Bid to nix port sale is gaining steam

The dirty little secret re port management
There is a dirty little secret about to emerge regarding the scandal of US port managment by a state owned company. The US is privately in negotiations with United Arab Emirates for a Free Trade Area. Could the port management deal be a quid pro quo for such a deal?

Another example of the Robber Baron's handiwork.

BBB

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

U.S. Begins FTA Negotiations with UAE and Oman
The Office of the United States Trade Representative
Home / Document Library / Press Releases / 2005 / March / 03/08/2005 U.S. Begins FTA Negotiations with UAE and Oman

United States to Begin Free Trade Negotiations This Week with the United Arab Emirates and Oman
03/08/2005

WASHINGTON - The United States will begin negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement today with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and negotiations with Oman March 12 with the goal of eliminating tariffs and barriers and expanding trade between the countries. Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Europe and the Mediterranean Catherine Novelli will lead the U.S. negotiating team.

The upcoming trade negotiations with the UAE and Oman are an important stage in implementing the President's initiative to advance economic reforms and openness in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and a key step towards the creation of a Middle East Free Trade Area, an Administration initiative. Each negotiation is a separate bilateral negotiation with the United States.

"We're very pleased to begin FTA negotiations with Oman and UAE. In addition to contributing to economic growth and trade among all the countries, we believe the agreements will promote economic development and opportunity in both Oman and UAE, and serve as models for the region. These FTAs will build on those we already have with Jordan, and Morocco, as well as the FTA that we recently have signed with Bahrain. It will also encourage the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council to adopt standards that promote trade and investment," noted Acting U.S. Trade Representative Peter F. Allgeier. "We also intend to continue to move forward with our other partners in the region through our TIFAs and WTO accession discussions.

"These FTAs will directly benefit the United States," continued Allgeier. "By reducing and eliminating barriers to trade, a comprehensive FTA with the UAE and Oman will generate export opportunities for U.S. companies, farmers, and ranchers, help create jobs in the United States, and help American consumers save money while offering them more consumer choices."

In addition, U.S. free trade agreements in the Middle East and the Gulf complement the 9/11 Commission Report recommendation urging the United States to expand trade with the Middle East as a way to "encourage development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families."

"The UAE and Oman are important strategic partners in the Middle East that are implementing significant economic reforms that free trade agreements with the United States will support and accelerate," said Allgeier. "We believe that we can move rapidly on these negotiations."

On November 15, 2004, the Administration notified Congressional leaders of its intent to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with the UAE and Oman, important steps on the path to fulfilling President Bush's initiative to advance economic reforms in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and to establish a Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013. Building on the President's initiative, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick visited the UAE and Oman in October 2004 to discuss with top officials the topics covered in the United States' comprehensive FTAs, to identify particular areas for work, and to assess the UAE's and Oman's commitments to moving forward with an FTA. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas led a Congressional delegation to Oman and other countries in the Middle East in November 2004 to discuss similar issues.

The United States trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, behind only Israel and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has a combined trading relationship of $6 billion and a trade surplus of $2.8 billion with these two countries ($5.2 billion in total U.S.-UAE 2004 trade, with $4.1 billion in U.S. exports and $1.1 billion in U.S. imports. U.S.-Oman in 2004 trade was $748 million, with U.S. exports of $330 million and U.S. imports of $418). Major U.S. exports to these two countries include machinery, aircraft, vehicles and electrical machinery. Major imports include mineral fuel and woven apparel.

Middle East Free Trade Initiative (MEFTA)

In May 2003, the President proposed a plan of graduated steps for Middle Eastern nations to increase trade and investment with the United States and others in the world economy. The first step is to work closely with peaceful nations that want to become members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to expedite their accession. As these countries implement domestic reform agendas, institute the rule of law, protect property rights (including intellectual property), and create a foundation for openness and economic growth, the United States takes a series of graduated steps with these countries tailored to their individual level of development.

The U.S. is expanding and deepening our economic ties through comprehensive FTAs, Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), and also will enhance the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program for eligible countries. This Administration has concluded two FTAs, Morocco and Bahrain; ratified a third, with Jordan; and signed eight TIFAs with Middle East nations.

United States Trade Agreements

U.S. FTAs: These are reciprocal and ambitious agreements that open markets and strip away barriers across a broad array of goods, services, and agricultural products.

TIFAs: The United States has TIFAs with a number of countries to enhance bilateral trade and coordinate regionally and multilaterally through regular senior-level discussions on trade and economic issues. The TIFAs create Joint Councils that address a wide range of commercial issues and set out basic principles underlying the nations' trade and investment relationship.

BITs: These agreements level the playing field and ensure that U.S. investors are treated fairly. By safeguarding foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms, BITs help promote new U.S. exports to the markets of BIT partners. BITs also protect the interests of average American investors, whose stock and bond portfolios often include stakes in foreign-invested firms.

U.S. Trade Agenda

The United States is working to open markets globally in the Doha WTO negotiations; regionally through the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations; and bilaterally, with FTAs. The Bush Administration has completed FTAs with 12 countries - Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain. Negotiations are under way or about to begin with 12 more countries: Panama, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Thailand, the five nations of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), the UAE, and Oman. New and pending FTA partners, taken together, would constitute America's third largest export market and the sixth largest economy in the world.

The 9/11 Commission Report

The U.S. government has announced the goal of working toward a Middle East Free Trade Area, or MEFTA, by 2013. The United States has been seeking comprehensive free trade agreements (FTAs) with the Middle Eastern nations most firmly on the path to reform. The U.S.-Israeli FTA was enacted in 1985, and Congress implemented an FTA with Jordan in 2001. Both agreements have expanded trade and investment, thereby supporting domestic economic reform. In 2004, new FTAs were signed with Morocco and Bahrain, and are awaiting congressional approval. These models are drawing the interest of their neighbors. Muslim countries can become full participants in the rules-based global trading system, as the United States considers lowering the trade barriers with the poorest Arab nations.

Recommendation: A comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children's future.

The 9/11 Commission Report
Pages 378-379

bbb : the UAE is sort of like the switzerland of the middle-east . it's where the money flows and can be kept away from prying eyes - it's a safe haven for international investors ; so wouldn't it make sense to also have them look after u.s. administration ?
switzerland was never attacked during WW II, neither by the germans nor by the allies ; they all kept large amounts of money and gold in the safe haven - switzerland .
the more things change, the more they stay the same . hbg

hamburger


Nope! I prefer transparency.

BBB

bbb wrote : "Nope! I prefer transparency. "

but are you going to get it ?
i noticed on the news yesterday that senator john warner , senator mccain and even good ole jimmy carter came out in favour of the deal !
jimmy carter ? how did he get roped in ?


(hope you realize that my earlier entry was not to be taken seriously - unless you have some money you want to stash away.
btw we spent a week in lugano/switzerland in 2003 - lugano is beautiful ! - , there was a bank-office at every corner; but you couldn't just walk in, admittance 'by appointment only" ).
have a wonderful day ! hbg

The Bush Isle of Thanatos
Easier access to our cities once seaports are in foreign hands
Kathleen Parker, Tribune Media Services

February 23, 2006

The Greeks and Sigmund Freud had a name for what may ail President Bush: Thanatos. The death wish.

Thanatos was the Greek personification of death, which Freud later expanded to describe man's "death instinct," or the unconscious wish to abandon life's struggles and return to a state of quiet repose.

That would be the grave, as Freud envisioned man's endpoint. But for Bush, perhaps the metaphor extends only as far as a nice, quiet ranch in Crawford, Texas, where, as Yeats once put it, "peace comes dropping slow."

How else to explain this administration's inexorable march toward political death?

The final throes of Bush's journey toward self-destruction may have found expression with the apparent sale of operational rights to six of our nation's largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Approved by the Bush administration against all reason, the $6.8 billion sale includes the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Despite bipartisan condemnation, the Bush administration has defended the sale to Dubai Ports World as not only safe, but prudent. The UAE, which incidentally served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, is an important ally in the fight against terror, we're told.

Of course they are. And Colombia is an important ally in the war against drugs. And Mexico is an important ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Perhaps, given that much of our illegal drug supply and immigrant population come from Colombia and Mexico, respectively, we should reconsider our strategy.

Meanwhile, is this our new bombs-to-butter ploy in the Middle East? Instead of blocking the sale, which might have suggested American distrust of Arabs and/or Muslim nations, we give them the keys to our houses. Clever.

In the parallel universe we affectionately call Planet Earth, insanity seems the better word.

Let's assume that the UAE is, indeed, a power player in the game against terrorists. There's reason to hope, as supporters of the sale have suggested, that the UAE has a vested interest in port security. It's a business deal, after all, and what's good for jihad isn't necessarily good for business.

Plus, as others have noted, the ports themselves are unionized and staffed by "Archie Bunker-kind of Americans," in the words of Stephen E. Flynn, of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. Which is to say, Baltimore's waterfront isn't suddenly going to be swarming with red-checkered keffiyehs.

Speaking seriously for a moment, it's hardly reasonable to condemn or fear an entire nation--or a federation of emirates--on the basis of a few random acts by a tiny percentage of the world's 1.25 billion Muslims. When weird Christians misbehave, we don't expect the world to stop doing business with Alabama.

But, politically, handing over our ports to a part of the world where the U.S. is not currently beloved is tantamount to taking arsenic to treat acne. Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley aptly summarized sentiments on both sides of the political aisle when he said, "President Bush's decision to turn over the operations of any American port is reckless. It is outrageous and it is irresponsible. We are not going to turn over the port of Baltimore to a foreign government. It's not going to happen."

Granting a fantastically elastic benefit of the doubt, perhaps the president was merely seeking a novel way to bridge our divided nation. For the first time in a long while, Democrats and Republicans--from Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton to Republican New York Gov. George Pataki--are united, this time in opposition to the sale of our ports to a foreign entity.

In the more likely event that Thanatos truly is at the helm of our ship of state at this titanic moment, we can't afford to let Bush's death instinct subsume the national imperative to survive.

Survival now depends on fitter minds.

----------

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, a Tribune newspaper. E-mail: [email protected]


Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Arab Firm to Delay U.S. Port Takeover
Another dirty little secret. Where did the $100 million go? To the Gulf States recovery or to the Bush Administration and Republican Party?

The White House noted the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina just weeks before Dubai Ports sought approval for its business deal. It said the money was nearly four times as much as the administration received from all other countries combined, and said there was no connection between the money and the pending deal.

Arab Firm to Delay U.S. Port Takeover
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
2/24/06

A United Arab Emirates company has volunteered to postpone its takeover of significant operations at six major U.S. seaports, and the White House said on Friday the delay would help give the administration time to convince skeptical lawmakers the deal poses no increased risks from terrorism.

The surprise concession late Thursday cools the standoff building between the Congress and President Bush over his administration's previous approval of the deal. In early reaction, lawmakers praised the temporary hold. But some critics pressed anew for an intensive examination of the deal's risks.

As part of its new offer, coordinated with the White House, Dubai Ports World said it would agree not to exercise control or influence management over U.S. ports pending further discussions with the administration and Congress. It did not say how long it would wait for these discussions to be finished.

The announcement effectively leaves existing American and British executives in charge of the company's seaport operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record) of New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, described the offer as "definitely a positive step." A leading Republican critic of the deal, King said the president still must disclose new details about the administration's review and approval of the agreement last month.

"We believe it would be helpful to have some additional time to brief Congress about the facts and about the safeguards that are in place," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "We believe once Congress has a better understanding of the facts and the safeguards that are in place that they will be more comfortable with the transaction moving forward. So a slight delay would helpful in that regard."

He said Bush would continue to oppose any move to block the transaction.

Asked how long the delay would last, McClellan said, "It's not up to us. It's up to the company to make that decision."

A senior Dubai Ports executive, Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will otherwise move forward with its $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates in 18 countries. Although Dubai Ports agreed to temporarily segregate the company's U.S. operations, Bilkey expressed bewilderment over the security concerns expressed in Congress.

"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world," Bilkey said. "We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties."

The company, timing its announcement before financial markets opened in London, assured British shareholders they will be paid as previously planned.

"It is not only unreasonable but also impractical to suggest that the closing of this entire global transaction should be delayed," Dubai Ports said in a statement.

But on Capitol Hill, critics weren't silenced.

"A simple cooling-off period will not allay our concerns," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said the company's offer "isnt worth the paper on which it is written."

"If the Bush administration will not stop this deal from closing, Congress must." Menendez said.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., urged Bush to conduct a broader review of potential terrorism risks. Rep. Vito Fosella, a New York Republican, said the administration should more fully explain why it concluded the sale was safe.

The announcement came amid a persistent political furor over the business deal, otherwise expected to be completed in early March. Republicans and Democrats alike have threatened to introduce legislation to block or delay the deal, citing unease over what they describe as inconsistent support against terrorism by the United Arab Emirates.

Bush has threatened to veto any such measures and forcefully defended the small but wealthy federation in the Persian Gulf as a vital ally.

The White House noted the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina just weeks before Dubai Ports sought approval for its business deal. It said the money was nearly four times as much as the administration received from all other countries combined, and said there was no connection between the money and the pending deal.

At the first Senate oversight hearing since the controversy erupted, lawmakers challenged the adequacy of a classified intelligence assessment that played a crucial role assuring administration officials that the Dubai Ports deal was proper. The report, which is closely guarded, was put together during four weeks in November by analysts working under the U.S. director of national intelligence.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked whether the intelligence report examined purported links between government officials in the UAE and Osama bin Laden before the September 2001 terror attacks.

"I did not see that in the report," said Robert Kimmitt, deputy secretary at the Treasury Department.

Clinton accused the administration of ignoring provisions of a federal law that require more extensive reviews when deals involve purchases by government-owned companies. Administration officials explained their long-standing practice was to conduct such broader investigations only when deals raised serious national security concerns.

Kimmitt responded: "We didn't ignore the law. Concerns were raised. They were resolved."
--------------------------------------------

Associated Press writers Liz Sidoti and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.

Molly Ivins: It's the Corporation, Stupid
It's the Corporation, Stupid
By Molly Ivins
AlterNet.org
Thursday 23 February 2006

The government is willing to outsource American jobs for the holy grail of free trade. Why is it surprising that national security is ditto?

So, aside from the fact that it's politically idiotic and at least theoretically presents a national security risk, just what is wrong with the Dubai Ports deal?

As President George W. Bush actually said, "I want those who are questioning it to 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'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, we'll treat you fairly."

So, what's wrong with that? There's our only president standing up against discrimination and against tarring all Arabs with the same brush and all that good stuff. (The fact that it was Mr. Racial Profiling speaking, the man who has single-handedly created more Arab enemies for this country than anyone else ever dreamed of doing is just one of those ironies we regularly get whacked over the head with.)

OK, here's for starters. We have already been warned that, should we back out of the DP deal, the United Arab Emirates may well take offense and not be so nice about helping us in the War on Terra - maybe even cut back its money, as well as its cooperation. This is a problem specific to the fact that we are dealing with a corporation owned by a country: A corporation only wants to make money, a corporation owned by a country has lots of motives.

Second, this is a corporation, consequently its only interest is in making money. A corporation is like a shark, designed to do two things: kill and eat. Thousands of years of evolution lie behind the shark, where as the corporation has only a few hundred. But it is still perfectly evolved for its purpose. That means a corporation that makes money running port facilities does not have a stake in national security. It's not the corporation's fault any more than it's the shark's.

The president is quite correct that a "Great British" corporation has no more or less interest in helping terrorists than an Arab corporation. It is not the corporation that is supposed to have other interests - it is government. But as Michael Chertoff, secretary of homeland security, said, "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system."

"Balance" is the arresting word here - keep your eye on "balance." We have an administration that is absolutely wedded to corporate interests, both American and global. It honestly believes that "free trade" is more important than the environment and more important than the people. It has repeatedly demonstrated it is willing to let both go in order to foster free trade.

There is no "balance" in its consideration on these issues, and now it turns out not much in "balancing" national security, either. The people running this country - and that includes most of the leaders of both parties - have proven again and again they are perfectly willing to outsource American jobs, American wage standards, and American health and safety standards all for the sacred, holy grail of free trade. Why would it surprise us that national security is ditto?

I am amused by Chertoff's use of the word "balance." Since the administration has done zip, nada, zilch about port security, it's unclear what he's trying to "balance." In 2002, the Coast Guard estimated it would take $5.4 billion over 10 years to improve port security to the point mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act. Last year, Congress appropriated $175 million. The administration had requested $46 million, below 9-11 levels.

As David Sirota points out, the administration has been negotiating a free trade deal with the United Arab Emirates at the same time the port deal was being negotiated. This whole thing is about free trade and the lock big corporations have on our government to further free trade.

Sirota also points out you will see and hear almost no discussion of this fact in the corporate news media. I have no idea whether DP World represents a security threat, but US News & World Report said in December that Dubai was notorious for smuggling, money laundering and drug trafficking in support of terrorists. I suppose the same could be said of New York, but it doesn't sound pleasant.

Dubai is believed to be the transfer port for the spread of nuclear technology by the Abdul Qadeer Khan network. David Sanborn, an executive who ran DP World's European and Latin American operations, was chosen last month by Bush to head the US Maritime Administration, according to the New York Daily News. It'll be interesting to see just how much power the free trade lobby has over the political establishment.

Right now, both Democrats and Republicans are yelling about what appears to be a dippy idea. Let's see what hearing from their contributors brings about.