The New Protectionists

opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

[groanup]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The New Protectionists - How to create a real security crisis.

Friday, March 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.

Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.

What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.

snip

[oceanview]

if we all "hate the arabs" so much, why does the UAE own so many other US interests? did anyone try to thwart those purchases? I walk past the Essex House in mahattan, and see that they added some arabic name to the property - see any "arab haters" out in front protesting that?

give it up, this issue is a red herring.

[RFT1]

There is that abused word "freedom" again. Makes me sick

[oceanview]

some (that's the key word here: SOME) items on that list are legitimate US infrastructure components that have security concerns. if CFIUS were doing its job, it would be weeding out specifically what the term "SOME" legitimately applied to.

certainly there is a difference between the UAE buying a casino company, or buying Lockheed Martin. a difference between the Saudis buying Applebees, or buying Verizon.

if you cannot accept that there are legitimate differences in those examples given above, then there is no point discussing this further.

security comes before commerce, that's the fundamental political mistake the white house made trying to force this ports deal down american's throats - after 4+ years since 9-11 of shouting SECURITY, SECURITY, SECURITY to americans at every turn - you can't now tell them "commerce with friendly arabs is the #1 priority". its an important priority, but its not #1. there are plenty of other things the UAE can buy in the US with their petrodollars - no questions asked.

[oceanview]

there are plenty of US tech companies with zero security or defense related connections, that the UAE is free to buy. plenty of them.

[oceanview]

well, some of us do care. in fact, the ability of Dod to source components from US sources - critical to development of weapons systems, is a major part of their procurement process. you don't understand why? so if the factory that made laser guided bombs moves to china, that's OK with you? are you serious?

[jf55510]

they want to invest money. McDonalds makes plenty of profits. So do the casinos. So does Applebees.

Are any of those companies up for sale? If so, is there a corresponding company in the UAE which does the same operation?

only ports and companies that make defense components are profitable, and therefore worthy of investment by the UAE?

Or, instead, the more likely reason is that the company from the UAE, which deals in the port business, purchased a company which had global port interests around the world. Shocking I know, a company buys a company which deals in the same kind of business.

if you are so wise, tell us why they want to buy a US company that makes turbines for military engines? what interest could they possibly have in that?

Money

Answer me this question. Should the US block container ships from entering US ports which came from the ports of Germersheim in Germany, Constanta in Romania, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Puerto Caucedo in the Dominican Republic, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, Cochin and Visakha Patnam in India, Djibouti in Djibouti, Adelaide in Australia, Yantian, Shanghai Ji Fa and Tiajin in China and three ports from Hong Kong?

[oceanview]

up for sale? they are publicly traded, the UAE could begin a campaign to acquire them (hostile or otherwise) any time they wanted.

yes, with respect to DPW - they want ports. that's not our problem. just because they "want" ports, doesn't mean we have to give them anything they want. they like manhattan real estate too, they own some prime locations, I could care less. does that mean that if tommorrow, the UAE wanted to buy the world trade center site lease from Silverstein, that CFIUS should approve the deal?

[jf55510]

up for sale? they are publicly traded, the UAE could begin a campaign to acquire them (hostile or otherwise) any time they wanted.

And??? Does DWP deal in food stuffs and retail services, or ports? Is there a UAE company which deals in that line of business?

yes, with respect to DPW - they want ports. that's not our problem. just because they "want" ports, doesn't mean we have to give them anything they want.

They weren't getting anything, other than the ability to work in the ports. They weren't running the ports or security.

the UAE wanted to buy the world trade center site lease from Silverstein, that CFIUS should approve the deal?

I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

Answer me this question. Should the US block container ships from entering US ports which came from the ports of Germersheim in Germany, Constanta in Romania, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Puerto Caucedo in the Dominican Republic, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, Cochin and Visakha Patnam in India, Djibouti in Djibouti, Adelaide in Australia, Yantian, Shanghai Ji Fa and Tiajin in China and three ports from Hong Kong?

[unseen]

hmmm. then I guess the Constitution is worthless....because the power to regulate commerce with foreign powers is 100% Congress

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[oceanview]

well there you have it.

the ports issue had a 19% approval. go out and try to sell your idea that you would see no problem with the UAE owning the WTC lease. you'll get maybe a 7% approval amongst americans for that.

after 9-11, the US should have implemented a strict policy for the conduct of all foreign port operators. that should happen right now, that should be the positive agenda the administration should pursue after this DPW debacle - instead of calling everyone xenophobes and racists.

[unseen]

Agreed....it amazes me how many people have fallen for this free trade nonsense.

[OKIEDOC]

Oh Heck! don't you guys know when your having your chain jerked a tad.

Dang I was merely having some fun before going to Saturday night church.

Heres something I got in an email just now, I believe it is a lot more enjoyable to read than the unadulterated crap I was throwing out:


THE CLINTONS PASS IN THE NIGHT E-mail this column to a friend!



By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

March 8, 2006 -- Bill and Hillary Clinton are the first couple to appear simultaneously and independently on the national political stage. They are using their special circumstances as a convenient shield for one another, fulfilling, at once, Hillary’s dream of no accountability and Bill’s of being able to take both sides of an issue.

Did Hillary know that Bill was pardoning the FALN terrorists to help her win Puerto Rican votes in New York? Oh, she was opposed to the pardon.

Did Hillary find out that Bill was granting pardons to felons and drug dealers who had hired her brothers for six-figure fees to lobby her husband for pardons right under her nose? No way. In fact she was “saddened” at her brothers’ involvement.

And we all know that Hillary was “gasping for breath” when she first learned the truth about Monica Lewinsky.

And the former first lady was “bewildered” that members of the White House staff would treat her demands that they fire the travel-office staff as an order.

Bill has been out there criticizing the war while Hillary plays to the center by voting for it.

And now, this heavy-footed pas de deux straddles the issue of whether a Dubai company should run six American ports.

Are we truly to believe Hillary’s insistence last week that she knew nothing about Bill’s counseling of his friend and benefactor the crown prince of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, on the ports deal? Do Bill and Hillary Clinton ever speak to each other, or do they just attend funerals, fundraisers and Billy Graham crusades together for photo-ops?

Bill is, after all, a regular in Dubai. The crown prince — that is, the government — contributed to his presidential library and pays him $300,000 per speech. Recently, Yucaipa, an American company that has Bill Clinton as a “senior adviser” and pays him a percentage of its profits, formed a partnership with the Dubai Investment Group to form DIGL Inc., a company dedicated to managing the sheik’s personal investments.

No doubt Bill Clinton was brought in to cement this lucrative deal from which he — and therefore Hillary — will likely make millions. Neither Bill nor Hillary will disclose how much he is paid, but her Senate financial disclosure says that he will make “more than” $1,000. They also won’t say how much Dubai royalty gave to the Clinton library.

So when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) broke the story that the administration had approved the Dubai ports deal and Bill Clinton started to defend it in public, are we to believe that Hillary did not know that the sheik had called him to ask his advice, and are we to believe that Bill’s defense of the deal was unrelated to his myriad financial ties to Dubai?

Hillary stands to gain millions in income from her husband’s Dubai connection. She knows he flies there very, very frequently. And she must realize that Bill is close to the Dubai royal family.

So why did she dump on the port deal? Likely to cover herself. If she were anything less than front and center against the Dubai port deal, she would vulnerable to criticism over Bill’s involvement with the Dubai royal family. So she held marathon press conferences denouncing the deal and professed not to realize her husband was defending the deal at the sheik’s request.

What’s really going on here is that Bill Clinton is trying to please his Arab patrons and business partners at the same time that Hillary Clinton is trying to capitalize on American stereotypes about Arab terrorists.

More important, she’s desperately trying to distract attention from the Dubai dollars that flow into her family checking account from Bill’s political and business dealings with the Dubai crown prince. What better way than to attack them?

We should insist that:

• Bill Clinton register as an agent of a foreign principal.

• The Clintons say how much he makes from Dubai.

• The Clinton library tell us how much Dubai royalty gave to the library.

• And Bill disclose, in the future, whenever he is speaking as an ex-president or as a paid public-relations flack.

Eileen McGann co-authored this column

[jf55510]

Why won't you answer my questions? It is a very simple yes or no question.

Answer me this question. Should the US block container ships from entering US ports which came from the ports of Germersheim in Germany, Constanta in Romania, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Puerto Caucedo in the Dominican Republic, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, Cochin and Visakha Patnam in India, Djibouti in Djibouti, Adelaide in Australia, Yantian, Shanghai Ji Fa and Tiajin in China and three ports from Hong Kong?

[LowCountryJoe]

Then it's central planning for you instead of capitalism. Okay, got it.

[jf55510]

hmmm. then I guess the Constitution is worthless....because the power to regulate commerce with foreign powers is 100% Congress

No one is denying that Congress has that right. However, that doesn't mean that Congress is the best entity to do the job.

[oceanview]

all foreign port operators in the US merit additional scrutiny post 9-11.

[jf55510]

all foreign port operators in the US merit additional scrutiny post 9-11.

That isn't an answer to the question. Yes or no, should they deny entry to cargo ships from those ports?

[OKIEDOC]

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

HUM!!!!!!!!!!!COIN TOSS DANG..PROBABLY

[oceanview]

the answer is dependent on what the review finds, and how willing a particular foreign carrier is to comply with new regulations. the bills regarding increased port security for terminal operators are already moving,

[unseen]

Of course it is because Congress in the end is the tool of the people as this port deal showed. That is why CIFUS was created in the first place so that the matter of Trade and Foreign Investment would be taken away from the people. the founders wanted the Congress to control our commerce with other nations so that one man could not entangle us in foreign affairs and so that the powers that be must at some point listen to the people. CIFUS was created when we (xenophobes and racists, bigots, stupid, (elites insert your adjective here)) started pressuring Congress about Japan and free trade. That way Congress could wash its hands of it and remove trade as a political liability. The same reason Congress has voted to give the President for the last several decades fast track on trade deals. If you believe in an Original view of the Constitution then you MUST disagree with CIFUS.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/11/MNGFDHMKFP1.DTL

But administration officials and some congressional allies said Congress cannot be allowed to go too far. The Committee for Foreign Investment review process was set up to be confidential and beyond Congress' reach specifically to insulate sensitive business investments from political forces, they said.