Thread: Ports deal undone

Senator: 'Scent Of Victory' On Ports Deal Collapse

POSTED: 11:09 am MST March 9, 2006
UPDATED: 4:11 pm MST March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Dubai Ports World appears to be throwing in the towel.

The company owned by the government of Dubai said Thursday it plans to transfer the operations that it is buying at six U.S. ports to a U.S. entity.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a leading critic of the deal, praised the decision but he said he wants to see the specifics.

Another leading opponent, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "We now smell the scent of victory."

It is unclear how Dubai Ports World will handle the divestiture. But the company said it is doing so with the understanding that it "will not suffer economic loss."

The surprise move came after congressional Republicans warned the president that both the House and Senate were poised to block the controversial sale.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/politics/7851204/ ... 92006&ts=H

Another leading opponent, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "We now smell the scent of victory."

And, because of the way this was done in anger, I have a feeling that a whole bunch of US business men are going to be smelling the smell of deep horse manure pretty soon.

There is another link to a longer article from the Washington post on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/ ... index.html


Greenfield: With port deal dead, do you feel safer?
By Jeff Greenfield
CNN Senior Analyst



Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 9:45 p.m. EST (02:45 GMT)


CNN's Jeff Greenfield
$145,000 mortgage for $484/mo
Mortgage rates are still low. Compare rates - Refinance and save.
www.lowermybills.com 2.75% Fixed Student Loan Consolidation
70% lower student loan payments - fixed rate, no fees, qualify in one...
www.nextstudent.com Covad - High Speed Internet for Business
Secure, low-cost DSL service for small and medium business - learn more.
www.covad.com
More Useful Links
• Baby Registry
• Wellness
• Online Shopping

WATCH Browse/Search

Bush starting to quack (1:56)

Republicans rock boat on ports deal (1:36)

A look behind DP World's operations in Dubai (2:1
RELATED
Dubai to tranfer ports to U.S. entity

• TIME.com: Inside Dubai Inc.
• DP World: Let review begin
• Interactive: Gateways to America
• Interactive: Port operations
QUICKVOTE
Do you approve of how legislators handled the port security issue?
Yes
No
or View Results
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

Social Issues
Acts of terror
United States
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON -- Well, I don't know about you, but I feel so much safer now that I know those Dubains -- Dubai-ites? Dubaionians? -- won't be running those American ports after all.

No, it's going to be a strictly all-American operation from now on.

Yes, the folks in charge of checking those gazillions of tons of containerized cargo will be from the good old U.S. of A.:


Our nation, whose forces have so vigilantly sealed our borders from illegal immigrants (not counting the 3 or 5 or 10 million or so who managed to make it here);


Our nation, whose immigration and customs officials managed to keep out those dangerous agents of Osama bin Laden who intended to wreak murderous havoc on our soil (not counting the 19 who did make it; well, 1 of 20 isn't that bad);


Our nation, whose airport security system has ensured that no 84-year-old wheelchair-bound great-grandmother slips past the scrutiny of a system that makes no distinctions based on race, gender, sexual preference, disability, or no-chance-in-hell-this-one's a terrorist;


Our nation, whose existing port security system leaves upwards of 95 percent of incoming cargo unchecked, and whose ability to detect radioactive material is, to put it mildly, problematic.

Were there real questions about who should run the commercial operations of U.S. ports? Sure. And Dubai's past policies -- one of three nations in the world to recognize Afghanistan's Taliban regime -- could give anyone pause.

But let's not kid ourselves. What proved fatal to the plan was a potent mix of politics and a longstanding American impulse toward xenophobia, which has existed in tandem with our welcoming hand to others.

More than 180 years ago, a powerful movement -- the "Know-Nothings" -- organized around hostility to immigrants.

When we imported Chinese labor to build the railroads in the late 19th century, we also imposed strict limits on immigration.

We did the same thing to European immigrants in the 20th century. In wartime, we did worse -- deporting hundreds, maybe thousands of foreign-born Americans just after World War I, and locking-up Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II.

Even in peacetime, it's not hard to trigger Fear of the Foreign. When Japan's economic dominance threatened American power in the 1980s, politicians found it all but impossible to resist a lunge toward protectionism.

So it's no real surprise that the two parties outdid themselves in competing for the right to attack the port deal with the greatest vigor.

But I can't help wondering, if something deadly finds its way into the United States through our ports ... who are we going to blame then?

__________________________________________________ _

This thing has a ring of truth to it. I'm glad the ports deal is out of the question but I have friends working in Dubai who will be getting laid off because of this. I can't understand why it ever got started. Why was the Dept. of Homeland Security asleep at the switch again? Or did they hope to sneak this one on by for the sake of their pocketbooks. After all, I'd be willing to wager that Halliburton has lucrative contracts in Dubai. They are all over the Middle East.

I really don't understand Greenfield's point here.

Weren't we told over and over not to worry, that port security was going to be done by the Coast Guard? Wasn't that in and of itself a slam on the UAE company? Is he saying that the Coast Guard will be less efficient if a US company runs the ports than if an Arab one did?

Of course US border security is a joke. THAT'S THE POINT!

The Bush Administration could hardly get away with saying "Trust Us" on this. When it comes to security, nobody should, and fewer people are trusting them with anything.

At least it should be easier to keep an eye on the workings of a US company running the ports that it would with a UAE one. Whether this administration will do that is another matter entirely.

He's saying the the US Navy will no longer be able to use Dubai's ports to deploy troops in the middle east, for one thing.

He's saying that greedy US businessmen who have interests in Dubai just got screwed.

I'm figuring he's one of them and that is why he's so angered by it all.

See, they weren't expecting that Arab to jump up and pull the deal while they were putzing around.

He's saying the the US Navy will no longer be able to use Dubai's ports to deploy troops in the middle east, for one thing.

Well, I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like a quid pro quo to me, which certainly implies that this deal was dirty from the start.

Unfortunately, we have to get those troops out of there somehow. And I think the Dubai port was one of few that allows US ships. That is going to present a problem.

See, I think they were going to putz around and try to make us think they were doing something for 45 days while they scrambled to make a deal with the dude in Dubai who said there "would be some serious consequences" and the deal WOULD go through. I saw that newsreel over the week end, if I am not mistaken. Then, when they voted today something like 60 to 2 to block the sale, trying to make it look like they were doing something whoel they ahd time to putz around, the Sheik jumped up and decided he didn't want to play their silly game.

http://www.arabnews.com/

Editorial: Anti-Arab
10 March 2006

Yesterday's vote in a US House of Representatives committee blocking a Dubai company from running six major US ports was not about stopping foreign companies from running US ports. It was a specifically anti-Arab move. US politicians did not have a problem when British-owned P&O operated the ports. But now that an Arab company, Dubai Ports World, is buying out P&O, it is a different matter. It is glaringly, provocatively anti-Arab.

What is illogical about Congress’ attitude is that Dubai is one of America’s closest friends in the Middle East. Indeed, it is arguably the most pro-Western, pro-American of anywhere in the entire Arab world. American lawmakers even spurned the Dubai company’s promises that a separate all-American subsidiary would run the US operation. Clearly they do not trust any Arab, no matter who they are and where they are from, even if they are the most faithful of allies. The US clearly has different classes of friends. First-class, second-class or maybe even third, fourth and fifth class, who cannot be fully trusted.

Which one Arabs fit we do not quite know, but we know we are in the untrusted section. Congress clearly regards Arabs as untrustworthy — there to fight terrorism, keep the oil flowing, buy American goods and services and generally jump to Washington’s beck and call. Congress in no way regards Arabs as partners and equals. It is neocolonialism and there has to be an Arab response.

The implications of the move are extensive. The fact that the Bush administration is opposed to Congress’ craven pandering to anti-Arab public prejudice is no comfort. It is evident from the scale of Wednesday’s vote that this blatantly racist bill will be endorsed by the whole House of Representatives and sail through the Senate. It would be very surprising if President Bush can veto it. The most obvious response has to be in kind. If the US does not trust an Arab company to run something like a port, should we trust American companies to do similar things here? Can we? If the Americans mistrust us as they do, in whose interests will their companies be operating?

That is no hypothetical question. Events in Greece where the CIA used Vodaphone to bug Greek politicians and others who they did not trust are a warning. (Vodaphone, of course, is British, but that is the special relationship at play again.) Might not the same happen here if an American (or British) mobile phone company were given a license to operate?

A couple of weeks ago, US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez was in Saudi Arabia talking about Saudi-US commercial partnerships and how they are a economic priority for the Bush administration. The treatment of Dubai Ports World undermines everything he said. It is tragic. There are good American companies, good American people working here in Saudi Arabia and in the region.

American politicians have stabbed them in the back.

__________________________________________________ _

This is what the english language Saudi Arabian paper which is published all over the mid east had to say about it yesterday. I'll be anxious to hear what they have to say tomorrow. REmember now, because they are 7 hours ahead of east coast time they are into tomorrow already.

What is illogical about Congress’ attitude is that Dubai is one of America’s closest friends in the Middle East.

Yep! Sure are some good friends of ours. if they dont get their way, they dont let US ships in? The only friends we have in Arab countries are the ones we are willing to buy. Bet their great interest in working against terrorism suddenly disappears too.

False "friends" are never any loss....

Originally Posted by DcSA

Yep! Sure are some good friends of ours. if they dont get their way, they dont let US ships in? The only friends we have in Arab countries are the ones we are willing to buy. Bet their great interest in working against terrorism suddenly disappears too.

False "friends" are never any loss....

I imagine that their interest in working against terrorism is the same as the Saudis; they want us to protect them from it.

Other than that, they could give a rat's patootie about what happens to us or anyone else.

Anyone been watching Bill O'Reilly and Tony Snow and most other with FOX News pushing for the Dubai deal? They have been calling for the approval of the deal, and blasting anyone who dare oppose it, calling them ignorant or islamophobic, or worse, racist. Now I hear that FOX and News Corp have had huge chunks of controlling interest having been purchased by a Saudi Prince. Anyone hear about that? No wonder they have been pimping for Arab concerns lately, they are bought and owned by these Arab zillionaires too, along with the Bushites.