Posted on 02/16/2006 1:40:18 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.
DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals.
"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.
In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.
"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post Sept. 11," Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al-Nahyan told The Associated Press.
U.S. lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in U.S. efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., urged congressional hearings on the deal.
"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it will conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.
In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."
The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Reps. Foley, Fossella and Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The fact is that they are there, contrary to the assertion I was responding to. A couple got trashed in the cartoon riots in Pakistan. They've probably already re-opened.
I never suggested that he was a RINO. I have alot of respect for Coburn. I only said that anytime Schument and Lautenberg are behind ANYTHING, I am suspicious.
What operations are this company taking over at these ports?
All I'm saying is- does anyone want to risk a major port looking like that picture? Some Muslims get offended, they start throwing things and starting fires, and the cops have all taken sensitivity training. Just perfect.
Are you under the impression that muslim workers from Dubai are going to taking over the labor at those ports?
Are they contractually prohibited from doing so?
Guess I'll have to write and call some congress people, not that it will do any good.
Just got a letter from my Republican senator when I called or wrote *specifically* about the pharmacists and the conscience issue concerning the morning after pill; I don't want to embarass the office, but the meat of the reply was:
"I appreciate hearing your support for conscience clauses, preventing government agencies from requiring private health care agencies or insurance copanies to offer referrals to abortion providers . . ."
That's the second time I've gotten a response that was not relevant to my concern (this particular one is indirectly related), but the other was a Democrat senator.
No not yet .. the sale is still in process .. but close to closing
DomG just mentioned Rick Santorum concerns about this .. and he's not happy about it
You can listen to DomG's show online now
http://www.thebigtalker1210.com/
We are not this stupid are we? This is as dumb as a president giving away the Panama Canal and we never be that stupid. Would we? /Jimmah sucks sarcasm off
It's a change of management in port operations. It's not a change of workforce.
Nor is Dubai anything like the crazy street scenes in Pakistan.
Some here are imagining their worst stereotypes of what muslims are, and envisioning the street thugs in charge of our ports. That's ridiculous.
Why we should not trust UAE, let me count the ways...
"the port operator is responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port, the port facility itself and the hiring of security personnel."
"Currently, only 1 in 20 containers are checked, and 95% of all goods imported arrive through our ports."
"Dubai has been named as a key tranport point of nuclear components to N Korea, Iran, and Libya, sold by Pakistan."
"2 of 9/11 hijackers were UAE nationals and the FBI claimed money used for the attacks were transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through UAE banks. Furthermore, after 9/11, the Dept of Treasury complained of a lck of cooperation by UAE and other Arab countries as the US was trying to track down UBL's bank accounts."
"UAE is increasing trade opportunities with Iran."
WH defends this deal. INCREDIBLE. It's a good thing Bush didn't pull this in an election year.
I am certain, knowing Dr. Coburn, that he was as stunned as anyone by his "strange bedfellows".
I suspect that Halliburton would have been a good choice.
What also concerns me is that last month, DPW's former director of operations for Europe and Latin America, David C. Sanborn, was appointed by President Bush last month to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration in the Transportation Department.
I how and/or if this lines up with the whole thing?
I have not been able to determine precisely. One article said they would have control of security, another said not. I haven't found anything that definitively spells it out. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. I would like to know, in list form, exactly what would be their responsibilities.
Although I HATE Schumer and dont trust him , this whole deal still makes me real anxious. Just don't sound right to me .
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.