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 totally agree with you. In order to enact change, we should do it from within a country.
Read Washington Journal. Are you happy now? I second the motion that Haliburton should come up with the terminal LEASES.
Ignorant you can fix, stupid is forever....
The White House never addressed the concerns head on. Instead, they sent out paid lobbyists that included a strange mix of Tommy Franks, Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Maddy Albright and Tom Dashle which added to the mess.
The good news is the deal is dead. The President should learn from this debacle and remember that he works for us and owes us a direct explanation for his actions. "Trust me" no longer suffices.
UAE does business with Israel, notwithstanding their "official" position on the boycott.
Wow! What a substantive retort. You argumentative skills are worthy of DU.
I learned plenty from Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, two authors who are apparently not on the White House reading list.
Well said.
I agree with you, and not only did they not get out front on it to explain, they chose to make threats, and call their own party members racist. While I amwith them on the issue, it was severely bungled.
According to a caller to a talk radio show who has worked in international shipping, all the big shippers are incredibly "multinational" in their personnel.
How come so few of the "conservatives" around here haven't raised an eyebrow about the legislative branch sticking its nose into an executive function?
When, in between knee jerk union hall keggar "classes".
That, in itself, carries a calculated risk. Up until now, the benefits outweigh the risk factor, for our military and merchant ships that need servicing. It doesn't mean they are as completely safe there.
Many died on the USS Cole in a Yemeni port, not too different a situation and not so very far from Dubai.
I resent being called a rascist and intimidated by the administration, spinners, and posters on this board and wish we could reverse the contract with the Chicoms, as I didn't like it when that went down either. Arabs are Semites. Jews are Semites. I am not a rascist. This is about religious fanatics who want to kill us any way they can get at us.
Even American ports carry certain terrorist risks given the situation we are facing today.
Because these same "conservatives" think this is a way to "get Bush" which has been their agenda since 2001.
I can't believe there are so many FReepers who haven't figured this out yet. UAE is a moderate Muslim nation. We need to encourage moderate Muslim nations and execute the WOT on those that are engaged in terror and proliferation of WMD. Divide and conquer! We can't fight 1.2 billion Muslims at one time.
And this issue will be forgotten quickly, just like most issues. At least by most of the American public.
Politically it was just not the right time.
That's true. I considered a career in the merchant navy for a while (I got the job but decided to go back to school). Any company that does shipping (even if it is national) usually has people from across the globe working for it. That's the essential nature of that beast and not really surprising considering the business.
Last I checked, as of February 26th, the UAE was still sponsoring Hamas and the families of terrorist suicide bombers.
oh ...wait...
"H. Edward Bilkey, the company's top executive"
This is a sad, sad day. I couldn't agree with your statements more.
This statement tells me how little you even know about this deal. This "action" had nothing to do with President Bush. Only if there were a legitimate security concern would the CFIUS be required to submit a report to the POTUS. The committee did not.
But don't let me stop you and your lemming buddies. Carry on.
Thats very interesting. Do you have a link to that thread, I must have missed it.
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.