I don't know if this belongs here, but....
Bush backs transfer of U.S. ports to Dubai firm
Frist, Corzine join critics of deal to let U.A.E. company manage 6 U.S. ports
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11474440/
WASHINGTON (AP) - After mounting opposition by politicians, President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.
Bush spoke as New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine said the state will go to state and federal courts to block the sale of operations at Port Newark to the company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Republican Senate leader urged Bush to reconsider, raising the ante in a fight that several lawmakers, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
This is a private transaction, said Bush, speaking to reporters gathered on the White House lawn. This transaction does not jeopardize in any way the security of the country. People who are responsible in the government have reviewed this transaction. This transaction should go forward, in my judgment.
The company will not manage port security, the president said. That will continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo is sent to the United States on a regular basis.
Full court press
Earlier, on Air Force One, Bush told reporters: I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, Well treat you fairly.
Frist urged the administration to reverse its decision, under which a British company that has been running six U.S. ports would be acquired by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., also known as P&O, runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter, said Frist. If the administration cannot delay this process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review.
Im not against foreign ownership, said Frist, but my main concern is national security. He was speaking to reporters in Long Beach, Calif., where Frist was doing a fact-finding tour on port security and immigration issues.
At the Pentagon, the U.A.E. was praised as an important strategic military partner by both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld told that a process was in place and the process worked.
Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation, Rumsfeld said.
We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis, he added. Its a country thats been involved in the global war on terror...a country (with which) we have very close military relations.
Pace said that military cooperation is superb with the U.A.E.
In Los Angeles, Sen. Susan Collins, who heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said she and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking that the committee be fully briefed on the ports deal with the UAE company.
'Resolution of disapproval'
Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said they are going to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval when they return to Washington next week.
The goal of the resolution will be to put the deal on hold until Congress can be fully briefed.
In the uneasy climate after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
The administration, however, insisted that national security issues had received a full airing before the interagency panel that reviews such transactions gave the go-ahead for the deal.
Emergency legislation planned
Frist, R-Tenn., spoke as other lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said they would offer emergency legislation next week to block the deal ahead of a planned March 2 takeover.
Frists move comes a day after two Republican governors, New Yorks George Pataki and Marylands Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of P&O.
Both governors indicated they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states because of the DP World takeover.
Ensuring the security of New Yorks port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World, Pataki said in a statement. I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them.
Ehrlich, concerned about security at the Port of Baltimore, said Monday he was very troubled that Maryland officials got no advance notice before the Bush administration approved the Arab companys takeover of the operations at the six ports.
We needed to know before this was a done deal, given the state of where we are concerning security, Ehrlich told reporters in the State House rotunda in Annapolis.
'Unbelievably tone deaf'
The arrangement brought protests from both political parties in Congress and a lawsuit in Florida from a company affected by the takeover.
Public fears that the nations ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab countrys takeover of six major ports, proved a combustible mix.
Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said on Fox News Sunday that the administration approval was unbelievably tone deaf politically, and at least one Senate oversight hearing was planned for later this month.
Critics have noted that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
Sounds kind of like letting a weasel watch the chickens.
Bush is actually threatening to veto any Congressional challenge to removing the Dubai deal (which won't help if someone does something about it on the state level). Although this was a deal prompted by stockholders, it's still a big risk.
After all, Britain is a bit higher (Read: A lot) on the ally list than Dubai. The fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates doesn't help either.
What is confusing is that Bush is actually threatening a veto. He's NEVER vetoed ANYTHING before (not even a spending bill). Something tells me that there's more going on here than meets the eye.
He wants to strip search people on airplanes and violate half the bill of rights but he's allowing these arabs he hates so badly to control shipping lanes?
o.o
I have no comment on this. It's too easy.
Quote:
What is confusing is that Bush is actually threatening a veto. He's NEVER vetoed ANYTHING before (not even a spending bill). Something tells me that there's more going on here than meets the eye.
Welcome to my world, Ultra!
EDIT: just to elaborate on this one liner, I had suspicions on the Bush presidency since it started, not just with this issue alone.
It seems that things may not be as bad as initially thought.
The company in question already controls almost all of the ports that US shipping comes from. The ones they don't are controlled by the People's Liberation Army (China).
Our entire strategy for import/export control, particularly post-9/11, is to inspect the material AT THE PORT OF DEPARTURE. This company has been very good at cooperating with our inspection and documentation regime. As these companies go they're probably one of the good guys (doesn't mean that there aren't people who could find a way to exploit this relationship, but it's not the company itself we need to worry about).
It may or may not be that letting the UAE company own the accounting systems for these American ports (and that's what this really is about) is a recipe for disaster, but if that's true, we're about 10 years too late (as that's when foriegners started controlling the points of origin for US imports).
Bush is probably adamant about this because he wants to have some better allied relations with Middle Eastern countries in case of a future conflict with Syria or Iran. Still, I'd prefer it if they had remained under the control of the British company P&O.
When I first saw that on the news, I had actually thought that Bush sunk to a new low, making a move like that. Now, I understand the situation a little better.
I guess it would help to improve relations with Arab nations, seeing as how a lot of them keep up their anti-American protests because of Bush's invasion of Iraq... =/
US inspectors do all of the security work at ports regardless of what company owns them. Unfortunately the security isn't very good; thousands of tons of narcotics enter the country ever year and a 1 kiloton nuclear device can fit inside a suitcase.
It's a touchy situation. If we turn away this Dubai based company just because they're from an Arab nation we are going to be seen as racist. Considering the tensions in the middle east after the cartoon incidents, I don't think that we really want to step on anyone's toes. The company will simply maintain the ports and charge fees for entering and exiting. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Quote:
It's a touchy situation. If we turn away this Dubai based company just because they're from an Arab nation we are going to be seen as racist. Considering the tensions in the middle east after the cartoon incidents, I don't think that we really want to step on anyone's toes. The company will simply maintain the ports and charge fees for entering and exiting. It really isn't that big of a deal.
That was exactly what I was thinking, Astrid. The situation is very tense as it is, given the situation on other countries are far from good.
Ahh another sensitive topic about the government and Bush....
I won't say much...but I will say I agree a lot with what Rico says. ^^;;
~T2K
Quote:
Still, I'd prefer it if they had remained under the control of the British company P&O.
P&O is being bought by DP World--the same company that's at the heart of the uproar.
Quote:
P&O is being bought by DP World--the same company that's at the heart of the uproar.
I've done more research on this matter, and I was initially under the impression that DP World had bought the contracts FROM P&O, where instead DPW actually BOUGHT P&O.
The more I read on this, the more I realize that all the uproar is tantamount to a whole lot of nothing. People are claiming DPW is actually going to be RUNNING the ports, where in fact they're merely operating some of the terminals at each of these ports. The security will still be handled by the Port Authority, as it was for the P&O.
It makes one wonder why the Bush administration handled the situation the way it did media-wise.
EDIT: And in other news, DP World has agreed to delay the deal.
I suppose this is a good thing; it'll allow for a more thorough review of the deal, considering how angry the public is about it.
Quote:
The more I read on this, the more I realize that all the uproar is tantamount to a whole lot of nothing.
I've felt that way from the instant it started without researching; but then again I already knew that most of our ports have the bills paid for by foreign companies/countries. Security (or lack thereof due to the lack of stuff actually checked) of the ports will always be in the control of the feds/state.
However, I feel the outrage was inevitable considering how much things dealing with Arabs/Muslims or connected to the Middle East has been demonized in the U.S. since September 11, 2001 combined with the recent Danish cartoon issue & uncertainty with Iraq. As a result, this is just a natural reaction.
