Posted on 03/08/2006 9:22:32 PM PST by PrinceOfCups
Abu Dhabi A seven-member delegation of American businessmen from the UAE will travel to Washington to brief US lawmakers who oppose Dubai's acquisition of six US ports.
The American Business Group (ABG) in the UAE is undertaking the mission and will express a strong response to objections by US lawmakers about the true character of the UAE. Besides lobbying for Congressional support, the group will also stress the importance of US-UAE relations that are critical for stability in the Middle East, said Kim Childs, executive vice-president of the group.
The move comes as legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to block DP World's takeover of terminal operations at US ports, acting before the Bush administration completes a 45-day investigation.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis said the panel had attached an amendment to an emergency spending measure preventing DP World from assuming control of the American operations of P&O.
Childs criticised the US opposition to the takeover as "uninformed and inconsistent with American values" and urged President George W. Bush to veto any Congress legislation that blocks the deal. "The ABG deeply regrets what appears to have been an uninformed rush to judgement by some opponents of this transaction, as well as the inflammatory language that some have adopted to express their opposition," Childs said.
The seven-member delegation from the ABG will meet Congressional leaders as well as President George W. Bush in an attempt to convince them that strong US-UAE relations are vital for stability in the Middle East, said Childs.
On Tuesday, Republicans in the House of Representatives moved to block the $6.85 billion deal under which Dubai Ports World will take over the global assets of Britain's P&O by attaching an amendment to must-pass spending legislation for the Iraq war and hurricane relief.
"We do not believe the US should allow a state-owned company to run American ports," said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, an Illinois Republican.
Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, a California republican, told reporters in the US that port security legislation was still being drafted in the House and work remains with the Senate. But he added, "It is my intention to lay the foundation to block the deal."
The ABG, however, criticised the US opposition to Dubai's takeover of P&O as "uninformed and inconsistent with American values" and wants President Bush to veto any Congressional legislation that would block the deal.
"The ABG believes that these actions are inconsistent with American values of fairness and open-mindedness and fail to reflect America's long-standing commitment to the free flow of trade and investment among nations," Childs said.
The ABG, along with other American business councils in the GCC, has also placed an open letter to the US Congress in the Congressional publication Roll Call and individual members are writing directly to their Congressmen.
The House Appropriations Committee was expected to debate the ports amendment, along with the broader spending bill, later yesterday.
Lewis said his amendment to the emergency spending bill for the Iraq war and hurricane rebuilding would not mandate that only American citizens be involved in running US ports.
"The language is designed to deal specifically with the concerns that flow around the UAE question," he said, but added that the measure "could be interpreted to be broader than just a single country."
Bush has threatened to veto legislation that attempts to block the DP World takeover, but Lewis warned, "we could have a confrontation" with the White House.
But Kevin Massengill, a board member of ABG Abu Dhabi, said that any Congressional legislation should be vetoed by President Bush, adding that if the takeover is blocked it would send the wrong message to investors.
"The UAE is not an enemy or risk to the US. You should be able to tell your friends from your enemies," Massengill said.
Wrong. The Bush administrations Treasury agency called CFIUS, has been rubber stamping these deals for years. Right now it stands at, 1530 approvals out of 1531 chances. Sweetheart deal at best. Quid pro quo at worst.
Oops. Sorry, just the facts, dude.
exactly
and if China can run our terminals and the Panama Canal(it has nuclear warheads pointed at American cities as we speak and has threated the United States many times with nuclear war if we defend Taiwan from them in a war )then turning the UAE down is total hypocracy
once again members of Congress are hypocrites
I try my best not to read the NY Times. If it was reported on Fox News or posted on Free Republic, I must've missed it. Fact is, CFIUS formal evaluation and analysis process is done in total secrecy. When I heard about it, I was outraged. Seems most Americans are just as outraged. Unless a Bush veto can stand up to an override, the deal is DOA.
America has ALWAYS had foreign investment, as a matter of fact, the British, Dutch, Japanese and Canadians have huge investments in this country as do some of the Arab oil producers. Thats a good deal for us cause our safety is alaso safety for their investments. What to kick them out? Then get ready for the Mother of all depressions
wow all that ,, well then the Congress ought to immediately and permanently forbid any cargo from any port run by the UAE from entering US coastal waters
better safe than sorry when dealing with those people
so I'm agreeing with you and going one step farther for safety's sake,, and we know it's the safety concern that is behind this
Just because CFIUS followed procedure, doesn't mean the final approval wasn't a rubber stamped sweetheart deal, or with quid pro quo implications attached. Just becasue it was done in secrecy doesn't mean it was above board. I'm not a supporter of the federal bureaucracy. This deal smells of bureaucrats gone wild.
and just who are you going to get to run the terminals then? name one american company that does run any of the port terminals?
Two US companies who manage terminal port operations in the US are ranked 8th and 9th largest. One such company is called SSA Marine, a family owned operation out of Seattle. They're the largest terminal operator in the United States. Overall, I believe 80% of US port terminals are foreign managed. 20% American managed.
I hope he does too because the American people are out of touch with reality.
Not really
Is King and Schumer's 45 day investigation over with?
The DPW takeover of P&O is being given the "Bum's rush," by the same folks who are letting the Chinese government company (COSCO, which was involved in smuggling arms into the US), run a terminal on the West Coast.
On March 18, 1996, Federal agents surreptitiously seized a Poly shipment of 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles in Oakland, California. These weapons had left China on February 18 aboard a vessel belonging to another state-owned company, the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (`COSCO'). On May, Federal agents hastily shut down the operation when they learned that the Chinese had been tipped to its existence. [snip]*The lease on the Long Beach Navy Base, which Clinton arranged for COSCO, got cancelled by Congress. But COSCO runs a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.Smuggling the weapons into the United States has not harmed the fortunes of COSCO.
A) In April 1996, with the support of the Clinton Administration, COSCO signed a lease with the City of Long Beach, California to rent a now defunct navy base in Long Beach, California. *
B)...the Clinton Administration has allowed COSCO's ships access to our most sensitive ports with one day's notice rather than the usual four
C) [The Clinton administration] has given COSCO a $138,000,000 loan guarantee to build ships in Alabama.
The [Clinton] Administration has made all of these concessions since the coffee with Mr. Wang. That COSCO participated in the shipment of illegal arms does not appear to have dampened the Administration's enthusiasm in any of these matters.
Excactly. If the UAE is such a security risk, then how can we possible allow cargo from any of their ports to even come close to a US city.
The population of the UAE is 2,563,212 according to the CIA Factbook. Note: includes an estimated 1,606,079 non-nationals; the 17 December 1995 census presents a total population figure of 2,377,453, and there are estimates of 3.44 million for 2002 (July 2005 est.)
I am strongly for the port deal, but where did you get the 250,000 foreign teachers from? That sounds rather high for such a small population. There are only approx 650,000 between the ages 0-14 years (male 331,269; female 317,977).
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.