Skip to comments.A Harriet Miers moment (Gaffney on UAE Port Deal)
Posted on 02/20/2006 3:14:17 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
The federal bureaucracy has made a strategic mistake that threatens to cost the President dearly. The question is not whether the ill-advised decision taken last week by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (known by its acronym, CFIUS, pronounced syphius) will be undone. Rather, the question is: By whom -- and at what political cost to Mr. Bush?
In the latest of a series of approvals of questionable foreign takeovers of American interests, CFIUS has given the green light to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to acquire contracts to manage port facilities in New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company, Dubai Ports World, would do so by purchasing a British concern, Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P and O).
Experts have long identified Americas sea ports as weak links in the chain of our homeland security. With their proximity to major U.S. population centers, expensive infrastructure vital to the regional and, in many cases, national economy and their throughput of large quantities of poorly monitored cargo, they are prime targets for terror.
As a result, a case can be made that it is a mistake to have foreign entities responsible for any aspect of such ports, including the management of their docks, stevedore operations and terminals. After all, that duty affords abundant opportunities to insinuate personnel and/or shipping containers that can pose a threat to this country. Even though the company in question may not be directly responsible for port security, at least some of their employees have to be read in on the relevant plans, potentially compromising the latter irreparably.
At least the previous foreign contractors were from Britain, a country that was on our side before September 11, 2001. The same cannot be said of the United Arab Emirates, whose territory was used for most of the planning and financing of the 9/11 attacks. While the UAEs government is currently depicted as a friend and ally in the so-called war on terror, its country remains awash with Islamofascist recruiters and adherents people all too willing to exploit any new opportunity to do us harm.
Since a column raising an alarm about CFIUS decision appeared in this space last week, three new factors have come to light that compound the strategic folly of the UAE deal:
O First, in addition to the six affected ports mentioned above, two others would also have part of their operations managed by DP World on behalf of none other than the U.S. Army. Under a newly extended contract, the owner of P and O will manage the movement of heavy armor, helicopters and other military materiel through the Texas seaports of Beaumont and Corpus Christie. How much would our enemies like to be able to sabotage such shipments?
O Second, while advocates of the stealthy CFIUS decision-making process point to the involvement of the Defense Department in its DP World decision, it is unclear at what level this bizarre proposition was reviewed in the Pentagon. Many top jobs remain unfilled by presidential appointees. Past experience suggests the job may have fallen to lower-level career bureaucrats who give priority to maintaining good relations with their foreign clients, like the UAE.
O Then, there is the matter of financing the DP World takeover of Peninsula and Oriental. The UAE evidently intends to raise nearly all of the $6.8 billion price for P and O on international capital markets. It must be asked: Who will the foreign investors be, and might they have malign intentions towards the U.S.? If American sources of capital are being sought, will the possible danger this transaction may create for this country be properly disclosed? For that matter, will the underwriters, Barclays and Deutchebank, reveal to prospective funders the real risk that the deal will ultimately fall through?
In fact, that seems virtually certain now that talk radio, the blogosphere and the public have become aware of and white hot about this transaction. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and of Capitol Hill have made known their determination to prevent the transfer of control of U.S. ports to the UAE. In particular, Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer have been quick to seize on this issue as an opportunity to burnish their national security credentials at the expense of President Bush and his party.
So, the question recurs: How long will it take before Mr. Bush cuts his losses? This could be accomplished in one of three ways: He could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.
Call it a Harriet Meirs moment. Politics being the art of the possible, it is time to recognize that the Dubai Ports World deal is neither strategically sensible nor politically doable. It is time to pull the plug, and to reform the secretive interagency CFIUS process that allowed this fiasco in the first place.
Good for Gaffney. He's right on point.
And they wonder why people don't trust the government. Damn fools.
I suspect that there will be some sort of unamed problem and Dubai will have to regretfully pullout.
To paraphrase a previous expression. "It's the money, stupid." Previous moment = Making China a permanent preferred trade partner.
Reagan Main Street Republicans are gone with the wind. Wall Street investor Republicans and Democrats are in charge.
Bush has seriously undermined his credibility with this insane move. Can he be trusted to prosecute this war? Ain't sure no more...
"We were called sexist elitists on Harriet Miers, wonder what names we'll be called for opposing this one?"
I've seen "xenophobic" thrown about....
I think that proof came to light with his refusal to police the borders.
Bush&Company are asleep at the wheel on this one. This is a no brainer. That is, unless you're a member of the contingent of Bush sycophant bedwetters, who believe there is nothing wrong with having 'the religion of peace' managing six of the biggest US ports of entry located around the homeland.
His credibility was already worthless to many of us for a long time. Face it folks, He is NOT a conservative and it appears to me to have a goal of totally removing any borders we have. I regret my four vote for him more than I have ever regreted any vote before.
I opposed Meirs....and I oppose this sale...I wonder if I'll lose FRiends over this one.
Xenophobe as of yesterday...
Bush and company has become completely tone deaf. I guess Karl Rove has lost his usefulness.
Someone is asleep at the switch..
Brother. This is a stupid statement no matter which side of the port argument you are on.
"I regret my four vote for him more than I have ever regreted any vote before."
I've never been a diehard Bush fan, but I don't think I could ever go so far as to regret his being president, in light of the alternatives.
Guess you're in the same boat as they are.
Reagan Main Street Republicans are gone with the wind. Wall Street investor Republicans and Democrats are in charge.
So the great Conservative revolution goes out with a wimper...and a huge severance package?
You raise some valid points but your postings become silly when they go so far over the top.
A President Gore or Kerry would have given you something to really regret.
Dubai Ports International bought early last year when it paid US$1.15 billion for the global assets of United States rail giant CSX Corp. It acquired the international terminal business conducted by CSX World Terminals. CSX World Terminals is a leading international container terminal developer and operator with operations in Asia , Europe , Australia and Latin America.
"Xenophobic" for sure, also "racist." Also, "protectionist," "anticapitalist," "hysteric," and "favors nationalizing private industry."
Like I care. Names don't hurt my wittle feelings.
Yep and this will be the GOP's undoing if Bush farts around, thinking everyone will just forget about it. We won't and this boner decision will cost the party the ultimate price. If he doesn't nip it in the bud immediately, he's a fool. I guess being a one worlder is more important to him than our security.
Huh how come he doesn't have a solution to that. is he suggesting a huge new beauracracy where the unions can dive in for even more graft.
It's easy to bloviate Mr. Gaffney to your worshipers, but coming up with a solution is the hard part and you decided to leave that out all together.
The deal is not done....the *contract* is on Bush's desk...he has til March 2nd to sign it or squash it......and he may even request a 45 day delay....
Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton?
Well gee President Bush can just wiggle his nose and everything will be alright. DPWorld now has legal right to P&O's assets and infrastructure. If the contracts are canceled they have the legal right to strip the assets and sell them and put Americans out of work because of Mr. Gaffney's twitch of the nose solution.
It's much more complicated than that. Also if the contracts are canceled willy nilly what port operator would sign a contract knowing that not giving graft to hillary or schumer could result in the termination of a contract.
But i forgot some on FR live in a twitch of the nose world.
One thing he can't do is beat you at it. At least HE was appointed by Reagan as Asst Sec of Defense for International Security Policy in '87.
I'll ignore your obviously incorrect statement about Bush's intelligence. I have a theory. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I think there is a whole HELL of a lot more going on on the terrorism front than we can appreciate from our vantage point. We have not been hit since 9-11 for a reason, actually for many reasons. I don't disagree that this is a poorly made decision on the ports, although it is probably more politically poor than substantively so. I don't profess to have full knowledge on this.
But to call Bush stupid is not to appreciate all that HAS to be going on, the very substantial portion of which we don't know, and perhaps cannot ever know.
The dems, or at least some of them, DO know but are perfectly willing to use it politically. I wouldn't think that those is this room would as well. No one, Bush included, is as stupid as this might seem.
Actually the DPWorld takeover of P&O is a done deal. The P&O shareholders approved the deal and DPWorld has the legal ownership of P&O's assets and infrastructure worldwide.
JMO, it is better to watch DPWorld than ruin investor confidence in American business due to bloviaters who could have warned Americans months ago of the deal, but decided not to, to make political hay of a company that BTW, has a good worldwide reputation within the shipping circles.
I agree with you but he has made some unfortunate choices including the Mexican border debacle.
Yeah so? Reagan also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and nutballs paul craig roberts and pat buchanan.
Not clear. There was no major terrorist attack attempt between 1995 (when a potential operation to blow up the bridges into NYT was thwarted) and the Y2K attacks (also thwarted). I wouldn't have called WJC a hero over that...And our allies (England and Spain) were attacked - easier for the terrorists to reach.
I don't disagree that this is a poorly made decision on the ports, although it is probably more politically poor than substantively so.
It's justifiably both..
Bush would have to approve the transfer of P&O's contracts to administer the six ports. He doesn't have to do it, and I hope he does not do it.
Your words echo exactly what Sen. Graham said yesterday on Fox News.
"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said on "FOX News Sunday."
"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now."
They can't take over unless it's ok'd by the US. period. P&O can sell anything they like but we have to ok it. Those "in the know" say it's not a done deal. Most conservative pundits are saying it's not going anywhere and will be stopped. British shareholders have NO say in US security.
From their own website:
13 Febuary 2006 DP World to acquire P&O We are delighted to announce that the shareholders of P&O have approved the sale of shares to DP World. At an EGM held in London this afternoon, the shareholders voted over 99% in favour of the DP World acquisition. This means that the process of transferring ownership can now begin, and we expect for this to be confirmed by the court on 2nd March 2006.
I think he has a little more experience in this kind of thing.
Reagan also appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and nutballs paul craig roberts and pat buchanan.
If we were discussing Reagan, that might have validity.
We're talking inside knowledge.
IMHO by nominating Meiers, Bush forced the Judicial Committee Republicans to fight for someone like Alito - "put up or shut up" type gambit. Worked? Well...did it?
On the UAE Port Security deal...has anyone else noticed that this is the first time since 9/11 that Congress has been united on anything???
Bush is not the President of Republicans or conservatives - he is the President of the United States of America. As such, it is partly his responsibility to get Congress working together to pass legislation. This was not proposed by Bush nor did he ever defend it. I don't believe he ever intended to have this deal consumated. He has essentially managed to finaly unite conservatives and liberals on the subject of National Security. Can anyone say "brilliant"?
This seems to me to be a bureaucratic error complicated by the congressionally-mandated procedures of the committee who reviewed this.
I imagine Gaffney is right with his third choice, and Dubai will find a reason to withdraw the offer.