Shaikh Mohammad on Sunday received a US Congress delegation comprising Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson and Representatives John Gingery and John Linder
Posted on 03/12/2006 3:40:49 PM PST by bayourant
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Shipping/10025176.html US port moves 'could affect business ties' By Stanley Carvalho, Staff Reporter
Abu Dhabi: The UAE Central Bank Governor yesterday said the controversy surrounding the DP World deal to manage port operations in the US would not affect the free trade negotiations but could impact negatively on the business relations between the two countries.
"What happened is very bad and it is not right to mix up political issues with commercial issues," Sultan Bin Nasser Al Suwaidi said. "What the US is doing goes against the tenets of international trade, which they created in the first place."
"Investors are going to re-think and look at future investments in the US from a new perspective," he added.
US officials visiting the UAE yesterday reiterated their strong commitment to the UAE, saying it is a partner in its war on terror.
"We work together in the war on terror, and it is very important to continue our partnership to work side by side in fighting terrorism and reaching a free trade agreement," said Senator Saxby Chambliss, who is leading a Congressional delegation.
The delegation toured Port Rashid and was briefed on the port security by Ahmad Butti Ahmad, director-general of Dubai Customs in the presence of Sultan Ahmad Bin Sulayem, executive chairman of Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation.
Meanwhile, Shaikha Lubna Al Qasimi, UAE Minister of Economy, clarified yesterday that she did not comment on the postponement of free trade talks, as published in Gulf News yesterday
Shaikh Mohammad on Sunday received a US Congress delegation comprising Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson and Representatives John Gingery and John Linder
I would have liked to be a fly on wall in that room
Ok, Flame Away!
This is not an accident. The Demoncats want us to LOSE. That is why undercutting our allies is appealing to them. It is the actions of the Republicans that are so hard to explain. Well, maybe not so hard to explain. After all, the choice at election time is really between the Evil Party and the Stupid Party.
Ragheads?
No flame from me. Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say about it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594068/posts
"We piss on one of the few Arab/Muslim countries that are actually a good ally."
Yes, an ally that supplied two of the terrorists who flew planes into our buildings on 9-11. Most of other 17 terrorists were supplied by our good ally Saudi Arabia.
Bush is wrong on this one. It never should have gotten to the publicity stage- the Bush administration should have quietly told the Dubai folks "we appreciate your friendship, but the port contract involves our security and we need to be more careful on this one."
I welcome business dealings with friendly Arab countries. As long as it doesn't involve our national security and terrorism defenses. Because their government may be friendly, but many of their citizens want to see us die.
Look, Massachusetts supplies the Senate with both Kerry and Kennedy and no one talks of kicking them out of the union. The government of the UAE is on our side you moron. That is the point. Don't fall for all the demagoguery on this.
Does loading the ships (at foreign ports) involve security?
What about driving the ships? Piloting them in harbor?
What about air freight terminals? Are they a security issue?
What about airlines - the planes themselves? Security issue?
Is it an issue if the only thing in foreign control is cash flow?
Point being, it's alot easier to gloss over a bad feeling with the words "security issue" than it is to draw an appropriate perimeter of control for security purposes.
Actually, I thought Congress was stupid and acted like idiots, being motivated entirely by politics and not by security concerns.
However, I think that Muslim countries should not be surprised that Americans expect a little more reassurance from them. I wasn't opposed to the deal, but a little more public review wouldn't have been a bad thing.
When we are dealing with a company owned by a state that is part of an ideology (Islam) that is screaming "Death to America" all over the globe, I think we deserve a little extra reassurance. And I don't think it's bad for them to bear this in mind.
I think sensible business people there will simply readjust their strategy (which was probably directed by Bill Clinton in the first place) if they really want to do business here. Supposedly the American ports were the money losing part of this deal anyway, and the UAE only took them because they had to.
I really can't imagine why Americans would be afraid of Muslims. Let's Roll!
If this transaction had been adequately "splained" by the parties involved, it might not have been a problem. I for one would like a detailed explanation as to exactly how our ports are secured and what would have been the UAE role in moving in and out of them...and why there was no risk.
The "trust me" era is over. The "show me" era has begun.
What race is that...an entire wing of my family is arab Christian.
This isn't about race.
That is a cover for the truth.
"However, I think that Muslim countries should not be surprised that Americans expect a little more reassurance from them. I wasn't opposed to the deal, but a little more public review wouldn't have been a bad thing."
_______________________
I agree.
The shame of it was that DPW was willing to go back for another 45 day review and was never given the opportunity.
"This isn't about race.
That is a cover for the truth."
_____________________________________
What do you think the truth was?
DPW was willing to go back for another 45 day review, but politicians couldn't wait for the truth to come out.
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.