Posted on 02/17/2006 5:46:27 PM PST by Dane
UPDATE 3-US Democrats plan bill to block Dubai port deal Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:57 PM EST
(Recasts paragraph 1, adds UAE government, Rice, analyst)
By Jeremy Pelofsky and Caroline Drees
WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Two U.S. senators, citing national security concerns, said on Friday they would try to block a company backed by the United Arab Emirates government from acquiring a British firm that runs several U.S. ports.
Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York, both Democrats, said they would offer legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations, targeting the $6.8 billion purchase of P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research) by Dubai Ports World.
"We wouldn't turn the border patrol or the customs service over to a foreign government, and we can't afford to turn our ports over to one either," Menendez said in a statement. The Senate Banking Committee also plans to hold a hearing on the issue later this month.
P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research) is already owned by a foreign company, but is not state-owned, and the concern is that the purchaser is owned by the Dubai government, which is part of the UAE. The Bush administration considers Dubai and the UAE a solid ally in its campaign against terrorism.
The UAE company would control management of major ports in New York and New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami.
U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival.
It was unclear whether there was broad support for the new legislation. But objections in Congress to the deal could complicate ties between the United States and the UAE.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she supported the U.S. government decision to approve the deal and that the administration may need to better explain its reasons to Congress.
"There was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely," she said in an interview with Middle East-based media.
Rice plans to meet with some Gulf foreign ministers next week in Abu Dhabi, where the subject could come up.
"I understand the debate in the U.S. on the issue of P&O and Dubai Ports but we would like to emphasize that we have been a strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism and will remain so," UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan told Reuters.
A Dubai Ports World spokesman said ports the company managed met international security standards and that it had received all the U.S. regulatory approvals for the deal.
"All Dubai Ports World ports are ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) certified as are the P&O ports in the U.S.," the spokesman told Reuters in Dubai.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and did not object.
But both Republicans and Democrats in Congress urged the administration to conduct a more rigorous review. Some expressed fears that the UAE was used as a conduit for parts used for nuclear proliferation and that the local banking system had been abused by financiers with possible links to terrorist organizations.
The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing the week of Feb. 27 to examine concerns about the P&O sale and the U.S. government review process, a panel spokesman said.
"This does not create a train wreck," said Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "But it's not helpful for a huge number of things we do with the UAE, everything from cooperation on money laundering and trafficking to counterterrorism to defense issues and on and on."
U.S. officials have praised the UAE for steps to protect its booming financial sector against abuse by terrorism financiers. Money for the Sept. 11 attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system, according to U.S. officials. Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were UAE citizens. (Additional reporting by Saul Hudson in Washington, Dayan Candappa and Firouz Sedarat in Dubai)
Hillary and Schumer give you misinformation and low and behold -- you believe it.
Cool!
"Hillary and Schumer give you misinformation and low and behold -- you believe it."
Put down the Kool-Aid. Republicans are against the deal also. I was against the deal long before I heard about Clinton wanting it stopped. Bush is going to kill this deal, then you all will have come up with a Kool-Aid drinking rationalization as to why you don't support DP World manging ports.
Ok, let me see if I got this right, DJ maccy wowwow, you are saying that the New York Times is not under the idealogical umbrella of the DNC.
As I stated on an earlier reply on this thread, are you interested in buying a bridge to Brooklyn, you sure fit the marketing profile of such a buyer, IMO.
Again with the insults.
I said that a state run paper is not comparable to one that's liberaly biased and they are not. A state run paper prints what it's told to print. A liberal biased outlet CHOOSES to print it's bias.
Put down the Kool-Aid. Republicans are against the deal also. was against the deal long before I heard about Clinton wanting it stopped. Bush is going to kill this deal, then you all will have come up with a Kool-Aid drinking rationalization as to why you don't support DP World manging ports.
The U.S. Federal Government handles "national security". That would include the ports. The company in question will take the containers off the ships only when given permission by the Federal Government and they will put the containers on trucks only when given permission. The foreign company doesn't handle "National Security". That is misinformation.
Take your Kool-Aid and sit on it.
And could you please show me where khaleejtimes.com is a state run enterprise.
Islamic nations run their newspapers. Even Jordan does.
The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.
Proof please. Although I really don't expect much from one who basically denies that the New York Times is basically run by the DNC.
When did I EVER say that the NY Times doesn't run the Dem party line?! I said they CHOOSE to print liberal bias, they aren't ordered by the state to do so.
Your angst is caused by info and links that I have given. I suggest you stop the personal insults and find info and links instead.
The newspaper is owned by Galadari Printing and Publishing Llc.
- PRINTERS - COMMERCIAL
Company Name:GALADARI PRINTING & PUBLISHING (LLC)
Address: P.O.Box No.11243, DUBAI, U.A.E
Telephone: 382400
Fax: 383345/383356
Apparently they only print the paper and they are a limited liability company the same as FR.
Now.....you find an Islamic nation with a free press. You prove YOUR "point". Islamic nations are run by religious ideologues and all their news is siphoned through religion. They are as controlled as Russia.
"The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company."
Your post says nothing. Next time you post to me, try to...
I asked you, civilly, about Eller & Companys concern about the deal since they were partners of the British company. I believe if business partners are concerned, that might be a red flag. I also mistakenly believed you had a grasp of the situation and would be interested in the quote.
I asked you, civilly, about Eller & Companys concern about the deal since they were partners of the British company. I believe if business partners are concerned, that might be a red flag. I also mistakenly believed you had a grasp of the situation and would be interested in the quote.
Your citation of the Eller & Company's concerns offered no specifics. In short, it "said nothing". You atually think that's an uncivil response?
BTW, your "grasp" response is more uncivil than what I said and it doesn't follow logically from anything that I've said.
You DJ, are grasping something else.
Good grief. OK. Does it concern you that an American shiping partner of the Brits has concerns?
"The U.S. Federal Government handles "national security". That would include the ports. The company in question will take the containers off the ships only when given permission by the Federal Government and they will put the containers on trucks only when given permission. The foreign company doesn't handle "National Security". That is misinformation."
You don't think managing the international shipping containers in America's busiest ports has anything to do with National Security? Well you obviously agree with the people who decided to hand that task over to a state that has ties to international terroism and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Do you think the government is going to be looking over their shoulder when they are inspecting containers? The US Government might authorize a container of cell phones from Indonesia, and this company might say it received a container of cell phones. But the container might actually contain a nuclear weapon. We cannot place that much trust in a company owned by the UAE.
If the shipping partner has specific legitimate concerns about the deal then let's hear it.
In the name of national security, what are the specific concerns?
(That was my point when I first responded to you)
The whole thing sound stupid and trumped up to me. UAE has been one of our most steady allies in the region. The ports will still be under our port athorities and coast guard. And, they are not Red Chinese, Saudi's or Iranians. So, what really is the problem?
Private companies aren't responsible for cargo inspection or release. U.S. Customs as a function of Homeland Security is responsible for cargo inspection and release.
The threat of terrorism from container is neither increased of decreased by this deal. Hillary and Schumer give you misinformation.
The article said the committee agreed to consider them but that's small comfort since they have only nixed one deal out of 1530.
I've done a search on Michael Kreitzer and couldn't find anything beyond that statement.
That explains who Eller & Company are.
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.