Bush Administration OKs United Arab Emirates Company to Handle US Port Operations

calurker · Feb 22, 2006

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

Bush unaware of port deal until after approval
White House: President only learned recently of handover to Arab firm

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 3:09 p.m. ET Feb. 22, 2006

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration’s earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill from Congress that would block the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Bush faces a rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as from Democrats, over the deal, which would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

“I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,” said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. “We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we’re really doing is securing the safety of our people.”

Firm’s connection to Bush appointee questioned
Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday sent a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, seeking full disclosure on the deal with DP World.

“As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004,” wrote Kerry, D-Mass., in a letter. “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 ...”

While House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month 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.

“My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company,” McClellan added.

“In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise,” the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

The Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird has advised Dubai Ports for several months as it worked for clearances for foreign investment in the United States, a source told NBC News. Now former Sen. Bob Dole, special counsel at the firm, has become part of the team working on the Dubai company's case, according to the source, who is close to Dole.

Administration steps up pressure
The White House and supporters planned a renewed campaign this week to reassure the public the sale was safe. Senior officials were expected to explain at a press conference Wednesday what persuaded them to approve the deal, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez, told The Associated Press in an interview: “They are not in charge of security. We are not turning over the security of our ports. When people make statements like that you get an instant emotional reaction.”

Treasury Secretary Snow said failure to complete the transaction would send the wrong message overseas.

“The implications of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren’t welcome,” Snow told reporters Wednesday following a speech in Connecticut to a fuel cell manufacturer. “That sends a terrible message.”

The sale — set to be completed in early March — would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. “If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward,” Bush said.

Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush’s veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports’ facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted “very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats.”

Frist cites ‘serious questions’
Frist said Tuesday, before Bush’s comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised “serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. “We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government,” Hastert said.

Maryland’s Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore’s port, called the deal an “overly secretive process at the federal level.”

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

“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,” the president said. “But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully.”

Assurances from port operator
A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports “will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals.”

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if “they pass a law, I’ll deal with it with a veto.”

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the United Arab Emirates was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said they would introduce a “joint resolution of disapproval” when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bush’s veto threat didn’t stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey’s governor, Jon S. Corzine, said the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a “deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take.”
Click to expand...

Sishir Chang · Feb 22, 2006

rimrocker said:

SC: Is there a difference between foreign corporations and corporations owned by a another country? This will be the first sale to a state-owned corporation. No nagging doubts about that? Especially for a state ruled by a patriarchical monarchy with members of the royal family hanging out in Afghan hunting camps with Bin Laden?
Click to expand...

Except that they are still bound by US regulations and the US is handling security. Even if this was an American company considering how much outsourcing is done a terrorist infiltrator could still get hired in another country to work on something sensitive. Yes DP's majority ownership is in the Emirates but that doesn't mean that they are involved in operations. For that matter there's nothing stopping an Emir to buy a controlling interest of a publicly traded US company already. In the age of multi-nationals there's not much difference between an American or foreign company even if that company is owned by Emirs.

And really, the administration didn't follow the law that required a 45 day investigation, it's not clear whether the Committee actually met much less voted on the deal as the law requires, the President and the Defense Secretary are saying different things, and the President has no qualms about making decisions that greatly erode individual rights to protect us, but all of a sudden he's giving a corporation the benefit of the doubt? None of this adds up to a non-issue.
Click to expand...

First I didn't say this was a non-issue just that I thought too much was being made of it. As I learn more about it though I will say there is a big issue here which is how the Admin has bungled and mismanaged this whole thing. I'm less concerned that a foreign company is managing US ports but find it very concerning the things you cite along with that the President and other high officials seem to be unaware until they hear about it in the press and continue to be handling things in a secretive and stubborn way.

underoverup · Feb 22, 2006

coming into this thread late but............

is this really that big of a deal? china, india, etc have terminals in us ports, the us still does all the security. i think the outsourcing aspect is probably worse that the security risk if even that is a big deal...........

wnes · Feb 22, 2006

First we have

wnes last night said:

I hope the Congress would stop the silly brouhaha over the "security" and look deep into the money trail.
Click to expand...

Now

calurker said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/

Firm’s connection to Bush appointee questioned
Sen. John Kerry on Wednesday sent a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, seeking full disclosure on the deal with DP World.

“As you know, the CSX rail corporation, where you previously served as chief executive officer, sold its port operations to DP in 2004,” wrote Kerry, D-Mass., in a letter. “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 ...”

While House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed any connection between the deal and David Sanborn of Virginia, a former senior DP World executive whom the White House appointed last month 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.

“My understanding is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company,” McClellan added.

“In terms of David Sanborn, he was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise,” the spokesman said. Sanborn is a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. He is an operations professional.

The Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird has advised Dubai Ports for several months as it worked for clearances for foreign investment in the United States, a source told NBC News. Now former Sen. Bob Dole, special counsel at the firm, has become part of the team working on the Dubai company's case, according to the source, who is close to Dole.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey, I am prophetic, am I not?

insane man · Feb 22, 2006

There are, however, a number of safeguards on all sides. Though it will operate the ports, Dubai will not own them, and Americans will remain fully responsible for security, in the form of federal coast-guard, customs and immigration officials. The UAE is a member of America’s Container Security Initiative, which allows American customs officials to inspect cargo in foreign ports before it ever leaves for America. Stephen Flynn is probably the best-known and loudest critic of American port security, calling it a “house of cards”. But regarding the Dubai deal, he has said that running port operations ranks low on the scale of security concerns, and told Time magazine that DP World is “not exactly a shadow organisation for al-Qaeda”. He hopes only that the controversy generated by the deal will lead to a more thorough look at port and shipping security generally.
Click to expand...

economist

gifford1967 · Feb 23, 2006

Sept. 11 Report Ties Bin Laden to UAE By ELIZABETH WHITE, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 1 minute ago

The United States raised concerns with the United Arab Emirates seven years ago about possible ties between officials in that country and Osama bin Laden, according to a section of the Sept. 11 commission's report that details a possible missed opportunity to kill the al-Qaida leader.

Republicans and Democrats alike are raising concerns this week about the Bush administration's decision to let a UAE-operated company take over operations at six American ports, in part citing ties the Sept. 11 hijackers had to the Persian Gulf country.

President Bush has called the UAE a close partner on the war on terror since Sept. 11, and his aides have listed numerous examples of the country's help.

The Sept. 11 commission's report released last year also raised concerns UAE officials were directly associating with bin Laden as recently as 1999.

The report states U.S. intelligence believed that bin Laden was visiting an area in the Afghan desert in February 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials, and that the U.S. military planned a missile strike.

Intelligence from local tribal sources indicated "bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis," the report said.

"National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of bin Laden's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely," the report said.

The missile attack was never launched, and bin Laden moved on, the report said.

A month later, top White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke "called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden," the report said.

CIA officials hope to continue staking out the Afghan camp in hopes bin Laden would return and a possible strike could be launched.

But "imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarke's phone call, the camp was hurriedly dismantled and the site was deserted," the report said.

CIA officials were "irate" and "thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden, the report said.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat, asked Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt if he was aware of the 9-11 commission's assertion that the United Arab Emirates represents "a persistent counterterrorism problem"for the United States.

Kimmitt replied that administration figures involved in the decision to approve the deal "looked very carefully" at information from the intelligence community.

"Any time a foreign-government controlled company comes in," Kimmitt said, "the intelligence assessment is of both the country and the company."

"Just raise your hand if anybody talked to the 9-11 commission," Levin told the administration representatives at the witness table. Nobody raised a hand.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223...dydge12wPIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

mleahy999 · Feb 23, 2006

How eloquent:

http://myrick.house.gov/letter to President UAE ports.PDF

jo mama · Feb 23, 2006

well what do you expect from a libpig like republican congresswoman myrick?

this republican congresswoman is nothing more than another liberal using this port deal as an opportunity to bash bush for political gain.

i declare this letter libpig outrage of the day! nothing to see here folx. move along.

white lightning · Feb 23, 2006

I hope you noticed in today's defense of the deal that Bush said "my Government" checked it out, not our government or the US government. I don't know why this deal is surpirsing as it upholds all 3 pillars of the Bush administration: lack of checks and balances, cronyism, and incompetence.

bigtexxx · Feb 23, 2006

This is where politics suck. I have no problem at all with the company from Dubai purchasing the British Company, P&O. However, the ignorant masses hear this and think, "Oh ****!!! ARABS ARE GOING TO OWN OUR PORTS!!! Bin Laden is Arab!! So is Zarqawi!! Al Qaeda??!?? Oh HELL NO!!". Give me a break. Because of this ignorant overreaction by the public who has very little knowledge of US ports, shipping companies, and Dubai/UAE, politicians up for reelection have no choice but to be against this (both republicans and democrats). Arabs are not going to own our ports and port security will continue to be handled at a federal level. These terminals were previously leased by a British Company. Now we have a Dubai based company. Both are foreign. In some of the ports such as New Orleans, they're only going to lease a few assets that P&O previously leased out of the entire port. Talk about an overreaction.

mc mark · Feb 23, 2006

white lightning said:

I hope you noticed in today's defense of the deal that Bush said "my Government" checked it out, not our government or the US government.
Click to expand...

I did notice that. And thought it kind of weird.

mc mark · Feb 23, 2006

bigtexxx said:

This is where politics suck.
Click to expand...

No one is to blame excerpt your chicken little president.

bigtexxx · Feb 23, 2006

mc mark said:

No one is to blame excerpt your chicken little president.
Click to expand...

Bush should be seriously COMMENDED for his stand on this. This is an excellent display of his leadership. Liberals - hear me out on this one, I can already sense that you've already shut down your mind on this one.

In the face of bipartisan ignorance and politicians (about to be up for reelection) pandering to scared, ignorant voters, Bush is standing strong in the face of them when clearly he has little to gain politically. This is not a political issue. It does not concern port security in the least. Here is an exerpt from the Christian Science Monitor today:

Companies like P&O don't provide security at the ports. The US Coast Guard and Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement do. For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo.

But P&O has no responsibility for security. "We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard," says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. "That won't change no matter who is operating the terminal."

P&O is not commenting on the political uproar over the deal. But a source within the company worries that the media and politicians are misrepresenting the arrangements. Other who work within the port communities agree. They note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.

"I've never quite seen a story so distorted so quickly," says Esther de Ipolyi, a public-relations executive who works with the port of Houston. "It's like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0222/p01s01-usfp.html

Here's another quote from Jay Carafino that I want you to read:
What happens when one foreign-owned company sells a U.S. port service to another foreign-owned company. Not much. Virtually all the company employees at the ports are U.S. citizens. The Dubai firm is a holding company that will likely play no role in managing the U.S. facilities. Likewise, the company is owned by the government, a government that is an ally of the United States and recognizes that al Qaeda is as much a threat to them as it is to us.

This is much ado about nothing, and frankly, it smacks of ignorance at best, racism at worst.

vlaurelio · Feb 23, 2006

bigtexxx said:

However, the ignorant masses hear this and think, "Oh ****!!! ARABS ARE GOING TO OWN OUR PORTS!!! Bin Laden is Arab!! So is Zarqawi!! Al Qaeda??!?? Oh HELL NO!!". Give me a break.
Click to expand...

thats basically the same argument you used for invading iraq right?

Ubiquitin · Feb 23, 2006

I see no issue in our selling the port.

bigtexxx · Feb 23, 2006

Azadre said:

I see no issue in our selling the port.
Click to expand...

NOBODY IS SELLING OUR PORTS. Seriously, where do you get your news from?

Ubiquitin · Feb 23, 2006

bigtexxx said:

NOBODY IS SELLING OUR PORTS. Seriously, where do you get your news from?
Click to expand...

Alright, handling the port. It doesn't change my opinion. This is not something I could possibly fault Bush on.

gifford1967 · Feb 23, 2006

bigtexxx said:

This is where politics suck. I have no problem at all with the company from Dubai purchasing the British Company, P&O. However, the ignorant masses hear this and think, "Oh ****!!! ARABS ARE GOING TO OWN OUR PORTS!!! Bin Laden is Arab!! So is Zarqawi!! Al Qaeda??!?? Oh HELL NO!!". Give me a break. Because of this ignorant overreaction by the public who has very little knowledge of US ports, shipping companies, and Dubai/UAE, politicians up for reelection have no choice but to be against this (both republicans and democrats). Arabs are not going to own our ports and port security will continue to be handled at a federal level. These terminals were previously leased by a British Company. Now we have a Dubai based company. Both are foreign. In some of the ports such as New Orleans, they're only going to lease a few assets that P&O previously leased out of the entire port. Talk about an overreaction.
Click to expand...

Serious question. Would you have a problem with a company owned by the Iranian government taking over these port operations?

bigtexxx · Feb 23, 2006

gifford1967 said:

Serious question. Would you have a problem with a company owned by the Iranian government taking over these port operations?
Click to expand...

Stupid question. I know where you're going with this, and I'm not going to fall into your silly trap. Do some objective research on this subject and you'll realize the folly of your position. It's a knee-jerk anti-Arab point of view that you are espousing in order to bash Bush.

bigtexxx · Feb 23, 2006

Azadre said:

Alright, handling the port. It doesn't change my opinion. This is not something I could possibly fault Bush on.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we agree on this topic, but it sounds like you haven't done much of any research, but simply side with the Arab country. Alright.

Forums

Bush Administration OKs United Arab Emirates Company to Handle US Port Operations

calurker Member

Sishir Chang Member

underoverup Member

wnes Contributing Member

insane man Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

mleahy999 Member

jo mama Member

white lightning Member

bigtexxx Member

mc mark Member

mc mark Member

bigtexxx Member

vlaurelio Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

bigtexxx Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

bigtexxx Member

bigtexxx Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Bush Administration OKs United Arab Emirates Company to Handle US Port Operations

calurker Member

Sishir Chang Member

underoverup Member

wnes Contributing Member

insane man Member

gifford1967 Member Supporting Member

mleahy999 Member

jo mama Member

white lightning Member

bigtexxx Member

mc mark Member

mc mark Member

bigtexxx Member

vlaurelio Member

Ubiquitin Member Supporting Member

bigtexxx Member

Ubiquitin Member Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member Supporting Member

bigtexxx Member

bigtexxx Member

Share This Page

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Member
Supporting Member

gifford1967 Member
Supporting Member