US House to vote on ports despite company promise

Reuters ^ | Friday 10 March 2006 | Steve Holland and Susan Cornwell

[Stellar Dendrite]

The U.S. House of Representatives will forge ahead with a vote on blocking an Arab-owned company from managing U.S. ports, to ensure the firm sheds its U.S. holdings as promised, a leadership spokesman said on Friday.

The Republican-run House's refusal to back away from the showdown vote was another blow to President George W. Bush, who suffered a stinging defeat on Thursday when Dubai Ports World said it intended to back out of the deal his administration had approved.

Reverberations from the political earthquake continued on Friday. The United Arab Emirates broke off talks on a free trade pact with the United States, although a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office said delays are common.

Bush said he was concerned the opposition sent a worrying message to Middle East allies.

"In order to win the war on terror, we have got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush told newspaper editors.

State-owned Dubai Ports World surrendered to unrelenting criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in giving up the management of some terminals at six major U.S. ports.

The UAE company said it would transfer the ports to a U.S. entity at the behest of Dubai's ruler, to allay concerns the deal posed a threat to American national security. Details of the transfer were not outlined.

The White House had hoped the announcement would resolve the unprecedented crisis between Bush and a Congress run by his own party in open revolt.

But Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, said the House vote on a provision to bar the deal would go ahead on Wednesday or Thursday anyway.

"It's a smart move to keep it (the legislation) in there, in case the Dubai thing doesn't work out," he told Reuters.

NATIONAL SECURITY

The outlook for a Senate vote was less clear. Senate Republican leaders have been trying to avoid one in the near future. Deal critic Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, wants more information from the White House.

"If things are as they appear, this is a great victory for national security. But make no mistake, we are going to scrutinize this deal with a fine-tooth comb to make sure the separation between American port operators and Dubai Ports World is complete and security is tight as a drum," he said.

Dubai Ports Chairman Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, asked if the firm would sell the U.S. port management rights, told Reuters: "All this is being worked out by our parties in the States."

But David Hamod, president of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, said it would be hard to find a U.S. company to step in.

"The advantage that the overseas company has is economies of scale. They're doing this on a global level and so it will be very difficult to find a U.S. company in this business large enough to take over the operations," Hamod said.

He also said his group was hearing calls for retribution, including keeping Americans out of Arab markets. "But it's a tiny minority of people who are arguing that," he said.

Bush, who had vowed to veto efforts to block the deal, praised the UAE as a committed ally in the war on terrorism.

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said.

Treasury Secretary John Snow said his department's lawyers were in contact with DP World about its intentions. He also said the political furor was an isolated case, as he tried to limit damage to the U.S. free-trade image.

Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said congressional Republicans are running away from Bush this election year.

"In a way, the port deal was a godsend to them," Sabato said. "It allowed them to put a lot of daylight between themselves and a very unpopular president."

A new poll Friday registered another low of 37 percent in Bush's approval rating.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro, Doug Palmer and Tim Ahmann)

[FBD]

Business ALWAYS continues as usual. The UAE wants and needs our business every bit as much as we need theirs.

Consider:

Iran continued to do business with many U.S. companies in spite of the fact that they are our enemy, and we had imposed trade sanctions against them.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/29/news/iran_sanctions/

We continued to do business with China, even after one of their Generals threatened to nuke Los Angeles.

We continued to do business with China even after they captured one of our EP-3 spy planes.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/1/234033.shtml

...and China continued to do business with the U.S, even after we tried to get them kicked out of the Long Beach port.

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/chinesegot.html

But go ahead and believe the most unlikely, and negative scenario if you want, that's totally up to you.

-but UAE-US trade will go on just as it has.

[hedgetrimmer]

Are you unaware of the current use of their ports by our military?

I am completely aware.

[FBD]

.

[FBD]

>"Source?"<

sure, it's called: "history".

some examples:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594128/replies?c=201

[Valin]

Repeat after me McCain Feingold...McCain Feingold...McCain Feingold...McCain Feingold...

[edsheppa]

IHNFCWYTA.

[AmeriBrit]

Well I prefer to look at it realistically. Just how many times do you think you can spit in someones/a nations face before they retaliate when they've gone out of their way, at the risk of danger to themselves, to be cooperative? Jut curious.....do you have anyone 'in country' at the present time?

As for China you know they are hoping the Hitlary will become CIC so they can be handed more of our nuclear security secrets.

[freema]

Geez, when that popped up, I was coming in from another thread and had to stop and think about what this referenced. Whew! (Big crack, and all).

[freema]

I think I know what the FC stands for, and probably the TA. Is this some ME code?

[freema]

Thank you.

Did I miss something there in the form of a guarantee for our troops?

Were we at war during those times, building alliances?

"...and China continued to do business with the U.S, even after we tried to get them kicked out of the Long Beach port."

Were we at war then? Was there an international incident?

[freema]

(Because if it's not, you've got them all in the wrong order. They go like this: A B C D E F and so on.)

[edsheppa]

You mean its cryptic? Like your post?

[freema]

(And that's a fact, jack.)

[freema]

I'm ready to for my TA to hit the hay. Are you coming out to play tomorrow?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Congress to UAE: Can You Hear Me Now?

[jveritas]

I was for the Dubai Port Deal as much as any of it supporters here on FR but now the deal is dead and it is time to move on. No matter how much we disagree with our Republican Congress, we must work very hard on keeping the House and the Senate because if we lose the House the democrats will impeach absolutely President Bush and make no doubt about it. I will donate money to the Republican Party and I work very hard to prevent this from happening. Imagine my friends the ultimate nightmare scenario:

Impeaching the President of the United States in time of war.

I hope we all will unite now for one goal and one goal only, keep our majority in the House and Senate and prevent this absolute nightmare of impeaching President Bush in time of war.

[FBD]

>"Just how many times do you think you can spit in someones/a nations face before they retaliate when they've gone out of their way, at the risk of danger to themselves, to be cooperative?"<

-well, we continue to do business with the U.A.E. in spite of the fact that they have "spit in our face", by voting against the U.S. in the UN, 70 to 85% of the time, over the last 4 years.
In 2004, the UAE voted against the U.S. almost 88% of the time:

Frequency that Arab States Vote with the United States at the UN (2004)

>"Jut curious.....do you have anyone 'in country' at the present time?"<

-Yes, I did: a Marine.

[FBD]

>"Did I miss something there in the form of a guarantee for our troops?"<

-This port deal didn't guarentee anything for our troops either.

>"Were we at war then? Was there an international incident?"<

-Yes, recall the Taiwan crisis? Recall the Chinese general threatening to nuke LA, if we stepped in for our ally: Taiwan?
Recall when the EP3 spylane was rammed, then captured by China, and our crewmen were detained?
That was an international incident, if there ever was one, and our trade with China didn't even hiccup.

[jimfree]

Jerks!

[AmeriBrit]

Well thankyou for his service to our country, but I would have thought for that reason alone you would have a little more insight into how serious the situation is instead of making light of it and realizing how much we are at their mercy for continued success in the ME.