Thank You, Dubai Ports

Publiuspundit.com ^ | 6/20/06 | A.M. Mora y Leon

[Valin]

Remember Dubai Ports International?

The first-rate Emirates-based firm that, fair and square, tried to buy the operations of several U.S. ports? They were reviled as terrorists, a public outcry followed and then U.S. Congress stuck its nose into the whole business, baselessly condemning the company for no good reason until they were ignominously forced to withdraw from those plans. It was totally unfair to them, they didn’t deserve that kind of treatment, and it sent an incredibly bad message to the rest of the world that the U.S. was flamingly hypocritical. That whole debacle made me ill.

Anyway, this setback hasn’t driven the good company down. Today, Dubai Ports has gotten a new contract to develop Puerto Callao, in Peru, creating a vibrant container terminal where none existed, so that Peru can export its natural gas reserves and anything else would like to export, and get rich doing it. After all, they’ve got a free trade pact with the U.S., they might as well use it!

This port is extremely critical for Peru’s development and will serve as a beachhead from which Peru can challenge the energy export supremacy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his little Bolivian minime, Evo Morales. From this new port, tons of new energy will flow to the U.S.’s, Mexico’s and Asia’s markets, adding to world supply, driving down the prices, and in the end doing its part to put these dictators out of business.

Thank you, Dubai Ports International.

[BigSkyFreeper]

NO it was unfair to waive the national protection requirements that are standard in all foreign ownership investments. A U.S. officer subject to service of process. It was unfair to not allow us to actually discuss their transhipment history for Al-Queda and AQ Khan as if a mere four years ago was "ancient" history.

So far the government has shown that it's been picking and choosing it's targets based on the color of one's skin. That's neither "all" or "unfair", it's out-and-out xenophobia and hypocrisy.

If the government wanted to be consistent, they would scrutinize ALL foreign investments, no matter which country we're talking about, even if it was a staunch ally like Great Britain, and not just a select few countries that happen to be geographically centered in the Middle East.

Dubai Ports had nothing to do with national security, and had everything to do with knee-jerk reactions of fear and hysteria.

[BigSkyFreeper]

B'xzzzzt! Incorrect. I have long opposed Chi-Comms and their fronts buying strategic U.S. "beach-heads". Ports among them.

If it was all about national security, the Chi-comms wouldn't be operating in Long Beach today. Those politicians who opposed the Dubai Ports deal aren't being consistent.

[Paul Ross]

If it was all about national security, the Chi-comms wouldn't be operating in Long Beach today. Those politicians who opposed the Dubai Ports deal aren't being consistent.

Funny you seem to be in such a tizzy over what the RATS say or did. Nobody relies on the Democrats for national security decisions. I never have and never will.

We must instead rely on the solid conservatives. Note, I said conservatives. Not RINOs. Not Republicans even. But conservatives. Conservatives like Congressman Curt Weldon. J.D. Hayworth. Duncan Hunter, etc...

I would take their security judgement over this President's clearly-conflicted double-talk ANY DAY OF THE CENTURY.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Funny you seem to be in such a tizzy over what the RATS say or did.

If you were anywhere consistent in your personally held views since 1996, you would be too.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm not saying that Dubai Ports sponsors or is any way affiliated with terrorism. But you have to admit that both Bush and Limbaugh did nothing to help them by basically refusing to do more than, in effect, say "trust me" when Americans in general are so worried about terrorism.

They didn't make their case well. I don't fault Dubai Ports over that issue, but I have to admit that the administration did a very poor job of assuring us over this issue.

[Paul Ross]

If you were anywhere consistent in your personally held views since 1996, you would be too.

I have been consistently patriotic. Unlike the phoney self-declared free traders.

[muawiyah]

They were going to make all of $100 a day profit on the "ports", and I use that term loosely.

This was a deal for some gantry crane operations, not "ports" as commonly understood.

The Democrats tricked Conservatives (like Sean Hannity, and that strange woman Malkin) into this.

[Paul Ross]

If you were anywhere consistent in your personally held views since 1996, you would be too.

That doesn't follow. If the Democrats lips are moving...they are lying. You need to listen to only conservatives.

Seems like you you don't come to grips with my position, which I herewith reiterate:

Nobody relies on the Democrats for national security decisions. I never have and never will.

[Paul Ross]

The Democrats tricked conservatives into this...

No, that's now how it happened. There were serious internal security issues that were being steam-rolled. And virtually every real security conservative...caught wind of that...and rejected this scam by the CFIUS cabal. I.e., Frank Gaffney, Kenneth Adelman, Caspar Weinberger, Ed Meese, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingraham, and so on...etc. No reason to re-argue this, since we conservatives won the day. And the RINOs and liberals lost. Still smarting evidently. They always count on the RATs (because are definitively liberal) to always tip the votes on Globalism their way, hence they were totally flummoxed when they voted against their normal globalist sell-out positions.

The Democrats merely recognized that the real conservatives had already dug in against the RINOs, and they piled on for their own political reasons...(probably making a statement to the RINOs that they wanted more say in the backroom deals)...against the deal. The deal-makers who were surprised and overwhelmed. And their evasions and lies were exposed. The Homeland Security dept. had objected to the deal it now comes out, and the Coast Guard had at the last seconds, POLITICALLY OVERRULED its actual experts report that the DPW security vetting process was "impossible." They tried their damndest to obfuscate that one.

And DPW, ad UAE state entity, it turns out was also a front for the Saudi Arabian monetary partners...who had kicked us out of their country.

Notice how the issue went electric, straight to the top, where the President immediately and I mean immediately ran out of good reasons for it, and promptly threatened to veto any congressional opposition, and pulled out the "race card."

[muawiyah]

There were no security issues whatsoever.

The origianl story included such gems as Dubai purchasing the entire Port of New York for a few million bucks even though it's worth probably half a trillion.

It was one lie after another.

[aShepard]

At #13, That is a terrific graphic of the world shipping trafic.

Thanks!

[muawiyah]

The whole deal proved to the Democrats that Republicans and Conservatives could be tricked into the grossest sort of stupidity, including blaming their own.

All that did was encourage the Dems to continue on with the Plame/Wilson/Fitsmas garbage far beyond the time it had any logic or utility.

[muawiyah]

Unbelievably we are seeing a melt-down into the "sneaky Chinese" syndrome of the 1800s.

Not that we should not be warry of them, but when this country first got its independence China was the world's number one industrial power.

Stuff happened.

China and the Chinese have a way of letting that happen. It's only a matter of time until they let today's prosperty slip away only to be replaced by chronic warfare and death on a mass scale.

[Paul Ross]

So far the government has shown that it's been picking and choosing its' targets based on the color of one's skin.

This is a totally accusation befitting your standard Marxist liar. I assume you are not such, but your credibility is correspondingly gone, nontheless. There is no scintilla of empirical support for your knee-jerk response.

Actually, to the extent "color" made a difference, it was the color of the Saudi (yes, Saudi) and UAE money which seems to have been the guiding factor at CFIUS. Which totally failed in its job to protect our national security, but instead looked purely at placating adverse foreign interests and domestic sell-out's ideology. Completely reprehensible. In many ways, this Administration is as bad as Xlinton. And they can actually do more damage, because "Only Nixon Could Go to China."

[Paul Ross]

There were no security issues whatsoever.

That is a completely fact-free assertion on your part. Tell it to the Pentagon. Tell it to the Coast Guard experts who concluded quite definitively...that it was unable to vet DPW . Totally. And tell it to the Dept. of Homeland Security which stuck to its guns the longest, before the "underlings" were quashed. Interesting how the Administration spun it that they were "NO" objections. That it was "unanimous". And that there had been no "hint" that there was a problem...and that the Sec. of Defense and Treasury, etc. only heard about the issue the last week before it exploded like a grenade in Congress. Disturbing degree of disengenousness...further destroying the Administration's credibility and its standings in the polls. Clearly the fix was in from the top, and they had to know.

Any rate, stop reiterating the defeated propaganda of the moment. This is done. For a brief shining moment the country defended itself against the sell-outs.

The original story included such gems as Dubai purchasing the entire Port of New York for a few million bucks even though it's worth probably half a trillion.

Bogus. I had heard of the story long, long before any alleged sensationalism, so who knows what "story" you are alluding. And there is no reason to care either. I heard of the story back when DPW first tendered its offer on P&O, and it was totally straight up reporting. The story is far older than what you heard. And it was already DOA among real conservatives. They immediately recognized the inappropriateness of Al Queda's primary logistical conduit being given a direct managerial foothold on U.S. terminal operations. The fact that you heard some sensationalist misinformation...somewhere...sometime...somehow... as the "first story" disqualifies you from claiming any real information or knowledge of the events on this one...the sequence and scope are greater than the atmospherics which is all you were apparently only vaguely aware of.

It was one lie after another.

Tell it to the Coast Guard, Pentagon, and Dept. of Homeland Security.

Tell it to Curt Weldon. Tell it to Dana Rohrbacher. Tell it to Jon Kyl. Tell it to Duncan Hunter. Tell it to Peter King. Tell it to John Kline. Tell it to Rick Santorum. Tell it to Tom Tancredo. Tell it to JD Hayworth. The most solid of the solid. They ALL smelled a rat.

Pentagon, Homeland Dept. objected to UAE port deal
Kenneth R. Timmerman, Insight Magazine, March 6, 2006.

A cargo ship sits at the dock at the Port of Miami in Florida, one of the ports where Dubai Ports World could take over operations. (Robert Sullivan/AFP file photo)

At least three security agencies raised objections to a takeover by a United Arab Emirates state-owned company of the operations of six major U.S. ports.

Congressional sources said the Defense Department, Homeland Security Department and Coast Guard expressed objections during the review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of the state-owned Dubai Ports World, which bought the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. P&O has managed port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans.

"All of the rules were bent on this one," a congressional source said. "We had a major security review managed by political appointees."

But most of the objections were not recorded in the proceedings of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the sources said. They said the objections remained off the record for "technical reasons." Later, the heads of some of the agencies denied that their representatives raised concerns.

"During this review process there were no issues raised by any agency within DoD, including our U.S. Transportation Command, and that is significant because that was a special review measure we'd put in place to ensure that any military transportation security issue would be identified," Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 28.

But the sources said Pentagon representatives voiced concern and objections to the deal in what was termed an unofficial manner. In some cases, the sources said, the Pentagon agreed not to place the objections in the CFIUS record.

"Dubai can't be trusted with our critical infrastructure," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, who usually echoes the Pentagon's position. "UAE officials have been instrumental in the trans-shipment of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction components."

At one point, Homeland Security voted against the DP World application, the sources said. But they said the department's representative, Stewart Baker, agreed to change his vote after DP World pledged to honor additional undetermined security measures.

In contrast, the Coast Guard raised the prospect that DP World could not be trusted with running U.S. ports. An unclassified assessment by the Coast Guard in late 2005 said insufficient information was known about DP World and its links to al Qaeda sympathizers.

"There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential DPW and P&O ports merger," the Coast Guard said in a memo released by Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infers potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities."

Still, the objections by the Coast Guard and other agencies did not delay the review of DP World by the CFIUS. The sources said that under political pressure, the committee did not follow its usual rule of ordering a 45-day review reserved for a foreign takeover.

"I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed," said Ms. Collins, Maine Republican. "I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment, that there wasn't the kind of painstaking, thorough analysis that needed to be done, despite serious questions being raised and despite the involvement of a wide variety of agencies."

The sources said investigators have already determined that DP World would take orders from the Dubai government. They said the UAE firm has cooperated with Dubai's boycott of Israel, which is a violation of U.S. law.

Congress plans to examine several aspects of the proposed deal. One was whether DP World or its sponsors in the Dubai emirate were linked to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. Another was the source of the financing for the $6.8 billion DP World takeover of P&O.

Investigators also intend to examine the role of David Sanborn, who was appointed administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Mr. Sanborn, termed a leading campaigner for President Bush, was a former senior DP World executive appointed to his government position on Jan. 17, the same day the CFIUS approved the takeover of U.S. ports by the Dubai firm.

"Sanborn does leg work for [White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl] Rove," a congressional source said. "We believe he was the key to the unqualified White House backing for the takeover deal."

The sources said CFIUS might have also employed a double standard in considering foreign takeovers in the United States. They cited a committee decision to order a 45-day investigation of an Israeli company's $225 million purchase of Sourcefire, which designs security software for the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community. The decision to review the Israeli company, Check Point, was taken before the DP World controversy.

In contrast, the committee did not raise security objections of Dubai International Capital's proposed $1.2 billion acquisition of the London-based Doncasters Group. Doncasters owns factories in Georgia and Connecticut that produce engine components for U.S. military aircraft and tanks.

Last week, amid the fallout of DP World, the administration told Congress that the CFIUS was investigating Doncasters. On Feb. 27, CFIUS told the Senate Banking Committee that the panel would conduct a 45-day investigation of Dubai International and Israel's Check Point. The panel relayed its decision on the last day of the standard 30-day review process.

The Senate Commerce Committee plans to summon Mr. Sanborn to discuss his role in the DP World deal. At least two senators have pledged to block Mr. Sanborn's nomination unless he cooperates with investigators.

Another target of the congressional investigation could be Treasury Secretary John Snow. Mr. Snow, who oversees CFIUS, was the former head of CSX, which sold its port operations to DP World in 2004.

At the same time, the Senate Armed Services Committee plans to order an evaluation by the U.S. intelligence community of the United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration, warning of a backlash from the UAE, has opposed such an evaluation.

The administration has agreed to submit the slated acquisition by DP World of U.S. shipping operations to the CFIUS for a 45-day review. The Pentagon and other U.S. security agencies plan to participate in the process.

"The administration must know that we stand united to examine and review this deal independently," a letter signed by five Democrats and five Republicans said.

Shortly after this, with Congressional Action looming...and Hearings disclosing publically, and embarassingly, the actual misrepresentations by the Administration and lies about the coverups and whitewash...the Administration told DPW to give it up, and sell off the U.S. terminal operations of P&O to a U.S. entity.

[muawiyah]

"Being unable to vet" DOES NOT MEAN "there is a security risk".

It simply means someone didn't have time to do the job, or they didn't know where to begin, or someone else at a higher level told them to stop their research.

These are gantry cranes, not "ports" as most people understand the word.

[muawiyah]

BTW, Paul ol'buddy, when Duncan Hunter finally got a chance to write up a comprehensive bill about "port security" he wrote it to EXCLUDE Dubai, but not to EXCLUDE China.

So much for your side's integrity in this debate.

[Paul Ross]

BTW: A "container port" is not an LNG port. So the allusion to the claims of natural gas being exported from this port does not follow, unless the article's author admits to being inaccurate in its description of the terminal being created. Such sloppiness by those continuing to try and justify the indefensible sell out of the U.S. security seems to be par for the course.

I think it is simply criminal by supposed conservatives who continue to wallow in their pity-party over the torpedoeing of a Globalist shin-dig. The security issues were real, and the propaganda still being spewed to recriminate over the deal apparently needs to be aired out again for the phoniness they are, here is one reasonable summary which (in just a quick Google) notes just a few of the holes in the administration cover-stories:

Myths Promulgated to Support DPW Deal
March 3, 2006

(Washington, DC) -- Faced with widespread criticism in recent weeks, the Bush administration and some of its supporters have promoted numerous false and misleading claims intended to downplay the approval of a deal that would turn over control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- and cast critics of the transaction as racist, politically opportunistic, or both. The media, in turn, have often repeated these claims without challenge or correction.

#1: DPW is simply "Dubai-based"

In reporting on this controversy, numerous news outlets have ignored the fact that DPW is state-owned, referring to it simply as an "Arab company" or "Dubai-based." But the distinction between a company owned by a foreign government and one simply based in a foreign country is critical as a matter of law.

Indeed, critics argue that, in approving the deal, the administration ignored a federal law governing the transfer of American assets to foreign, government-owned companies. The Exon-Florio provision established the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States' (CFIUS). As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

In its initial, 30-day examination of the transaction, however, CFIUS determined that the deal gave rise to no national security concerns and declared this full review unnecessary. But critics of the deal have noted that the UAE does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state and was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, U.S. investigators have found that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission reported that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks." Critics of the deal contend that because DPW is controlled by a member state of a country with what is arguably a "mixed" record on terrorism, CFIUS' review of the transfer was not in accordance with the law.

#2: There is no difference between DPW and the British company that previously managed the ports

In failing to report that DPW is state-owned, certain news outlets have bolstered the false premise advanced by the Bush administration that the widespread criticism of the deal is based on the company's Arab ownership and is therefore discriminatory. In order to make this point, the White House has repeatedly conflated DPW and Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), the British company that currently manages the ports. For example, Bush said during a February 28 press briefing, "[W]hat kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's OK for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company ... from the Arab world." But such comments ignore the fact that, unlike DPW, P&O was not controlled by the British government or any other foreign government prior to its acquisition.

#3: DPW decided on its own to request an extended security review

In response to the escalating criticism of the Bush administration's approval of the ports deal, DPW offered on February 26 to submit itself to an additional review of the national security implications of the transfer. But in reporting on this development, media outlets have repeatedly credited DPW for taking the initiative, while failing to note critics' argument that the additional investigation should have occurred prior to the administration's approval of the deal.

As noted above, the Exon-Florio provision requires CFIUS to carry out an additional 45-day review -- on top of the customary 30-day investigation -- when the acquisition of American assets by a foreign, government-owned company provokes national security concerns. Lawmakers from both parties, including Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Susan Collins (R-ME), have specifically argued that because CFIUS declined to carry out this full investigation during its original examination of the deal, the review was not in accordance with the law.

The substance of these objections is crucial to understanding DPW's decision to undergo the additional review -- not to mention the controversy at large.

#4: The administration's review of the deal was very thorough

In the days after the ports controversy erupted, a chorus of Bush administration officials asserted that CFIUS' review of the DPW deal had been adequate and thorough.

Numerous news outlets and media figures followed suit by uncritically reporting the administration's expressions of confidence in the review process. In repeating or advancing such claims however, media have ignored forthcoming evidence that the review may not have been so "thorough" after all. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, and one to whom national security considerations would presumably be highly relevant, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."

Continued scrutiny of the CFIUS review soon yielded more disclosures regarding the actual nature of the investigation. On February 23, the Post reported that "CFIUS met only once during a 23-day review of the sale and that the few objections raised were quickly addressed." On February 27, Collins released an unclassified version of a document showing that the U.S. Coast Guard had "cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations." Further, February 28 Scripps-Howard column underscored the Coast Guard's concerns, noting that Al Qaeda -- in a 2002 letter translated by the U.S. government -- claimed that it had infiltrated numerous UAE agencies and that the emirates were "well aware" of this fact.

Most recently, King asserted on March 1 that officials from the Homeland Security and Treasury departments had told him that the CFIUS review did not examine possible ties between the UAE and terrorist groups. "There was no real investigation conducted during the 30-day period," King told CNN. In the day following King's allegation, however, most news outlets ignored this development.

#5: The administration extracted "extra security concessions" from DPW

Some media figures have uncritically reported that the Bush administration, in outlining conditions by which DPW would assume control of the six U.S. ports, "extracted extra security concessions" from the company prior to approving the deal. But these "concessions" are reportedly little more than pledges to comply with U.S. law. For example, according to a February 23 AP article, the administration "secretly required" DPW "to cooperate with future U.S. investigations." A February 24 New York Times article similarly reported that the secret "assurances" the administration drew from DPW were primarily "centered on compliance with existing United States law."

#6: Federal agencies control and conduct all port security

In their reporting on the ports deal, some news outlets have advanced the administration's claim that the ownership of port terminals has no effect on the level of security. At a February 22 press briefing, Scott McClellan asserted that DPW "won't control security at the ports. The security is under the control of the Coast Guard and under control of the Customs and Border Patrol, and it will remain that way." On February 23, Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said of the DPW deal, "[T]his not about outsourcing port security, which is in the very capable hands of the United States Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Patrol. This is about commercial operations at a port." On February 28, Bush himself said, "I can understand people's consternation because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security, when, in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security."

But in a February 24 article, Washington Post staff writers Paul Blustein and Walter Pincus countered that such a claim "overstates the role government agencies play." The article included a quote from Carl Bentzel, "a former congressional aide who helped write the 2002 act regulating port security," who said, "They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present." Blustein and Pincus also noted that "private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities."

Moreover, in a February 23 New York Times op-ed, former Department of Homeland Security inspector general Clark Kent Ervin noted that "the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading."

This is simply disgraceful when even the New York Slimes and the Washington Post are able to bring to bear more incisive critical faculty and common sense on national security than ALL the proponents of these sell-outs put together. Is it any wonder that the Port deal...sank like a rock?!

[Paul Ross]

.. when Duncan Hunter finally got a chance to write up a comprehensive bill about "port security" he wrote it to EXCLUDE Dubai, but not to EXCLUDE China. So much for your side's integrity in this debate.

Nobodies perfect. But he's better than the Administration overall. I agree he should have.

[Tribune7]

We have Chicoms running ports left, right and sideways in this country, yet a hissy fit gets thrown when a business from a nation providing vital logistic support to our military effort wants to invest here.