Posted on 03/10/2006 8:26:48 AM PST by indcons
President Bush said Friday he was troubled by the political storm that forced the reversal of a deal allowing a company in Dubai to take over take over operations of six American ports, saying it sent a bad message to U.S. allies in the Middle East.
Bush said the United States needs moderate allies in the Arab world, like the United Arab Emirates, to win the global war on terrorism.
The president said he had been satisfied that security would be sound at the ports if the Dubai deal had taken effect. "Nevertheless, Congress was still very much opposed to it," Bush said. He made his remarks to a conference of the National Newspaper Association, which represents owners, publishers and editors of community newspapers.
"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said. "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."
"UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror," Bush added. "They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world.
"They're sharing intelligence so we can hunt down the terrorists," Bush added. "They helped us shut down a world wide proliferation network run by A.Q. Khan" — the Pakistani scientist who sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, he said.
"UAE is a valued and strategic partner," he said. "I'm committed to strengthening our relationship with the UAE."
After a storm of protest in the Republican-controlled Congress, DP World announced Thursday that it would transfer six U.S. port operations to a U.S. entity. The moved spared Bush from a veto showdown with GOP lawmakers. Yet the larger issue highlighted by the DP world controversy — U.S. port security — shows no signs of going away.
"The problem of the political moment has passed, but the problem of adequate port security still looms large," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said.
Republicans and Democrats alike welcomed DP World's decision to give up its aspirations to manage significant operations at the six ports, but they warned that the move doesn't negate the urgent need for broad legislation aimed at protecting America's ports.
"I'm sure that the decision by DP World was a difficult decision to hand over port operations that they had purchased from another company," Bush said.
"There are gaping holes in cargo and port security that need to be plugged," Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., said.
The Bush administration also announced Friday that free trade talks with the United Arab Emirates were being postponed.
The talks, which were supposed to begin Monday, were postponed because both sides need more time to prepare, according to an announcement from the office of U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record). USTR spokeswoman Neena Moorjani refused to say whether the postponement was related to the controversy over the port operations.
Legislation on the issue has piled up in both the House and the Senate in the weeks since the flap over DP World erupted and divided Bush from the Republican-led Congress.
Before the United Arab Emirates-based company's announcement, the House and Senate appeared all but certain to block DP World's U.S. plan despite Bush's veto threats — a message that GOP congressional leaders delivered personally to the White House.
Facing a disapproving public in an election year, a House committee overwhelmingly voted against the plan Wednesday. And House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., warned the president in a private meeting Thursday that the Senate inevitably would follow suit.
Within hours, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., one of the few members of Congress to back the administration's position on the issue, went to the Senate floor to read a statement from the company.
"DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity," H. Edward Bilkey, the company's top executive, said in the statement. It was unclear which American business might get the port operations.
The White House expressed satisfaction with the company's decision.
"It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter," said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary "We have a strong relationship with the UAE and a good partnership in the global war on terrorism, and I think their decision reflects the importance of our broader relationship."
The company's decision gives the president an out. He now doesn't have to back down from his staunch support of the company or further divide his party on a terrorism-related issue with a veto.
It was unclear how the company would manage its planned divestiture, and Bilkey's statement said its announcement was "based on an understanding that DP World will not suffer economic loss."
"This should make the issue go away," Frist said.
Even critics of the deal expressed cautious optimism that DP World's move would quell the controversy surrounding that company's plan to take over some U.S. terminal leases held by the London-based company it was purchasing.
"The devil is in the details," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, echoing sentiments expressed by other lawmakers.
DP World on Thursday finalized its $6.8 billion purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British company that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.
The plan was disclosed last month, setting off a political firestorm in the United States even though the company's U.S. operations were only a small part of the global transaction.
Republicans were furious that they learned of it from news reports instead of from the Bush administration. They cited concerns over a company run by a foreign government overseeing operations at U.S. ports already deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Democrats also pledged to halt the takeover and clamored for a vote in the Senate. They sought political advantage from the issue by trying to narrow a polling gap with the GOP on issues of national security.
Senate Republicans initially tried to fend off a vote, and the administration agreed to a 45-day review of the transaction. That strategy collapsed Wednesday with the 62-2 vote in the House Appropriations Committee to thwart the sale.
I see. So money talks and hamas is just another faction of welfare state terrorists that the US MUST do business with...interesting prospective.
What are you babbling about? My argument is that the UAE's sponsorship of terrorists sends a bad message too. Do you disagree with that?
Or from a different prospective, newbies like yourself bought the deal hook, line and sinker from the nimrods at the White House.....and have had your butts handed to you on a plate again....just like Miers?
Nice of you to twist my words to fit your argument. Typical of posters who lack any well-reasoned dissent.
Rush is right.
According to Sun Tzu on the Art of War its better make friends with your enemies.
There WERE other predominately Muslim nations or nations with Muslim population over 40%, that DID send troops to fight on the same side as the U.S. and Coalition forces:
a. Azerbaijan, 150
b. Albania, 120
c. Bosnia & Herzegovina, 36
d. Kazakhstan, 27
Not a large showing, but in fact a showing..
UAE was NOT among them..
Semper Fi
There certainly is well-reasoned dissent, but those who were in favor of the deal ignored it and demonized it with their own defamatory labels.
Wrong.
Truly, I'm trying to see how I twisted this. Hamas kills infidels and Jews, UAE supports them....Enlighten me..
The "nuke them all" attitude may feel good but it won't win the war and it will get more of our people killed.
I'm sorry....what was the vote in congress....and what happened next?
"The degree to which the rest of them hate us varies, but they do hate us."
Nonsense. There are many, many in the midle east who hate America. They may well number in the tens (if not hundreds) of millions. But this Arab=Enemy of America logis is disturbing. Islamic Radical=Enemy of America.
Islamic Radicals may well be a subset of Arabs, maybe even a large one. But they aren't the whole. I spend a fair bit of time in the UAE (Dubai). It is a nation of breathtaking ambition. It could be to the midle east as Taiwan is to China. But some cheapshot populist electoral focussed morons dropped the ball strategically for a couple of cheap votes.
This is a straw-man argument. Neither DPW nor the UAE would own any part of the ports. They would own a LEASE of port terminals.
By the way, the situation you suggest already exists. The Chinese have a foreign trade zone in Southern California. I could be wrong, but I believe that those docks are considered foreign soil. That is not the situation that was under consideration here.
"Nuke them all"? Wow!! Where did I say that?
I stand by what I wrote in my post: the UAE paid a price or their previous sins. As an extreme case, may I point out that US would NOT be in Afghanistan now but for the UAE's sponsoring, arming, and recognizing the Taliban. See...there are arguments for and against the deal (as the ancient Sophist Isocrates pointed out many years ago). We must learn to recognize the other side too if we want to be taken seriously.
Again - this is not the end of the world. So, stop acting like it is!!
Other people have suggested as much, but the problem with the idea is that Oman controls the Straits opposite Iran, and they're already allied with us.
And there are many, many in Briton that hate Briton...clean your own house before lecturing others trying to keep their house clean...
This was a state-to-state deal. And a further crowding out of the private sector in our country.
Huh? DPW may be partially owned by the UAE government, but the deal was between DPW and P&O, a publicly traded firm. How does that make this a "state to state" deal? And how does our government stepping in to interfere in a business transaction between two foreign corporations benefit the private sector in ANY country?
It would improve their image and further their ambition if they'd stop subsidizing terrorists, unless that's part of their ambition. Oh, and holding elections would probably help too.
It could be to the midle east as Taiwan is to China.
Well, yes. Except that Taiwan does not subsidize suicide bombers.
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.