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 America’s 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 UAE’s 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.
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.
Yoo hoo! Ovah heah!
White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co.
The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.
Where are the usual bushbots to tell us what a great idea it is to entrust our ports to a country where the average guy even if not al-Qaeda, respects and admires it ?
That is what Major Garrett was reporting on Brit Hume's show tonight...that Bush hasn't even okayed this yet..
I agree with you on the border issue, but I also acknowledge there are differences of opinion. I also don't discount that Bush is reeling in the libs on this, getting them to commit to border closing, then calling them on it-- that's my hope, anyway.
Uh the point still stands DPWorld now legitmately owns P&O's assets and if they are not allowed to operate they can sell or strip the assets and infrastructure and have a perfect legal right to while putting many Americans out of work.
You are more afraid of a union than al-Qaeda ? Are you such an open borders, free trade at all costs idiot that you can't comprehend that this could cost us a whole lot more than money ?
If Mr. Gaffney had any credibility on this issue, he wouldn't have waited until February 20th of 2006 to write an article expressing his "concerns" about a corporate acquisition that was originally announced in October or November of 2005.
Ignoring post 47?
I hope you know that Bush wasn't even told about this.
The panel has to reject it for bush to get involved.
Bush has no role under the law in this.
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.