http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184599,00.html
Administration OK With UAE Running Six Major U.S. Ports
Sunday, February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON — A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The $6.8 billion sale is expected to be approved Monday. The British company is the fourth largest ports company in the world and its sale would affect commercial U.S. port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement to The Associated Press.
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.
The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington, the FBI concluded.
Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat whose district includes the New York port, urged the administration to consider the sale carefully.
"America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."
Last month, the White House appointed a senior DP World executive, David C. Sanborn of Virginia, to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration of the Transportation Department. Sanborn worked as DP World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America.
Critics of the proposed purchase said a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.
"When you have a foreign government involved, you are injecting foreign national interests," Kreitzer said. "A country that may be a friend of ours today may not be on the same side tomorrow. You don't know in advance what the politics of that country will be in the future."
Shipping experts noted that many of the world's largest port companies are not based in the U.S., and they pointed to DP World's strong economic interest in operating ports securely and efficiently.
"Does this pose a national security risk? I think that's pushing the envelope," said Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. "It's not impossible to imagine one could develop an internal conspiracy, but I'd have to assign it a very low probability."
Changing management over the U.S. ports "doesn't offer Al Qaeda any opportunities it doesn't have now," said James Lewis, who worked with the U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments. "It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well. There is strong economic incentive to be sure these worries never materialize."
Flynn and others said even under foreign control, U.S. ports will continue to be run by unionized American employees. "You're not going have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks," Flynn said. "They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs. Most of them are Archie Bunker-kind of Americans."
Peninsular and Oriental and DP World set approval by the U.S. security committee as a condition for the sale. In regulatory papers, the companies said either the committee must agree not to formally investigate the purchase or Bush must not move to block the sale for national security purposes.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI has said the money for the strikes was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's banking system, and much of the operational planning for the attacks took place inside the UAE.
Many of the hijackers traveled to the U.S. through the UAE. Also, the hijacker who steered United Airlines flight into the World Trade Center's south tower, Marwan al-Shehhi, was born in the UAE.
After the attacks, U.S. Treasury Department officials complained about a lack of cooperation by the UAE and other Arab countries trying to track Usama bin Laden's bank accounts.
Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
Full Version: Administration OK with UAE Running Six Major
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
U.S. Defends Sale of Ports Company to Arab Nation
By Ted Bridis and Devlin Barrett, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — 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.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.
ADVERTISEMENT
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously that the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department said in an interview.
"It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE was not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said in a House speech.
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.
"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.
In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.
"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post-Sept. 11," said Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al Nahyan.
Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a [domestic] security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it would conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.
In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."
The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), and Reps. Foley, Vito J. Fossella (R-N.Y.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.)
U.S. Defends Sale of Ports Company to Arab Nation
By Ted Bridis and Devlin Barrett, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — 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.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.
ADVERTISEMENT
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a U.S. committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously that the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department said in an interview.
"It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE was not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said in a House speech.
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from U.S. officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.
"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the United States.
In Dubai, the UAE's foreign minister described his country as an important U.S. ally but declined to respond directly to the concerns expressed in Washington.
"We have worked very closely with the United States on a number of issues relating to the combat of terrorism, prior to and post-Sept. 11," said Sheik Abdullah Bin Zayed al Nahyan.
Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a [domestic] security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
Separately, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday it would conduct its own review of the deal and urged the government to defend its decision.
In a letter to the Treasury Department, Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia said the independent review by his agency was necessary "to protect its interests."
The lawmakers pressing the White House to reconsider included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), and Reps. Foley, Vito J. Fossella (R-N.Y.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._emirates_pact/
Congress questions Emirates pact
Accord on ports stirs concerns about security
By Paul Blustein By Ted Bridis and Devlin Barrett, Associated Press | February 17, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The management of major US ports taken over by an Arab-owned company? What was the Bush administration thinking when it allowed such a thing?
That is the question being asked by members of Congress from both parties. Their indignation is aimed at the $6.8 billion purchase by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, a corporation that handles most operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
At a news conference yesterday, a group of seven House and Senate members from both parties demanded that an interagency task force on foreign investments, which approved the transaction, examine it more closely.
The group asserted that although the United Arab Emirates may have a strongly pro-US government, some of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers allegedly used the country as a transit point, and that its banking system has been used by several groups allegedly affiliated with Al Qaeda.
''Our ports are major potential terrorist targets," said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut. ''I strongly urge the administration to thoroughly investigate this acquisition."
Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma, said, ''Handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror."
Administration officials defended approval of the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel with representatives from 12 US agencies that reviews foreign takeovers of US companies or possible risks to national security.
The company that now operates the ports, they said, is foreign, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British firm. Its employees in US ports, who are mostly Americans, are expected to do the same work they're doing now. Furthermore, Dubai Ports World, which won the bidding this month for the company, has been a reliable partner in screening cargo headed for the United States. And once cargo arrives, federal agents would continue their current level of inspections.
''This company will be subject to any US laws that apply to port security, and will be obliged to have a port security plan that we will review," Stewart Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said in a phone interview. ''So if there's a falloff in compliance on security here in the United States, we're not completely lacking in ability to respond to that."
The flap has some implications beyond the port security issue, as illustrated by the readiness of administration officials to comment on the decision made by the committee, which deliberates in secret.
After many years in which foreign investment in the United States has become generally welcome as a generator of jobs, Congress has recently become more wary of purchases by certain foreign interests.
The takeover last year by a Chinese company of International Business Machines Corp.'s personal computer business aroused concern that China might gain access to sensitive technology. That controversy also inspired plans by powerful members of Congress to tighten the 1988 law that created the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Talk of major changes in the law has subsided, but the Dubai Ports World deal could reignite the effort.
If the administration is perceived as not reviewing the deal carefully, congressional skeptics of foreign investment may feel obliged to take matters into their own hands, said Todd Malan, executive director of the Organization for International Investment, which represents the US subsidiaries of many foreign companies.
Malan was especially concerned because the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States did not conduct a 45-day investigation on top of the initial 30-day review that it usually gives to foreign purchases of US businesses.
''There's obviously a very broad interest in Congress in this particular transaction, and we hope that it doesn't lead to broad changes" in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, Malan said. ''Clearly, a larger number of members of Congress would have been more comfortable if this transaction had gone to the full investigation phase."
DP World, the company at the center of the controversy, has been expanding since 1999 from its base in Dubai into operating ports in many other parts of the world, including Asia, Europe and South America.
''We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures," Baker said. ''Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a US port, we've already lost."
Extra investigation is not necessary, Baker said, because the company approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, in late November, when it decided to bid for Peninsular and Oriental.
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Congress questions Emirates pact
Accord on ports stirs concerns about security
By Paul Blustein By Ted Bridis and Devlin Barrett, Associated Press | February 17, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The management of major US ports taken over by an Arab-owned company? What was the Bush administration thinking when it allowed such a thing?
That is the question being asked by members of Congress from both parties. Their indignation is aimed at the $6.8 billion purchase by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, a corporation that handles most operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
At a news conference yesterday, a group of seven House and Senate members from both parties demanded that an interagency task force on foreign investments, which approved the transaction, examine it more closely.
The group asserted that although the United Arab Emirates may have a strongly pro-US government, some of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers allegedly used the country as a transit point, and that its banking system has been used by several groups allegedly affiliated with Al Qaeda.
''Our ports are major potential terrorist targets," said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut. ''I strongly urge the administration to thoroughly investigate this acquisition."
Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma, said, ''Handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror."
Administration officials defended approval of the deal by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel with representatives from 12 US agencies that reviews foreign takeovers of US companies or possible risks to national security.
The company that now operates the ports, they said, is foreign, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British firm. Its employees in US ports, who are mostly Americans, are expected to do the same work they're doing now. Furthermore, Dubai Ports World, which won the bidding this month for the company, has been a reliable partner in screening cargo headed for the United States. And once cargo arrives, federal agents would continue their current level of inspections.
''This company will be subject to any US laws that apply to port security, and will be obliged to have a port security plan that we will review," Stewart Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said in a phone interview. ''So if there's a falloff in compliance on security here in the United States, we're not completely lacking in ability to respond to that."
The flap has some implications beyond the port security issue, as illustrated by the readiness of administration officials to comment on the decision made by the committee, which deliberates in secret.
After many years in which foreign investment in the United States has become generally welcome as a generator of jobs, Congress has recently become more wary of purchases by certain foreign interests.
The takeover last year by a Chinese company of International Business Machines Corp.'s personal computer business aroused concern that China might gain access to sensitive technology. That controversy also inspired plans by powerful members of Congress to tighten the 1988 law that created the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Talk of major changes in the law has subsided, but the Dubai Ports World deal could reignite the effort.
If the administration is perceived as not reviewing the deal carefully, congressional skeptics of foreign investment may feel obliged to take matters into their own hands, said Todd Malan, executive director of the Organization for International Investment, which represents the US subsidiaries of many foreign companies.
Malan was especially concerned because the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States did not conduct a 45-day investigation on top of the initial 30-day review that it usually gives to foreign purchases of US businesses.
''There's obviously a very broad interest in Congress in this particular transaction, and we hope that it doesn't lead to broad changes" in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, Malan said. ''Clearly, a larger number of members of Congress would have been more comfortable if this transaction had gone to the full investigation phase."
DP World, the company at the center of the controversy, has been expanding since 1999 from its base in Dubai into operating ports in many other parts of the world, including Asia, Europe and South America.
''We have a relationship with this company because they have been a participant in some of our cargo and port security measures," Baker said. ''Remember, our interest in port security extends well beyond the United States. If we discover weapons of mass destruction inside a US port, we've already lost."
Extra investigation is not necessary, Baker said, because the company approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, in late November, when it decided to bid for Peninsular and Oriental.
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/10A...7775D0E44B3.htm
White House defends DP World deal
Friday 17 February 2006, 0:31 Makka Time, 21:31 GMT
P&O has come under the Dubai port operator's umbrella
The Bush administration has 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.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal. The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a US committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman, said on Thursday.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, run by the Treasury Department, took into account an assessment from US intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
The public defence of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Congressmen's plea
Four senators and three House members asked the administration on Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of US terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Mark Foley, a House member, said in a House speech.
DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals for its purchase and noted that the administration did not object.
The US describes the UAE as a
vital partner in the war on terror
"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the US.
Lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognise the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in US efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
Vito Fossella, a House member, urged congressional hearings on the deal.
Strategic assets
"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 11 September 2001.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Charles Schumer, a senator.
"The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
Agencies
White House defends DP World deal
Friday 17 February 2006, 0:31 Makka Time, 21:31 GMT
P&O has come under the Dubai port operator's umbrella
The Bush administration has 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.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider the deal. The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a US committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, Frederick Jones, a National Security Council spokesman, said on Thursday.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, run by the Treasury Department, took into account an assessment from US intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
The public defence of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Congressmen's plea
Four senators and three House members asked the administration on Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of US terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Mark Foley, a House member, said in a House speech.
DP World said it had received all regulatory approvals for its purchase and noted that the administration did not object.
The US describes the UAE as a
vital partner in the war on terror
"We intend to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the company said in a statement. "It is very much business as usual for the P&O terminals" in the US.
Lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognise the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. Dubai's own ports have participated since last year in US efforts to detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
Vito Fossella, a House member, urged congressional hearings on the deal.
Strategic assets
"At a time when America is leading the world in the war on terrorism and spending billions of dollars to secure our homeland, we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism," Fossella said.
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 11 September 2001.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Charles Schumer, a senator.
"The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
Agencies
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/na...itics-headlines
More are questioning port transfer
BY JOHN RILEY
STAFF WRITER
February 17, 2006
New York Sen. Charles Schumer won new allies in Congress and the media yesterday in his campaign to raise national security concerns about a planned transfer of port operations in Newark and other key East Coast cities to a company controlled by the government of Dubai.
Dubai Ports World, already a global player in port operations, acquired a stake in terminal operations in New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Newark on Monday when shareholders approved its takeover of the British firm Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation. Critics fear the deal increases the risk of weapons or terrorists being smuggled into the United States.
The takeover was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department that can block foreign acquisitions that threaten national security.
But Schumer, who first raised questions Monday, was joined yesterday by an array of six congressmen, including Republicans such as conservative Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in a call for a second look. Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has also raised questions, and The New York Times yesterday editorialized against the deal.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," Schumer said.
The Bush administration has portrayed oil-rich Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, as an ally in the war on terror. But Schumer and other opponents noted that one of the Sept. 11 hijack pilots came from the UAE, and the plotters moved money through that country's financial system.
While the alarms have attracted media attention, a Treasury Department spokesperson said yesterday that the approval can't be reconsidered and the White House defended it. And some outside experts noted that foreign companies have long been dominant in maritime shipping and major players at many U.S. ports.
Regardless of the national pedigree of the terminal operator, noted Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Customs agents will still screen containers, and patriotic American longshoremen will still work the docks. The key to better port security, he said, is more attention to needs such as better technology to screen incoming containers.
"The ownership of marine terminal operations by foreign companies is not at the top of my list," Flynn said. "It distracts us from much more worthwhile efforts to build security."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
More are questioning port transfer
BY JOHN RILEY
STAFF WRITER
February 17, 2006
New York Sen. Charles Schumer won new allies in Congress and the media yesterday in his campaign to raise national security concerns about a planned transfer of port operations in Newark and other key East Coast cities to a company controlled by the government of Dubai.
Dubai Ports World, already a global player in port operations, acquired a stake in terminal operations in New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Newark on Monday when shareholders approved its takeover of the British firm Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation. Critics fear the deal increases the risk of weapons or terrorists being smuggled into the United States.
The takeover was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department that can block foreign acquisitions that threaten national security.
But Schumer, who first raised questions Monday, was joined yesterday by an array of six congressmen, including Republicans such as conservative Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in a call for a second look. Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) has also raised questions, and The New York Times yesterday editorialized against the deal.
"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," Schumer said.
The Bush administration has portrayed oil-rich Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates, as an ally in the war on terror. But Schumer and other opponents noted that one of the Sept. 11 hijack pilots came from the UAE, and the plotters moved money through that country's financial system.
While the alarms have attracted media attention, a Treasury Department spokesperson said yesterday that the approval can't be reconsidered and the White House defended it. And some outside experts noted that foreign companies have long been dominant in maritime shipping and major players at many U.S. ports.
Regardless of the national pedigree of the terminal operator, noted Stephen Flynn, a maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Customs agents will still screen containers, and patriotic American longshoremen will still work the docks. The key to better port security, he said, is more attention to needs such as better technology to screen incoming containers.
"The ownership of marine terminal operations by foreign companies is not at the top of my list," Flynn said. "It distracts us from much more worthwhile efforts to build security."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3665936.html
Feb. 16, 2006, 9:23PM
Lawmakers urge review of Arab ports deal
White House defends the sale of operations in 6 American cities to UAE company
By TED BRIDIS and DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - 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, including New Orleans.
Feb. 16, 2006, 9:23PM
Lawmakers urge review of Arab ports deal
White House defends the sale of operations in 6 American cities to UAE company
By TED BRIDIS and DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - 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, including New Orleans.
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArtic...sid&date=060215
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Diane M. Grassi
Bio: Diane M. Grassi
Date: February 15, 2006
Print article -
Email article link to friend(s) -
Foreign Ownership of U.S. Airlines & Ports Deemed Troubling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With possible ownership of U.S. airlines possibly permitted within a year, control of operations and security of six U.S. ports will be given to the United Arab Emirates and based in Dubai.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) on February 8, 2005, presented its decision before the U.S. House of Representatives House Aviation Sub-Committee, to change a rule which would clear the way for foreign corporations to own and control U.S. airlines. But members of the House Aviation Sub-Committee were all in agreement that the DOT may lack the legal authority to unilaterally make such a change. Yet it does not begin to reveal all of the implications of such a historic shift in policy in bypassing the U.S. Congress in order to do so.
Trade negotiations with the European Union to loosen up regulations in ownership of U.S. airlines is seen as a tradeoff by the DOT in order for the U.S. to gain greater access to landing at London’s Heathrow Airport, where presently only American Airlines and United Airlines have limited service there. Known as the Open Skies Agreement, lawmakers in both parties believe that this proposition transcends ‘free trade’ or globalization as it becomes an issue which directly impacts labor and national security.
Currently, U.S. law requires that U.S. airlines must be under the “actual control” of U.S. citizens in order to be licensed for operation. And for corporations, 75% of the voting interest must be held by U.S. citizens and 66% of its board of directors and officers must also be U.S. citizens. But Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, in a statement in November 2005 said that the rule change would be an “historic opportunity to increase travel, reduce fares, expand commerce and bring two continents closer together than ever before. It provides new opportunities for U.S. and European airlines, healthier competition for a growing travel market and greater connection between cities and towns of all sizes on both sides of the Atlantic.”
But the President of the Air Line Pilots Association, Intl. has a much different opinion. Captain Duane Woerth testified before the House Aviation Sub-Committee claiming, “Changes of this magnitude should be undertaken not be an administering agency but by the legislative branch. Pilots spend their entire careers accumulating the seniority required to gain access to international flying opportunities. In an era when the career expectations of pilots and other airline workers already have been repeatedly frustrated by airline bankruptcies, furloughs, wage concessions, pension plan terminations, and the like, it would be a crowning blow for the U.S. government now to adopt a policy that would tend to eliminate international flying by U.S. carriers.”
Should the new rule be adopted, with exception of few areas, all airline operations, including prices, scheduling markets, fleet structure, marketing and alliances have the option of being controlled by foreign investors. Additionally, U.S. labor law protections could be compromised and employees forced into losing out by being replaced by foreign employees. Aviation safety could be jeopardized as foreign-controlled management need meet only minimum FAA standards, far short of the present programs and practices U.S. airlines presently accord.
Surprisingly, the Department of Defense as well as the State Department have agreed with the DOT on this issue. But for several Congressmen, it does not pass muster and especially as concerns the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) which is used to transport U.S. troops including in times of war. The Open Skies Agreement would have to be redrafted to accommodate such. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), “During the Gulf War a European Union member didn’t supply us with a type of carrier we needed when we ran out because they didn’t support the war.”
Should the Congress fail to create legislation to block the proposed rule it would take effect, even though most U.S. airlines with the exception of cargo carriers, FEDEX and UPS as well as United Airlines, having recently reemerged from bankruptcy, are opposed to it. John Byerly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State has maintained that in order for the EU to approve the Open Skies Agreement it is conditional on easing foreign ownership rules. But according to the Government Accountability Office, airport capacity limitations such as at Heaththrow would not be corrected by a deregulated agreement.
Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Sub-Committee, in order to counter the proposed rule change introduced legislation that would require the rule be put on hold for one year, allowing the Congress to review its ramifications on national defense and homeland security, which are primary issues which must initially be addressed.
And while possible ownership of U.S. airlines may be permitted within a year, control of operations and security of six U.S. ports will be given to the United Arab Emirates and based in Dubai. The London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased on February 13, 2006 by Dubai Ports World. The deal is expected to be finalized on March 2, 2006. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Co. is the world’s fourth largest ports company and the sale affects the commercial U.S. ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) is a secretive government panel comprised of designees from the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. In January 2006, the Bush administration appointed a former Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for Dubai Ports World as the new Maritime Administrator within the Department of Transportation, raising more than a few eyebrows.
But most puzzling to lawmakers is how Dubai, which provided most of the financing for the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, will now be overseeing the very port where nearly 3,000 lives were claimed that day. And Dubai was the base for much of the terrorist planning and operations for the attacks in New York and Washington, according to the FBI.
Since the Bush administration considers Dubai and the UAE a vital ally in the war against terrorism, it approves of the sale. However, it raises vital questions of U.S. national security and homeland security policies at ports where presently less than 5% of all cargo is inspected. And having an Islamist nation in charge of U.S. ports arguably makes little in allowing it to dictate port operations, given that U.S. ports remain top terrorist targets.
With the Department of Homeland Security still struggling to implement systems and operations to secure U.S. ports, allowing Dubai to run the ports could be a gateway for contraband, weapons of mass destruction and arsenals, as well as hiring practices without proper scrutiny, including the quality of security which would have to conform to U.S. law. Steve Coleman, Port Authority of New York/New Jersey spokesman stated, “We need to take a real close look at security before we approve such a company.”
James Lewis, a former State and Commerce Department contractor, sums it up by saying, “It’s in Dubai’s interest to make sure this runs well.” And unfortunately, it will take an act of Congress to prevent the finality of the sale in what will become the world’s second largest port operator. Hopefully, cooler heads in the Congress will prevail in the best interests of the U.S. in order to supercede those of foreign interests, all in the name of globalization. For the greatest asset to the U.S. is the American people, who not only deserve the protection of their government but one which vows to do its best to prevent terrorism on its shores ever again. Anything less is just unacceptable.
Diane M. Grassi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Diane M. Grassi
Bio: Diane M. Grassi
Date: February 15, 2006
Print article -
Email article link to friend(s) -
Foreign Ownership of U.S. Airlines & Ports Deemed Troubling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With possible ownership of U.S. airlines possibly permitted within a year, control of operations and security of six U.S. ports will be given to the United Arab Emirates and based in Dubai.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) on February 8, 2005, presented its decision before the U.S. House of Representatives House Aviation Sub-Committee, to change a rule which would clear the way for foreign corporations to own and control U.S. airlines. But members of the House Aviation Sub-Committee were all in agreement that the DOT may lack the legal authority to unilaterally make such a change. Yet it does not begin to reveal all of the implications of such a historic shift in policy in bypassing the U.S. Congress in order to do so.
Trade negotiations with the European Union to loosen up regulations in ownership of U.S. airlines is seen as a tradeoff by the DOT in order for the U.S. to gain greater access to landing at London’s Heathrow Airport, where presently only American Airlines and United Airlines have limited service there. Known as the Open Skies Agreement, lawmakers in both parties believe that this proposition transcends ‘free trade’ or globalization as it becomes an issue which directly impacts labor and national security.
Currently, U.S. law requires that U.S. airlines must be under the “actual control” of U.S. citizens in order to be licensed for operation. And for corporations, 75% of the voting interest must be held by U.S. citizens and 66% of its board of directors and officers must also be U.S. citizens. But Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, in a statement in November 2005 said that the rule change would be an “historic opportunity to increase travel, reduce fares, expand commerce and bring two continents closer together than ever before. It provides new opportunities for U.S. and European airlines, healthier competition for a growing travel market and greater connection between cities and towns of all sizes on both sides of the Atlantic.”
But the President of the Air Line Pilots Association, Intl. has a much different opinion. Captain Duane Woerth testified before the House Aviation Sub-Committee claiming, “Changes of this magnitude should be undertaken not be an administering agency but by the legislative branch. Pilots spend their entire careers accumulating the seniority required to gain access to international flying opportunities. In an era when the career expectations of pilots and other airline workers already have been repeatedly frustrated by airline bankruptcies, furloughs, wage concessions, pension plan terminations, and the like, it would be a crowning blow for the U.S. government now to adopt a policy that would tend to eliminate international flying by U.S. carriers.”
Should the new rule be adopted, with exception of few areas, all airline operations, including prices, scheduling markets, fleet structure, marketing and alliances have the option of being controlled by foreign investors. Additionally, U.S. labor law protections could be compromised and employees forced into losing out by being replaced by foreign employees. Aviation safety could be jeopardized as foreign-controlled management need meet only minimum FAA standards, far short of the present programs and practices U.S. airlines presently accord.
Surprisingly, the Department of Defense as well as the State Department have agreed with the DOT on this issue. But for several Congressmen, it does not pass muster and especially as concerns the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) which is used to transport U.S. troops including in times of war. The Open Skies Agreement would have to be redrafted to accommodate such. According to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), “During the Gulf War a European Union member didn’t supply us with a type of carrier we needed when we ran out because they didn’t support the war.”
Should the Congress fail to create legislation to block the proposed rule it would take effect, even though most U.S. airlines with the exception of cargo carriers, FEDEX and UPS as well as United Airlines, having recently reemerged from bankruptcy, are opposed to it. John Byerly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State has maintained that in order for the EU to approve the Open Skies Agreement it is conditional on easing foreign ownership rules. But according to the Government Accountability Office, airport capacity limitations such as at Heaththrow would not be corrected by a deregulated agreement.
Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Sub-Committee, in order to counter the proposed rule change introduced legislation that would require the rule be put on hold for one year, allowing the Congress to review its ramifications on national defense and homeland security, which are primary issues which must initially be addressed.
And while possible ownership of U.S. airlines may be permitted within a year, control of operations and security of six U.S. ports will be given to the United Arab Emirates and based in Dubai. The London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased on February 13, 2006 by Dubai Ports World. The deal is expected to be finalized on March 2, 2006. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Co. is the world’s fourth largest ports company and the sale affects the commercial U.S. ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) is a secretive government panel comprised of designees from the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security. In January 2006, the Bush administration appointed a former Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for Dubai Ports World as the new Maritime Administrator within the Department of Transportation, raising more than a few eyebrows.
But most puzzling to lawmakers is how Dubai, which provided most of the financing for the 19 hijackers on 9/11/2001, will now be overseeing the very port where nearly 3,000 lives were claimed that day. And Dubai was the base for much of the terrorist planning and operations for the attacks in New York and Washington, according to the FBI.
Since the Bush administration considers Dubai and the UAE a vital ally in the war against terrorism, it approves of the sale. However, it raises vital questions of U.S. national security and homeland security policies at ports where presently less than 5% of all cargo is inspected. And having an Islamist nation in charge of U.S. ports arguably makes little in allowing it to dictate port operations, given that U.S. ports remain top terrorist targets.
With the Department of Homeland Security still struggling to implement systems and operations to secure U.S. ports, allowing Dubai to run the ports could be a gateway for contraband, weapons of mass destruction and arsenals, as well as hiring practices without proper scrutiny, including the quality of security which would have to conform to U.S. law. Steve Coleman, Port Authority of New York/New Jersey spokesman stated, “We need to take a real close look at security before we approve such a company.”
James Lewis, a former State and Commerce Department contractor, sums it up by saying, “It’s in Dubai’s interest to make sure this runs well.” And unfortunately, it will take an act of Congress to prevent the finality of the sale in what will become the world’s second largest port operator. Hopefully, cooler heads in the Congress will prevail in the best interests of the U.S. in order to supercede those of foreign interests, all in the name of globalization. For the greatest asset to the U.S. is the American people, who not only deserve the protection of their government but one which vows to do its best to prevent terrorism on its shores ever again. Anything less is just unacceptable.
Diane M. Grassi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Arab Emirates Firm May Oversee 6 U.S. Ports
By Ted Bridis
Associated Press
Sunday, February 12, 2006; Page A17
A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The $6.8 billion sale could be approved Monday and would affect commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement.
The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
The committee action followed concerns 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.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI concluded.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged the administration to consider the sale carefully. "America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."
Shipping experts noted that many of the world's largest port companies are not based in the United States, and they pointed to DP World's strong economic interest in operating ports securely and efficiently.
"It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well," said James Lewis, who worked with the U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments.
Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, said even under foreign control, U.S. ports will continue to be run by unionized American employees. "You're not going to have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks," Flynn said. "They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs."
By Ted Bridis
Associated Press
Sunday, February 12, 2006; Page A17
A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
The Bush administration considers the UAE an important ally in the fight against terrorism since the suicide hijackings and is not objecting to Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The $6.8 billion sale could be approved Monday and would affect commercial port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States "thoroughly reviewed the potential transaction and concluded they had no objection," the company said in a statement.
The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
The committee action followed concerns 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.
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI concluded.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged the administration to consider the sale carefully. "America's busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets," Schumer said. "Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."
Shipping experts noted that many of the world's largest port companies are not based in the United States, and they pointed to DP World's strong economic interest in operating ports securely and efficiently.
"It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well," said James Lewis, who worked with the U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments.
Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, said even under foreign control, U.S. ports will continue to be run by unionized American employees. "You're not going to have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks," Flynn said. "They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs."
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d8156740-9f3f-11d...00779e2340.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...?articleID=5908
FOLEY QUESTIONS ADMINISTRATION ON SALE OF U.S. PORTS TO ARAB NATION
Congressional Desk
The Congressional Desk provides information, news releases, and announcements obtained from communication and public relations offices.
By Congressional Desk
February 15, 2006
WASHINGTON-Congressman Mark Foley (FL-16) today questioned the Bush Administration on the recent sale of management of six of the U.S.'s largest and most active ports to Dubai Ports World, a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates earlier this week. The sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive committee that reviews transactions with national security issues. Included in the sale were the management rights to ports of Miami, New Orleans, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York.
Foley confronted Treasury Secretary John Snow, who chairs the CFIUS, during Snow's testimony on the President's proposed budget before the House Ways and Means Committee. Foley specifically asked the Secretary to address the national security concerns of turning management of some of our country's largest ports - considered to be some of our nation's most vulnerable targets for terrorism - over to a Middle Eastern country.
After the hearing, Foley said, "Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11. 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 management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11. Instead, this was done in the dead of night."
FOLEY QUESTIONS ADMINISTRATION ON SALE OF U.S. PORTS TO ARAB NATION
Congressional Desk
The Congressional Desk provides information, news releases, and announcements obtained from communication and public relations offices.
By Congressional Desk
February 15, 2006
WASHINGTON-Congressman Mark Foley (FL-16) today questioned the Bush Administration on the recent sale of management of six of the U.S.'s largest and most active ports to Dubai Ports World, a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates earlier this week. The sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive committee that reviews transactions with national security issues. Included in the sale were the management rights to ports of Miami, New Orleans, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York.
Foley confronted Treasury Secretary John Snow, who chairs the CFIUS, during Snow's testimony on the President's proposed budget before the House Ways and Means Committee. Foley specifically asked the Secretary to address the national security concerns of turning management of some of our country's largest ports - considered to be some of our nation's most vulnerable targets for terrorism - over to a Middle Eastern country.
After the hearing, Foley said, "Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9/11. 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 management of our ports to any foreign countries, post 9/11. Instead, this was done in the dead of night."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/16/opinion/edport.php
Protecting the ports
The New York Times
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2006
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
Protecting the ports
The New York Times
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2006
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
The Bush administration has done far too little to protect the nation's ports against terrorists. But it has taken that laxity to a new level by allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to run significant operations at six American ports, including the Port of New York. The administration should reverse this decision.
National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability. One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands.
But the British company that operates the Port of New York, and other ports, has been acquired by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates. Although the UAE is considered an ally, there have been troubling connections between it and anti-American terrorism. Many of the Sept. 11 hijackers and planners traveled through that country, and its banking system was used in preparing for the attacks.
But the Bush administration appears to have brushed these concerns aside. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel that includes representatives from Homeland Security, Treasury and other departments, has given its approval to the transfer of control.
Much remains to be done to protect the nation's ports against terrorism. Putting port management in the hands of a country with such a mixed record in the war on terror is a step in the wrong direction.
PORT INSECURITY Tue Feb 14, 6:00 AM ET
Do the feds really want to place the ports of New York and New Jersey in the hands of a Middle East country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers? As The Post reported on Sunday, that's what's about to happen, now that Dubai Ports World has won control - for $6.8 billion - of British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The purchase gives Dubai Ports control of six U.S. ports - including, in addition to New York-New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans.
True, the deal reportedly was approved by the top-secret U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which decided there was no security risk.
But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, we wonder whether this is a wise move.
Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system - considered the commercial center of the Arab world - provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.
And while the Bush folks now consider the UAE a major ally in the war against terror, the Treasury Department has been stonewalled by the emirates, and other Arab countries, in trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.
The new leader of Dubai, one of the seven small countries that make up the UAE, has said all the right things about fighting radical Islam since 9/11.
But this remains very much an Islamist nation, where preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), for one, thinks this is a case where it's better to be safe than sorry.
Noting that the nation's ports "remain top terrorist targets," Schumer rightly argues that "we would not outsource military operations or law-enforcement duties."
Likewise, he says, "we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."
The fact is, control of America's ports increasingly is being placed in private - and foreign - hands. And there's no guarantee that today's ally in the War on Terror will remain such tomorrow.
There already is reason enough for concern about security in the ports: Homeland Security officials concede that it is impossible for them to fully inspect all but a tiny percentage of the containers that enter from abroad.
Though no one likes to discuss it publicly, smuggling in weapons of mass destruction likely can most easily be done through the ports.
Supporters of the deal insist that it doesn't give al Qaeda opportunities it doesn't already enjoy. That's no comfort.
Copyright © 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Do the feds really want to place the ports of New York and New Jersey in the hands of a Middle East country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers? As The Post reported on Sunday, that's what's about to happen, now that Dubai Ports World has won control - for $6.8 billion - of British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The purchase gives Dubai Ports control of six U.S. ports - including, in addition to New York-New Jersey, Miami, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Orleans.
True, the deal reportedly was approved by the top-secret U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which decided there was no security risk.
But at a time when security in the ports remains unacceptably lax, we wonder whether this is a wise move.
Dubai Ports, after all, is owned by the United Arab Emirates, whose banking system - considered the commercial center of the Arab world - provided most of the cash for the 9/11 hijackers. Indeed, much of the operational planning for the World Trade Center attacks took place inside the UAE.
And while the Bush folks now consider the UAE a major ally in the war against terror, the Treasury Department has been stonewalled by the emirates, and other Arab countries, in trying to track Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.
The new leader of Dubai, one of the seven small countries that make up the UAE, has said all the right things about fighting radical Islam since 9/11.
But this remains very much an Islamist nation, where preaching any religion other than Islam is prohibited.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), for one, thinks this is a case where it's better to be safe than sorry.
Noting that the nation's ports "remain top terrorist targets," Schumer rightly argues that "we would not outsource military operations or law-enforcement duties."
Likewise, he says, "we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties."
The fact is, control of America's ports increasingly is being placed in private - and foreign - hands. And there's no guarantee that today's ally in the War on Terror will remain such tomorrow.
There already is reason enough for concern about security in the ports: Homeland Security officials concede that it is impossible for them to fully inspect all but a tiny percentage of the containers that enter from abroad.
Though no one likes to discuss it publicly, smuggling in weapons of mass destruction likely can most easily be done through the ports.
Supporters of the deal insist that it doesn't give al Qaeda opportunities it doesn't already enjoy. That's no comfort.
Copyright © 2006 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...-home-headlines
Sale of port company worries lawmakers
By Gwyneth K. Shaw and Meredith Cohn
Sun reporters
Originally published February 17, 2006
WASHINGTON // Citing national security concerns, members of Congress from several states are asking the Bush administration to review its approval of a deal to allow a United Arab Emirates company to take over a business that helps run several U.S. ports, including Baltimore's.
Lawmakers, including some from Maryland, said yesterday that they want more information from the White House about whether the deal would put U.S. seaports at risk and whether the initial review, by a committee made up of officials from the White House and other federal agencies, looked carefully enough at potential security implications.
Government-owned Dubai Ports World announced a deal earlier this week to purchase Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that is the terminal operator and stevedore for container cargo at the Seagirt and Dundalk marine terminals in Baltimore.
It employs about 65 workers at the port.
The company also provides services at other big U.S. ports, including New York; Newark. N.J.; Philadelphia; and Miami.
The administration panel that approved the deal, headed by the Treasury Department, examines foreign companies' efforts to invest in American industry for possible national security risks. A department spokeswoman said the only way the committee's review could be reopened was if one of the companies provided false or incomplete information.
Separately, Republican Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and Democratic Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland said they were "deeply concerned" about the implications of the deal in a letter to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow that asked for thorough review of the matter.
"We do not believe that anyone could reasonably question the fact that the control of the corporations that operate the ports ... 'could affect U.S. national security,"' wrote Shelby and Sarbanes, the chairman and senior Democrat, respectively, on the Senate Banking Committee.
"Port security is a major component of our defenses against terrorism," they said, adding that while the deal might ultimately go forward, the previous "non-transparent cursory review" of the sale was "in no one's interest."
The committee plans a hearing on the sale when the Senate returns from a weeklong break for the Presidents Day holiday.
Other lawmakers who have expressed concerns about the deal include New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer and New Jersey Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, both Democrats, and Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida.
Administration officials defended what they called a thorough review that included input from the nation's intelligence agencies.
"There is a rigorous review that goes on for proposed foreign investments for national security concerns," said White House spokesmanScott McClellan.
P&O officials did not respond to a request for comment. Dubai Ports World said "we intend to maintain, and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the Associated Press reported.
Democratic Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, whose congressional district includes the Port of Baltimore, said he was unwilling to take the Bush administration's word on the deal. He said he wanted to know what kind of intelligence review had been conducted, as well as what Dubai Ports World had told the committee about providing access to its facilities and the cargo that passes through them.
"I don't want to have a fox in the henhouse and find out that this fox is not a good fox," he said.
Ruppersberger noted that while the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally, one of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was born there, and others traveled through the area.
"We have a country that is considered to be an ally in the war on terror, but there's some history there," Ruppersberger said.
A top official at the Council for American-Islamic Relations, which works to promote a better understanding of Muslims and Arab nations, said the opposition appeared to be a "knee-jerk reaction" and was deeply troubling. Corey Saylor, the organization's government affairs director, said that on the surface, concerns about the deal appeared to be solely because Dubai Ports World is based in an Arab, Muslim nation.
"I wonder if other nations would make the same evaluation of our ability to provide security based on the fact that Timothy McVeigh is from the United States," Saylor said.
Local officials brushed aside the concerns in Washington.
F. Brooks Royster III, director of the Maryland Port Administration, which oversees the public marine terminals where Dubai Ports World would work, noted that the company will not own Baltimore's or any other city's port. At Baltimore, P&O's contract primarily involves loading and unloading containers.
Containers, the most common form of shipping, are monitored by Department of Homeland Security officials, but only a small percentage are physically inspected or X-rayed.
Still, Royster said, ownership by the deep-pockets Dubai Ports World could help the port.
"The expected purchase of P&O Ports by DP World should infuse capital into that company [P&O], allowing for larger private-public partnerships with the MPA that may not have been possible before," he said in an e-mail.
Kim Petersen, president of SeaSecure LLC, a maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, an industry group, said his firm's work with the company indicated that its involvement could improve security.
"The only concerns that we are hearing are coming from political circles, not from the shipping or ports industry, or even the defense or intelligence communities," he said.
gwyneth.shaw@baltsun.com meredith.cohn@baltsun.com
Sale of port company worries lawmakers
By Gwyneth K. Shaw and Meredith Cohn
Sun reporters
Originally published February 17, 2006
WASHINGTON // Citing national security concerns, members of Congress from several states are asking the Bush administration to review its approval of a deal to allow a United Arab Emirates company to take over a business that helps run several U.S. ports, including Baltimore's.
Lawmakers, including some from Maryland, said yesterday that they want more information from the White House about whether the deal would put U.S. seaports at risk and whether the initial review, by a committee made up of officials from the White House and other federal agencies, looked carefully enough at potential security implications.
Government-owned Dubai Ports World announced a deal earlier this week to purchase Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that is the terminal operator and stevedore for container cargo at the Seagirt and Dundalk marine terminals in Baltimore.
It employs about 65 workers at the port.
The company also provides services at other big U.S. ports, including New York; Newark. N.J.; Philadelphia; and Miami.
The administration panel that approved the deal, headed by the Treasury Department, examines foreign companies' efforts to invest in American industry for possible national security risks. A department spokeswoman said the only way the committee's review could be reopened was if one of the companies provided false or incomplete information.
Separately, Republican Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and Democratic Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland said they were "deeply concerned" about the implications of the deal in a letter to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow that asked for thorough review of the matter.
"We do not believe that anyone could reasonably question the fact that the control of the corporations that operate the ports ... 'could affect U.S. national security,"' wrote Shelby and Sarbanes, the chairman and senior Democrat, respectively, on the Senate Banking Committee.
"Port security is a major component of our defenses against terrorism," they said, adding that while the deal might ultimately go forward, the previous "non-transparent cursory review" of the sale was "in no one's interest."
The committee plans a hearing on the sale when the Senate returns from a weeklong break for the Presidents Day holiday.
Other lawmakers who have expressed concerns about the deal include New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer and New Jersey Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, both Democrats, and Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida.
Administration officials defended what they called a thorough review that included input from the nation's intelligence agencies.
"There is a rigorous review that goes on for proposed foreign investments for national security concerns," said White House spokesmanScott McClellan.
P&O officials did not respond to a request for comment. Dubai Ports World said "we intend to maintain, and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements," the Associated Press reported.
Democratic Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, whose congressional district includes the Port of Baltimore, said he was unwilling to take the Bush administration's word on the deal. He said he wanted to know what kind of intelligence review had been conducted, as well as what Dubai Ports World had told the committee about providing access to its facilities and the cargo that passes through them.
"I don't want to have a fox in the henhouse and find out that this fox is not a good fox," he said.
Ruppersberger noted that while the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally, one of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was born there, and others traveled through the area.
"We have a country that is considered to be an ally in the war on terror, but there's some history there," Ruppersberger said.
A top official at the Council for American-Islamic Relations, which works to promote a better understanding of Muslims and Arab nations, said the opposition appeared to be a "knee-jerk reaction" and was deeply troubling. Corey Saylor, the organization's government affairs director, said that on the surface, concerns about the deal appeared to be solely because Dubai Ports World is based in an Arab, Muslim nation.
"I wonder if other nations would make the same evaluation of our ability to provide security based on the fact that Timothy McVeigh is from the United States," Saylor said.
Local officials brushed aside the concerns in Washington.
F. Brooks Royster III, director of the Maryland Port Administration, which oversees the public marine terminals where Dubai Ports World would work, noted that the company will not own Baltimore's or any other city's port. At Baltimore, P&O's contract primarily involves loading and unloading containers.
Containers, the most common form of shipping, are monitored by Department of Homeland Security officials, but only a small percentage are physically inspected or X-rayed.
Still, Royster said, ownership by the deep-pockets Dubai Ports World could help the port.
"The expected purchase of P&O Ports by DP World should infuse capital into that company [P&O], allowing for larger private-public partnerships with the MPA that may not have been possible before," he said in an e-mail.
Kim Petersen, president of SeaSecure LLC, a maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, an industry group, said his firm's work with the company indicated that its involvement could improve security.
"The only concerns that we are hearing are coming from political circles, not from the shipping or ports industry, or even the defense or intelligence communities," he said.
gwyneth.shaw@baltsun.com meredith.cohn@baltsun.com
http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_048002439.html
awmakers: Port Of Baltimore Security Threatened
Dennis Edwards
Reporting
(WJZ/AP) WASHINGTON 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.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal. They note the UAE has been inconsistent in its support of U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism.
The Bush administration is defending the deal, in which Dubai Ports World bought the London-based Peninsula and Oriental Navigation company for 6.8 billion dollars.
Md. congressman Dutch Ruppersberger tells WJZ's Dennis Edwards lawmakers are calling a for congressional hearing on the sale because of the UAE's purported links to the September 11 attacks.
Eyewitness News learns one of the terrorists who flew a plane into the World Trade Center was born in the nation, which political pundits believe was an operational and financial base for the hijackers.
"We know that the ports are vulnerable to attack and with the volume of containers that come in," Ruppersberger says. "There could be weapons of mass destruction that could come into our ports, so we need to be on top of this and focused on that."
A spokesman for the National Security Council says the security implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed."
The deal affects commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
A U.S. treasury department spokesman tells Eyewitness News he is not permitted to discuss the transaction because it is considered by a secret committee on foreign investments.
(© 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
awmakers: Port Of Baltimore Security Threatened
Dennis Edwards
Reporting
(WJZ/AP) WASHINGTON 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.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal. They note the UAE has been inconsistent in its support of U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism.
The Bush administration is defending the deal, in which Dubai Ports World bought the London-based Peninsula and Oriental Navigation company for 6.8 billion dollars.
Md. congressman Dutch Ruppersberger tells WJZ's Dennis Edwards lawmakers are calling a for congressional hearing on the sale because of the UAE's purported links to the September 11 attacks.
Eyewitness News learns one of the terrorists who flew a plane into the World Trade Center was born in the nation, which political pundits believe was an operational and financial base for the hijackers.
"We know that the ports are vulnerable to attack and with the volume of containers that come in," Ruppersberger says. "There could be weapons of mass destruction that could come into our ports, so we need to be on top of this and focused on that."
A spokesman for the National Security Council says the security implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed."
The deal affects commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
A U.S. treasury department spokesman tells Eyewitness News he is not permitted to discuss the transaction because it is considered by a secret committee on foreign investments.
(© 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
February 18, 2006
2 Senators Seek to Stop Ports Deal, Citing Security
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
The junior senators from New York and New Jersey have added their voices to objections about the Bush administration's approval of a deal that will give a Dubai company a central role in operating ports in New York and around the country.
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, both Democrats, said yesterday that they planned to introduce legislation to prevent companies controlled by foreign governments from buying American port operations.
The purpose of the bill would be to block the $6.8 billion sale of a British shipping company to Dubai Ports World, a port operator controlled by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates. The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, operates the cruise ship terminal on the West Side of Manhattan and has a half-interest in the Port Newark Container Terminal, the third-largest cargo terminal in New York harbor.
"I just don't believe that our ports should be handed over to foreign governments," Mr. Menendez said in an interview. Especially not to Dubai, he added, because it has a "serious and dubious history" as a transit point for terrorism.
Echoing other lawmakers in Washington who criticized the federal approval of the deal this week, Mr. Menendez cited reports that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates and that some of the money that financed the attacks flowed through banks there.
That bipartisan group of critics included Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, and Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island.
But senior administration officials reiterated their support for the transaction and their favorable relations with the United Arab Emirates.
The Dubai purchase passed a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel composed of the leaders of 12 federal agencies and headed by the treasury secretary, John W. Snow.
Mr. Snow and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, said yesterday that the committee had determined that the transfer would not compromise security. Ms. Rice, who is scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates next week, described one of them, Abu Dhabi, as "a very good friend" of the United States, according to Bloomberg News.
But those remarks did not defuse the opposition to the deal among some members of Congress. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing on the transaction and the federal review of it during the week of Feb. 27.
"They can pursue their diplomatic relationship with the Emirates, but that doesn't mean we have to give our ports over to the Emirates," Mr. Menendez said, referring to Ms. Rice and the Bush administration. "I think we need to act legislatively."
The bill would prohibit any foreign government from owning or controlling American port operations, but would give the president the authority to make exceptions, Mr. Menendez said.
The worldwide shipping industry is dominated by companies based in Europe and Asia, and most of the big container terminals along the Eastern seaboard are operated by foreign-owned companies.
Mr. Menendez, whose district includes the ports of Newark and Elizabeth, called the country's ports "a very significant hole within our security blanket." More than 90 percent of the cargo that enters the country by ship does not receive any security screening, he said.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
2 Senators Seek to Stop Ports Deal, Citing Security
By PATRICK McGEEHAN
The junior senators from New York and New Jersey have added their voices to objections about the Bush administration's approval of a deal that will give a Dubai company a central role in operating ports in New York and around the country.
Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, both Democrats, said yesterday that they planned to introduce legislation to prevent companies controlled by foreign governments from buying American port operations.
The purpose of the bill would be to block the $6.8 billion sale of a British shipping company to Dubai Ports World, a port operator controlled by the government of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates. The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation, operates the cruise ship terminal on the West Side of Manhattan and has a half-interest in the Port Newark Container Terminal, the third-largest cargo terminal in New York harbor.
"I just don't believe that our ports should be handed over to foreign governments," Mr. Menendez said in an interview. Especially not to Dubai, he added, because it has a "serious and dubious history" as a transit point for terrorism.
Echoing other lawmakers in Washington who criticized the federal approval of the deal this week, Mr. Menendez cited reports that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates and that some of the money that financed the attacks flowed through banks there.
That bipartisan group of critics included Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, and Representative Peter T. King, a Republican from Long Island.
But senior administration officials reiterated their support for the transaction and their favorable relations with the United Arab Emirates.
The Dubai purchase passed a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel composed of the leaders of 12 federal agencies and headed by the treasury secretary, John W. Snow.
Mr. Snow and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, said yesterday that the committee had determined that the transfer would not compromise security. Ms. Rice, who is scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates next week, described one of them, Abu Dhabi, as "a very good friend" of the United States, according to Bloomberg News.
But those remarks did not defuse the opposition to the deal among some members of Congress. The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing on the transaction and the federal review of it during the week of Feb. 27.
"They can pursue their diplomatic relationship with the Emirates, but that doesn't mean we have to give our ports over to the Emirates," Mr. Menendez said, referring to Ms. Rice and the Bush administration. "I think we need to act legislatively."
The bill would prohibit any foreign government from owning or controlling American port operations, but would give the president the authority to make exceptions, Mr. Menendez said.
The worldwide shipping industry is dominated by companies based in Europe and Asia, and most of the big container terminals along the Eastern seaboard are operated by foreign-owned companies.
Mr. Menendez, whose district includes the ports of Newark and Elizabeth, called the country's ports "a very significant hole within our security blanket." More than 90 percent of the cargo that enters the country by ship does not receive any security screening, he said.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Firm Sues to Block Foreign Port Takeover
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.
A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.
The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.
The sale, already approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.
The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.
A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.
Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer — internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey — is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a "long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.
President Bush visited the seaport in Tampa, Fla., but did not mention the dispute Friday. The president said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local government officials.
"We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."
One of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, on Saturday harshly criticized the president's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O'Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security. O'Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.
Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.
In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.
Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.
"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. ""We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."
LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.
"We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., presently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.
A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.
The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.
The sale, already approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.
The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.
A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.
Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer — internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey — is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a "long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.
President Bush visited the seaport in Tampa, Fla., but did not mention the dispute Friday. The president said an important element of defeating terrorism was taking precautions domestically and working with local government officials.
"We've got to protect ourselves by doing smart things in America," Bush said. "I appreciate working with the mayors on homeland security issues."
One of those mayors, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, on Saturday harshly criticized the president's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O'Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security. O'Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.
Dubai Ports World declined through a spokesman to respond to O'Malley's remarks.
In New York, families of some victims from the September 2001 terror attacks planned to criticize the deal during a press conference Sunday with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a leading critic of the sale. Schumer said he is dubious any assurances can justify involvement by the United Arab Emirates in American ports.
Schumer and other critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against New York and Washington.
"A lot of families are incensed by this, because you're talking about the safety of the country," said William Doyle, whose son Joseph died at the World Trade Center. ""We have a problem already in our ports because all of our containers aren't checked, but now they want to add this unknown? It's not right."
LoBiondo's legislative proposal would amend federal maritime laws to require facility security officers, which operate at terminals in every U.S. port, to be American citizens. LoBiondo said there are presently no citizenship requirements, which he said permits foreign companies who are or become partners in domestic terminal operations to employ security officers who are not Americans.
"We cannot be lax about our nation's security nor fail to recognize that our ports are realistic targets of terrorists," LoBiondo said.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
February 19, 2006
Lawmakers Increase Criticism of Dubai Deal for Ports
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 — Legislators from both parties continued today to sharply criticize the Bush administration's approval of a recent sale that would give a Dubai company control over shipping facilities at six leading American ports, saying that it raised fundamental security issues.
Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company, is completing its $6.8 billion purchase of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which operates commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, reiterated the Bush administration's defense of the arrangement, saying today that such transactions were closely examined by a committee that includes several federal departments or agencies, including his own, the Treasury Department and the F.B.I. He noted, too, that Dubai is considered an American ally in fighting terrorism.
"We put safeguards in place and assurances in place that make everybody comfortable," Mr. Chertoff told ABC News. But he declined to say what safeguards were being implemented, saying that the matter was classified.
A range of Democrats criticized the port takeover in stinging terms, implying that it showed poor judgment by an administration that has made national security its top priority. They said security at American ports — where only 5 percent of incoming cargo is inspected — is one of the country's biggest vulnerabilities.
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who last week had asked Mr. Chertoff and the Treasury Department to review the sale, called President Bush today to override the committee's approval. Appearing at a news conference with family members of people killed on Sept. 11, he called for a 90-day investigation into all contracts with foreign governments at American ports.
Several Republicans also expressed doubts about a transaction that appears to pit security concerns against the Bush administration's strong support for free world trade.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said the administration's approval of the transaction was "unbelievably tone-deaf politically." He told Fox News, "I don't think now's the time to outsource major port security to a foreign country."
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, called it "ridiculous" for the administration to say it had taken undisclosed steps to ensure there was no problem "for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports."
The Sept. 11 plotters funneled money through Dubai, and two came from the United Arab Emirates, but Mr. Chertoff insisted that this "doesn't mean that every company there is automatically guilty or automatically has to be excluded from owning something here."
Ms. Boxer said she would support legislation to bar foreign companies from managing American ports. "We have to have American companies running our own ports," she told CBS News. "Our ports are soft targets."
"I don't think we're being overly paranoid," she said.
Peninsular and Oriental, the world's fourth-largest ports company, is currently British-owned.
Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said of the transaction, "I think it's stunning and I'm very disturbed about it."
Ms. Harman, whose district encompasses the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, told CNN, "I would not like Dubai or some other foreign government running those ports."
She urged the administration to provide Congress with classified briefings on the port takeover.
Several other Democrats questioned the deal earlier, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
"It's suspicious on its face," said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, a member of the intelligence committee. "But is it the right decision? It's difficult to say."
Another Republican, Representative Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey, has called for legislation to require that United States port security officials be American citizens. Mr. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and maritime transportation subcommittee, part of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the sale raised "significant" security concerns.
And two Pennsylvania legislators wrote President Bush on Friday to express "extreme concern" about the transaction. Representative Curt Weldon, a Republican, and Robert Brady, a Democrat, urged Bush to "closely examine this decision, and to act to prevent its implementation."
They said, according to Mr. Weldon's Web site, that the acquisition "would transfer a vital national defense asset to a foreign nation in an unstable region" of high terrorist activity and strong anti-American sentiment. Mr. Weldon is vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees.
Dubai Ports World, caught off guard by the ferocity of criticism, has responded cautiously. The company has quietly sent officials to reassure port officials, The Associated Press reported.
Mr. Chertoff, without providing details, said that "we have dealt with this port operator in Dubai for years, because many of our port security operations don't begin when you hit American territory; they actually begin at the port of embarkation."
He said Congress was welcome to examine the transaction and to receive classified briefings. But he noted that along with its focus on security, the administration wanted to support a robust world trading system.
One of the few legislators to come close to defending the transaction was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considered a security hawk among Democrats.
He told ABC News that he was "not yet" prepared to try to block the sale. He noted that many port terminals in the United States are foreign-owned.
"I worry more about the failure to invest in port security" - to improve the ability to detect smuggled weapons of mass destruction, for example - "than I worry right now about this sale," Mr. Lieberman said.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Lawmakers Increase Criticism of Dubai Deal for Ports
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
By BRIAN KNOWLTON
International Herald Tribune
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 — Legislators from both parties continued today to sharply criticize the Bush administration's approval of a recent sale that would give a Dubai company control over shipping facilities at six leading American ports, saying that it raised fundamental security issues.
Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company, is completing its $6.8 billion purchase of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which operates commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
The homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, reiterated the Bush administration's defense of the arrangement, saying today that such transactions were closely examined by a committee that includes several federal departments or agencies, including his own, the Treasury Department and the F.B.I. He noted, too, that Dubai is considered an American ally in fighting terrorism.
"We put safeguards in place and assurances in place that make everybody comfortable," Mr. Chertoff told ABC News. But he declined to say what safeguards were being implemented, saying that the matter was classified.
A range of Democrats criticized the port takeover in stinging terms, implying that it showed poor judgment by an administration that has made national security its top priority. They said security at American ports — where only 5 percent of incoming cargo is inspected — is one of the country's biggest vulnerabilities.
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who last week had asked Mr. Chertoff and the Treasury Department to review the sale, called President Bush today to override the committee's approval. Appearing at a news conference with family members of people killed on Sept. 11, he called for a 90-day investigation into all contracts with foreign governments at American ports.
Several Republicans also expressed doubts about a transaction that appears to pit security concerns against the Bush administration's strong support for free world trade.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said the administration's approval of the transaction was "unbelievably tone-deaf politically." He told Fox News, "I don't think now's the time to outsource major port security to a foreign country."
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, called it "ridiculous" for the administration to say it had taken undisclosed steps to ensure there was no problem "for a nation that had ties to 9/11 to take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports."
The Sept. 11 plotters funneled money through Dubai, and two came from the United Arab Emirates, but Mr. Chertoff insisted that this "doesn't mean that every company there is automatically guilty or automatically has to be excluded from owning something here."
Ms. Boxer said she would support legislation to bar foreign companies from managing American ports. "We have to have American companies running our own ports," she told CBS News. "Our ports are soft targets."
"I don't think we're being overly paranoid," she said.
Peninsular and Oriental, the world's fourth-largest ports company, is currently British-owned.
Representative Jane Harman of California, ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said of the transaction, "I think it's stunning and I'm very disturbed about it."
Ms. Harman, whose district encompasses the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, told CNN, "I would not like Dubai or some other foreign government running those ports."
She urged the administration to provide Congress with classified briefings on the port takeover.
Several other Democrats questioned the deal earlier, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.
"It's suspicious on its face," said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, a member of the intelligence committee. "But is it the right decision? It's difficult to say."
Another Republican, Representative Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey, has called for legislation to require that United States port security officials be American citizens. Mr. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and maritime transportation subcommittee, part of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the sale raised "significant" security concerns.
And two Pennsylvania legislators wrote President Bush on Friday to express "extreme concern" about the transaction. Representative Curt Weldon, a Republican, and Robert Brady, a Democrat, urged Bush to "closely examine this decision, and to act to prevent its implementation."
They said, according to Mr. Weldon's Web site, that the acquisition "would transfer a vital national defense asset to a foreign nation in an unstable region" of high terrorist activity and strong anti-American sentiment. Mr. Weldon is vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees.
Dubai Ports World, caught off guard by the ferocity of criticism, has responded cautiously. The company has quietly sent officials to reassure port officials, The Associated Press reported.
Mr. Chertoff, without providing details, said that "we have dealt with this port operator in Dubai for years, because many of our port security operations don't begin when you hit American territory; they actually begin at the port of embarkation."
He said Congress was welcome to examine the transaction and to receive classified briefings. But he noted that along with its focus on security, the administration wanted to support a robust world trading system.
One of the few legislators to come close to defending the transaction was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considered a security hawk among Democrats.
He told ABC News that he was "not yet" prepared to try to block the sale. He noted that many port terminals in the United States are foreign-owned.
"I worry more about the failure to invest in port security" - to improve the ability to detect smuggled weapons of mass destruction, for example - "than I worry right now about this sale," Mr. Lieberman said.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
February 20, 2006
More Criticism of Port Takeover by Arab Entity
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 (AP) — Conditions set by the federal government for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are not enough to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.
"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," said the chairman, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King said senior administration officials had shared details of the sale with him.
"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is, how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by Al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" Mr. King said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He spoke in response to remarks that Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, made Sunday on the ABC program "This Week."
Mr. Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World, the company given permission to take over the port operations, but declined to discuss specifics, saying that information was classified.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Mr. Chertoff said.
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a British shipping company, was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental operates the cruise ship terminal on the West Side of Manhattan and has operations in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Critics of the deal have cited the United Arab Emirates' history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals, has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal, saying that under the sale, it would become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, urged President Bush on Sunday to override the agreement.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
More Criticism of Port Takeover by Arab Entity
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 (AP) — Conditions set by the federal government for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are not enough to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.
"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," said the chairman, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York. Mr. King said senior administration officials had shared details of the sale with him.
"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is, how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by Al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" Mr. King said in an interview with The Associated Press.
He spoke in response to remarks that Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, made Sunday on the ABC program "This Week."
Mr. Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World, the company given permission to take over the port operations, but declined to discuss specifics, saying that information was classified.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Mr. Chertoff said.
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a British shipping company, was bought last week by Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates. Peninsular and Oriental operates the cruise ship terminal on the West Side of Manhattan and has operations in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Critics of the deal have cited the United Arab Emirates' history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
A Miami company, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals, has filed suit in a Florida court challenging the deal, saying that under the sale, it would become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, urged President Bush on Sunday to override the agreement.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
CONGRESSMEN THREATEN PROBE OF U.S. SEAPORTS DEAL
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle yesterday threatened a congressional investigation of a deal to give control of six U.S. seaports to an Arab company, while one key Republican said the Bush administration's security reassurances were not adequate.
Democrats also are threatening legislation to block foreign governments from operating U.S. ports.
"I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected," said Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat. "And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm. There can't be a choice between profits and protecting the American people."
The classified deal would let Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates run ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami. London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which had been running the six ports, was bought last week by the government-owned DPW.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who appeared on "Fox News Sunday" with Mr. Bayh, called the deal "tone-deaf politically at this point in our history" and agreed that "we certainly should investigate it."
"I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could have made. Most Americans are scratching their head wondering why this company, from this region, now," Mr. Graham said. "I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company."
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press yesterday that the takeover terms are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration.
"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Mr. King said.
"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" Mr. King said.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose agency participated in negotiations along with the Justice Department and other administration officials, said he welcomed a review by Congress.
"There is a legal process Congress created for a committee to sit and review this. It's Treasury, Commerce, DHS [Department of Homeland Security], FBI is involved, and DoD [Department of Defense] is involved. We look at these transactions," Mr. Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."
Mr. Chertoff declined on several Sunday political talk shows to address specifics of the deal, including whether it has been finalized. He described the process as "very thorough" and said "necessary conditions or safeguards have to be put into place."
"The discussions are classified. I can't get into the specifics here. But what I can tell you in general is this: We examine the transaction; we look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security," Mr. Chertoff said.
The Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are in charge of port security, not port operators, "and you can be sure that any transaction that goes forward is going to be carefully reviewed, and is also going to be carefully subject to the expertise of Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection," Mr. Chertoff said.
Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, cited Mr. Chertoff's remarks as proof that the administration "just does not get it."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, agreed, calling the secrecy "ridiculous" and saying she will support legislation "to say no more, no way" to foreign ownership of U.S. ports.
"We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets," Mrs. Boxer said. "Al Qaeda has said if they attack, that's one of the places they're looking."
"I don't think we're being overly paranoid. It's very simple to say that our infrastructure has to be protected and let's have American companies do that or the government itself," Mrs. Boxer said.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, yesterday called on President Bush personally to "override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter." He was joined at a press conference by some family members of September 11 victims.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060220-121022-8852r.htm)
For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle yesterday threatened a congressional investigation of a deal to give control of six U.S. seaports to an Arab company, while one key Republican said the Bush administration's security reassurances were not adequate.
Democrats also are threatening legislation to block foreign governments from operating U.S. ports.
"I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected," said Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat. "And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm. There can't be a choice between profits and protecting the American people."
The classified deal would let Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates run ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami. London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which had been running the six ports, was bought last week by the government-owned DPW.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who appeared on "Fox News Sunday" with Mr. Bayh, called the deal "tone-deaf politically at this point in our history" and agreed that "we certainly should investigate it."
"I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could have made. Most Americans are scratching their head wondering why this company, from this region, now," Mr. Graham said. "I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company."
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press yesterday that the takeover terms are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration.
"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Mr. King said.
"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?" Mr. King said.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose agency participated in negotiations along with the Justice Department and other administration officials, said he welcomed a review by Congress.
"There is a legal process Congress created for a committee to sit and review this. It's Treasury, Commerce, DHS [Department of Homeland Security], FBI is involved, and DoD [Department of Defense] is involved. We look at these transactions," Mr. Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition."
Mr. Chertoff declined on several Sunday political talk shows to address specifics of the deal, including whether it has been finalized. He described the process as "very thorough" and said "necessary conditions or safeguards have to be put into place."
"The discussions are classified. I can't get into the specifics here. But what I can tell you in general is this: We examine the transaction; we look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security," Mr. Chertoff said.
The Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection are in charge of port security, not port operators, "and you can be sure that any transaction that goes forward is going to be carefully reviewed, and is also going to be carefully subject to the expertise of Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection," Mr. Chertoff said.
Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, cited Mr. Chertoff's remarks as proof that the administration "just does not get it."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, agreed, calling the secrecy "ridiculous" and saying she will support legislation "to say no more, no way" to foreign ownership of U.S. ports.
"We have to have American companies running our own ports. Our ports are soft targets," Mrs. Boxer said. "Al Qaeda has said if they attack, that's one of the places they're looking."
"I don't think we're being overly paranoid. It's very simple to say that our infrastructure has to be protected and let's have American companies do that or the government itself," Mrs. Boxer said.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, yesterday called on President Bush personally to "override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter." He was joined at a press conference by some family members of September 11 victims.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This article was mailed from The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060220-121022-8852r.htm)
For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washingtontimes.com
Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa27.cfm
VOICE OF AMERICA
US Security Chief Says UAE Ports Deal is No Threat
By Stephanie Ho
Washington
19 February 2006
Michael Chertoff during his testimony before Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Feb. 15, 2006
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending a deal giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over terminals at key U.S. ports. Critics in Congress say the deal is a threat to national security.
Critics have blasted the recent deal, in which government-owned Dubai Ports World purchased London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a private company that runs commercial operations in six major U.S. ports.
The nearly $7-billion sale has been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes officials from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff emphasized that the deal has undergone close scrutiny, although he said he could not provide details.
"Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns, is we build in certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns," said Michael Chertoff. "And here, the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection really played a leading role for our department in terms of designing those conditions and making sure that they are obeyed."
A bipartisan group of senators and House members last week called on the Bush Administration to review the sale, saying it undermines national security.
They noted that the United Arab Emirates served as a base for the hijackers who took part in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. They also argue that the UAE was one of only three countries that recognized the Taleban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
The Bush Administration considers the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror.
Secretary Chertoff told NBC's Meet the Press he believes it is not fair to automatically cut off business with entire countries, like the United Arab Emirates, just because there were some UAE connections to the September 11 terrorists. He pointed to the so-called shoebomber, the terrorist who tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe while on an airplane, to make his point.
"Well, Richard Reid was British," he said. "He was going to blow up an airliner. We do not say the British cannot buy companies here."
He added that he believes the committee's careful review of the deal, which includes building safeguards into it, reduces any risks to the United States.
"And this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment," explained Michael Chertoff.
The six major American ports affected are Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York, and Philadelphia.
The Associated Press reports that a company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the UAE company's takeover of shipping operations there. The company, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals, said it will become an "involuntary partner" of Dubai Ports World. It also expressed doubts that the UAE company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure compliance with American security rules.
VOICE OF AMERICA
US Security Chief Says UAE Ports Deal is No Threat
By Stephanie Ho
Washington
19 February 2006
Michael Chertoff during his testimony before Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Feb. 15, 2006
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is defending a deal giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over terminals at key U.S. ports. Critics in Congress say the deal is a threat to national security.
Critics have blasted the recent deal, in which government-owned Dubai Ports World purchased London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a private company that runs commercial operations in six major U.S. ports.
The nearly $7-billion sale has been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes officials from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and State.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff emphasized that the deal has undergone close scrutiny, although he said he could not provide details.
"Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns, is we build in certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns," said Michael Chertoff. "And here, the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection really played a leading role for our department in terms of designing those conditions and making sure that they are obeyed."
A bipartisan group of senators and House members last week called on the Bush Administration to review the sale, saying it undermines national security.
They noted that the United Arab Emirates served as a base for the hijackers who took part in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. They also argue that the UAE was one of only three countries that recognized the Taleban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
The Bush Administration considers the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror.
Secretary Chertoff told NBC's Meet the Press he believes it is not fair to automatically cut off business with entire countries, like the United Arab Emirates, just because there were some UAE connections to the September 11 terrorists. He pointed to the so-called shoebomber, the terrorist who tried to detonate a bomb in his shoe while on an airplane, to make his point.
"Well, Richard Reid was British," he said. "He was going to blow up an airliner. We do not say the British cannot buy companies here."
He added that he believes the committee's careful review of the deal, which includes building safeguards into it, reduces any risks to the United States.
"And this is part of the balancing of security, which is our paramount concern, with the need to still maintain a real robust global trading environment," explained Michael Chertoff.
The six major American ports affected are Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York, and Philadelphia.
The Associated Press reports that a company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the UAE company's takeover of shipping operations there. The company, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals, said it will become an "involuntary partner" of Dubai Ports World. It also expressed doubts that the UAE company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure compliance with American security rules.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/20/port.security/
Ridge: White House should explain port deal
Lawmakers voice concerns over takeover by Dubai-based firm
Monday, February 20, 2006; Posted: 4:56 p.m. EST (21:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration should disclose more about a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday.
The deal -- which will affect the ports of New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- has triggered security concerns among some members of Congress and the public.
The Bush administration has said the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror.
Others, however, point out that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 Commission.
Earlier this month, shareholders of the U.K.-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by Thunder FZE, a subsidiary of Dubai-based Dubai Ports World.
P&O directs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports. The takeover by DPW means that the Dubai company will be in charge of those operations.
On Sunday, Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, held a news conference with relatives of some of those killed in the terrorist attacks, and denounced the takeover. (Watch lawmakers call for deal to be stopped -- 2:55)
"Outsourcing the operation of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen," he said.
Other members of Congress have also been critical of the deal. On Friday, Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York announced they were working on legislation that would ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.
Some Republican lawmakers have also expressed concern over the deal, including New York Rep. Peter King and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
"We certainly should investigate it," Graham said Sunday on Fox News.
A Dubai Ports World spokesman told CNN that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals, and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.
"All DP World ports are [International Security Port System] certified, as are any P&O ports in the U.S.," the spokesman said. "We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals."
Michael Seymour, the president of P&O's North American operations, said the company "has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards."
"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations will continue to meet all relevant standards," he said.
Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of Homeland Security from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns, and that he believes U.S. officials would not jeopardize national security.
But he also told CNN, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."
Industry official alleges 'racism'
A port security expert, meanwhile, told CNN that fears that the agreement will reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.
Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council -- which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping -- told CNN, "This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false."
Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Petersen said DPW will be under "identical" security obligations, and said opposition to the purchase "comes down to bigotry [against] Arabs, which is one of the last acts of racism that is allowed by American society."
Petersen said the company has an "exemplary" record of security compliance certification.
Michael Chertoff, Ridge's successor as homeland security secretary, defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and the Pentagon.
"We examine the transaction; we look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security," Chertoff said on CNN's "Late Edition."
An FBI spokesman who asked not to be identified by name, however, said, "The FBI general counsel sits on the inter-agency board. We looked at it, and in this case, since it was a port issue, we deferred to the Department of Homeland Security."
Karen Hughes, U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, also said the proposal went through a thorough security review.
"There is a longstanding partnership between our two countries," she told CNN.
And U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during a roundtable with Arab print journalists last week, said of the deal, "there was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely."
Ridge: 'Transparency' needed
But Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security.
"So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."
CNN's Mike Ahlers, Caroline Faraj, Terry Frieden, Maria Gavrilovic and Phil Hirschkorn contributed to this report.
Ridge: White House should explain port deal
Lawmakers voice concerns over takeover by Dubai-based firm
Monday, February 20, 2006; Posted: 4:56 p.m. EST (21:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration should disclose more about a deal that would give a United Arab Emirates-based company management of six major U.S. seaports, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday.
The deal -- which will affect the ports of New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana -- has triggered security concerns among some members of Congress and the public.
The Bush administration has said the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror.
Others, however, point out that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 Commission.
Earlier this month, shareholders of the U.K.-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by Thunder FZE, a subsidiary of Dubai-based Dubai Ports World.
P&O directs commercial operations at the six U.S. ports. The takeover by DPW means that the Dubai company will be in charge of those operations.
On Sunday, Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, held a news conference with relatives of some of those killed in the terrorist attacks, and denounced the takeover. (Watch lawmakers call for deal to be stopped -- 2:55)
"Outsourcing the operation of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen," he said.
Other members of Congress have also been critical of the deal. On Friday, Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York announced they were working on legislation that would ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports.
Some Republican lawmakers have also expressed concern over the deal, including New York Rep. Peter King and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
"We certainly should investigate it," Graham said Sunday on Fox News.
A Dubai Ports World spokesman told CNN that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals, and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under the new management.
"All DP World ports are [International Security Port System] certified, as are any P&O ports in the U.S.," the spokesman said. "We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual for the P&O terminals."
Michael Seymour, the president of P&O's North American operations, said the company "has long worked with U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards."
"We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations will continue to meet all relevant standards," he said.
Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of Homeland Security from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns, and that he believes U.S. officials would not jeopardize national security.
But he also told CNN, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."
Industry official alleges 'racism'
A port security expert, meanwhile, told CNN that fears that the agreement will reduce U.S. security are based on "bigotry" and that "shameless" politicians are creating an issue they think will resonate with the public.
Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council -- which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping -- told CNN, "This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard ... is factually false."
Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Petersen said DPW will be under "identical" security obligations, and said opposition to the purchase "comes down to bigotry [against] Arabs, which is one of the last acts of racism that is allowed by American society."
Petersen said the company has an "exemplary" record of security compliance certification.
Michael Chertoff, Ridge's successor as homeland security secretary, defended the deal in appearances on talk shows Sunday. He said federal law required a review of the sale by a committee that includes officials from the Homeland Security, Treasury and Commerce departments, along with the FBI and the Pentagon.
"We examine the transaction; we look at what the issue of the threat is. If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security," Chertoff said on CNN's "Late Edition."
An FBI spokesman who asked not to be identified by name, however, said, "The FBI general counsel sits on the inter-agency board. We looked at it, and in this case, since it was a port issue, we deferred to the Department of Homeland Security."
Karen Hughes, U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, also said the proposal went through a thorough security review.
"There is a longstanding partnership between our two countries," she told CNN.
And U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during a roundtable with Arab print journalists last week, said of the deal, "there was a thorough review. It was decided that this could be done and done safely."
Ridge: 'Transparency' needed
But Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security.
"So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."
CNN's Mike Ahlers, Caroline Faraj, Terry Frieden, Maria Gavrilovic and Phil Hirschkorn contributed to this report.
February 21, 2006
Pataki Joins Opposition to Takeover of Ports
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and PATRICK McGEEHAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — The Republican governors of New York and Maryland on Monday joined the growing chorus of criticism of an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports. Both raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore.
"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in a statement.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract.
Officials of Dubai Ports World defended the speedy federal approval of its takeover, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades.
The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president.
The Bush administration said on Thursday that its approval of the deal was final. The sale is scheduled to close on March 2.
Congressional criticism of the deal grew on Sunday after Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, defended the arrangement in television appearances, saying there were unspecified "assurances in place" that the takeover was "appropriate from a national security standpoint."
Critics in both parties argue that a takeover by Dubai Ports World warranted special scrutiny. The company is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates, an ally of the United States that has also been home to terrorists, and its newly acquired P & O subsidiary operates major terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said the review was conducted in just 30 days — far too little time to thoroughly vet the company. "There wasn't a full investigation in the context of a post 9/11 world," he said.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, "You would just think that when a Dubai company is taking over, that is enough to raise a flag — at least to do a thorough review, at minimum." Two other Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, are expected to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of terminal operators to foreign governments.
While Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, has expressed confidence that American officials would not have approved the port deal if it put national security at risk, he said on Monday, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here."
In an interview with CNN, he said it would be "very appropriate" for the administration to brief Congress on why it believes the port arrangement not only does not compromise security but will actually improve it.
People involved in the approval process said that, like all acquisitions of domestic businesses by foreign-owned companies, the Dubai Ports World acquisition was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, representing 12 federal agencies.
Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the agency could not stop the Dubai company from assuming a 30-year lease on a major container terminal in New York Harbor unless some provision of the lease was violated.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Pataki Joins Opposition to Takeover of Ports
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and PATRICK McGEEHAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — The Republican governors of New York and Maryland on Monday joined the growing chorus of criticism of an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports. Both raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore.
"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Gov. George E. Pataki of New York said in a statement.
Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract.
Officials of Dubai Ports World defended the speedy federal approval of its takeover, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades.
The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president.
The Bush administration said on Thursday that its approval of the deal was final. The sale is scheduled to close on March 2.
Congressional criticism of the deal grew on Sunday after Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, defended the arrangement in television appearances, saying there were unspecified "assurances in place" that the takeover was "appropriate from a national security standpoint."
Critics in both parties argue that a takeover by Dubai Ports World warranted special scrutiny. The company is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates, an ally of the United States that has also been home to terrorists, and its newly acquired P & O subsidiary operates major terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said the review was conducted in just 30 days — far too little time to thoroughly vet the company. "There wasn't a full investigation in the context of a post 9/11 world," he said.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, "You would just think that when a Dubai company is taking over, that is enough to raise a flag — at least to do a thorough review, at minimum." Two other Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, are expected to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of terminal operators to foreign governments.
While Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, has expressed confidence that American officials would not have approved the port deal if it put national security at risk, he said on Monday, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here."
In an interview with CNN, he said it would be "very appropriate" for the administration to brief Congress on why it believes the port arrangement not only does not compromise security but will actually improve it.
People involved in the approval process said that, like all acquisitions of domestic businesses by foreign-owned companies, the Dubai Ports World acquisition was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, representing 12 federal agencies.
Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the agency could not stop the Dubai company from assuming a 30-year lease on a major container terminal in New York Harbor unless some provision of the lease was violated.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=8582
February 21, 2006
Dubai Ports World: Commercial Racial Profiling
by Ivan Eland
Some members of Congress, exhibiting post-9/11 jingoism and paranoia, are pressuring the Bush administration to reconsider its decision to allow Dubai Ports World, an Arab company, to take over operations at six U.S. ports. The approval should stand.
Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and, more importantly, a Congressman from an area near two of the ports that will be operated by Dubai Ports World, expressed this xenophobic view about Dubai’s acquisition of the British company that is currently operating the ports: “In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company.”
Why? Because two of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country in which the company is based. Yet the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was allowed to operate the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans despite Richard Reid’s (the infamous “shoe bomber”) British citizenship. And American companies are permitted to operate some U.S. ports despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and other U.S. citizens are convicted or accused terrorists. For that matter, how do we know that even an American company running the ports would be immune from terrorist infiltration?
In fact, since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, Dubai Ports World might even have a stronger interest in operating safe and secure ports than companies from other nations. Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold. If a terrorist incident occurred in one of its ports, the company would probably lose more business worldwide than a non-Arabic company would under the same circumstances.
The company should be evaluated on its qualifications to operate the ports, not on McCarthy-like litmus tests for Arabs or the UAE. Besides, although Dubai Ports World will operate the ports, U.S. federal and local authorities will remain in charge of security.
Members of Congress such as Congressman King and New York Senator Charles E. Schumer certainly get points with their New York constituents for defending the nation against the onslaught by “Arab terrorists,” and perhaps trying to protect U.S. companies from foreign competition as well.
But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United States—in spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners.
After 9/11, U.S. authorities incarcerated and questioned people based on their Arabic nationalities and Islamic religion. The vast majority of them had no connection to terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. This was widely perceived to have been an overreaction. Yet more than four years after 9/11, this racial and ethnic profiling has now moved from individuals to businesses. The Bush administration was right to insist that no security threat emanated from a routine business purchase of a British firm by an Arab company. The politicians should quit posturing and move on to more important issues.
February 21, 2006
Dubai Ports World: Commercial Racial Profiling
by Ivan Eland
Some members of Congress, exhibiting post-9/11 jingoism and paranoia, are pressuring the Bush administration to reconsider its decision to allow Dubai Ports World, an Arab company, to take over operations at six U.S. ports. The approval should stand.
Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and, more importantly, a Congressman from an area near two of the ports that will be operated by Dubai Ports World, expressed this xenophobic view about Dubai’s acquisition of the British company that is currently operating the ports: “In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company.”
Why? Because two of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country in which the company is based. Yet the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was allowed to operate the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans despite Richard Reid’s (the infamous “shoe bomber”) British citizenship. And American companies are permitted to operate some U.S. ports despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and other U.S. citizens are convicted or accused terrorists. For that matter, how do we know that even an American company running the ports would be immune from terrorist infiltration?
In fact, since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, Dubai Ports World might even have a stronger interest in operating safe and secure ports than companies from other nations. Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold. If a terrorist incident occurred in one of its ports, the company would probably lose more business worldwide than a non-Arabic company would under the same circumstances.
The company should be evaluated on its qualifications to operate the ports, not on McCarthy-like litmus tests for Arabs or the UAE. Besides, although Dubai Ports World will operate the ports, U.S. federal and local authorities will remain in charge of security.
Members of Congress such as Congressman King and New York Senator Charles E. Schumer certainly get points with their New York constituents for defending the nation against the onslaught by “Arab terrorists,” and perhaps trying to protect U.S. companies from foreign competition as well.
But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United States—in spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners.
After 9/11, U.S. authorities incarcerated and questioned people based on their Arabic nationalities and Islamic religion. The vast majority of them had no connection to terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. This was widely perceived to have been an overreaction. Yet more than four years after 9/11, this racial and ethnic profiling has now moved from individuals to businesses. The Bush administration was right to insist that no security threat emanated from a routine business purchase of a British firm by an Arab company. The politicians should quit posturing and move on to more important issues.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5635457,00.html
GOP Governors Threaten to Block Port Deal
Tuesday February 21, 2006 10:01 AM
AP Photo NJJM101< a0437-200602210342
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Republican governors are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined.
In the uneasy climate after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
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 York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World,'' Pataki said in a news release. ``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 company's 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.
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 nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's 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.'' GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said on ABC's ``This Week,'' ``It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it.''
Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.
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.
The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.
``My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports,'' Carter told CNN. ``I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.''
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. H said details of those agreements were secret.
During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a ``very extensive process'' for reviewing such transactions that ``takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security.''
---
Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this story.
GOP Governors Threaten to Block Port Deal
Tuesday February 21, 2006 10:01 AM
AP Photo NJJM101< a0437-200602210342
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Republican governors are threatening legal action to block an Arab company from taking over operations in major U.S. ports and some GOP lawmakers say the deal should be closely examined.
In the uneasy climate after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich on Monday voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
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 York's port operations is paramount and I am very concerned with the purchase of Peninsular & Oriental Steam by Dubai Ports World,'' Pataki said in a news release. ``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 company's 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.
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 nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's 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.'' GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia said on ABC's ``This Week,'' ``It's a tough one to explain, but we're in a global economy. ... I think we need to take a very close look at it.''
Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said Monday that he and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments.
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.
The Bush administration got support Monday from former President Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration.
``My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports,'' Carter told CNN. ``I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.''
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made the rounds on the talk shows Sunday, asserting that the administration made certain the company agreed to certain conditions to ensure national security. H said details of those agreements were secret.
During a stop Monday in Birmingham, Ala., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration had a ``very extensive process'' for reviewing such transactions that ``takes into account matters of national security, takes into account concerns about port security.''
---
Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this story.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools...ess/4731560.stm
P&O confident of Dubai takeover
P&O has said it is confident its takeover by Dubai Ports World will go ahead despite mounting opposition in the US.
Several US senators have warned they will oppose the $6.8bn (£3.9bn) deal over "national security concerns".
P&O controls six major ports in the US, including New York and Miami.
Meanwhile, a company based in the port of Miami has begun court action to prevent the takeover by DP World, which is backed by the Dubai government.
President Bush's administration has given its backing to the deal, which was agreed by the two firms last week, and has resisted calls from Congress to reconsider its stance.
Security worries
But lawmakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties have questioned the takeover, and at least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.
Over the weekend, opponents of the deal voiced their concerns about whether security would be compromised by allowing a firm backed by a member of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to takeover major US port operations.
We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary
The chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, has called for an immediate freeze on the deal and demanded a "full and thorough investigation" of the sale.
He also dubbed the government's support of the deal "politically tone deaf".
Senator Chuck Schumer said: "The question that needs to be answered is whether or not they (Dubai) can be trusted to operate our ports in this post 9-11 world."
Assurances in place
But the US Government dismissed the concerns, saying it had given the deal a thorough review and had implemented the "appropriate" conditions and safeguards where necessary.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told ABC television.
However, he declined to give further details saying the information was classified.
DP World also shrugged off the claims saying security was "at the forefront" of its business.
Meanwhile P&O has insisted it has cleared all the correct regulatory channels after a partner in Miami filed a lawsuit to block the deal.
Eller & Company subsidiary Continental Stevedoring & Terminals launched the action late on Friday, saying that the sale was prohibited under its current agreement with P&O.
It argued that under the terms of sale it became an "involuntary partner" with Dubai and it may seek damages of $10m.
The takeover of P&O will make DP World one of the three largest container ports businesses in the world when it is finalised on 2 March.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4731560.stm
Published: 2006/02/20 13:19:05 GMT
© BBC MMVI
P&O confident of Dubai takeover
P&O has said it is confident its takeover by Dubai Ports World will go ahead despite mounting opposition in the US.
Several US senators have warned they will oppose the $6.8bn (£3.9bn) deal over "national security concerns".
P&O controls six major ports in the US, including New York and Miami.
Meanwhile, a company based in the port of Miami has begun court action to prevent the takeover by DP World, which is backed by the Dubai government.
President Bush's administration has given its backing to the deal, which was agreed by the two firms last week, and has resisted calls from Congress to reconsider its stance.
Security worries
But lawmakers from both the Democratic and Republican parties have questioned the takeover, and at least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.
Over the weekend, opponents of the deal voiced their concerns about whether security would be compromised by allowing a firm backed by a member of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to takeover major US port operations.
We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary
The chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, has called for an immediate freeze on the deal and demanded a "full and thorough investigation" of the sale.
He also dubbed the government's support of the deal "politically tone deaf".
Senator Chuck Schumer said: "The question that needs to be answered is whether or not they (Dubai) can be trusted to operate our ports in this post 9-11 world."
Assurances in place
But the US Government dismissed the concerns, saying it had given the deal a thorough review and had implemented the "appropriate" conditions and safeguards where necessary.
"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told ABC television.
However, he declined to give further details saying the information was classified.
DP World also shrugged off the claims saying security was "at the forefront" of its business.
Meanwhile P&O has insisted it has cleared all the correct regulatory channels after a partner in Miami filed a lawsuit to block the deal.
Eller & Company subsidiary Continental Stevedoring & Terminals launched the action late on Friday, saying that the sale was prohibited under its current agreement with P&O.
It argued that under the terms of sale it became an "involuntary partner" with Dubai and it may seek damages of $10m.
The takeover of P&O will make DP World one of the three largest container ports businesses in the world when it is finalised on 2 March.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4731560.stm
Published: 2006/02/20 13:19:05 GMT
© BBC MMVI
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/20/uae-military-equipment/
UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army
There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:
[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.
According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”
Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia” direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.
Filed under: Homeland Security
Posted by Judd February 20, 2006 7:53 pm
Permalink | Comment (158)
158 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 02/ 20/ uae-military-equipment/ trackback
UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army
There is bipartisan concern about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the operation of six of the nation’s largest ports to a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) because of that nation’s troubling ties to international terrorism. The sale of P&O to Dubai World Ports would give the state-owned company control of “the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.”
A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:
[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.
According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”
Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia” direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.
Filed under: Homeland Security
Posted by Judd February 20, 2006 7:53 pm
Permalink | Comment (158)
158 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 02/ 20/ uae-military-equipment/ trackback
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/r...e.php?id=262489
Geopolitical Diary: The UAE and U.S. Ports
February 21, 2006 04 13 GMT
A British company with the quaint Victorian name of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased last week by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, at a price topping $6 billion. From a geopolitical point of view, this is just another corporate acquisition, made interesting by the fact that it clearly involves a cash-flush oil producer that is diversifying its holdings.
The story has one minor wrinkle, however. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation is deeply involved in operating the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. So, to put it differently, an Arab and Muslim country has taken control of key operations at some of the most important ports in the United States. As Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) put it, "The question that needs to be answered is whether or not they can be trusted to operate our ports in this post-9/11 world." The Bush administration's view, as expressed by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, is: "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint."
The issue comes down to this. The UAE is an Arab and Muslim country. The government of the UAE is about as pro-American as you can get in that part of the world. Certainly, there are UAE citizens who are jihadists -- one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Marwan al-Shehi, was from the UAE. At the same time, the government has a security agreement with the United States, and extensive commercial relations tie the two together. The UAE tries to be a kind of Switzerland in the Middle East, focusing on business and trying to be the commercial gateway to the region.
If the United States can't do business with the UAE, then the United States cannot do business anywhere in the Islamic world. The problem Washington faces is this: On the one hand, the administration has been criticized for having a simplistic, monochromatic view of Islam, and of making war against Islam in general. But on the other hand, when the administration draws distinctions between governments within the Muslim world, it gets hammered over threats to U.S. security. Somebody has got to straighten this out.
Now, the problem might simply be that a UAE company will be managing the U.S. ports. That is not a trivial concern. But viewed another way, a British company previously was managing the ports, and there are plenty of jihadists traveling on British passports these days who are at least as dangerous as anyone in the UAE. It is not clear to us that these ports were any safer when operated by a British company than they would be under the UAE.
If Washington rejects the UAE's ability to operate commercial concerns in the United States, then the question is going to be: Precisely what are the benefits of siding with the United States? The United States might draw a line saying that Muslim governments can do business with the United States but not control critical infrastructure. Nevertheless, two geopolitical questions remain. First, how does Washington reward countries that sided with the United States in the jihadist war? And second, if there are no rewards, what are the benefits of such alignment?
There is no question that the UAE does not run a fully capable counterintelligence system. There are certainly jihadists who might slip into the operation. But no country runs a fully capable system, and jihadists could slip in anywhere. There is an argument to be made that in a time of war, the United States must limit its commercial relations with any Muslim country. If that is the policy, then someone should state it. If the U.S. strategy is divide the Muslim world and reward those who side with the United States with commercial relations, then state that.
One way or another, a decision has to be made.
Geopolitical Diary: The UAE and U.S. Ports
February 21, 2006 04 13 GMT
A British company with the quaint Victorian name of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased last week by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, at a price topping $6 billion. From a geopolitical point of view, this is just another corporate acquisition, made interesting by the fact that it clearly involves a cash-flush oil producer that is diversifying its holdings.
The story has one minor wrinkle, however. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation is deeply involved in operating the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. So, to put it differently, an Arab and Muslim country has taken control of key operations at some of the most important ports in the United States. As Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) put it, "The question that needs to be answered is whether or not they can be trusted to operate our ports in this post-9/11 world." The Bush administration's view, as expressed by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, is: "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint."
The issue comes down to this. The UAE is an Arab and Muslim country. The government of the UAE is about as pro-American as you can get in that part of the world. Certainly, there are UAE citizens who are jihadists -- one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Marwan al-Shehi, was from the UAE. At the same time, the government has a security agreement with the United States, and extensive commercial relations tie the two together. The UAE tries to be a kind of Switzerland in the Middle East, focusing on business and trying to be the commercial gateway to the region.
If the United States can't do business with the UAE, then the United States cannot do business anywhere in the Islamic world. The problem Washington faces is this: On the one hand, the administration has been criticized for having a simplistic, monochromatic view of Islam, and of making war against Islam in general. But on the other hand, when the administration draws distinctions between governments within the Muslim world, it gets hammered over threats to U.S. security. Somebody has got to straighten this out.
Now, the problem might simply be that a UAE company will be managing the U.S. ports. That is not a trivial concern. But viewed another way, a British company previously was managing the ports, and there are plenty of jihadists traveling on British passports these days who are at least as dangerous as anyone in the UAE. It is not clear to us that these ports were any safer when operated by a British company than they would be under the UAE.
If Washington rejects the UAE's ability to operate commercial concerns in the United States, then the question is going to be: Precisely what are the benefits of siding with the United States? The United States might draw a line saying that Muslim governments can do business with the United States but not control critical infrastructure. Nevertheless, two geopolitical questions remain. First, how does Washington reward countries that sided with the United States in the jihadist war? And second, if there are no rewards, what are the benefits of such alignment?
There is no question that the UAE does not run a fully capable counterintelligence system. There are certainly jihadists who might slip into the operation. But no country runs a fully capable system, and jihadists could slip in anywhere. There is an argument to be made that in a time of war, the United States must limit its commercial relations with any Muslim country. If that is the policy, then someone should state it. If the U.S. strategy is divide the Muslim world and reward those who side with the United States with commercial relations, then state that.
One way or another, a decision has to be made.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?ed...rticle_id=22323
U.S. ports up in arms at implications of U.A.E.'s takeover of P&O
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Monday, February 20, 2006
WASHINGTON: A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by the British based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), which the state-owned firm Dubai Ports World purchased last week.
It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc. - a subsidiary of Eller and Company Inc., - brought the lawsuit to a Florida circuit court, claiming that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government. It may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with P&O and "may endanger the national security of the U.S."
It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure the firm's compliance with American security rules.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and said all P&O ports are International Ship and Port Facility Security certified, including those in the U.S.
The lawsuit represents the first skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where P&O runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival.
The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress urged the administration to conduct a more rigorous review of the sale-already approved by the Bush administration. Some expressed fears that the U.A.E. 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.
A U.S. congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.
Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he wants the new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and U.S. President George W. Bush before Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of P&O. Two U.S. senators, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York, both Democrats, also said they would offer legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai Ports World is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer, internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey, was expected to travel to Washington soon for meetings.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is defending its approval of the sale, and strongly resisting demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates Friday as "a long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and U.A.E. had a good relationship.
U.S. ports up in arms at implications of U.A.E.'s takeover of P&O
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Monday, February 20, 2006
WASHINGTON: A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by the British based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), which the state-owned firm Dubai Ports World purchased last week.
It is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale already embroiled in a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.
The Miami company, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc. - a subsidiary of Eller and Company Inc., - brought the lawsuit to a Florida circuit court, claiming that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government. It may seek more than $10 million in damages.
The Miami subsidiary said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with P&O and "may endanger the national security of the U.S."
It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure the firm's compliance with American security rules.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a U.S. inter-agency panel that reviews security implications of foreign takeovers of strategic assets, reviewed the transaction and said all P&O ports are International Ship and Port Facility Security certified, including those in the U.S.
The lawsuit represents the first skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where P&O runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. U.S. seaports handle 2 billion tons of freight each year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival.
The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress urged the administration to conduct a more rigorous review of the sale-already approved by the Bush administration. Some expressed fears that the U.A.E. 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.
A U.S. congressman said Saturday he wants to require that security officials at U.S. ports be American citizens to prevent overseas companies operating shipping facilities here from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions.
Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, said he wants the new mandatory citizenship requirements approved by Congress and U.S. President George W. Bush before Dubai Ports World completes its pending purchase of P&O. Two U.S. senators, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York, both Democrats, also said they would offer legislation to ban companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations.
Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai Ports World is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer, internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey, was expected to travel to Washington soon for meetings.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is defending its approval of the sale, and strongly resisting demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates Friday as "a long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and U.A.E. had a good relationship.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...§ion=theuae
Khaleej Times Online >> News >> THE U.A.E
P&O takeover won’t be hit by objections in US: Hughes
By Criselda E. Diala
21 February 2006
DUBAI — The sale of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) to the Dubai Ports World (DPW) will push through despite opposition from some circles in the US, including a reported lawsuit filed by a company operating at the Port of Miami.
"The administration has conducted a very thorough inter-agency review led by Treasury Secretary John Snow, and it was determined that the sale was fine," said US Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes during a meeting with the Press yesterday.
Hughes, however, denied allegations of Islamophobia with regard to the sale of the P&O to the DPW. The sale eventually resulted in the taking over of six US ports by DPW. "I don't believe Islamophobia is the case. What I have seen in quotes from our lawmakers are questions about security and concerns in line with the fact that a couple of the September 11 hijackers did come from the UAE," Hughes explained.
She stressed that as per National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's statement, the US government has decided to allow the sale after a "thorough security review was conducted."
"Perhaps, it is important to understand that in my country, there's a very open environment for debate and members of the congress are always questioning, debating, discussing. Secretary Rice said the administration would be happy to share with them additional information about the inter-agency security review," Hughes added.
The Under-Secretary also mentioned that the US had long-standing alliance with the UAE and that both governments had been partners in the war against terror. "So I hope the people and the government of the UAE will understand that in a democracy, there is indeed a process of debate," Hughes said.
AP adds: Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, said in a statement that company lawyers would have to examine the lawsuit before he could comment on it.
He noted, however, that his company “is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with US government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all US government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States.”
“We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the US through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world,” Seymour said.
Khaleej Times Online >> News >> THE U.A.E
P&O takeover won’t be hit by objections in US: Hughes
By Criselda E. Diala
21 February 2006
DUBAI — The sale of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) to the Dubai Ports World (DPW) will push through despite opposition from some circles in the US, including a reported lawsuit filed by a company operating at the Port of Miami.
"The administration has conducted a very thorough inter-agency review led by Treasury Secretary John Snow, and it was determined that the sale was fine," said US Under-Secretary for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes during a meeting with the Press yesterday.
Hughes, however, denied allegations of Islamophobia with regard to the sale of the P&O to the DPW. The sale eventually resulted in the taking over of six US ports by DPW. "I don't believe Islamophobia is the case. What I have seen in quotes from our lawmakers are questions about security and concerns in line with the fact that a couple of the September 11 hijackers did come from the UAE," Hughes explained.
She stressed that as per National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's statement, the US government has decided to allow the sale after a "thorough security review was conducted."
"Perhaps, it is important to understand that in my country, there's a very open environment for debate and members of the congress are always questioning, debating, discussing. Secretary Rice said the administration would be happy to share with them additional information about the inter-agency security review," Hughes added.
The Under-Secretary also mentioned that the US had long-standing alliance with the UAE and that both governments had been partners in the war against terror. "So I hope the people and the government of the UAE will understand that in a democracy, there is indeed a process of debate," Hughes said.
AP adds: Michael Seymour, president of the North American arm of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, said in a statement that company lawyers would have to examine the lawsuit before he could comment on it.
He noted, however, that his company “is itself a foreign-owned terminal operator that has long worked with US government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all US government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States.”
“We are confident that the DP World purchase will ensure that our operations continue to meet all relevant standards in the US through ongoing collaboration between the port operators and American, British, Australian and port security officials throughout the world,” Seymour said.
Corporate Control of Ports is the Problem
John Nichols
The Nation -- The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.
The problem is that it that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.
Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic operations at the nation's ports.
Allowing the nation's working waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work, as the failure to set up a solid security system for port security in the more than four years since the September 11, 2001 attacks well illustrates. And shifting control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia from a British firm, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., to Dubai Ports World, is not going to improve the situation.
|
Unfortunately, the debate has been posed as a fight over whether Arab-owned firms should be allowed to manage ports and other strategic sites in the U.S. Media coverage of the debate sets up the increasingly ridiculous Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff -- who babbles bureaucratically about how, "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint" -- against members of Congress -- who growl, as U.S. Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-New York, did over the weekend about the need "to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else,"
There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.
First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.
Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.
Copyright © 2006 The Nation
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
John Nichols
The Nation -- The problem with the Bush administration's support for a move by a United Arab Emirates-based firm to take over operation of six major American ports is not that the corporation in question is Arab owned.
The problem is that it that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. It happens to be a corporation that is owned by the government of the the United Arab Emirates, or UAE, a nation that served as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of 9-11 attacks, and that has stirred broad concern. But, even if the sale of the ports to this firm did not raise security alarm bells, it would be a bad idea.
Ports are essential pieces of the infrastructure of the United States, and they are best run by public authorities that are accountable to elected officials and the people those officials represent. While traditional port authorities still exist, they are increasing marginalized as privatization schemes have allowed corporations -- often with tough anti-union attitudes and even tougher bottom lines -- to take charge of more and more of the basic operations at the nation's ports.
Allowing the nation's working waterfronts to be run by private firms just doesn't work, as the failure to set up a solid security system for port security in the more than four years since the September 11, 2001 attacks well illustrates. And shifting control of the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia from a British firm, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., to Dubai Ports World, is not going to improve the situation.
|
Unfortunately, the debate has been posed as a fight over whether Arab-owned firms should be allowed to manage ports and other strategic sites in the U.S. Media coverage of the debate sets up the increasingly ridiculous Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff -- who babbles bureaucratically about how, "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint" -- against members of Congress -- who growl, as U.S. Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-New York, did over the weekend about the need "to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else,"
There are two fundamental facts about corporations that put this controversy about who runs the ports in perspective.
First: Like most American firms, most Arab-owned firms are committed to making money, and the vast majority of them are not about to compromise their potential profits by throwing in with terrorists.
Second: Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversite by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services.
Copyright © 2006 The Nation
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...cs/13922695.htm
Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFFNew York Daily NewsWASHINGTON
- The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port. Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The New York Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day investigation should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the president has until March 2 to trigger that closer look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
BY MICHAEL MCAULIFFNew York Daily NewsWASHINGTON
- The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port. Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and who was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"The more you look at this deal, the more the deal is called into question," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who said the deal was rubber-stamped in advance - even before DP World formally agreed to buy London's P&O port company.
Besides operations in New York and Jersey, Dubai would also run port facilities in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Miami.
The political fallout over the deal only grows.
"It's particularly troubling that the United States would turn over its port security not only to a foreign company, but a state-owned one," said western New York's Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. Reynolds is responsible for helping Republicans keep their majority in the House.
Snow's Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which includes 11 other agencies.
"It always raises flags" when administration officials have ties to a firm, Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., said, but insisted that stopping the deal was more important.
The New York Daily News has learned that lawmakers also want to know if a detailed 45-day investigation should have been conducted instead of one that lasted no more than 25 days.
According to a 1993 congressional measure, the longer review is mandated when the company is owned by a foreign government and the purchase "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Congressional sources said the president has until March 2 to trigger that closer look.
"The most important thing is for someone to explain how this is consistent with our national security," Fossella said.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9901/uae_po...ises_fears.html
Foreign Purchase Of U.S. Port Ops Raises Outcry
Despite a Coast Guard presence, U.S. ports remain vulnerable (Photo: AP)
February 17, 2006
Prepared By: Eben Kaplan
Every year, some nine million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks, calls arose to increase the scrutiny of this rapid flow of goods. These calls, says CFR fellow Stephen Flynn, have gone largely unanswered, leaving U.S. port security akin to "a house of cards."
This precarious situation has been highlighted again by the acquisition by Dubai Ports World—a major United Arab Emirates-based shipping and cargo concern—of the British firm that has been running portions of six major U.S. ports (BaltSun). The acquisition means significant portions of the ports of New York , Miami , Newark-Port Elizabeth, Philadelphia , New Orleans , and Baltimore would be run by Dubai Ports World. President Bush, who has defended the deal, is under pressure to reverse himself (CNN). But state and local governments, Republican and Democrat, are up in arms. The Republican governors of New York and Maryland threaten legal action to block the deal (AP). Democratic senators from New Jersey and New York are drafting legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments (NorthJersey.com).Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is making similar demands (Newsday).
The United Arab Emirates is considered a U.S. ally. However, as this CFR Task Force report made clear in 2004, the UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. That fact has many asking questions. The New York Times says the move takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level," while Newsday urges Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to explain the process the government used to approve the sale. Others question tenuous business ties between the UAE company and the Bush administration (NY Daily News).
The uproar over the Dubai Ports World purchase is only the latest to focus on foreign ownership of vital infrastructure. The U.S. Congress last year overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission for a Chinese company, CNOOC, to purchase Unocal (Washington Quarterly), a U.S. oil services company. In 1999, just before Hutchison Whampoa, a Chinese company, took control of the shipping yards that line Panama Canal, retired U.S. admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor" (NewsMax.com).
In fact, the vast majority of U.S. ports are owned by foreign companies. But ownership ranks toward the bottom of the vulnerabilities, says Flynn, who hopes the attention garnered by the recent purchase will emphasize the need to work with foreign entities in addressing larger security concerns. Regardless of who owns the ports, the volume of goods flowing through them is so massive that providing security oversight for incoming containers is a daunting task. After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security created the "Container Security Initiative," but an April 2005 Government Accountability Office report (PDF) questions the program's ability to improve cargo security.
Incoming containers are not the only security concern in U.S. ports. Shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG)—which is increasingly important to meet U.S. energy needs—also pose a risk, and many new terminals are on the drawing board, as cfr.org's Eben Kaplan explains in this CFR Background Q&A. The Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management as well as the Congressional Research Service (PDF) both offer solid overviews of the issue.
Foreign Purchase Of U.S. Port Ops Raises Outcry
Despite a Coast Guard presence, U.S. ports remain vulnerable (Photo: AP)
February 17, 2006
Prepared By: Eben Kaplan
Every year, some nine million cargo containers enter the United States through its ports. Soon after the September 11, 2001, attacks, calls arose to increase the scrutiny of this rapid flow of goods. These calls, says CFR fellow Stephen Flynn, have gone largely unanswered, leaving U.S. port security akin to "a house of cards."
This precarious situation has been highlighted again by the acquisition by Dubai Ports World—a major United Arab Emirates-based shipping and cargo concern—of the British firm that has been running portions of six major U.S. ports (BaltSun). The acquisition means significant portions of the ports of New York , Miami , Newark-Port Elizabeth, Philadelphia , New Orleans , and Baltimore would be run by Dubai Ports World. President Bush, who has defended the deal, is under pressure to reverse himself (CNN). But state and local governments, Republican and Democrat, are up in arms. The Republican governors of New York and Maryland threaten legal action to block the deal (AP). Democratic senators from New Jersey and New York are drafting legislation prohibiting the sale of port operations to foreign governments (NorthJersey.com).Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is making similar demands (Newsday).
The United Arab Emirates is considered a U.S. ally. However, as this CFR Task Force report made clear in 2004, the UAE was used as a financial and operational base by some of the 9/11 hijackers. That fact has many asking questions. The New York Times says the move takes the Bush administration's "laxness to a new level," while Newsday urges Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to explain the process the government used to approve the sale. Others question tenuous business ties between the UAE company and the Bush administration (NY Daily News).
The uproar over the Dubai Ports World purchase is only the latest to focus on foreign ownership of vital infrastructure. The U.S. Congress last year overwhelmingly recommended against the Bush administration granting permission for a Chinese company, CNOOC, to purchase Unocal (Washington Quarterly), a U.S. oil services company. In 1999, just before Hutchison Whampoa, a Chinese company, took control of the shipping yards that line Panama Canal, retired U.S. admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas H. Moorer warned of a "nuclear Pearl Harbor" (NewsMax.com).
In fact, the vast majority of U.S. ports are owned by foreign companies. But ownership ranks toward the bottom of the vulnerabilities, says Flynn, who hopes the attention garnered by the recent purchase will emphasize the need to work with foreign entities in addressing larger security concerns. Regardless of who owns the ports, the volume of goods flowing through them is so massive that providing security oversight for incoming containers is a daunting task. After 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security created the "Container Security Initiative," but an April 2005 Government Accountability Office report (PDF) questions the program's ability to improve cargo security.
Incoming containers are not the only security concern in U.S. ports. Shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG)—which is increasingly important to meet U.S. energy needs—also pose a risk, and many new terminals are on the drawing board, as cfr.org's Eben Kaplan explains in this CFR Background Q&A. The Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management as well as the Congressional Research Service (PDF) both offer solid overviews of the issue.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=710...id=apvLCRK73Efw
Dubai Sends Team to Visit U.S. to Ease Ports Concern (Update2)
Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) --
Dubai's royal family sent a delegation to the U.S. today to meet officials such as Senator Hillary Clinton to allay concerns about the emirate's purchase of six U.S. ports as part of its buyout of Peninsula & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
Sultan bin Sulayem, chairman of the state-owned DP World, is heading the team will discuss Dubai's management of P&O operations in the U.S., which include the ports of New York and Baltimore, a United Arab Emirates' Foreign Ministry official said in a phone interview today.
Democratic Senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York are seeking to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operations. A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is calling for hearings on DP World's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based P&O that would give a company owned by Dubai's ruling Maktoum family, control over some operations at six U.S. ports.
``It's obviously sensitive and politics is coming into it,'' said Donald Struthers, a security adviser at U.K.-based Poseidon Maritime Ltd., whose clients include port authorities and shipping lines. DP World complies ``with international laws and from a security point of view that's the bottom line.''
P&O's biggest operations in the U.S. are at the Port of Newark, where it has 30-year lease from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to operate the 180-acre terminal, which can handle about 1 million containers a year.
The lease is shared by A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S, the largest container-shipping company. P&O also has a 50 percent stake in the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, which handles about 500,000 containers a year at the port in Florida.
Singapore's PSA
Dubai beat Singapore's PSA International Pte in the takeover, approved on Feb. 14 in London by P&O shareholders, which more than doubles DP World's terminals to 51, with the capacity to move 33.3 million containers.
P&O also operates terminals in Philadelphia and New Orleans. Terminals in North and South America generated 16 percent of the 10.9 million containers that P&O handled in the nine months ended Sept. 30.
A spokesman for DP, Tim Ryan, confirmed that a delegation was in Washington today, when contacted on his mobile phone in the U.S. capital. He declined to give any details.
The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency responsible for maritime safety, in July 2004 implemented the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, which is designed to increase security at ports.
Key Ally
The Persian Gulf state, a federation of seven family-ruled sheikhdoms, is a key ally of the U.S. government in the region. Docking facilities at Jebel Ali port, the largest in the Persian Gulf and that's run by DP World, are used regularly by the U.S. navy, the spokesman said.
President George W. Bush's administration last month named Dave Sanborn, director of operations for DP World in Europe and Latin America, as U.S. Maritime Administrator. Sanborn is expected to take up his post later this year.
The Maritime Administration is responsible for ensuring the marine infrastructure meets the economic and security needs of the U.S., according to its Web site.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andy Critchlow in Dubai on at acritchlow1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 21, 2006 07:50 EST
Dubai Sends Team to Visit U.S. to Ease Ports Concern (Update2)
Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) --
Dubai's royal family sent a delegation to the U.S. today to meet officials such as Senator Hillary Clinton to allay concerns about the emirate's purchase of six U.S. ports as part of its buyout of Peninsula & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
Sultan bin Sulayem, chairman of the state-owned DP World, is heading the team will discuss Dubai's management of P&O operations in the U.S., which include the ports of New York and Baltimore, a United Arab Emirates' Foreign Ministry official said in a phone interview today.
Democratic Senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York are seeking to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operations. A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is calling for hearings on DP World's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based P&O that would give a company owned by Dubai's ruling Maktoum family, control over some operations at six U.S. ports.
``It's obviously sensitive and politics is coming into it,'' said Donald Struthers, a security adviser at U.K.-based Poseidon Maritime Ltd., whose clients include port authorities and shipping lines. DP World complies ``with international laws and from a security point of view that's the bottom line.''
P&O's biggest operations in the U.S. are at the Port of Newark, where it has 30-year lease from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to operate the 180-acre terminal, which can handle about 1 million containers a year.
The lease is shared by A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S, the largest container-shipping company. P&O also has a 50 percent stake in the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, which handles about 500,000 containers a year at the port in Florida.
Singapore's PSA
Dubai beat Singapore's PSA International Pte in the takeover, approved on Feb. 14 in London by P&O shareholders, which more than doubles DP World's terminals to 51, with the capacity to move 33.3 million containers.
P&O also operates terminals in Philadelphia and New Orleans. Terminals in North and South America generated 16 percent of the 10.9 million containers that P&O handled in the nine months ended Sept. 30.
A spokesman for DP, Tim Ryan, confirmed that a delegation was in Washington today, when contacted on his mobile phone in the U.S. capital. He declined to give any details.
The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency responsible for maritime safety, in July 2004 implemented the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, which is designed to increase security at ports.
Key Ally
The Persian Gulf state, a federation of seven family-ruled sheikhdoms, is a key ally of the U.S. government in the region. Docking facilities at Jebel Ali port, the largest in the Persian Gulf and that's run by DP World, are used regularly by the U.S. navy, the spokesman said.
President George W. Bush's administration last month named Dave Sanborn, director of operations for DP World in Europe and Latin America, as U.S. Maritime Administrator. Sanborn is expected to take up his post later this year.
The Maritime Administration is responsible for ensuring the marine infrastructure meets the economic and security needs of the U.S., according to its Web site.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Andy Critchlow in Dubai on at acritchlow1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 21, 2006 07:50 EST
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/02/21/daysid..._complicity.php
Dayside and Rep. Peter King Take the Proper Side of an Argument - But Refuse to Acknowledge Bush Complicity
Rep. Peter King (R - NY), one of Dayside's favorite guests, appeared yesterday to discuss the Dubai port deal that has caused such an uproar among both liberals and conservatives alike. While basically taking what most Americans view as the proper stance on this issue, both the co-hosts of Dayside and King refused to mention Bush, who made the decision, or the UAE's 9/11 connections once during the entire discussion.
The interview opened with co-host Mike Jerrick questioning King:
MJ: "A lot of people are upset about this on so many levels. What's the number 1 level for you?"
PK: "The main one for me is that the government did not do a thorough investigation. We're talking about a company, that as you said, comes out of a country with very serious Al Qaeda connections. This is one of only three governments in the world that supported the Taliban prior to 9/11. There's been allegations about the port in Dubai itself which this company managed and to be turning over management of 6 major ports to a company such as this without a full and thorough investigation to me is just inviting disaster. One point I made, god forbid there is ever another tragedy, I don't want a future 9/11 Commission asking me why I didn't do anything when I became aware of the situation."
Comment: Note that King does not give the full story on the UAE to the viewers. As Donna reported yesterday the UAE:
- was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (which King did mention)
- has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
- according to the FBI, transferred money through their banking system to the 9/11 hijackers
- was not, according to the Treasury Department, cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts
(Hat tip to ThinkProgress for the initial investigative work!)
Another interesting piece of information that has gotten no play on Fox, or anywhere for that matter, was reported in the New York Times last week:
"In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's operations in Europe and Latin America."
King and Dayside chose to not provide this damning information to the viewers, as this would cause a serious blow to "Dear Leader" Bush, who has firmly stated the deal is final, dismissing concerns of Republicans and Democrats alike.
Co-host Juliet Huddy continued, "Congressman, this company is called DP World. As you said, it's based in Dubai, $6.8 million it's offered for the purchase of a British firm, and they would take over. The ports are in Baltimore, Miami, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Philadelphia, these are major terrorist targets, these would be considered major terrorist targets. You say that this company hasn't been investigated, but the government says they have, they have made sure there are security measures in place, what are they talking about?"
Comment: Again note that the Bush administration, whose deal this is, is not mentioned at all but referred to as "the government".
King responded, "Well, first I really disagree with Secretary Chertoff on this. Let me just give you one example, the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which has a current contract with the British company that is being taken over by Dubai, they were never told about this until the middle of last week. They read it in the newspapers, so they weren't even contacted or consulted. Under the law, or at least the way the law is interpreted by the Treasury Department, all they look at is whether there is anything flagrant in the intelligence file, whether there are any red flags there, but they don't do an in-depth investigation, like if any of us were nominated to be let's say a sub-cabinet post in the government, we'd be subjected to incredibly intense scrutiny. Nothing like that happened with this company."
Comment: Certainly Secretary Chertoff agrees with Bush, but this is not Chertoff's deal, so why can't King come out and say that he doesn't agree with Bush?
King also states that the Treasury Department has done a review of the deal, but only looks for things that are "flagrant" in the countries intelligence file - so am I to assume that all of the above referenced information about the UAE's ties to 9/11, does not fall under the classification as "flagrant", or is not considered a "red flag"? And we're supposed to feel "safer" under this administration?
The segment was opened to questions/comments from the audience, all of whom were incensed at this deal. The unbalanced segment ended shortly thereafter, and no Democrats were given the opportunity to voice their concern on this topic, because Fox just couldn't allow a Democrat to appear "strong" on National Security.
Dayside and Rep. Peter King Take the Proper Side of an Argument - But Refuse to Acknowledge Bush Complicity
Rep. Peter King (R - NY), one of Dayside's favorite guests, appeared yesterday to discuss the Dubai port deal that has caused such an uproar among both liberals and conservatives alike. While basically taking what most Americans view as the proper stance on this issue, both the co-hosts of Dayside and King refused to mention Bush, who made the decision, or the UAE's 9/11 connections once during the entire discussion.
The interview opened with co-host Mike Jerrick questioning King:
MJ: "A lot of people are upset about this on so many levels. What's the number 1 level for you?"
PK: "The main one for me is that the government did not do a thorough investigation. We're talking about a company, that as you said, comes out of a country with very serious Al Qaeda connections. This is one of only three governments in the world that supported the Taliban prior to 9/11. There's been allegations about the port in Dubai itself which this company managed and to be turning over management of 6 major ports to a company such as this without a full and thorough investigation to me is just inviting disaster. One point I made, god forbid there is ever another tragedy, I don't want a future 9/11 Commission asking me why I didn't do anything when I became aware of the situation."
Comment: Note that King does not give the full story on the UAE to the viewers. As Donna reported yesterday the UAE:
- was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (which King did mention)
- has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
- according to the FBI, transferred money through their banking system to the 9/11 hijackers
- was not, according to the Treasury Department, cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts
(Hat tip to ThinkProgress for the initial investigative work!)
Another interesting piece of information that has gotten no play on Fox, or anywhere for that matter, was reported in the New York Times last week:
"In mid-January, President Bush nominated a senior executive of Dubai Ports World, David Sanborn, to run the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration. Mr. Sanborn had been running the company's operations in Europe and Latin America."
King and Dayside chose to not provide this damning information to the viewers, as this would cause a serious blow to "Dear Leader" Bush, who has firmly stated the deal is final, dismissing concerns of Republicans and Democrats alike.
Co-host Juliet Huddy continued, "Congressman, this company is called DP World. As you said, it's based in Dubai, $6.8 million it's offered for the purchase of a British firm, and they would take over. The ports are in Baltimore, Miami, New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Philadelphia, these are major terrorist targets, these would be considered major terrorist targets. You say that this company hasn't been investigated, but the government says they have, they have made sure there are security measures in place, what are they talking about?"
Comment: Again note that the Bush administration, whose deal this is, is not mentioned at all but referred to as "the government".
King responded, "Well, first I really disagree with Secretary Chertoff on this. Let me just give you one example, the Port Authority of NY and NJ, which has a current contract with the British company that is being taken over by Dubai, they were never told about this until the middle of last week. They read it in the newspapers, so they weren't even contacted or consulted. Under the law, or at least the way the law is interpreted by the Treasury Department, all they look at is whether there is anything flagrant in the intelligence file, whether there are any red flags there, but they don't do an in-depth investigation, like if any of us were nominated to be let's say a sub-cabinet post in the government, we'd be subjected to incredibly intense scrutiny. Nothing like that happened with this company."
Comment: Certainly Secretary Chertoff agrees with Bush, but this is not Chertoff's deal, so why can't King come out and say that he doesn't agree with Bush?
King also states that the Treasury Department has done a review of the deal, but only looks for things that are "flagrant" in the countries intelligence file - so am I to assume that all of the above referenced information about the UAE's ties to 9/11, does not fall under the classification as "flagrant", or is not considered a "red flag"? And we're supposed to feel "safer" under this administration?
The segment was opened to questions/comments from the audience, all of whom were incensed at this deal. The unbalanced segment ended shortly thereafter, and no Democrats were given the opportunity to voice their concern on this topic, because Fox just couldn't allow a Democrat to appear "strong" on National Security.
Associated Press
Update 3: Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal
By WILL LESTER , 02.21.2006, 12:52 PM
Most Popular Stories
Top 10 Worst Intersections
10 Things That Will Change The Way We Live
Who Knows The Most About Money?
Top Earning Musicians
The Economics Of Prostitution
Most Popular Videos
Top Topless Beaches
Dell Delves Into High-End Market
AT&T Roars Back To Life
McDonald's To Spin Off Franchises
Fighting Funny Money
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
"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."
In the uneasy climate after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
"I'm 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.
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.
Tony Fratto, chief spokesman for the Treasury Department, the agency which chairs the review panel, said that all security issues raised by members of the panel had been addressed and the panel was able to give a unanimous recommendation that the deal go forward.
He said under the law, the review panel does not have the responsibility of determining "whether the decision will be popular. Politics should not play a role in the review process."
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.
Frist's move comes a day after two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
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 York's 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 company's 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.
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 nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's 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.
Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this story.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
Update 3: Frist Calls for Halt to U.S. Ports Deal
By WILL LESTER , 02.21.2006, 12:52 PM
Most Popular Stories
Top 10 Worst Intersections
10 Things That Will Change The Way We Live
Who Knows The Most About Money?
Top Earning Musicians
The Economics Of Prostitution
Most Popular Videos
Top Topless Beaches
Dell Delves Into High-End Market
AT&T Roars Back To Life
McDonald's To Spin Off Franchises
Fighting Funny Money
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist called Tuesday for the Bush administration to stop a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major U.S. seaports, upping the ante on a fight that several congressmen, governors and mayors are waging with the White House.
"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."
In the uneasy climate after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration decision to allow the transaction is threatening to develop a major political headache for the White House.
"I'm 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.
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.
Tony Fratto, chief spokesman for the Treasury Department, the agency which chairs the review panel, said that all security issues raised by members of the panel had been addressed and the panel was able to give a unanimous recommendation that the deal go forward.
He said under the law, the review panel does not have the responsibility of determining "whether the decision will be popular. Politics should not play a role in the review process."
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.
Frist's move comes a day after two Republican governors, New York's George Pataki and Maryland's Robert Ehrlich, voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.
The British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., runs major commercial operations at ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.
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 York's 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 company's 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.
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 nation's ports are not properly protected, combined with the news of an Arab country's 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.
Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett in Washington, Matthew Verrinder in Newark, N.J., and Tom Stuckey in Annapolis, Md., contributed to this story.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
February 21, 2006
Opposition to Port Deal Grows With G.O.P. Leader's Threat
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and MARIA NEWMAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist today threatened to introduce legislation to put a hold on a deal permitting an Arab company's takeover of six major American ports unless the Bush administration conducts a more thorough review of the matter.
His opposition is part of a growing chorus of criticism of the federal government's speedy approval of the deal. On Monday, the Republican governors of New York and Maryland raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore. Today, with opposition growing, Bush administration officials were put on the defensive about the security risk the deal would present.
"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," Mr. Frist said. "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."
Critics in both parties argue that a takeover by Dubai Ports World warranted special scrutiny. The company is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates, which, though an ally of the United States, has also been home to terrorists, and its newly acquired P & O subsidiary operates major terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld praised the Arab country as an important strategic military partner.
"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."
"We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis," he added. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."
Criticism has come from legislators of both parties since the administration said on Thursday that its approval of the deal was final. The sale is scheduled to close on March 2. Governors George E. Pataki of New York and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland both said they would do what they could to stop the deal from going through.
"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Mr. Pataki said in a statement.
Mr. Ehrlich told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract.
With criticism of the deal growing on Monday, officials of the Dubai Ports pushed back, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades.
The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president.
Congressional criticism of the deal grew on Sunday after Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, defended the arrangement in television appearances, saying there were unspecified "assurances in place" that the takeover was "appropriate from a national security standpoint."
Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said the review was conducted in just 30 days — far too little time to vet the company thoroughly. "There wasn't a full investigation in the context of a post 9/11 world," he said.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, "You would just think that when a Dubai company is taking over, that is enough to raise a flag — at least to do a thorough review, at minimum." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, another New York Democrat, and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, are expected to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of terminal operators to foreign governments.
While Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, has expressed confidence that American officials would not have approved the port deal if it put national security at risk, he said on Monday, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here."
In an interview with CNN, he said it would be "very appropriate" for the administration to brief Congress about why it believes the port arrangement not only does not compromise security but will actually improve it.
People involved in the approval process said that, like all acquisitions of domestic businesses by foreign-owned companies, the Dubai Ports World acquisition was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, representing 12 federal agencies.
Officials of Dubai Ports World's North American subsidiary, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the situation, said the critics' fears were misdirected because the Coast Guard and the United States customs authorities, not the terminal operators, are responsible for checking incoming cargo, passengers and crews as well as for planning and maintaining port security.
Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the agency could not stop the Dubai company from assuming a 30-year lease on a major container terminal in New York Harbor unless some provision of the lease was violated.
He said the agency's lawyers had been studying the lease of the terminal to P & O Ports North America, a subsidiary of the company being acquired by Dubai Ports World, but had not reached any conclusion.
David D. Kirkpatrick reported from Washington for this article and Maria Newman from New York. Patrick McGeehan contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Opposition to Port Deal Grows With G.O.P. Leader's Threat
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
and MARIA NEWMAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist today threatened to introduce legislation to put a hold on a deal permitting an Arab company's takeover of six major American ports unless the Bush administration conducts a more thorough review of the matter.
His opposition is part of a growing chorus of criticism of the federal government's speedy approval of the deal. On Monday, the Republican governors of New York and Maryland raised the threat of legal action to void contracts at ports in New York City and Baltimore. Today, with opposition growing, Bush administration officials were put on the defensive about the security risk the deal would present.
"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter," Mr. Frist said. "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."
Critics in both parties argue that a takeover by Dubai Ports World warranted special scrutiny. The company is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates, which, though an ally of the United States, has also been home to terrorists, and its newly acquired P & O subsidiary operates major terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld praised the Arab country as an important strategic military partner.
"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."
"We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis," he added. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror."
Criticism has come from legislators of both parties since the administration said on Thursday that its approval of the deal was final. The sale is scheduled to close on March 2. Governors George E. Pataki of New York and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland both said they would do what they could to stop the deal from going through.
"I have directed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to explore all legal options that may be available to them in regards to this transaction," Mr. Pataki said in a statement.
Mr. Ehrlich told reporters that he had "a lot of discretion" and was considering his options, including voiding the contract.
With criticism of the deal growing on Monday, officials of the Dubai Ports pushed back, arguing that both the newly acquired North American division running the terminals and its new Arab parent company had worked closely with United States security officials for decades.
The unit, P & O Ports, "has long worked with the U.S. government officials in charge of security at the ports to meet all U.S. government standards, as do other foreign companies that currently operate ports in the United States," said Michael J. S. Seymour, the unit's president.
Congressional criticism of the deal grew on Sunday after Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, defended the arrangement in television appearances, saying there were unspecified "assurances in place" that the takeover was "appropriate from a national security standpoint."
Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican, said the review was conducted in just 30 days — far too little time to vet the company thoroughly. "There wasn't a full investigation in the context of a post 9/11 world," he said.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, "You would just think that when a Dubai company is taking over, that is enough to raise a flag — at least to do a thorough review, at minimum." Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, another New York Democrat, and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, are expected to introduce legislation prohibiting the sale of terminal operators to foreign governments.
While Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, has expressed confidence that American officials would not have approved the port deal if it put national security at risk, he said on Monday, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here."
In an interview with CNN, he said it would be "very appropriate" for the administration to brief Congress about why it believes the port arrangement not only does not compromise security but will actually improve it.
People involved in the approval process said that, like all acquisitions of domestic businesses by foreign-owned companies, the Dubai Ports World acquisition was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, representing 12 federal agencies.
Officials of Dubai Ports World's North American subsidiary, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the situation, said the critics' fears were misdirected because the Coast Guard and the United States customs authorities, not the terminal operators, are responsible for checking incoming cargo, passengers and crews as well as for planning and maintaining port security.
Anthony R. Coscia, the chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the agency could not stop the Dubai company from assuming a 30-year lease on a major container terminal in New York Harbor unless some provision of the lease was violated.
He said the agency's lawyers had been studying the lease of the terminal to P & O Ports North America, a subsidiary of the company being acquired by Dubai Ports World, but had not reached any conclusion.
David D. Kirkpatrick reported from Washington for this article and Maria Newman from New York. Patrick McGeehan contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
February 22, 2006
Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush, trying to put down a rapidly escalating rebellion among leaders of his own party, said Tuesday that he would veto any legislation blocking a deal for a state-owned company in Dubai to take over the management of port terminals in New York, Miami, Baltimore and other major American cities.
Mr. Bush issued the threat after the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, publicly criticized the deal and said a thorough review was necessary to ensure that terrorists could not exploit the arrangement to slip weapons into American ports. Mr. Bush suggested that the objections to the deal might be based on bias against a company from the Middle East, one he said was an ally in fighting terrorism.
"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Mr. Bush said, discussing a government review of the deal that began in October and ended on Jan. 16 without producing any objections from officials in his administration.
The president added, "This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."
The White House was taken by surprise when Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert joined Democratic leaders in Congress and other prominent Republicans, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, in calling for the government to stop the deal from closing next week as scheduled.
"We have not received the necessary assurances regarding security concerns," Mr. Bloomberg wrote in a letter to the president on Tuesday evening. He said he was joining New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer, in calling for a 45-day investigation of the deal under a federal law that governs the review of foreign investments.
Mr. Frist gave the White House only an hour's notice before breaking ranks and saying that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold." He said that if a delay did not occur, he would "plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."
The response from the White House set up a confrontation between Mr. Bush, who has said his primary goal is protecting the American people, and the leadership of his party in Congress, which is approaching midterm elections.
Mr. Bush rarely makes veto threats, and he has not vetoed a single bill in his more than five years in office. He issued his remarks after calling reporters into his conference room aboard Air Force One while flying back to Washington from Colorado, and then repeated them for television cameras after stepping out of his helicopter on the South Lawn of the White House.
The White House appeared to have considered the deal routine, especially because so many foreign firms — from Singapore, Denmark and Japan — run major port terminals in the United States and have for years. But Senator Schumer, in an interview, said: "I don't think China or Britain or many of the others have the nexus with terrorism that Dubai has. What kind of controls do they have to prevent infiltration?"
Mr. Bush's aides rejected that line of thought, saying the company in question, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of Dubai, would have no control over security issues at the six terminal operations it is seeking to buy, at New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company would not own the ports but would operate some of the terminals in these cities.
They pointed out that a similar purchase involving the container-handling division of the CSX Corporation, which was bought by Dubai Ports in December 2004, went through with no objections. In that case, none of the terminals Dubai Ports assumed control of were in the United States.
But the central argument of the deal's proponents is that the United Arab Emirates have aided the United States in pursuing terror groups.
"We have naval visits there and landing rights," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which has scheduled a briefing on the subject for Thursday. "We have to move carefully in considering the implications of what we do."
But Dubai's record is hardly unblemished. Two of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks came from the United Arab Emirates and laundered some of their money through the country's banking system. It was also the main transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya.
The opposition to the deal brought expressions of befuddlement from shipping industry and port experts. The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago, and foreign-based firms already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals in the United States. They include APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore and operates terminals in Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; Dutch Harbor, Alaska; and Seattle.
Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign governments or foreign-based companies.
"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."
The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.
However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.
Administration officials acknowledged on Tuesday that they had, at least in some ways, mishandled the matter by not briefing members of Congress early enough to avoid the outburst that resulted when the news of the deal was made public.
"We probably should have gotten up there further in advance than we did," said Clay Lowery, assistant secretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department.
But officials insisted that they made the right choice, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the management structure at Dubai Ports World, its operations abroad, and its security plans.
"The review said there was no derogatory information against this company, and this company did not raise undue concerns about national security," Mr. Lowery said.
The company, the officials noted, volunteered early last year to allow goods headed to the United States to be screened before they left a port it operates at its home base in Dubai.
The company agreed to continue this effort at its terminals and take other security steps, including giving American officials access to information on its United States-based employees and certifying that it had conducted background checks on them, Department of Homeland Security officials said.
Thomas H. Gilmour, an assistant commandant at the United States Coast Guard, which is in charge of port security, said that to ensure the promises were honored, his agency was already conducting inspections at each of the terminals Dubai Ports World intends to take over.
Officials in Dubai and representatives for Dubai Ports World said the reaction to the deal was being driven by politics, not security concerns.
They pointed out that in 2002 security authorities in the United Arab Emirates captured a Qaeda leader, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, described at the time as Al Qaeda's chief of naval operations. He was convicted by a Yemeni court in 2004 of helping to organize the attack that killed 17 sailors on the Cole, a United States destroyer, in the port of Aden.
In 2004, the United Arab Emirates also arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a leader of the radical Islamic group Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami, and turned him over to the Pakistani authorities.
"Our track record speaks for itself," said one United Arab Emirates official, who asked not to be named because of the confidential nature of the security matters. "We have handed over a number of high-value Al Qaeda suspects either to their home countries or to the U.S."
Dubai Ports World has been inching toward the United States market, most notably in 2004 when it bought the international port terminal businesses from CSX, the American-based railroad and transportation company, which included sites in the Dominican Republic and Europe. In this latest deal, worth $6.8 billion, it would buy the 29 global port terminals operated by Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation of Britain.
George Dalton, general counsel for Dubai Ports World, said the company was committed to maintaining or improving security operations at all of its terminals. The uproar over the deal, he said, is entirely political.
"I think it borders on the absurd," he said. "They are sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab world."
Hassan M. Fattah contributed reporting from Yemen for this article, and Heather Timmons from London.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush, trying to put down a rapidly escalating rebellion among leaders of his own party, said Tuesday that he would veto any legislation blocking a deal for a state-owned company in Dubai to take over the management of port terminals in New York, Miami, Baltimore and other major American cities.
Mr. Bush issued the threat after the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, publicly criticized the deal and said a thorough review was necessary to ensure that terrorists could not exploit the arrangement to slip weapons into American ports. Mr. Bush suggested that the objections to the deal might be based on bias against a company from the Middle East, one he said was an ally in fighting terrorism.
"If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Mr. Bush said, discussing a government review of the deal that began in October and ended on Jan. 16 without producing any objections from officials in his administration.
The president added, "This is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."
The White House was taken by surprise when Mr. Frist and Mr. Hastert joined Democratic leaders in Congress and other prominent Republicans, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, in calling for the government to stop the deal from closing next week as scheduled.
"We have not received the necessary assurances regarding security concerns," Mr. Bloomberg wrote in a letter to the president on Tuesday evening. He said he was joining New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer, in calling for a 45-day investigation of the deal under a federal law that governs the review of foreign investments.
Mr. Frist gave the White House only an hour's notice before breaking ranks and saying that "the decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold." He said that if a delay did not occur, he would "plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review."
The response from the White House set up a confrontation between Mr. Bush, who has said his primary goal is protecting the American people, and the leadership of his party in Congress, which is approaching midterm elections.
Mr. Bush rarely makes veto threats, and he has not vetoed a single bill in his more than five years in office. He issued his remarks after calling reporters into his conference room aboard Air Force One while flying back to Washington from Colorado, and then repeated them for television cameras after stepping out of his helicopter on the South Lawn of the White House.
The White House appeared to have considered the deal routine, especially because so many foreign firms — from Singapore, Denmark and Japan — run major port terminals in the United States and have for years. But Senator Schumer, in an interview, said: "I don't think China or Britain or many of the others have the nexus with terrorism that Dubai has. What kind of controls do they have to prevent infiltration?"
Mr. Bush's aides rejected that line of thought, saying the company in question, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of Dubai, would have no control over security issues at the six terminal operations it is seeking to buy, at New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans. The company would not own the ports but would operate some of the terminals in these cities.
They pointed out that a similar purchase involving the container-handling division of the CSX Corporation, which was bought by Dubai Ports in December 2004, went through with no objections. In that case, none of the terminals Dubai Ports assumed control of were in the United States.
But the central argument of the deal's proponents is that the United Arab Emirates have aided the United States in pursuing terror groups.
"We have naval visits there and landing rights," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which has scheduled a briefing on the subject for Thursday. "We have to move carefully in considering the implications of what we do."
But Dubai's record is hardly unblemished. Two of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks came from the United Arab Emirates and laundered some of their money through the country's banking system. It was also the main transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya.
The opposition to the deal brought expressions of befuddlement from shipping industry and port experts. The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago, and foreign-based firms already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals in the United States. They include APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore and operates terminals in Los Angeles; Oakland, Calif.; Dutch Harbor, Alaska; and Seattle.
Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign governments or foreign-based companies.
"This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."
The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.
However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.
Administration officials acknowledged on Tuesday that they had, at least in some ways, mishandled the matter by not briefing members of Congress early enough to avoid the outburst that resulted when the news of the deal was made public.
"We probably should have gotten up there further in advance than we did," said Clay Lowery, assistant secretary for international affairs at the Treasury Department.
But officials insisted that they made the right choice, conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the management structure at Dubai Ports World, its operations abroad, and its security plans.
"The review said there was no derogatory information against this company, and this company did not raise undue concerns about national security," Mr. Lowery said.
The company, the officials noted, volunteered early last year to allow goods headed to the United States to be screened before they left a port it operates at its home base in Dubai.
The company agreed to continue this effort at its terminals and take other security steps, including giving American officials access to information on its United States-based employees and certifying that it had conducted background checks on them, Department of Homeland Security officials said.
Thomas H. Gilmour, an assistant commandant at the United States Coast Guard, which is in charge of port security, said that to ensure the promises were honored, his agency was already conducting inspections at each of the terminals Dubai Ports World intends to take over.
Officials in Dubai and representatives for Dubai Ports World said the reaction to the deal was being driven by politics, not security concerns.
They pointed out that in 2002 security authorities in the United Arab Emirates captured a Qaeda leader, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, described at the time as Al Qaeda's chief of naval operations. He was convicted by a Yemeni court in 2004 of helping to organize the attack that killed 17 sailors on the Cole, a United States destroyer, in the port of Aden.
In 2004, the United Arab Emirates also arrested Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a leader of the radical Islamic group Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami, and turned him over to the Pakistani authorities.
"Our track record speaks for itself," said one United Arab Emirates official, who asked not to be named because of the confidential nature of the security matters. "We have handed over a number of high-value Al Qaeda suspects either to their home countries or to the U.S."
Dubai Ports World has been inching toward the United States market, most notably in 2004 when it bought the international port terminal businesses from CSX, the American-based railroad and transportation company, which included sites in the Dominican Republic and Europe. In this latest deal, worth $6.8 billion, it would buy the 29 global port terminals operated by Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation of Britain.
George Dalton, general counsel for Dubai Ports World, said the company was committed to maintaining or improving security operations at all of its terminals. The uproar over the deal, he said, is entirely political.
"I think it borders on the absurd," he said. "They are sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab world."
Hassan M. Fattah contributed reporting from Yemen for this article, and Heather Timmons from London.
Copyright 2006The New York Times
Security Programs, Unions Would Stay at Ports
UAE Firm Would Operate Facilities
By Paul Blustein and Eric Rich
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; D01
As a furor erupted yesterday over the prospective takeover by a United Arab Emirates company of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, officials from the company and the Bush administration scrambled to assuage fears that the deal would undermine security and antiterrorism efforts at some of America's biggest maritime facilities.
Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said at a news conference yesterday that Dubai Ports World, which won a takeover battle for a British firm now operating terminals in the ports, promised during an internal administration review that it would continue participating in security programs previously entered into with the U.S. government.
And Michael Seymour, head of North American operations for Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm being bought by the UAE firm, said the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions -- an arrangement, he vowed, that would remain in effect. "So it doesn't make any difference whether we are their employers, or other terminal operators are their employers," he said.
Such pledges failed to quell the uproar in Congress, statehouses and city halls over the approval by an administration interagency task force of the $6.8 billion takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World. Lawmakers, governors and mayors from both parties decried the decision, which would put the state-owned UAE company in charge of handling operations at terminals in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New York, New Orleans and Philadelphia.
Although the deal has been approved by P&O shareholders, lawmakers are threatening to pass legislation blocking it, and state and local officials are suggesting they may refuse to allow their port facilities to be managed by the UAE firm.
But whatever happens, experts in port operations said they feared broader issues about security in the country's docks were being lost in the flap over Dubai Ports World.
Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that although the company is state-owned, several members of its top management are Americans -- including its general counsel, a senior vice president and its outgoing chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, who is a former U.S. Naval officer. And in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States has increasingly depended on such foreign port operators to cooperate in inspecting cargoes before they head for U.S. shores.
"It's a global network at the end of the day that we're trying to secure here," Flynn said. "And that doesn't happen by the United States owning every bit of it. What we should be focusing on instead is the question, are the security standards adequate?"
Robert C. Bonner, who until November headed Customs and Border Protection, agreed. Although U.S. dock workers have occasionally been caught colluding with drug traffickers, the possibility that terrorists or their sympathizers would end up working in U.S. ports is remote because of the strong role that unions play in hiring, he said.
"I think there's some specter that people from the Middle East are going to come over here and operate terminals," he said. "I don't think anything like that is going to happen."
Dubai Ports World is just one of several foreign giants that operate terminals in ports around the globe; other big players include firms from Denmark, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. Indeed, few U.S. terminals are managed by American-owned firms. The pending deal would make Dubai Ports World, which manages maritime facilities throughout Asia, Europe and Latin America, one of the three largest port operators in the world. At the Port of Baltimore, for example, it would take over operation of one of six terminals, where about 4 million tons of cargo carried on 371 vessels passed through last year, according to Richard Scher, a spokesman with the Maryland Port Administration.
Dubai Ports World differs from most foreign operators because of its state ownership. But if its takeover of P&O goes through, it would have to comply with the same security procedures in its U.S. facilities that other operators do.
Terminal operators typically lease facilities from a local port authority and are responsible for attracting shipping lines to use their terminal, where their main task is to move the thousands of containers that come in and out onto the right vessels, rail cars or trucks. In the process, they must maintain security at the facility, with the government providing backup and oversight.
At the Port of Seattle, for example, SSA Marine, the biggest U.S.-owned terminal operator, screens all the containers that come in with an X-ray machine, said Bob Watters, the company's vice president. Customs agents, who are supposed to receive advance notice of the cargo on incoming ships, have the right to open any container and inspect the contents; such procedures are conducted on about 5 percent of all containers nationwide. "We also have overall security plans that we have to develop and have vetted by the U.S. Coast Guard," Watters said.
Critics voice strong doubts about whether the existing procedures are commensurate with the threat. "There are not enough Customs and Border Protection inspectors at the nation's ports to handle the incoming traffic that we have now, and our guys at the ports are being told that they can't do any overtime," said Charles Showalter, president of the American Federation of Government Employees union that represents officers who inspect ships. "That combination often results in uninspected ships being left unattended in port overnight."
Concerns over insufficient inspectors worry many security experts far more than the issue of who owns the companies managing the terminals.
Flynn cited a litany of unsettling practices, such as the lack of any screening for the thousands of truck drivers, many of whom are immigrants, hauling containers from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif., to railway lines.
"What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it?" Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
UAE Firm Would Operate Facilities
By Paul Blustein and Eric Rich
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; D01
As a furor erupted yesterday over the prospective takeover by a United Arab Emirates company of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, officials from the company and the Bush administration scrambled to assuage fears that the deal would undermine security and antiterrorism efforts at some of America's biggest maritime facilities.
Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said at a news conference yesterday that Dubai Ports World, which won a takeover battle for a British firm now operating terminals in the ports, promised during an internal administration review that it would continue participating in security programs previously entered into with the U.S. government.
And Michael Seymour, head of North American operations for Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm being bought by the UAE firm, said the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions -- an arrangement, he vowed, that would remain in effect. "So it doesn't make any difference whether we are their employers, or other terminal operators are their employers," he said.
Such pledges failed to quell the uproar in Congress, statehouses and city halls over the approval by an administration interagency task force of the $6.8 billion takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World. Lawmakers, governors and mayors from both parties decried the decision, which would put the state-owned UAE company in charge of handling operations at terminals in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New York, New Orleans and Philadelphia.
Although the deal has been approved by P&O shareholders, lawmakers are threatening to pass legislation blocking it, and state and local officials are suggesting they may refuse to allow their port facilities to be managed by the UAE firm.
But whatever happens, experts in port operations said they feared broader issues about security in the country's docks were being lost in the flap over Dubai Ports World.
Stephen E. Flynn, a specialist in maritime security at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that although the company is state-owned, several members of its top management are Americans -- including its general counsel, a senior vice president and its outgoing chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, who is a former U.S. Naval officer. And in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States has increasingly depended on such foreign port operators to cooperate in inspecting cargoes before they head for U.S. shores.
"It's a global network at the end of the day that we're trying to secure here," Flynn said. "And that doesn't happen by the United States owning every bit of it. What we should be focusing on instead is the question, are the security standards adequate?"
Robert C. Bonner, who until November headed Customs and Border Protection, agreed. Although U.S. dock workers have occasionally been caught colluding with drug traffickers, the possibility that terrorists or their sympathizers would end up working in U.S. ports is remote because of the strong role that unions play in hiring, he said.
"I think there's some specter that people from the Middle East are going to come over here and operate terminals," he said. "I don't think anything like that is going to happen."
Dubai Ports World is just one of several foreign giants that operate terminals in ports around the globe; other big players include firms from Denmark, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. Indeed, few U.S. terminals are managed by American-owned firms. The pending deal would make Dubai Ports World, which manages maritime facilities throughout Asia, Europe and Latin America, one of the three largest port operators in the world. At the Port of Baltimore, for example, it would take over operation of one of six terminals, where about 4 million tons of cargo carried on 371 vessels passed through last year, according to Richard Scher, a spokesman with the Maryland Port Administration.
Dubai Ports World differs from most foreign operators because of its state ownership. But if its takeover of P&O goes through, it would have to comply with the same security procedures in its U.S. facilities that other operators do.
Terminal operators typically lease facilities from a local port authority and are responsible for attracting shipping lines to use their terminal, where their main task is to move the thousands of containers that come in and out onto the right vessels, rail cars or trucks. In the process, they must maintain security at the facility, with the government providing backup and oversight.
At the Port of Seattle, for example, SSA Marine, the biggest U.S.-owned terminal operator, screens all the containers that come in with an X-ray machine, said Bob Watters, the company's vice president. Customs agents, who are supposed to receive advance notice of the cargo on incoming ships, have the right to open any container and inspect the contents; such procedures are conducted on about 5 percent of all containers nationwide. "We also have overall security plans that we have to develop and have vetted by the U.S. Coast Guard," Watters said.
Critics voice strong doubts about whether the existing procedures are commensurate with the threat. "There are not enough Customs and Border Protection inspectors at the nation's ports to handle the incoming traffic that we have now, and our guys at the ports are being told that they can't do any overtime," said Charles Showalter, president of the American Federation of Government Employees union that represents officers who inspect ships. "That combination often results in uninspected ships being left unattended in port overnight."
Concerns over insufficient inspectors worry many security experts far more than the issue of who owns the companies managing the terminals.
Flynn cited a litany of unsettling practices, such as the lack of any screening for the thousands of truck drivers, many of whom are immigrants, hauling containers from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif., to railway lines.
"What I hope for out of this whole debate is that, as Americans suddenly realize most of our marine terminals are managed by foreign-owned companies, they ask, given that that's a reality, how do we secure it?" Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
THE FOLLOWING QUOTE IS THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THE DUBAI PORTS WORLD OPERATION:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85663
Our Mission is to provide World Class port services and to be a global player in operating and managing ports. We will provide value-for-money, high quality services to our customers through motivated and innovative employees. Our people will be empowered to make optimum utilisation of modern facilities, technology and resources while ensuring a reasonable return on investment.
THE BIDDING WAR BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND DUBAI OVER P & O
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85666
Posted By: Patriotlad <Send E-Mail>
Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2006, 9:23 a.m.
The following excerpt comes from a posting on Boston.com and a Reuters report: it concerns the bidding war which went on between a Singapore group, PSA, and Dubai Ports World group, for the control of and ownership of P & O, the 165 year old British ports-management and shipping company. As of January 26th, the issue was still very much in doubt:
HISTORY OF RIVALRY
[This] bid battle would be the second major contest between PSA and Dubai Ports in recent years. Dubai won the first in 2004 when it paid $1.15 billion for the global port assets of U.S. firm CSX Corp. < CSX.N >. PSA reportedly bid $1 billion.
Should Dubai's bid succeed, it will become the world's number-three port operator after Hutchison and Temasek.
Dubai Ports and other government-backed firms from the world's biggest oil exporting region have earned a reputation for aggressive bidding as they look for opportunities to invest their windfalls from record oil prices.
P & O, whose full name is Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., earns 70 percent of its profits from ports. It still owns a cross-Channel ferries business operating between Britain and France that has been scaled back in the past year.
UBS and Goldman Sachs are advising PSA, Citigroup is advising P & O while Deutsche Bank is advising Dubai Ports.
Dubai Ports, whose bid has been cleared by key regulators, has launched a lobbying campaign behind the scenes to convince politicians PSA's bid was anti-competitive because of its close ties with Hutchison Whampoa ....
Editor's Note: The section highlighted in red, above, tells the whole tale -- the extraordinary high prices for fuel oil, aviation and automotive fuels, paid in the last two years, is what has enriched the United Arab Emirates and made it possible for them to buy up both U.S. and Indian 'concessions' for their expanding Dubai Ports World and DPA operations.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85663
Our Mission is to provide World Class port services and to be a global player in operating and managing ports. We will provide value-for-money, high quality services to our customers through motivated and innovative employees. Our people will be empowered to make optimum utilisation of modern facilities, technology and resources while ensuring a reasonable return on investment.
THE BIDDING WAR BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND DUBAI OVER P & O
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85666
Posted By: Patriotlad <Send E-Mail>
Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2006, 9:23 a.m.
The following excerpt comes from a posting on Boston.com and a Reuters report: it concerns the bidding war which went on between a Singapore group, PSA, and Dubai Ports World group, for the control of and ownership of P & O, the 165 year old British ports-management and shipping company. As of January 26th, the issue was still very much in doubt:
HISTORY OF RIVALRY
[This] bid battle would be the second major contest between PSA and Dubai Ports in recent years. Dubai won the first in 2004 when it paid $1.15 billion for the global port assets of U.S. firm CSX Corp. < CSX.N >. PSA reportedly bid $1 billion.
Should Dubai's bid succeed, it will become the world's number-three port operator after Hutchison and Temasek.
Dubai Ports and other government-backed firms from the world's biggest oil exporting region have earned a reputation for aggressive bidding as they look for opportunities to invest their windfalls from record oil prices.
P & O, whose full name is Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., earns 70 percent of its profits from ports. It still owns a cross-Channel ferries business operating between Britain and France that has been scaled back in the past year.
UBS and Goldman Sachs are advising PSA, Citigroup is advising P & O while Deutsche Bank is advising Dubai Ports.
Dubai Ports, whose bid has been cleared by key regulators, has launched a lobbying campaign behind the scenes to convince politicians PSA's bid was anti-competitive because of its close ties with Hutchison Whampoa ....
Editor's Note: The section highlighted in red, above, tells the whole tale -- the extraordinary high prices for fuel oil, aviation and automotive fuels, paid in the last two years, is what has enriched the United Arab Emirates and made it possible for them to buy up both U.S. and Indian 'concessions' for their expanding Dubai Ports World and DPA operations.
http://www.forbes.com/logistics/2006/02/22..._0222dubai.html
Forget Dubai
If the deal between DP World and P&O sticks, five key U.S. container ports will be operated by a United Arab Emirates-controlled company. This may or may not be a good investment decision, but that's not the real issue. The bigger question is how secure the ports really are and whether the U.S. government funding for this security is adequate.
The answer: Not by a long shot.
Security at U.S. ports is a shared responsibility. The port operator has, in the past, hired all the security and longshore personnel on its docks. Washington, through the U.S. Coast Guard and, more recently, the Department of Homeland Security, is seeking a greater role in the security of people and goods, both at the ports, and on the water. But the Bush administration hasn't coughed up the dough, even though it made port security a priority after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And container traffic at U.S. ports has only expanded since then.
Take the U.S. container ports now operated by Peninsula & Oriental Steam Navigation: Miami, Philadelphia, New York/New Jersey, New Orleans and Baltimore. (P&O also operates the cruise port of New York.) As of 2004, these ports processed nearly 6.5 million containers, and their volume has been growing by at least 10% annually since then. The Port of Los Angeles, America's largest, handled 7.3 million containers in 2004, while Long Beach, Calif. saw nearly 5.8 million. More than $1.3 billion worth of goods come into U.S. ports each day, or 2 billion tons of goods. That latter figure is expected to double by 2020.
Ports In A Storm
Containers processed by P&O ports in the U.S.
Port Containers Processed
New York/New Jersey 4,478,480
Miami 1,009,500
Baltimore 557,858
New Orleans 258,468
Philadelphia 178,046
Total 6,481,352
Source: American Association of Port Authorities, 2004
How short is Washington's funding? According to the ports industry, federal budget funding since 9/11 has amounted to only one-sixth of what seaports identified as being needed.
"The federal share of the seaport facility security funding needs to be increased, not reprogrammed and diluted," says Kurt Nagle, president and chief executive of the American Association of Port Authorities.
According to the AAPA, the U.S. needs to spend $400 million yearly to come close to the $5.4 billion suggested by the U.S. Coast Guard, and spend it for the next ten years. The normal allocations have ranged from $93 million to $175 million. There is no way that full container security can be reached with the present level of investment.
Part of the problem, according to Aaron E. Ellis, the communications director for AAPA, is that there is a struggle between where money should be spent given the greatly increased trade that the ports are now experiencing and will continue to experience. Where, he asks, do you use your money to prevent U.S. ports processing from eroding? Is security to be played against infrastructure or cargo handling? And at which port?
That last question has been raised by wise folks such as Robert F. Sappio, the senior vice president of transpacific trade for APL, the U.S.-based container shipping company of Singapore's Neptune Orient Lines. Sappio suggests that the real security problem is at the outbound port. The security of U.S. ports is at best barely adequate but the security at ports in Asia and elsewhere where the goods are loaded for the U.S. is just not there.
The majority of the containers coming into the U.S. at the five ports in question (and generally with all U.S. ports) are not fully monitored and very few are checked to any depth by human operators (it costs too much). The opportunity for disaster even without further risk in port operation is already too wide open. If the U.S. secures with one hand and unlocks with the other it will only have itself to thank in the event of a problem.
More From Forbes
Trading With The Enemy 04.19.04
If you want to get round export controls, just sell the product to a front company in Dubai. The middlemen will take it from there.
Forget Dubai
If the deal between DP World and P&O sticks, five key U.S. container ports will be operated by a United Arab Emirates-controlled company. This may or may not be a good investment decision, but that's not the real issue. The bigger question is how secure the ports really are and whether the U.S. government funding for this security is adequate.
The answer: Not by a long shot.
Security at U.S. ports is a shared responsibility. The port operator has, in the past, hired all the security and longshore personnel on its docks. Washington, through the U.S. Coast Guard and, more recently, the Department of Homeland Security, is seeking a greater role in the security of people and goods, both at the ports, and on the water. But the Bush administration hasn't coughed up the dough, even though it made port security a priority after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And container traffic at U.S. ports has only expanded since then.
Take the U.S. container ports now operated by Peninsula & Oriental Steam Navigation: Miami, Philadelphia, New York/New Jersey, New Orleans and Baltimore. (P&O also operates the cruise port of New York.) As of 2004, these ports processed nearly 6.5 million containers, and their volume has been growing by at least 10% annually since then. The Port of Los Angeles, America's largest, handled 7.3 million containers in 2004, while Long Beach, Calif. saw nearly 5.8 million. More than $1.3 billion worth of goods come into U.S. ports each day, or 2 billion tons of goods. That latter figure is expected to double by 2020.
Ports In A Storm
Containers processed by P&O ports in the U.S.
Port Containers Processed
New York/New Jersey 4,478,480
Miami 1,009,500
Baltimore 557,858
New Orleans 258,468
Philadelphia 178,046
Total 6,481,352
Source: American Association of Port Authorities, 2004
How short is Washington's funding? According to the ports industry, federal budget funding since 9/11 has amounted to only one-sixth of what seaports identified as being needed.
"The federal share of the seaport facility security funding needs to be increased, not reprogrammed and diluted," says Kurt Nagle, president and chief executive of the American Association of Port Authorities.
According to the AAPA, the U.S. needs to spend $400 million yearly to come close to the $5.4 billion suggested by the U.S. Coast Guard, and spend it for the next ten years. The normal allocations have ranged from $93 million to $175 million. There is no way that full container security can be reached with the present level of investment.
Part of the problem, according to Aaron E. Ellis, the communications director for AAPA, is that there is a struggle between where money should be spent given the greatly increased trade that the ports are now experiencing and will continue to experience. Where, he asks, do you use your money to prevent U.S. ports processing from eroding? Is security to be played against infrastructure or cargo handling? And at which port?
That last question has been raised by wise folks such as Robert F. Sappio, the senior vice president of transpacific trade for APL, the U.S.-based container shipping company of Singapore's Neptune Orient Lines. Sappio suggests that the real security problem is at the outbound port. The security of U.S. ports is at best barely adequate but the security at ports in Asia and elsewhere where the goods are loaded for the U.S. is just not there.
The majority of the containers coming into the U.S. at the five ports in question (and generally with all U.S. ports) are not fully monitored and very few are checked to any depth by human operators (it costs too much). The opportunity for disaster even without further risk in port operation is already too wide open. If the U.S. secures with one hand and unlocks with the other it will only have itself to thank in the event of a problem.
More From Forbes
Trading With The Enemy 04.19.04
If you want to get round export controls, just sell the product to a front company in Dubai. The middlemen will take it from there.
Here's something from my favorite Libertarian, Rev. Chuck Baldwin:
QUOTE(Dubai Deal Is Dumb)
By Chuck Baldwin
February 21, 2006
Let me get this straight. We are engaged in a war against Iraq and Afghanistan. We might be planning a war against Iran. We are fighting a war against terrorism. In order to effectively fight the war on terrorism, our federal government must spy on American citizens. This includes tapping our phone lines, capturing our emails, opening our mail, and seizing our bank and medical records. Furthermore, none of this federal spying and eavesdropping should be subject to court oversight, as it might jeopardize "national security."
However, while the Bush administration is telling the American people that they need not be afraid their personal liberties are disappearing, it is giving its approval for the transfer of six major U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates government-owned and operated company.
President Bush assures the American people that the UAE is our ally in the war on terrorism. However, he fails to mention that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were from there. He also doesn't mention the fact that the UAE was one of only three countries in the entire world to formally recognize the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. Neither does he mention the fact that "investigatorshave found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks." (Source: New York Daily News)
If Congress doesn't intervene, the UAE-owned company will soon take control of facilities in the ports of New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. To which Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said, "Handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror." That's putting it mildly.
Coburn also warned that the Dubai Ports World agreement "could seriously undermine our national security." Indeed it could. Consider the fact that less than 5% of goods received at our nation's ports are inspected.
A New York Representative was even more direct. Vito Fossella said, "We cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism." He added, "The lack of transparency has left many questions unanswered as to why the UAE would be granted control of United States strategic assets." Amen.
Add to the Dubai deal an outlandishly ludicrous policy regarding legal and illegal immigration and one must question not only the strategies of this White House but also the motives!
For example, what has Bush done to deport the thousands of potential terrorists from known terrorist nations that currently reside in the United States? Nothing. Instead of subjecting the American people to unconstitutional abridgements of their liberties, he should be using the power of his office to rid America of people from terrorist nations that are walking freely in our country!
It is a fact that Middle Eastern Muslims are living and working in the United States in gigantic numbers. Thousands of them are working in hi-tech, governmental, and manufacturing jobs. They are also found in our military and law enforcement agencies in large numbers. Thousands more are here on student visas, and many more are using marriages to American women to gain entry. In fact, only Hispanic numbers are growing faster.
Walk just about anywhere in downtown Detroit, Michigan, and one will hear the bells of Mosques ringing out loudly and often. The same could be said for parts of many large American cities. One published report I read said that there are more Mosques currently being built in the United States than churches! This has long been true in Great Britain. Now it's occurring in America.
Can you imagine the United States allowing Japanese and German people unrestricted access to America during World War II? In light of this, how can President Bush look the American people in the eye with a straight face and tell us he is fighting a war on terror? If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious!
Furthermore, what has Bush done to stop the deluge of illegal aliens that are pouring across our borders? Nothing. Not only hashe done nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration, he has advanced policies that have induced the rapid expansion of illegal immigration!
Instead of asking the American people to surrender their liberties, he should be doing everything he can to stop the entrance of potential terrorists into our country! It is absolutely ludicrous to send an army half way around the world to fight terrorists and leave our own borders wide open!
And now President Bush wants to turn American ports over to Middle Eastern control. This is dumb. No, this is insane!
I can already see Washington's response to the next terrorist attack: martial law declared against American citizens or actions to the same effect. But, of course, the welcome mat will still be out for illegal aliens and Middle Eastern Muslims.
Never mind that it was Bush's policies and inactions (along with those of his predecessors) that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to legally enter and live in the United States. Never mind that it is his policies and inactions that continue to make America vulnerable to our enemies.
It seems the only thing people in Washington, D.C., know how to do is squander tax dollars and expunge constitutional liberties. They seem inept at doing anything else!
When will the American people wake up to what politicians of both parties are doing to them? At this point, I'm not sure they ever will.
© Chuck Baldwin
February 21, 2006
Let me get this straight. We are engaged in a war against Iraq and Afghanistan. We might be planning a war against Iran. We are fighting a war against terrorism. In order to effectively fight the war on terrorism, our federal government must spy on American citizens. This includes tapping our phone lines, capturing our emails, opening our mail, and seizing our bank and medical records. Furthermore, none of this federal spying and eavesdropping should be subject to court oversight, as it might jeopardize "national security."
However, while the Bush administration is telling the American people that they need not be afraid their personal liberties are disappearing, it is giving its approval for the transfer of six major U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates government-owned and operated company.
President Bush assures the American people that the UAE is our ally in the war on terrorism. However, he fails to mention that at least two of the 9/11 hijackers were from there. He also doesn't mention the fact that the UAE was one of only three countries in the entire world to formally recognize the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan. Neither does he mention the fact that "investigatorshave found signs that money used to finance terrorism flowed through Dubai banks." (Source: New York Daily News)
If Congress doesn't intervene, the UAE-owned company will soon take control of facilities in the ports of New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. To which Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said, "Handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror." That's putting it mildly.
Coburn also warned that the Dubai Ports World agreement "could seriously undermine our national security." Indeed it could. Consider the fact that less than 5% of goods received at our nation's ports are inspected.
A New York Representative was even more direct. Vito Fossella said, "We cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism." He added, "The lack of transparency has left many questions unanswered as to why the UAE would be granted control of United States strategic assets." Amen.
Add to the Dubai deal an outlandishly ludicrous policy regarding legal and illegal immigration and one must question not only the strategies of this White House but also the motives!
For example, what has Bush done to deport the thousands of potential terrorists from known terrorist nations that currently reside in the United States? Nothing. Instead of subjecting the American people to unconstitutional abridgements of their liberties, he should be using the power of his office to rid America of people from terrorist nations that are walking freely in our country!
It is a fact that Middle Eastern Muslims are living and working in the United States in gigantic numbers. Thousands of them are working in hi-tech, governmental, and manufacturing jobs. They are also found in our military and law enforcement agencies in large numbers. Thousands more are here on student visas, and many more are using marriages to American women to gain entry. In fact, only Hispanic numbers are growing faster.
Walk just about anywhere in downtown Detroit, Michigan, and one will hear the bells of Mosques ringing out loudly and often. The same could be said for parts of many large American cities. One published report I read said that there are more Mosques currently being built in the United States than churches! This has long been true in Great Britain. Now it's occurring in America.
Can you imagine the United States allowing Japanese and German people unrestricted access to America during World War II? In light of this, how can President Bush look the American people in the eye with a straight face and tell us he is fighting a war on terror? If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious!
Furthermore, what has Bush done to stop the deluge of illegal aliens that are pouring across our borders? Nothing. Not only hashe done nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration, he has advanced policies that have induced the rapid expansion of illegal immigration!
Instead of asking the American people to surrender their liberties, he should be doing everything he can to stop the entrance of potential terrorists into our country! It is absolutely ludicrous to send an army half way around the world to fight terrorists and leave our own borders wide open!
And now President Bush wants to turn American ports over to Middle Eastern control. This is dumb. No, this is insane!
I can already see Washington's response to the next terrorist attack: martial law declared against American citizens or actions to the same effect. But, of course, the welcome mat will still be out for illegal aliens and Middle Eastern Muslims.
Never mind that it was Bush's policies and inactions (along with those of his predecessors) that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to legally enter and live in the United States. Never mind that it is his policies and inactions that continue to make America vulnerable to our enemies.
It seems the only thing people in Washington, D.C., know how to do is squander tax dollars and expunge constitutional liberties. They seem inept at doing anything else!
When will the American people wake up to what politicians of both parties are doing to them? At this point, I'm not sure they ever will.
© Chuck Baldwin
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/21/fee...orts/index.html
Today's discussion on CNN's "Situation Room" is the port deal (as it was yesterday). Jack is really on a roll lately. Hold your nose and listen to what he has to say.
Today's discussion on CNN's "Situation Room" is the port deal (as it was yesterday). Jack is really on a roll lately. Hold your nose and listen to what he has to say.
What I don't understand (without time at work to read all the news stories posted here) is this: why is Bush threatening the veto on a loser? Why not just use a signing statement to nullify any act of Congress, as he's done over 600 times? Why make this such a public fight? I don't follow the calculus of having used the race card for years when talking about terrorism and the generation of watch lists for potential terrorists, but why the US public reacts to such a move with (what can be perceived as) racist reactions, it's bad?
http://www.counterpunch.org/ramakrishnan02222006.html
Could You Please Pass the Port?
Dubya Does Dallas
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN
OK, you got me. Dallas doesn't have a port.
But if it did, it would likely be among those given over to be run by a Dubai company, as are the ports of New York, Newark, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans.
Arguments are flying about who decided what, whether safeguards are in place, and about the fact that a British company had been doing it earlier, etc. None of this should obscure the single most significant aspect of this bombshell, which is this: in the so-called 'post 9-11' world which the superpatrioitactors in Washington keep talking about, it is OK to to traduce liberties at will, but real national security can be freely shortchanged in the name of tradition.
Worse, such dubious (Dubaious?) decisions are justified in the name of trade. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Michael "Bird Flu over the Superdome" Chertoff, said on television that while national security needs were important, they could be attended to while still maintaining our commitments to global trade. Who died and made him chairman of WTO? Why is he talking about global trade when asked about homeland security?
The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, spent time assuring Dubai that this matter would be sorted out to their satisfaction. Great. How one wishes she had brought the same attitude when she appeared before the 9-11 Commission and had so little time to sort out the Aug 6 PDB ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US") to anybody's satisfaction.
If the United States really does not have the internal capability to manage its ports (every single one of them), then would that fact itself not seem worthy of urgent attention?
A combination of low cunning and high farce stalks the land. The lack of an opposition party is telling. You can count Bush's new brother Bill to come in and say something to muddy the debate, as he did with Cheney's shooting, where he talked at length about how hunting accidents were common (they are not), downplaying the obvious cover up and possible malfeasance in not reporting it to the police in timely fashion. The media is finally stirring, though it may be too late for any good, after so much damage has happened. And they are still too afraid. You probably saw David Gregory apologize for his exchange with McClellan at the first shot across the bow by Mary Matalin.
"Did they (Dubai) beat out Al Qaeda by a hair in the bidding", asked Jay Leno Monday night. It was only half-funny.
The UAE (Dubai) was one of only three countries (our buddies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia making up the rest of this elect trio) that had diplomatic ties with the Taliban regime. When an Indian airliner was hijacked by terrorists in 1999, it was to Dubai they wanted to fly, from where they proceeded to Kandahar. Dubai made the Indians twist in the wind during those days, offering only lip service instead of stopping the plane.
All this may be ancient history, but why, in today's world, would any country outsource port management to another country, friend, foe, or foe-turned-ally?
Whether we defended America is less important than whether we defended free trade. Michael Chertoff can rest happy that there will be no let up on this matter, and Bush that the money saved by such outsourcing could go towards tax cuts. Long ago, Lenin wrote that capitalists would sell you the very rope with which to hang them.
And he had never even visited America. What imagination! What prescience!
Niranjan Ramakrishnan can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com.
His blog is at http://njn-blogogram.blogspot.com.
Could You Please Pass the Port?
Dubya Does Dallas
By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN
OK, you got me. Dallas doesn't have a port.
But if it did, it would likely be among those given over to be run by a Dubai company, as are the ports of New York, Newark, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami and New Orleans.
Arguments are flying about who decided what, whether safeguards are in place, and about the fact that a British company had been doing it earlier, etc. None of this should obscure the single most significant aspect of this bombshell, which is this: in the so-called 'post 9-11' world which the superpatrioitactors in Washington keep talking about, it is OK to to traduce liberties at will, but real national security can be freely shortchanged in the name of tradition.
Worse, such dubious (Dubaious?) decisions are justified in the name of trade. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Michael "Bird Flu over the Superdome" Chertoff, said on television that while national security needs were important, they could be attended to while still maintaining our commitments to global trade. Who died and made him chairman of WTO? Why is he talking about global trade when asked about homeland security?
The Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, spent time assuring Dubai that this matter would be sorted out to their satisfaction. Great. How one wishes she had brought the same attitude when she appeared before the 9-11 Commission and had so little time to sort out the Aug 6 PDB ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US") to anybody's satisfaction.
If the United States really does not have the internal capability to manage its ports (every single one of them), then would that fact itself not seem worthy of urgent attention?
A combination of low cunning and high farce stalks the land. The lack of an opposition party is telling. You can count Bush's new brother Bill to come in and say something to muddy the debate, as he did with Cheney's shooting, where he talked at length about how hunting accidents were common (they are not), downplaying the obvious cover up and possible malfeasance in not reporting it to the police in timely fashion. The media is finally stirring, though it may be too late for any good, after so much damage has happened. And they are still too afraid. You probably saw David Gregory apologize for his exchange with McClellan at the first shot across the bow by Mary Matalin.
"Did they (Dubai) beat out Al Qaeda by a hair in the bidding", asked Jay Leno Monday night. It was only half-funny.
The UAE (Dubai) was one of only three countries (our buddies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia making up the rest of this elect trio) that had diplomatic ties with the Taliban regime. When an Indian airliner was hijacked by terrorists in 1999, it was to Dubai they wanted to fly, from where they proceeded to Kandahar. Dubai made the Indians twist in the wind during those days, offering only lip service instead of stopping the plane.
All this may be ancient history, but why, in today's world, would any country outsource port management to another country, friend, foe, or foe-turned-ally?
Whether we defended America is less important than whether we defended free trade. Michael Chertoff can rest happy that there will be no let up on this matter, and Bush that the money saved by such outsourcing could go towards tax cuts. Long ago, Lenin wrote that capitalists would sell you the very rope with which to hang them.
And he had never even visited America. What imagination! What prescience!
Niranjan Ramakrishnan can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com.
His blog is at http://njn-blogogram.blogspot.com.
http://villagevoice.com/generic/show_print...SZpZD03MjI4Ng==
Mondo Washington
Dubai's Port of No Return
Don't jump to conclusions, but there are ties between the UAE, bin Laden, and the Taliban
by James Ridgeway
February 22nd, 2006 9:42 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.—No matter what Bush and his supporters say, there is indisputable evidence of tight connections between the United Arab Emirates and leadership of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The country is the center of financial activity in the Persian Gulf, and has next to no laws controlling money laundering.Two of the hijackers came from the UAE and hijacker money was laundered through the UAE. The details are spelled out in documents in the government's case against Moussaoui.
The ties with bin Laden and the Taliban reach far back into the '90s. Prominent Persian Gulf officials, including members of the UAE royal family, and businessmen would fly to Kandahar on UAE and private jets for hunting expeditions, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2001. In addition to ranking UAE ministers, these parties included Saudi big wigs like Prince Turki, the former Saudi intelligence minister who now is ambassador to the U.S.
General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, was quoted on MSNBC in September, 2003 saying, "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.''
Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar joined the hunting parties, and there are suspicions Al Qaeda and Taliban personnel are smuggled out on returning flights.
Here is one report, sourced to the 9-11 Commission, appearing in Paul Thompson's 9-11 timeline:
"February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty. Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. (9-11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (
)"
It remains a key center of operations for Victor Bout, the notorious arms dealer, with ties to Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were also ties to the infamous BCCI.
As the Financial Times put it, in the UAE, "Western fraud investigators may find a link here or a connection there, with a person suspected of breaking western laws. But in Dubai, and its neighbor Sharjah, trails tend to vanish like wind-blown tracks in desert sands . . . Secrecy keeps everyone guessing—and speculating . . . 'Medieval feudalism' is how one senior western banker described Dubai's style of government, 'with a veneer of 21st century regulations.' "
Mondo Washington
Dubai's Port of No Return
Don't jump to conclusions, but there are ties between the UAE, bin Laden, and the Taliban
by James Ridgeway
February 22nd, 2006 9:42 AM
WASHINGTON, D.C.—No matter what Bush and his supporters say, there is indisputable evidence of tight connections between the United Arab Emirates and leadership of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The country is the center of financial activity in the Persian Gulf, and has next to no laws controlling money laundering.Two of the hijackers came from the UAE and hijacker money was laundered through the UAE. The details are spelled out in documents in the government's case against Moussaoui.
The ties with bin Laden and the Taliban reach far back into the '90s. Prominent Persian Gulf officials, including members of the UAE royal family, and businessmen would fly to Kandahar on UAE and private jets for hunting expeditions, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2001. In addition to ranking UAE ministers, these parties included Saudi big wigs like Prince Turki, the former Saudi intelligence minister who now is ambassador to the U.S.
General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, was quoted on MSNBC in September, 2003 saying, "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.''
Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar joined the hunting parties, and there are suspicions Al Qaeda and Taliban personnel are smuggled out on returning flights.
Here is one report, sourced to the 9-11 Commission, appearing in Paul Thompson's 9-11 timeline:
"February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty. Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. (9-11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (
)" It remains a key center of operations for Victor Bout, the notorious arms dealer, with ties to Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were also ties to the infamous BCCI.
As the Financial Times put it, in the UAE, "Western fraud investigators may find a link here or a connection there, with a person suspected of breaking western laws. But in Dubai, and its neighbor Sharjah, trails tend to vanish like wind-blown tracks in desert sands . . . Secrecy keeps everyone guessing—and speculating . . . 'Medieval feudalism' is how one senior western banker described Dubai's style of government, 'with a veneer of 21st century regulations.' "
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/8091
Truth About UAE Port Security Scandal Quietly Leaks Out
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-02-22 10:02. Media
By David Sirota
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
The more you read about the UAE port security scandal, the more it becomes patently obvious this is about far more than just one deal with one company or one country. The harsh reaction from the Bush administration to the proposal to rescind the deal should be a red flag. This administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled administration in recent history, meaning its reactions are usually tied directly to the reactions of Corporate America. And the fact that the White House is ignoring its own security experts and reacting so negatively to Congress's opposition to the deal means this cuts to the much deeper issue of global trade policy - an issue that trumps all others for Big Money interests, even post-9/11 security.
In a previous post, I noted how the Bush administration is simultaneously negotiating a "free" trade agreement with the UAE - the country tied to the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. The administration was negotiating this deal at the very same time it tried to quietly slip this port security deal under the radar. It's not surprising few in the media or the political system have mentioned that simple fact - as I note in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, the political/media Establishment's devotion to "free" trade orthodoxy is well documented, and the Establishment's desire in this current scandal to make sure a discussion of trade policy never happens is obvious.
But as the coverage continues, the true motives of Bush's position are starting to slip out, almost inadvertently.
Look at the comment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Remember, he is the guy whose only job is to protect America. He's not supposed to be thinking about anything else. Yet, just a few days ago, he said about the UAE deal that "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system." Technically, of course, he's right - but the fact that the Homeland Security secretary is publicly lecturing Congress about the need to protect the "global trading system" and defending the UAE deal tells us a lot about how devoted to prioritizating the corporate agenda our government really is - even the government agencies whose only responsibilities are securing America.
Similarly, the New York Times today quotes a corporate consultant in London who says that Congress's concerns about a country tied to the 9/11 terrorists managing U.S. port security are "totally illogical." Why? Because, he says, "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."
There it is in all its glory: the Establishment publicly pushing the idea that absolutely nothing should matter - not even security concerns - other than preserving the mobility of capital. And that is ultimately what "free" trade is really all about - allowing capital to move freely all over the world, without regard to any labor, human rights, environmental and - yes - security concerns. It was GE CEO Jack Welch, the well-known "free" trader, who famously said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge."
And so any attempt to stop the UAE port security deal fundamentally threatens the Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy that says we must eliminate all barriers to trade - even those that protect national security. When you realize that, President Bush's threat to use the first veto of his presidency on the UAE port security issue suddenly becomes not so surprising. He is proudly defending what Jeff Faux calls "The Party of Davos" or John Perkins calls the "corporatocracy" - that is, the multinational interests who have bankrolled Bush's entire political career, and who desperately rely on the American government preserving a "free" trade system that subverts all other concerns to the corporate profit motive.
Again, the fact that this isn't being reported should not shock anyone. Both parties have pushed this "free" trade nonsense over the last two decades, and both have been rewarded with huge piles of corporate cash. Similarly, the major media in America are all owned by huge corporations with an interest in preserving the "free" trade system. But don't let the Establishment's silence distract you. In America's corporate-owned political system, the truth is often found where things are quietest.
--------------------
David Sirota is the author of the upcoming book Hostile Takeover, due in bookstores Spring 2006. To advance order the book, go to Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Powell's Bookstore.
Truth About UAE Port Security Scandal Quietly Leaks Out
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2006-02-22 10:02. Media
By David Sirota
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
The more you read about the UAE port security scandal, the more it becomes patently obvious this is about far more than just one deal with one company or one country. The harsh reaction from the Bush administration to the proposal to rescind the deal should be a red flag. This administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled administration in recent history, meaning its reactions are usually tied directly to the reactions of Corporate America. And the fact that the White House is ignoring its own security experts and reacting so negatively to Congress's opposition to the deal means this cuts to the much deeper issue of global trade policy - an issue that trumps all others for Big Money interests, even post-9/11 security.
In a previous post, I noted how the Bush administration is simultaneously negotiating a "free" trade agreement with the UAE - the country tied to the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11. The administration was negotiating this deal at the very same time it tried to quietly slip this port security deal under the radar. It's not surprising few in the media or the political system have mentioned that simple fact - as I note in my upcoming book Hostile Takeover, the political/media Establishment's devotion to "free" trade orthodoxy is well documented, and the Establishment's desire in this current scandal to make sure a discussion of trade policy never happens is obvious.
But as the coverage continues, the true motives of Bush's position are starting to slip out, almost inadvertently.
Look at the comment of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Remember, he is the guy whose only job is to protect America. He's not supposed to be thinking about anything else. Yet, just a few days ago, he said about the UAE deal that "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system." Technically, of course, he's right - but the fact that the Homeland Security secretary is publicly lecturing Congress about the need to protect the "global trading system" and defending the UAE deal tells us a lot about how devoted to prioritizating the corporate agenda our government really is - even the government agencies whose only responsibilities are securing America.
Similarly, the New York Times today quotes a corporate consultant in London who says that Congress's concerns about a country tied to the 9/11 terrorists managing U.S. port security are "totally illogical." Why? Because, he says, "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant."
There it is in all its glory: the Establishment publicly pushing the idea that absolutely nothing should matter - not even security concerns - other than preserving the mobility of capital. And that is ultimately what "free" trade is really all about - allowing capital to move freely all over the world, without regard to any labor, human rights, environmental and - yes - security concerns. It was GE CEO Jack Welch, the well-known "free" trader, who famously said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge."
And so any attempt to stop the UAE port security deal fundamentally threatens the Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy that says we must eliminate all barriers to trade - even those that protect national security. When you realize that, President Bush's threat to use the first veto of his presidency on the UAE port security issue suddenly becomes not so surprising. He is proudly defending what Jeff Faux calls "The Party of Davos" or John Perkins calls the "corporatocracy" - that is, the multinational interests who have bankrolled Bush's entire political career, and who desperately rely on the American government preserving a "free" trade system that subverts all other concerns to the corporate profit motive.
Again, the fact that this isn't being reported should not shock anyone. Both parties have pushed this "free" trade nonsense over the last two decades, and both have been rewarded with huge piles of corporate cash. Similarly, the major media in America are all owned by huge corporations with an interest in preserving the "free" trade system. But don't let the Establishment's silence distract you. In America's corporate-owned political system, the truth is often found where things are quietest.
--------------------
David Sirota is the author of the upcoming book Hostile Takeover, due in bookstores Spring 2006. To advance order the book, go to Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Powell's Bookstore.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Former_Senat...ed_to_0222.html
Former Senate chief Dole hired to lobby for Dubai port deal
RAW STORY
Published: February 22, 2006
CNN reported on air Wednesday that former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) has been hired by Dubai Ports World to lobby for the approval of a deal that would give the company control of several major U.S. ports, RAW STORY has learned.
CNN has not filed an online report of the story. Dole was the Republican nominee for president in 1996.
Dole's wife, Elizabeth, is a Republican senator from North Carolina.
Developing.
Former Senate chief Dole hired to lobby for Dubai port deal
RAW STORY
Published: February 22, 2006
CNN reported on air Wednesday that former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) has been hired by Dubai Ports World to lobby for the approval of a deal that would give the company control of several major U.S. ports, RAW STORY has learned.
CNN has not filed an online report of the story. Dole was the Republican nominee for president in 1996.
Dole's wife, Elizabeth, is a Republican senator from North Carolina.
Developing.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/nation/3676264
Bush rebuffs critics of ports deal
President says the Arab company is being held to a 'different standard'
By GEBE MARTINEZ
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
LONG BEACH, CALIF. - President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. ports by an Arab state-owned company, rejecting security concerns raised here by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and by other lawmakers in Washington.
Bush said the critics must "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, 'We'll treat you fairly.' "
The British operator Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. has proposed selling its port operations at New York, New Orleans, Miami, New Jersey, Baltimore and Philadelphia to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates.
The Bush administration has approved the pending transaction despite concerns that the deal would increase the possibility of terrorism at the ports.
Since then, two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, have introduced a bill that would ban foreign ownership of seaports. Lawmakers in the House have talked about introducing similar proposals, and two Republican governors, George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland, have questioned the transaction.
Bush pledges veto
During a rare meeting with reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday as he was returning to Washington, D.C., from Colorado, Bush sternly vowed to veto any legislation that would block the sale. The veto would be his first.
"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," Bush said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
At the White House, Bush said: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."
The president spoke just hours after Frist called for a delay in the sale until the administration settles national security concerns.
"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," Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters in Long Beach, Calif.
Similarly, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked for a moratorium on the sale.
"We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.
Vulnerable to terrorism
Ports are considered especially vulnerable to terrorism because only about 10 percent of the containerized cargo that enters the facilities is inspected.
The sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel made up of representatives of government agencies including the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
Julie E. Myers, an assistant secretary of Homeland Security, said Tuesday that the decision was partly based on the condition that the U.S. Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Protection agency would remain in charge of security at the ports.
Frist and Myers toured the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and nearby immigration detention facilities on Tuesday.
The Senate leader, who is preparing for a debate in late March over immigration control measures, did not commit to a guest worker program for immigrants, an idea advanced by Bush that has bitterly divided congressional Republicans.
Strategic differences
Frist said he may set aside whatever comes out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in coming weeks if its bill is too broad. Instead, he said he would ask the full Senate to consider his proposal that would deal first with border enforcement measures. Issues such as the guest worker visa program could then be offered as amendments, he said.
Frist's strategy could defy the wishes of some senators who are looking to the Judiciary Committee to support a guest worker plan.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have written a bill that would create a path to legalization for illegal immigrants. It would include a temporary visa program and let the workers apply without having to return to their home countries.
A bill by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, would require illegal immigrants to return to their home countries before applying for temporary visas.
gebe.martinez@chron.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3676264.html
Bush rebuffs critics of ports deal
President says the Arab company is being held to a 'different standard'
By GEBE MARTINEZ
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
LONG BEACH, CALIF. - President Bush on Tuesday strongly defended a takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. ports by an Arab state-owned company, rejecting security concerns raised here by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and by other lawmakers in Washington.
Bush said the critics must "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, 'We'll treat you fairly.' "
The British operator Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. has proposed selling its port operations at New York, New Orleans, Miami, New Jersey, Baltimore and Philadelphia to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates.
The Bush administration has approved the pending transaction despite concerns that the deal would increase the possibility of terrorism at the ports.
Since then, two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, have introduced a bill that would ban foreign ownership of seaports. Lawmakers in the House have talked about introducing similar proposals, and two Republican governors, George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland, have questioned the transaction.
Bush pledges veto
During a rare meeting with reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday as he was returning to Washington, D.C., from Colorado, Bush sternly vowed to veto any legislation that would block the sale. The veto would be his first.
"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," Bush said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."
At the White House, Bush said: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."
The president spoke just hours after Frist called for a delay in the sale until the administration settles national security concerns.
"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," Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters in Long Beach, Calif.
Similarly, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked for a moratorium on the sale.
"We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.
Vulnerable to terrorism
Ports are considered especially vulnerable to terrorism because only about 10 percent of the containerized cargo that enters the facilities is inspected.
The sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel made up of representatives of government agencies including the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
Julie E. Myers, an assistant secretary of Homeland Security, said Tuesday that the decision was partly based on the condition that the U.S. Coast Guard and the Customs and Border Protection agency would remain in charge of security at the ports.
Frist and Myers toured the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and nearby immigration detention facilities on Tuesday.
The Senate leader, who is preparing for a debate in late March over immigration control measures, did not commit to a guest worker program for immigrants, an idea advanced by Bush that has bitterly divided congressional Republicans.
Strategic differences
Frist said he may set aside whatever comes out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in coming weeks if its bill is too broad. Instead, he said he would ask the full Senate to consider his proposal that would deal first with border enforcement measures. Issues such as the guest worker visa program could then be offered as amendments, he said.
Frist's strategy could defy the wishes of some senators who are looking to the Judiciary Committee to support a guest worker plan.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have written a bill that would create a path to legalization for illegal immigrants. It would include a temporary visa program and let the workers apply without having to return to their home countries.
A bill by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, would require illegal immigrants to return to their home countries before applying for temporary visas.
gebe.martinez@chron.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3676264.html
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/25osama.htm
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation and building a new relationship with India.
"US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled," Armitage said.
He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.
Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.
Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.
UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours
March 25, 2004 12:04 IST
The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.
Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.
The 10-member bipartisan commission is investigating the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US.
A host of Clinton and Bush administration officials have testified before the commission.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Amritage told the commission that it was impossible to send troops to Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation and building a new relationship with India.
"US sanctions against Pakistan on the nuclear and other issues complicated the matter and these had to be dismantled," Armitage said.
He also suggested if the US Congress wanted to show displeasure with any country, it should think of other methods than imposing sanctions.
Former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke has charged that fighting terrorism was not the top priority with the Bush administration. The top priority, he suggested, was Iraq, not Al Qaeda, a claim refuted by the White House.
Clarke alleged that the White House delayed implementing the proposals he had made for eight months and adopted them only after 9/11.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kerry_demand..._with_0222.html
Kerry demands disclosure of contacts with firm on port deal
RAW STORY
Published: February 22, 2006
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) sent a letter to Secretary John Snow, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) asking him to release all information relating to contacts between Administration officials and Dubai Ports World (DP), RAW STORY has learned.
The Massachusetts senator is demanding the Administration disclose details on the events leading up to the deal proposed by the Bush administration to have the United Arab Emirates-based company run operations at six major U.S. ports.
Kerry's letter follows.
#
February 21, 2006
The Honorable John Snow
Chair
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
Office of International Investment
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4201 NY
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I write to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regarding the review and approval of the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World (DP). As you know, this sale would give DP, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, significant operational control over six major US ports.
Specifically, given the national security implications of this sale, I am concerned about the process by which this transaction was approved by CFIUS. First, it appears that CFIUS approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances.
Further, several media reports have cited ties between Administration officials and DP that raise questions about the basis for the approval of this sale by CFIUS. As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as Chief Executive Officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004. Moreover, the President’s nominee for Administrator of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was DP’s Head of Operations for Latin America while this transaction was being reviewed by CFIUS. In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS’s approval process.
Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure and the transparency appropriate under these circumstances, I request that you provide to the relevant committees in Congress all documentation and information relating to contacts between Administration officials, CFIUS members and staff, and DP, including any lobbyists or registered foreign agents working on behalf of DP.
Given the national security implications surrounding this transaction, it is essential that lawmakers have access to this information so that Congress can conduct meaningful oversight.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry
Kerry demands disclosure of contacts with firm on port deal
RAW STORY
Published: February 22, 2006
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) sent a letter to Secretary John Snow, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) asking him to release all information relating to contacts between Administration officials and Dubai Ports World (DP), RAW STORY has learned.
The Massachusetts senator is demanding the Administration disclose details on the events leading up to the deal proposed by the Bush administration to have the United Arab Emirates-based company run operations at six major U.S. ports.
Kerry's letter follows.
#
February 21, 2006
The Honorable John Snow
Chair
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
Office of International Investment
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 4201 NY
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I write to you in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) regarding the review and approval of the sale of Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Navigation Company to Dubai Ports World (DP). As you know, this sale would give DP, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, significant operational control over six major US ports.
Specifically, given the national security implications of this sale, I am concerned about the process by which this transaction was approved by CFIUS. First, it appears that CFIUS approved the sale as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances.
Further, several media reports have cited ties between Administration officials and DP that raise questions about the basis for the approval of this sale by CFIUS. As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as Chief Executive Officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004. Moreover, the President’s nominee for Administrator of the Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, was DP’s Head of Operations for Latin America while this transaction was being reviewed by CFIUS. In light of these connections, Congress needs to learn more about the relationship between CFIUS members and DP, and whether Administration officials could have unduly influenced CFIUS’s approval process.
Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure and the transparency appropriate under these circumstances, I request that you provide to the relevant committees in Congress all documentation and information relating to contacts between Administration officials, CFIUS members and staff, and DP, including any lobbyists or registered foreign agents working on behalf of DP.
Given the national security implications surrounding this transaction, it is essential that lawmakers have access to this information so that Congress can conduct meaningful oversight.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.