tactical purpose for winning WOT.
4) It can be argued that awarding this contract to a UAE firm, at present time, only further aggravates the pre-existing socio-political and economic conditions that actually led up to 9/11 attack and WOT in the first place, further comprimising the war efforts, and long-term regional stability.
I'm hoping the looming threat of an Iranian nuke threat, and the possibility that some in Iran view UAE's alliance with us as motivation for their own terrorist attempts on UAE soil might help them understand how this would be in both our best interests. This would leave further UAE vestment in US ports or commerce open to 'case-by-case' analysis. I would also hope that they care enough about Bush, and us as a nation to respect the wishes of the state who bore the brunt of the original attack. Your reasons for wanting this to come to a vote?
My position here is just attempting to 're-frame' and understand the bigger-picture issues (long-term US strategic interests, and future election politics) that drew the knee-jerk concern on the Hill(security issue).
Please do me the favor of trying to understand my argument based on its merits before dismissing it out-of-hand.
*ping*
How do you see this being argued?
Part of what led up to the September 11 attack was bin Laden's desire to get the United States and all of its influence out of the region. Imagine al Qaeda now explaining how the UAE has assisted the United States, facilitated the war in Iraq, cooperated on the war on terrorism, etc. only to have our country say we can't do business with them in our country.
"there is no way this deal is killed"
Actually it depends on the business in question ...
Bennet is saying dont kill it, get the UAE to pull the plug ...
Consider DP PortsWorld bought a company from London. I'm sure they have other operations besides this.
Asking the company to divest from this, is say, no different from an anti-trust consideration making a takeover company divest some holdings. eg when media giants merge they sometimes have to divest media properties to avoid anti-trust rules.
... it seems that DP Ports might 'voluntarily' look to divest from this contract and give it to an American company. end of dilemma.
"I hope this deal goes down the toilet, it should, but why do we need any foreign country's companies to handle these ports? Are there no American companys who can handle this? Are we all that inept?"
that is the least useful argument to make.
foreign investors like to invest in America for good reasons.
why (in general) turn them away? Why must it be American? do you want to forbid foreign airlines from flying to USA?
If you did, you would destroy international air travel.
"Some argue it's easier for al Qaeda to enter the US. We find that doubtful. Al Qaeda operatives -the real ones not the wannabes-if out there, could enter by any number of means. If they try to slip a bomb into a container ship, it won't be one sent from a Muslim country -there the scrutiny level is too high. It would be under a flag no one would suspect, like Denmark. Given what it means to "operate a port," the risk to the US from having a British company manage its ports is about the same as from the UAE: Has anyone noticed holding a British passport these days is no guarantee of loyalty to Western ideals?"
----
Lot of common sense there ... recall that Richard 'shoe bomber' Reid was a Brit.
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.