UAE managing our ports

[Cate]

Something I haven't heard mentioned yet: in cases of foreign direct investment, the CFIUS (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) is supposed to do an automatic 45-day investigation in cases where "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and the acquisition 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." The Dubai Ports thing definitely qualifies.

However, the investigation never took place, and the Bush administration can't explain why not. Furthermore, Bush has promised to veto any bill that would stop the deal - something that he's never done before, ever, ever, even the bill creating the DHS, which he was initially opposed to.

That just bugs me, when an investigation that's supposed to take place doesn't, and when a president who's never vetoed a bill in his life is willing to go to the mat to prevent the investigation from taking place. No racism, no isolationism, no question of a foreign-controlled port - that investigation is a national security issue, and the fact that it never took place bothers me.

 

[wink]

Just my $20 worth ....

Captain's (airline) rates, with night and international premimums no doubt.

 

[wink]

Something I haven't heard mentioned yet: in cases of foreign direct investment, the CFIUS (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) is supposed to do an automatic 45-day investigation in cases where "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and the acquisition 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." The Dubai Ports thing definitely qualifies.

However, the investigation never took place, and the Bush administration can't explain why not. Furthermore, Bush has promised to veto any bill that would stop the deal - something that he's never done before, ever, ever, even the bill creating the DHS, which he was initially opposed to.

That just bugs me, when an investigation that's supposed to take place doesn't, and when a president who's never vetoed a bill in his life is willing to go to the mat to prevent the investigation from taking place. No racism, no isolationism, no question of a foreign-controlled port - that investigation is a national security issue, and the fact that it never took place bothers me.

I don't believe it is a security issue. It is either politcal hot air or fear mongering.

My understanding is the CFIUS investigation took place. Could be wrong. What is your source?

I am disappointed Bush would use a veto on this only because it would be his first time. There have been plenty of other opportunities to veto crappy legislation.

We will never know just how helpful the UAE has been in the GWOT as of late. Going forward with deals like this are important to insure countries that take risks for us are at least treated fairly and given credit for their efforts.

 

[The Chief]

IMO This entire deal is a non-issue. For all the kicking and screaming that has gone on in washington, does anyone know what this company will actually do at the ports it will be running? In case you were wondering:

Great input Lucky. Let me post what I know, leaving out some political carp (crap).

What the US Government, through CFIUS, did was approve the sale of a British Company, Penninsular & Oriental Steam Ship Navaigation co., P&O in the vernacular, to Dubai Ports World. P&O operates terminals in 6 US ports, primarily US East Coast ports. They are tenants in the ports, the Port Authorities control the ports, set the rules for the port, establish overal schedules, charge rent, provide security (In concert with the Federal and Local governments). Dubai Ports World is set to take control of P&O operations for the former owners, P&O.

Looking at on port that I have some personal knowledge, Baltimore. Baltimore has, according to my last last count a total of 14 terminals, two of which are operated by P&O, to be transferred to Dubai World Port operation. To the best of my belief, most o the other 6 ports are very similar to Baltimore, with Dubai to operate 1 or 2 cargo handling terminals in each port. To say, as some politicians are, that Dubai would operate all six ports in dishonest in the extreme.

Looking at operators of the remaining 12 terminals in B'more, they include CHINESE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS (COSCO), Korea, (Hanjin), Japan (Mitsui, Ceres, KKK). and Sigapore (Americal President Lines).:icon_rage

I to lament the loss of our sea commerce capabilities, for which the U.S.Navy was established to protect. The USA is now a minor player in commerce on the high seas, and has been for some years. The "Dubai Deal" has nothing to do our ocean commerce.

For my vote, I would replace the Chinese Communist Terminals with DUBAI World terminals, and would see that as less of a threat to our freedom.:sleep_125

 

[Cate]

In any case of foreign investment, the CFIUS does a basic 30-day review, during which they decide whether or not a further 45-day investigation is warranted. As of 1993, though, the 45-day full investigation is required in all situations involving (a) a foreign government, which this does, and (b) anything that could potentially effect national security, which port security certainly could. But the full investigation didn't take place, and the Administration says it doesn't know why it didn't. And the president is willing to drop his first-ever veto on making sure it doesn't happen.

I think that xenophobic jingoism and automatic OMG!!!Arabs!!!1!!one!!!eleven!! reaction in the wake of this deal is absolutely not warranted, and it's not going to help anything. But the protocol for investigating this kind of deal applies to all investments by foreign governments, not just Arab governments, and the fact that this thing is being fast-tracked without said investigation is worrisome to me. What would be the harm in a 45-day investigation? What's so huge that it can't wait 45 days, in the interest of national security?

 

[The Chief]

In any case of foreign investment, the CFIUS ...

Will not disagree that CFIUS often gets it wrong, although if my source were the NYT, I would feel ashamed, IMOH.

I spent a good number of years as a senior official in the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), I believe that often industry came before security! See WWW.BIS.DOC.GOV. BIS is a major player in CFIUS, and I was involved in a number of CFIUS issues, on the margin. I saw Bush I administration BIS approve sale of 40,000 military vehicles to Sadam's Iraq along with Anthrax cultures (spores) for "research". Quickly add Clinton administration sold very sensitive satellite equipment as well as very sensitive avionics equipment and a/c powerplants to the ChiComs, over the objections of DOD and DOS.

I would agree we should review security issues, if there are any, in the Dubai purchase of the British company.

As a footnote I would guess the British would be non-plused if we nixed the sale of one of their economic entities to Dubai WP.

 

[wink]

In any case of foreign investment, the CFIUS does a basic 30-day review, during which they decide whether or not a further 45-day investigation is warranted. As of 1993, though, the 45-day full investigation is required in all situations involving (a) a foreign government, which this does, and (b) anything that could potentially effect national security, which port security certainly could. But the full investigation didn't take place, and the Administration says it doesn't know why it didn't. And the president is willing to drop his first-ever veto on making sure it doesn't happen.

I think that xenophobic jingoism and automatic OMG!!!Arabs!!!1!!one!!!eleven!! reaction in the wake of this deal is absolutely not warranted, and it's not going to help anything. But the protocol for investigating this kind of deal applies to all investments by foreign governments, not just Arab governments, and the fact that this thing is being fast-tracked without said investigation is worrisome to me. What would be the harm in a 45-day investigation? What's so huge that it can't wait 45 days, in the interest of national security?

DPW said they would wait for the sacred 45 days so congress can strut. You are not being accurate cate. There were at least two investigations by the Feds delegated to consider these deals, including consderation of the security issues. You may not agree with their findings but don't insist there was no investigation. If the investigation by CFIUS was complete, but they didn't take the full 45 days I don't see the harm. No, it wasn't precisely correct, and the administration seems to acknowledge that. It is also not fair to imply that the deal was fast tracked by the White House for some nefarious reason. The administration said they learned of the deal when it was made public. There is no evidence of pressure on the officials charged with making the decision on the deal by the White House. The threat of veto was if congress passed legislation to prevent the deal, not over any delay that in and of itself would not undo the deal.

Honestly cate, I find your posts on this issue not up to your regular fair and accurate standards.

 

[Cate]

Honestly, wink, the 45-day review was only offered Thursday and accepted Sunday. And DPW requested the review themselves, to allay security concerns; it's not like our government realized that they'd been remiss in following the procedures established by law for situations like this. Now, I think that's fairly awesome of DPW to come through like that, but it doesn't satisfy any of my questions about why the investigation, which, again, was mandated by law, didn't occur in the first place.

I neither assumed nor implied that the deal was being fasttracked for any nefarious reason, only said that the president was going through what appeared to be undue effort to smooth the way. And the administration didn't only just learn about the deal; they've known since October, and they admit that waiting so long to brief Congress was a mistake.

And as for CFIUS's initial investigation being sufficient, a Coast Guard intelligence assessment released today says that they don't have the information necessary to determine whether or not DPW has any connections to terrorists, that there are "many intelligence gaps" that "infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities." So it looks like they're going to be busy during the delay as well.

Honestly, wink. Honestly.

 

[wink]

Honestly, wink, the 45-day review was only offered Thursday and accepted Sunday. And DPW requested the review themselves, to allay security concerns; it's not like our government realized that they'd been remiss in following the procedures established by law for situations like this. Now, I think that's fairly awesome of DPW to come through like that, but it doesn't satisfy any of my questions about why the investigation, which, again, was mandated by law, didn't occur in the first place.

I neither assumed nor implied that the deal was being fasttracked for any nefarious reason, only said that the president was going through what appeared to be undue effort to smooth the way. And the administration didn't only just learn about the deal; they've known since October, and they admit that waiting so long to brief Congress was a mistake.

And as for CFIUS's initial investigation being sufficient, a Coast Guard intelligence assessment released today says that they don't have the information necessary to determine whether or not DPW has any connections to terrorists, that there are "many intelligence gaps" that "infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities." So it looks like they're going to be busy during the delay as well.

Honestly, wink. Honestly.

Forget the 45 day requirement. Did a CFIUS review take place or not?

I haven't heard anything on the White House knowing of the deal since October. It is a big deal in the business world so I can assume they knew something. Guess it was a poor decision to assume that career civil servants at the various agencies responsible for vetting and approving the deal would do their jobs thoroughly.

It may be the Coast Guard isn't normally on the list a agencies that review these things. Not saying they shouldn't be. I predict that when the USCG gets the info they want and every power and camera hungry individual in D.C. is satisfied, the deal goes through. It is all window dressing.

 

[TransAmatt]

I think the ironic thing about this whole mess is that the UAE company is going to have more money to put in port security than the British one and they are going to be watched closer since they are a middle-eastern country....therefore making the port safer. Not that it matters, what took me a few minutes of thinking and listening to a few experts on the subject will take the idiots in Washington a year and several congressional hearings to realize the same thing and by then no one really cares (steroids in baseball anyone?). Then later in an election a candidate will be accused of "helping terrorists take over a US port" because they supported the takeover. If politicians could only see how foolish they look when they argue with each other and they're both completely clueless about what is really going on. This situation is a great example.

[/rant] :icon_tong

 

[wink]

port deal amended by UAE

So I was wrong, and I don't know why I am so sad since it was just politics as usual. After the House voted to derail the port deal the UAE said they would spin off the US port operations. Now here is the ironic part for cate and all of you that got wrapped around the 45 day thing. All the anti port deal folks raved about how important the 45 day reinvestigation was and how could the president stand by the deal considering the 45 day reinvestigation wasn't complete. HOW COULD HE! WE DON"T HAVE ALL THE FACTS! Well, without regard for the findings of the new uncompleted investigation (I'm sure it was because congress knew the second investigation would find no security problems, as before) congress tanks the deal. WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE 45 DAY SUPER DUPER INVESTIGATION!

Here is what I want to know. Have all you anti DPW deal folks called your congressmen and senators and demanded that the CHINESE, the SAUDIS and other real threatening nations sell their far more greater interests in shipping and ports in the US? Anyone that was against the DPW deal was ignorant of the facts, playing petty politics or racist.

 

[Brett327]

So I was wrong, and I don't know why I am so sad since it was just politics as usual. After the House voted to derail the port deal the UAE said they would spin off the US port operations. Now here is the ironic part for cate and all of you that got wrapped around the 45 day thing. All the anti port deal folks raved about how important the 45 day reinvestigation was and how could the president stand by the deal considering the 45 day reinvestigation wasn't complete. HOW COULD HE! WE DON"T HAVE ALL THE FACTS! Well, without regard for the findings of the new uncompleted investigation (I'm sure it was because congress knew the second investigation would find no security problems, as before) congress tanks the deal. WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE 45 DAY SUPER DUPER INVESTIGATION!

Here is what I want to know. Have all you anti DPW deal folks called your congressmen and senators and demanded that the CHINESE, the SAUDIS and other real threatening nations sell their far more greater interests in shipping and ports in the US? Anyone that was against the DPW deal was ignorant of the facts, playing petty politics or racist.

Well, it's all a moot point now because DP World just completely pulled out of the deal.

Link

Brett

 

[wink]

Honestly,
And as for CFIUS's initial investigation being sufficient, a Coast Guard intelligence assessment released today says that they don't have the information necessary to determine whether or not DPW has any connections to terrorists, that there are "many intelligence gaps" that "infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities." So it looks like they're going to be busy during the delay as well.

Honestly, wink. Honestly.

It is OBE now, but for the record, that USCG comment was taken out of context, among other things. The comment was made wrt the origninal investigation. Before the deal became a hot button issue the USCG had all the info they wanted and gave the deal a pass. I saw the USCG officer testify. The senator or congresswoman that was questioning him was incredulous, "you mean in one months time you got the answers to your questions and can assure us there is no security concern on the part of the USCG?" It was as if no one has phones, faxs, computers or the work ethic to get a few important guestions answered within 30 days. That gives you a little insight into the workings of congress!

 

[squeeze]

Have all you anti DPW deal folks called your congressmen and senators and demanded that the CHINESE, the SAUDIS and other real threatening nations sell their far more greater interests in shipping and ports in the US?

Well, no. But my congressman is Tom Delay, so yaaaa......

 

[wink]

Well, it's all a moot point now because DP World just completely pulled out of the deal.

Link

Brett

That was the point of my post, notwithstanding the rant. I guess I wasn't clear. DPW didn't completely pull out of the deal. That is something lost on many people (like the rest of the facts). The purchase of P&O is a much larger deal then just the US ports. DPW is still going to buy British company P&O, but sell the US operations to someone else ASAP with the proviso it not cost them anything. Heck, DPW will still service US Navy vessals overseas. Better demand a stop to that too.