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.
Did anyone else catch that? Since when does a British judge make rulings on US matters? THIS is globalization at it's worst!!
I never said that the UAE was a third world country. In fact, if anything, there were implications by me to the opposite.
Yes, I have done plenty of research into the UAE and one of my very close relatives has been over there to live and work! Thanks for asking.
The next two questions of yours fall behind those and are also irrelevant. Your logic using them is sophomoric.
Since when does "business" override the religion of a nation full of people hell bent on carrying out the desires of such a "religion," and I use the term very loosely?
By your logic, just because a twice convicted child molester gets out of prison, starts a successful business, gives back to his community, and lives in ritz, he's qualified to open a daycare facility in town! It's stunning.
Yeah, and let's say for the sake of the argument, the Soviet Union and Communist China also handled it. Then it's still fine with you, right?
Nothin' like lookin' into key issues, eh!
LMAO...
Have you given any consideration to the possibility that educated, wealthy and progressive countries often have conflicting national interests?
Duncan Hunter and Richard Shelby are simply bigoted racists who simply don't understand the deal and don't understand national security. /sarc
Amen, brother Nephi!
"I can't even begin to express to you how sick and tired I am of hearing such rhetoric! If the UAE is gonna "pick up their game and pieces and go home" so that no one can play over this, then fine! F' em!"
Great post BUMP!
Excellent post.
I believe Bush has pushed us into globalism and the UN faster than Al Gore or any democrat ever could.
Hmmm, maybe because the company selling is a British company and would fall under the jurisdiction of the British courts. The only reason there's any issue about this sale here in the states is because the British company owns leases which cover parts of docks, wharves, terminals and/or container facilities located in some of the US's ports.
Of course I have. Why would I think the UAE would have conflicts when I'm aware America does also.
The key issue being that you don't have a clue what classified info terminal operators have access to. Or what levels of classification. All you really care is that they're A-rabs, and their American employees at the American port are going to betray their country and let them A-rabs hurt us again. And to keep that from happening we ought not let furriners in our ports, and if that pisses off the furriners enough that they won't help us anymore in fighting the war, well then screw all them A-rabs and Moose-limbs, they weren't really our friends anyway. Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out. That way we'll be safe. America, f**k yeah!
There's a sanity to this issue, but I hate to be the one to break it to you, it's not on your side.
And since you know oh-so-much about my position, you'd know then that I'm not dead set against this deal, right? RIGHT?!
And again, since you're so smart, wise, and visionary, you'd realize that you've already answered your own question/assertion.
The key issue being that you don't have a clue what classified info terminal operators have access to. Or what levels of classification.
No! No Cannoneer, I don't!!! Neither do you. But in your infinite wisdom, you'll realize that I have at least posed that question, right? Oh, how many times now, .... a good 20 right here on FR!
And, Cannoneer, how many viable responses have I received on it? Well, none from you! None from anywhere else either.
So in your seeming self-righteous rant, please, enlighten us all oh great maharishi, what "classified info and what degrees of classification" specifically and exactly, do "port operators" have access to???
I genuflect and bow and await your gracious answer oh great guru of all things known to man!
; )
LMAO...
PS I'm all ears as are many others here!
Meanwhile, I direct you to Sally's Concerns in post #56 who apparently thinks that b/c the UAE has a 7-star hotel, that that's a great reason that they should run our ports.
Oh, the hysterics here are pretty damned entertaining to an extent.
Good point. I was impressed when they backed-off pending the congressional review. I'd have been more impressed if they'd just backed-out altogether when NY State filed suit. They should have a right of refusal, given the circumstances, IMHO.
Pardon the interruption your omniscience, but we peasants still await your provision of the above information...
[genuflect]
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.