The reason is we've all decided there should be linkage, and people who have been quietly pro-Chi-com, or maybe even LOUDLY pro-Chi-com like Barbara Boxer, the Clintons, and the assorted Socialist International crowd in Congress, have been pretty noisy about not peddling this stuff to the Arabs.
Your little buddy Duncan Hunter has not, as far as I know, publicly opposed Chi-com ownership of the same assets. All those years he was supposedly a solid Conservative, and there he goes and jumps the reservation where all of us could see it on this Dubai deal. Denny Hastert should be taking some action there as soon as possible.
duncan hunter LED the opposition to COSCO:
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16720
Leading the effort to block COSCO from the facility were Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-OK, and Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, both San Diego-area Republicans. They and their conservative colleagues asserted that Chinese Communists could use the former base for military purposes and intelligence-gathering, allegations first raised in WorldNetDaily more than 18 months ago. Port officials and COSCO supporters disputed that contention citing two recent Department of Defense reports show that the shipping line does not present a national security threat to the United States.
"COSCO has a long and very troubling record of shipping both weapons and components of mass destruction around the world," said Hunter. "For all practical purposes, COSCO is the merchant marine of the Chinese military. As a result, they carry the cargo of the Chinese military upon command and without question. We do not need to increase their access to American soil."
http://www.house.gov/hunter/jul6-98.htm
COSCO Doesn't Deserve Long Beach Port
AGREEMENT REACHED TO BAN COSCO FROM LONG BEACH
http://www.house.gov/hunter/cosco99.htm
Go back a few more years to another port controversy involving a state-owned foreign company leasing the old Long Beach Navel Base, which the defense department was turning over to the Port of Long Beach for civilian cargo. The port, in turn, sought to lease it to COSCO, the state-owned Chinese shipping firm.
The right wing went bonkers over the deal, accusing the Clinton administration of wanting to turn the former naval base over to the People’s Liberation Army or worse. San Diego Rep. Duncan Hunter managed to insert a clause in a defense appropriations bill to kill the deal.
COSCO simply moved next door to the Port of Los Angeles where it has run one or more of its container terminals there without controversy and without any threats to our national security for half a dozen years now. So one wonders what the opponents of the Long Beach deal really accomplished.
Strangely, I haven’t noticed Rep. Hunter being in the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai ports deal, considering the leading role he played in scotching the Long Beach deal, not to mention that he chairs the House Armed Services Committee and presumably is interested in national security.
http://asiacable.blogspot.com/2006/02/xenophobia-run-amok.html
Duly noted.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
I hereby oppose involvement of ANY foreign entity upon our soil in all commercial and industrial enterprises related to our national security (excepting cooperative international law-enforcement agencies) and critical infrastructure. I also extend that opposition to include world-wide enterprises involved in sensitive US defense technology the following entities:
All non-NATO states, Russia (and France, if they don't shape-up post-haste); excepting Japan, the Czech Republic, Romania, Israel, allies in long-term good standing, or those that can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt to not have engaged in, aided and abetted, or been complicit in murder of non-military US citizens (min. 20 years).
Exceptions should be granted only after proper investigation and approval by CFIUS, and subject to congressional and executive review. Revocation without notice can be made if a nation is deemed to be engaging in covert, military, or diplomatic actions significantly damaging to, or directly contravening our long-term interests (or unstable and at immedeate risk of falling into hostile hands).
Revocation can be issued by majority-vote in congress, executive decree, or by emergency order of the NSA, CIA, Secretary of State, or DHS (pending 45-day review and congressional vote).
Exceptions should also be subject to revocation if a foreign government is found to be engaging in unlawful abduction of private US citizens here or abroad, and/or not actively cooperating in the release of US private citizens unlawfully abducted by their countrymen, or within their borders.
I also submit that only nations that meet the above standards be eligible for 'Most Favored Nation' trade-status.
International trade passing our borders is, in principle, no less subject to regulation under the US Constitution than domestc interstate trade...no matter how much some would wish otherwise out of desire to profit at the expense of the long-term health or sovereignty of this nation.
There. A little bulky to be including in every post. At least I can post a link back to this thread if necessary.
/rant