Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dubai ports takeover prompts backlash
Finacial Times(UK) ^ | 2/16/06 | Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Edward Alden

Posted on 02/16/2006 5:21:05 PM PST by Dane

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: backlash; dubai; hillaryclinton; portauthority; ports; uae
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.

Basically, we have one foreign company operating port services being sold to another foreign company.

Now without the usual hyoerbole that seems to go along with these threads, maybe we can figure this out. Notice that the article says the port facility itself is responsible for security. I would surmise that the foreign port company is supervised by the municipal port authority and in one case that would be the NY/NJ port authority, so that means the local authorites are charged with security(i.e the Dubai company is not in charge with security).

BTW, notice how chuckie schumer mentioned Libya. I guess he missed the news that Libya has given up it's WMD program, due to US pressure and is now cooperating with the US.

I know a lot of people are queasy about this, but it should not be looked through the prism of hyperbole from the press and a Senator who falls in love with every TV camera there is(chuckie schumer).

And also what are other "solutions". Should there be a govt. takeover. Should the govt. block a sale of one foreign owned company to another foreign company.

So instead of the usual knee jerk hyperbole, how about intelligent discussion.

1 posted on 02/16/2006 5:21:06 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Reality Based



"Reality Based
Since Feb 17, 2006"


Welcome to Free Republic


3 posted on 02/16/2006 5:39:14 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite (There's nothing "Mainstream" about the Orwellian Media!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

great info in this thread..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579951/posts


4 posted on 02/16/2006 5:40:21 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite (There's nothing "Mainstream" about the Orwellian Media!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Reality Based

GREED


7 posted on 02/16/2006 5:45:50 PM PST by outofhere2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reality Based
That's right. Nothing to see here. Business must go on and if Dubya says turning our ports over to Arab Emirates is OK

I think that is the misnomer, they are not taking over the ports, they are operating from the ports which are under the local municipal port authority.

Like I said before it is one foreign company buying the port facilities from another foreign company(which was British). And I wonder where schumer's outrage was over that foreign company that was overseen by the local port authority.

8 posted on 02/16/2006 5:45:51 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane
So instead of the usual knee jerk hyperbole, how about intelligent discussion.
I agree. the UAE is not Saudi Arabia. Thousands of foreignors own property in this nation (Palm Jameera Island and other developments). The Emirates hold to a tolerant branch of Islam and are trying to make tourism the #1 industry. They realize that the oil will one day run out or a cheap substitute for it will eventually be found. Beautiful beaches and pristine reefs make it a sun-worshipper's and diver's paradise. The golf courses are top notch. You can get a drink of whiskey and oggle bikini-clad babes there. So what's the big deal? This is merely a business deal with company that is based out of a staunch U.S. ally.
9 posted on 02/16/2006 5:53:03 PM PST by attiladhun2 (evolution has both deified and degraded humanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Reality Based
So on one hand we can't trust Arabs as far as we can throw them, but on the other we say okey-dokey to whichever ones Dubya will hold hands with. Have I got that straight?

In actuality, this is a business deal, with a UK firm that has contracts in 6 US ports being taken over by another firm.

It's not like that DP world is taking over the ports. They will have a contract to load and unload ships from all a round the world from that port(which is under US control and overseen by local, state, and federal security).

Now there can be a debate about if that is good or not, but let's get rid of the chuckie schumer misnomer that DP World is "taking" over the ports, which they are not.

11 posted on 02/16/2006 6:03:51 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2

There are no muslim countries that are staunch U.S. allies. Their loyalty is to their religion which is in direct conflict with the security of the U.S. There is no such thing as a tolerant branch of islam. This is a business deal that would give a potentially hostile foreign power all information about the security of vital ports. What possible reason would we have to allow such a potentially suicidal transaction?


12 posted on 02/16/2006 6:04:41 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Love...exciting and new...climb aboard...we're expecting you...


13 posted on 02/16/2006 6:04:55 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reality Based

This is just plain stupid.


14 posted on 02/16/2006 6:08:49 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (BTUs are my Beat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And I wonder where schumer's outrage was over that foreign company that was overseen by the local port authority.

Maybe he doesn't trust Muslims.

Here are the new players: left Pres.UAE.... Right VP UAE


15 posted on 02/16/2006 6:09:52 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Cfius, which is chaired by the Treasury Department,

Rep. Mark Foley said Sec. John Snow told him he didn't know anything about the deliberations, yet he heads the Department which oversees this very decision. Additionally, when John Snow ran CSX Transporation, he sold his entire port operations to a Dubai-based corporation. So it appears Secretary Snow is either a fool, or a damned liar.

16 posted on 02/16/2006 6:09:54 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; DTogo; AZ_Cowboy; Itzlzha; Stellar Dendrite; NRA2BFree; Happy2BMe; Spiff; Pelham; ...

ping


17 posted on 02/16/2006 6:11:25 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite (There's nothing "Mainstream" about the Orwellian Media!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Reality Based; Darksheare; MikeinIraq; darkwing104

Hoooo boy!


18 posted on 02/16/2006 6:11:59 PM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Additionally, when John Snow ran CSX Transporation, he sold his entire port operations to a Dubai-based corporation. So it appears Secretary Snow is either a fool, or a damned liar

Actually that happened one year after Snow had left CSX.

Snow is a former chairman of freight rail company CSX Corp. (CSX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which sold its global port assets to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004 -- the year after Snow had left the company for the Bush administration.

Link

So who is being the liar now.

19 posted on 02/16/2006 6:16:18 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Will someone please tell me why there is not an American firm that can handle this acquisition? Why is it not even talked about? How about the cities where the ports are located having ownership, control and management?


20 posted on 02/16/2006 6:30:55 PM PST by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Actually that happened one year after Snow had left CSX.

You are right about that part and I stand corrected. However his claims of not knowing about the CFIUS deliberations were not credible.

21 posted on 02/16/2006 6:48:50 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thank You Rush
Will someone please tell me why there is not an American firm that can handle this acquisition? Why is it not even talked about? How about the cities where the ports are located having ownership, control and management?

JMO, chuckie schumer would be screaming 100 times louder if Halliburton took over.

I have no idea why there is not an American company that could take over.

22 posted on 02/16/2006 6:49:05 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dane

What can be done to stop this? If we let 6 major ports be controlled by a terrorist-sponsoring nation, we're not serious about the War on Terror.


23 posted on 02/16/2006 9:10:30 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: Dane

Allowing this to transpire is utter foolishness.


25 posted on 02/16/2006 9:21:39 PM PST by DoNotDivide (Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Are they holding hands or is one of them slipping a little something to the other?


26 posted on 02/16/2006 9:29:06 PM PST by lewislynn (Fairtax = lies, hope, wishful thinking, conjecture and lies. (no it's not a mistake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Come right in with nukes,we have your prey rugs on the
dock so you can prey to allah before setting off the
nuke oh we also have some tea incase your thirsty.Oh
do you want some signs to show you the best place to set
your nuke off.We aim to please.


27 posted on 02/16/2006 9:42:56 PM PST by CommieCrusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

"If we let 6 major ports be controlled by a terrorist-sponsoring nation, we're not serious about the War on Terror."

Good job that's not happening then. The control of the ports isn't changing and P+O cannot really be considered a 'terrorist-sponsering nation'.


28 posted on 02/16/2006 11:10:21 PM PST by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Err Dubai. P+O of course would not be a nation at all. Oh, it's way to early!


29 posted on 02/16/2006 11:11:58 PM PST by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Dane; raybbr; DTogo; AZ_Cowboy; Itzlzha; Stellar Dendrite; NRA2BFree; Happy2BMe; Spiff; Pelham; ...
So who is being the liar now.

YOU!

Do you ACTUALLY believe that Multi-Billion dollar deals with Multi-National Companies MAGICALLY occur AFTER certain players are bought by one of the interested parties? That they ONLY take one year?

Just how long does a Billion dollar deal take, Dane?

Because I'd bet that this buyout was proposed, started, researched, and negotiated when Snow was still head of CSX!

But not in your Kool-Aid addled world! Multi-National deals and Billion dollar buyouts ONLY occur when GWB and his sock-puppets say they do!

Wow, you really do NOT have a clue of what you speak...

31 posted on 02/17/2006 9:39:56 AM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha

NOW IT IS STARTING TO MAKE SENSE, AND IT REALLY MAKES ME SICK!

January 13, 2003, John Snow, CEO of CSX leaves and Bush nominates John Snow to be Secretary of the treasury

December 9, 2004, CSX World Terminals is purchased by DPW

January 24, 2006, David Sanborn leaves DPW and joins Whitehouse as new administrator of the Maritime Administration in the Transportation Department

Present, the fight whether to allow DPW into 6 US Ports


32 posted on 02/17/2006 10:53:10 AM PST by sasha123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha

It's hard to be logical with the Kool Aid cultists..


33 posted on 02/17/2006 12:43:39 PM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
"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."

And I have concluded there is little difference between the Treasury Department and Foggy Bottom when it comes to national security and protecting America's best interests. What a sorry assed collection of useless bureaucrats.

34 posted on 02/17/2006 12:50:05 PM PST by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Another"Brokeback Republican" monent...


"Why can't I QUIT you?!"

35 posted on 02/17/2006 12:51:26 PM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: Itzlzha; Dane
"Wow, you really do NOT have a clue of what you speak..."

Correct. But then that's just Dane being Dane.

37 posted on 02/17/2006 1:13:36 PM PST by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Canard

http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/re-portgate.html

For once, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is right about something. I guess it just goes to show that even a blind bird catches a worm once in a while.

What Schumer is right about is his opposition to the deal that would allow Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to gain control of six major American ports through its purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Staem Navigation Company, which currently runs the ports: New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami.

The obvious question is, aren't there any American companies capable of running these ports? And the more important question is, Are we serious about the War on Terror? We have left our borders wide open for anyone (including terrorists) to come through and now we are turning control of six major ports over to a country that sponsors terrorism.

The deal has been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, but Schumer, along with Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representaties Vito Fossella (R-NY), Christopher Shays (R-Ct.), and Mark Foley (R-Fla.), is trying to stop the transaction. REpresentaigve Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged the Bush Administration to reconsider.

New York City Council members of both parties have spoken out against the deal. "On its face, this looks like insanity to me," the Republican minority leader of the City Council, James Oddo, said. The chairman of the Council's Public Safety Committee, Democrat Peter Vallone, said that the deal "raises some legitimate concerns."

The Bush administration considers the UAE a key ally in the War on Terror, but the UAE has been a sponsor of terrorism. It was the home of Marwan al-Shehi, one of the 19 hijackers who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Other hijackers travelled through the UAE. The UAE was an important financial base for the September 11 hijackers. The country is a transit point for Al Qaeda. It has been a financier of Al Qaeda. It continues to regard the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and is militantly anti-Israel. The CIA has identified the UAE as a major center for drug running and money laundering. It also has close ties to Iran.

The UAE is a federation of seven Arab emirates on the Arabian peninsula.

As Rep. Foley has said, "If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says, we should be overly critical of handing over the management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11."

What happens if nuclear materials pass through one of these ports? How will the UAE direct its employees to deal with that? The threat to our national security is clear.

That is why these Senators and Representatives are right to speak out against the transfer of control of our ports to UAE control, just as Red Chinese control of the Panama Canal poses a threat to our national security.

Can we afford to turn control of key ports over to a company controlled by a terrorist-sponsoring government?


38 posted on 02/17/2006 1:37:34 PM PST by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

I am sorry, but you simply incorrect on all of your points. With all due respect, you are uninformed, nativistic, and prejudiced. Thousands of Muslims have died as our allies resisting Islamofascist extremism. Thousands more died resisting Communism. The kind of attitude you exemplify will simply drive more Muslims into the camp of the extremists.


39 posted on 02/17/2006 2:23:41 PM PST by attiladhun2 (evolution has both deified and degraded humanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2

The ignorance and childish naivete of people like you threatens my security. Kumbaya is not a strategy against a ruthless enemy.


40 posted on 02/17/2006 6:41:39 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

What flavor kool-aide do I need to drink to make this Arab control of our ports sound like a good idea?


41 posted on 02/18/2006 4:02:18 PM PST by Russ7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
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?).
42 posted on 02/19/2006 1:51:02 PM PST by attiladhun2 (evolution has both deified and degraded humanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
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.
43 posted on 02/19/2006 8:52:35 PM PST by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dane

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.


44 posted on 02/21/2006 4:10:33 PM PST by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joyspring777

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??????


45 posted on 02/21/2006 4:12:59 PM PST by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

I understand the line of reasoning...

but unequivocally disagree!!!!!!!!!!!!!


46 posted on 02/21/2006 4:13:42 PM PST by joyspring777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson