Dubai ports takeover prompts backlash

Main page content: Dubai ports takeover prompts backlash By Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Edward Alden in Washington Published: February 16 2006 23:00 | Last updated: February 16 2006 23:00

Washington lawmakers on Thursday expressed deep reservations about Dubai Ports World’s £3.9bn acquisition of P&O, the UK-based port operator, on the grounds that the deal represented a potential national security threat, and demanded that the White House re-open a regulatory review of the deal. ADVERTISEMENT

In a letter to Treasury secretary John Snow, Senator Richard Shelby, an influential Alabama Republican, stopped short of calling for the deal to be blocked, but said the transaction merited further scrutiny, potentially raising complications for DP World’s bid. Mr Shelby is expected to call for a hearing to discuss the issue in coming weeks.

In a separate letter to Mr Snow, New York senator Chuck Schumer and others said US ports were “the most vulnerable targets for terrorist attack”. They questioned whether DP World, which is owned and controlled by Dubai, should be allowed to take over P&O, charging that Dubai was a “key transfer point” for shipments of nuclear components bound for Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The deal, which has already been given regulatory clearance by the White House, gives DP World container terminals at six ports on the east coast of the US, including New York and New Jersey.

Although the Department of Homeland Security is ultimately charged with cargo- screening functions, the legislators said the port facility itself was responsible for securing cargo coming in and out of the port and the hiring of security personnel.

After the 9/11 attacks, your department complained of a lack of co-operation by the UAE and other Arab countries as the US was trying to track down Osama bin Laden’s bank accounts,” the letter stipulated.

The growing congressional backlash against the deal is likely to reignite a debate in Washington on the effectiveness of the committee on foreign investments in the US, or Cfius, an inter-agency panel that vets foreign takeovers of US assets on national security grounds.

Cfius, which is chaired by the Treasury Department, approved Dubai’s bid for P&O after reviewing it for a standard 30-day-period, although the committee could have called for the deal to be examined more thoroughly over an additional 45 days.

Stewart Baker, assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security, said that Cfius had completed its review after it was notified last year of the pending takeover, and had concluded there was no national security basis for blocking the transaction.

He said the US government had worked cooperatively with DP World in the past as part of the global container security initiative launched by the US after the September 11 attacks.

People familiar with the deal said administration officials were yesterday briefing lawmakers on the deal to assuage their concerns.

A spokesperson for the Treasury Department said the administration would not re-open its review unless evidence emerged that DP World had given the committee false information.

Cfius came under harsh scrutiny by lawmakers last year following a failed attempt by CNOOC, the Chinese oil company, to takeover California-based Unocal. Although the deal was quashed before Cfius reviewed the transaction, the widespread opposition to the deal in Congress prompted the Treasury Department and other agencies to promise to increase transparency at Cfius by communicating more with Congress and to be more willing to conduct full investigations of deals.

If you think we are going to defeat radical Islam withour help from other Muslims, then you are naive. I will reiterate so even you can understand it--the Emir of Dubai is a friend of the U.S. and, while a dedicated Muslim, he is no Wahabbist fanatic. There are already thousands of Muslims working in sensitive areas all over this country. It seems to me you are being selective about your outrage. Why not just ban all Muslims from the United States. Of course, that would only confirm what the radical Muslims have been saying.
This is no different than hiring Muslims as baggage handlers at U.S. airports. If you are against the one you ought, at least, to be consistent and be against the other (I have a feeling you would be in favor of "shipping all the Moosies out!" Right?).

At times it might be tactically wise to ally with some muslims to defeat other muslims. But, as we found out when we allied with one socialist dictator, Stalin, to defeat another socialist dictator, Hitler, the alliance is destined to be short lived and our "allies", who do not share our values, will become our enemies. What makes the Emir of Dubai our ally? He is no more an ally than the Saudi Princes. For the time being they see more radical muslims as a threat to their power, and might assist us in fighting against them so long as it is their interest to do so. Their allegiances, however, are to retaining their power and to their religion. Their religion is against almost every value Americans hold dear; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, equality of women and supremacy of the people. They have always spread their religious ideas by violence. These people will never be are true allies. I would not "ship all the Moosies out", but would halt immigration from any muslim country.

Bush is so freaking stupid on this. Who in the XXXX is in control in the White House on policy and politics.

It appears that he is batting 50% instead of in the high 90s right now. I cannot believe the his instincts are in this or Karl Rove's. He has badly, badly misjudged the populace on this issue. It is literal idiocy.

We even have Senator Schumer suggesting Halliburton, which is beyond sensible, but maybe only a Dem could do it.

Maybe what should be printed and discussed is HOW MANY COMPANIES in the world can handle this job?

Bush is even allowing Hillary Clinton to get to his right for crying out loud...why would he allow that to happen.

Novak's report says today that the impression that he is seeing people get, is that control in the White House is off balance.

Who's on first? What's on Second? and I don't know is on Third?

If all this weren't so important with the mid terms coming up this year, you would have to laugh and cry.

From one of my favorite Star Trek films:

The lady says, "Is this that dip s**t stuff?"

and Captain Kirk says, "No Mam, no dip s**t.

The problem? This has dip s**t written all over it, just like Mier's for SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where has Bush's game gone??????

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.