Posted on 03/05/2006 5:48:20 AM PST by ex-Texan
WASHINGTON, MARCH 3: The political firestorm over Arab management of six US ports threatened to widen on Thursday after a senior House Republican said he wanted foreign firms to sell their investments in American ports, electricity plants and other infrastructure critical to US security.
California Republican Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said foreign investments in such areas should be rolled back along with the pending $6.85 billion deal involving Dubai Ports World, which is state-owned by the United Arab Emirates. Hunter was scathing in his assessment of Dubai Ports World’s plan to buy Britain-based P&O, including its American port assets, saying the UAE had been ‘instrumental’ in the transshipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction components.
In the Senate, lawmakers of both parties also sought to tighten rules governing foreign investment. They expressed dismay at what they saw as Bush administration carelessness in quickly approving the Dubai Ports World deal to manage six US ports without considering implications for national security.
“Everything in this country can’t be for sale,” Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said as his panel began questioning Bush administration officials on the Dubai ports deal. The Alabama Republican said the law should be clarified to take national security into account.
“While I strongly support our open investment policy and recognize that it is vital to our national economic interest, I do not believe it should stand at any cost,” Shelby said.
US President George W Bush says security concerns are unwarranted because the UAE is a strong ally, and he has threatened to veto any legislation blocking the deal.
The Bush administration in January approved the Dubai Ports World deal but agreed over the weekend to give it a 45-day review after criticism from lawmakers who say they are worried terrorists could take advantage of the arrangement to infiltrate US ports.
On the House side of Capitol Hill, Hunter told reporters that under the legislation he planned, the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security would list infrastructure critical to national security. Foreign companies would then be required to divest their holdings in it, he said.
Several lawmakers from both parties in the House on Thursday introduced a companion bill to Senate legislation that would ban foreign governments — but not private foreign companies — from controlling operations at U.S. ports.
It is aimed at barring state-owned companies like Dubai Ports World. Legislation already exists in the House and the Senate to review the Dubai Ports World deal and give Congress the ability to disapprove it.
Dubai Ports World officials told Hunter’s Armed Services Committee the deal should be completed next Monday or Tuesday, pending the outcome of any court appeals in Britain.
A British judge ruled on Thursday the $6.85 billion takeover could go ahead. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt said the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, or CFIUS, the interagency panel that OK’d the ports deal, would start its 45-day review when the company filed papers requesting it.
Company executives told House lawmakers that Dubai Ports World would abide by any new CFIUS conditions “that would be reasonable” and also applied to competitors. Officials confirmed on
Thursday that another UAE company, Dubai International Capital, was under CFIUS review for its planned $1.24 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd. It operates in nine U.S. locations and makes parts for US defence contractors.
I oppose.
Dubai contactors are already crawling all over our most sensitive naval vessels for weeks on end in the Gulf,performing maintenance. But hey, that's no problem! Just don't push paperwork and cranes in Tampa -- that would be the end of the world!
I hope no one is shocked when the UAE tells our military planners, Navy ships, air assets, and everyone else to get the hell out of their country. That goes for all the Iraqi police they're training as well. Sure, we might lose the war on terror, but at least we will have shown those emirs!
Finally some evidence of antibodies being raised. Maybe the US is gonna make it after all.
Too bad their IQ doesn't perk up, too.
You make good points, with one exception.
Our politicians aren't for sale, just for rent. ;-)
Cheers!
Not likely. They need that base there every bit as much as we do. The article's about something bigger. It's about not letting foreign interests get their hands on domestic operations that could provide for tactical leverage if and when they want to throw a fit.
Surprise, surprise, the publics' concerns about an UAE owned company managing terminals have not been assuaged by assurances coming from the government that allowed the first Trade Center bombing; the same government that continues to hide the Jayna Davis established link with Iraqis in the OKC bombing; the same government that argues for the Patriot Act while never fighting for justice over pillaged FBI files; the same government that allowed 9/11; the same government that has allowed a Taliban into the US on a student visa; the same government that refuses to enforce our borders; the same government that squashed Able Danger; the same government that is trying to kill the Barrett Report doesn’t mean that “we don’t want to do business with the UAE,” we just don’t want them managing our terminals.
In my view, the public sentiment against the ports deal is part of a larger public rejection of globalism.
The American people are told time and time again that globalism is good for them, but so far, it hasn’t turned out to be true. Just because our standard of living in the US is unrivaled in the world doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be better if our borders had been enforced, or if tariffs were the source of revenue for the federal government, not the income tax. Our tax-free trade with China and France is subsidizing their failed political systems on the wallets of the American worker. Globalism sends American dollars all over the world to cure every ill, but instead enriches corrupt politicians. Every time Bush, who is more Nixonian than Reaganesque, speaks publicly it costs the American taxpayer. Globalism is sending good paying manufacturing jobs overseas. Globalism encourages foreign management of all of our terminals because terminals are the equivalent of the buggy whip industry, right? Globalism refuses to enforce our borders. Globalism wants the US to sign onto Kyoto. Globalism creates a drug benefit entitlement while Social Security threatens to bankrupt the nation. Globalism allows Airbus to bid on US Air Force projects and China to make military uniforms. Globalism favors the income tax to tariffs (think of tariffs as targeted sales taxes, while the Fairtax still allows Federal control over the states). Globalism encourages participation in the UN. Globalism wants to diminish nation-state identity. Globalism seeks world government and our constitution stands in the way. I don’t fear globalism, I hate it, but I love being an American. I am a genuine conservative.
Why don't they take over Ford or GM and return both to profitability.
It's only their bloated treasury that gets any exercise. They pay and others do the running.
Islam has progressed no further than the dark ages. When some crow about what an advanced civilization Islam wrought after the perverted "prophet" plagarized the Old Testament (polishing a chapter here, there and everywhere) and passed it off as a handbook for imbeciles, one would consider that ironic considering what these rats did to the countries they overran.
Spanish history should have taught Spaniards something about what these killers did to their forefathers before they flocked to the polls and elected communists to run their nation after being blackmailed by muslim killers.
The way things are going today, the emirs will be in Madrid before they are occupying Washington.
Music to my ears.
"I hope no one is shocked when the UAE tells our military planners, Navy ships, air assets, and everyone else to get the hell out of their country."
If they are as modern and moderate as some believe, they should embark on a course of action that increases their credibility, and not throw a hissy fit, and lose whatever cred they already have.
They don't care. They think they are patriots saving their country from being taken over by A-rabs. And if they make it tougher for their countrymen who are over there living and working and relying upon and depending on A-rabs, too bad.
I oppose you senator. Good thing i can't vote against you.
Apparently either I'm more educated than you or you are just playing politics on this issue. Either way you don't deserve to be in Congress.
Oops. House Republican.
“Everything in this country can’t be for sale,” Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said as his panel began questioning Bush administration officials on the Dubai ports deal. The Alabama Republican said the law should be clarified to take national security into account."
Well, you people seem to be whistling a different tune. I guess you've got mucho deniro in them deep pockets, huh?
"They don't care."
On the contrary, "they" do care. You just try to demonize those who disagree.
If it were a publicly traded company with no government ties, like P&O, I would be okay with it.
“Everything in this country can’t be for sale,”
I agree the law should be clarified to take national security into account.
Interesting, but I don't see how this could possibly be accomplished. We're being told that no American companies exist that have the expertise to run the ports.......so what happens then, all operations just stop?
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.