Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

This is a manufactrued issue, put forward for political purposes by a party that has no coherent or self-consistent policy of its own, and which has already sold itself to both sides in this artificial struggle.

Perhaps I asked for too much interpretation from you.

This is a manufactrued issue, put forward for political purposes by a party that has no coherent or self-consistent policy of its own, and which has already sold itself to both sides in this artificial struggle.

georgeob1 wrote:

This is a manufactrued issue, put forward for political purposes by a party that has no coherent or self-consistent policy of its own, and which has already sold itself to both sides in this artificial struggle.

I agree. But what party exactly might you be talking about..?

U.K. Court Allows Dubai Port Deal

LONDON, March 6, 2006

CBS/AP) A British appeals court on Monday declined to hear a Miami firm's objection to the takeover of British shipping company P&O by Dubai's state-owned DP World, giving the green light to a deal that has caused an uproar in the United States over port security.

Miami-based Eller & Co. had argued that U.S. concerns about a United Arab Emirates company owning significant operations at six major U.S. seaports could harm its business and had tried to have the deal barred on technical grounds.

Eller said they were very disappointed at the Court of Appeal's decision.

"We are not alone in opposing this deal ?- many elected politicians in the U.S. and indeed the American public, share many of our concerns about the takeover," a statement from Eller said.

Eller said while the legal process in the United Kingdom has been exhausted, it will continue to pursue legal action in the U.S. court system in Florida.

"We will continue to fight to protect our business and the livelihood of thousands of our staff and subcontractors."

The $6.8 billion acquisition of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was given the required approval by the High Court last week. But High Court Justice Nicholas Warren placed a hold on his ruling to allow Eller to take the case to the higher court.

The rejection of the appeal means that P&O can now list the deal at Companies House, the final regulatory stage of the takeover.

P&O runs shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia ?- a fact that has caused unease among some lawmakers and businesses in the United States, who have cited security concerns about an Arab company taking over the ports.

DP World has attempted to defuse some of the tension by submitting to a second 45-day investigation by the U.S. government, despite already receiving regulatory approval for the deal.

DP World CEO Mohammed Sharaf said Sunday he expected the deal to be completed.

"All the authorities are comfortable with the security measures that we take," he said. "As far as we are concerned, the deal is going to go through, and the British government has approved it."

"There are big consequences for the British market if it doesn't go through because investors are waiting for the money," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Lawyers for DP World warned last week that a delay beyond Friday meant that the company will not be able to access the money it needs to pay shareholders on time.


The deal was previously scheduled to be completed last Thursday.

President Bush has supported the takeover deal and lawmakers initially opposed seem to have softened slightly, tempering calls for an immediate vote to block the takeover. Many said the new probe reassured them and negated the need for legislation for now.

A U.S. federal judge has also ruled against a request by New Jersey to order an investigation into the takeover.

Warren said in his ruling Thursday that U.S. concerns about port security and threats of port authorities withdrawing business were partly fueled by Eller and that he did not find them credible.

He also dismissed Eller's claim that P&O allowed a series of procedural failings during the bid process, including the misdirection of letters to shareholders in Australia that left them uninformed about crucial meetings.

Last week in Washington, House Democrats tried to force a debate and vote on legislation Thursday that would require the 45-day security review and congressional approval of the takeover. That effort failed on a procedural, largely party-line vote.

Leading Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee also asked the administration for details about all pending reviews of foreign business deals and any that have been conducted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The U.S. has conducted only 25 such investigations among 1,600 business transactions reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States since 1988. The panel, made up of 12 government representatives, judges the security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, complained that he learned about the second Dubai investigation from news reports, despite regular meetings and discussions with the administration and others on the ports issue recently.
"Maybe they still haven't gotten their act together over the last few days," said King, R-N.Y.

Senior U.S. officials told lawmakers they will try to inform Congress better in the future.

"We clearly have to do quite a bit in finding ways to provide you more promptly with the information you need," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told the Senate Banking Committee.

Commentary > Opinion
from the March 07, 2006 edition

Denouncing the Dubai deal won't ensure port security

Politicians' exercise in Arab bashing doesn't address the legitimate issue of port security.

By James J. Zogby



WASHINGTON - There's been a virtual frenzy with senators, congressmen, and governors jumping over one another to take the lead in bashing the Dubai port deal, the United Arab Emirates, or the Bush administration. It's all being done, critics say, in the name of national security.
But, in reality, what is taking place is nothing more than crass political posturing and an irresponsible and ill-informed attack on an Arab country that has been a strong ally of the United States.

At its essence, three factors are driving this ruckus: It's an election year, the public has a continued concern about national security, and there's an Arab country involved. Elected officials are preying on the public's fear by exploiting an Arab bogeyman. The language they've used is shameful, irresponsible, and downright false.

But in election year politics, it doesn't matter.

Because it involves an Arab country, members of Congress assume they won't be called to account for a falsehood. Smearing all things Arab remains the last acceptable form of ethnic bigotry in America.

As a result of this mind-set, the UAE, one of America's closest Middle Eastern allies in the war on terror - a country that has sent troops to fight alongside ours in Afghanistan, complied with all of our antiterrorism initiatives, and provides the largest base port for US military ships - is being called a "rogue government," an "Islamic fascist" state, and the "home of terrorists."

In the Middle East, people are scratching their heads.

If the UAE, which has stuck its neck out to support the United States, can be treated with such scorn, some ask, what's the point of being a friend of America?

It is ironic and troubling that US public diplomacy czar Karen Hughes recently was in the UAE to promote America, and that UAE and US trade teams last week entered yet another round in their talks toward establishing a free trade agreement.

Ms. Hughes must feel like packing it up and going back to Texas. If this anti-UAE campaign succeeds, there is no public diplomacy campaign that can salvage the damage. Arabs, you see - not unlike any other people - react not by what you say about yourself but by how you treat them.

Having said all this, the current exercise in Arab bashing is, in fact, nothing more than election year politicking at its worst. Democrats are feeling that President Bush is vulnerable and are piling on the criticism, while Republicans, feeling vulnerable, are joining the fray.

If it weren't so serious and dangerous, it might be comical.

We've seen scenes like this before, as congressmen and senators trip over one another on their way to the microphone, calculating just how outrageous they need to be to guarantee that their sound bite will be the one on the evening news. In this game, facts don't matter. Instead, with officials hyperventilating on their own rhetoric, exaggerations abound.

Especially disturbing is that the legitimate issue of port security has been lost in the melee.

If Congress really wanted to have a debate about port security and the failings of the current system, it would be talking about increasing funding for hiring more customs officials, beefing up our Coast Guard presence, and providing additional equipment to screen more of the containers that enter our country. This is what is needed.

Regardless of what company owns the management of some of our ports, the security issues remain in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security.

Instead of a real debate, we're given scapegoating. Instead of making us more secure, politicians engage in the exercise of isolating us more from the world and damaging our relationship with an important ally in the Middle East. They ought to be ashamed. They owe an apology not only to the UAE but also to the American people.

But since politics and shame are estranged bedfellows, I'm not holding my breath.

• James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute.

©2006 Los Angeles Times.

"We need a net inflow of capital of $3 billion a day to keep the economy afloat," said Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr., a former trade official in the Reagan administration who is president of the Economic Strategy Institute. "Yet all of the body language here is 'go away.' "

The controversy over the Dubai port company is shameful political opportunism at best and demagoguic hypocricy at worst.

Why should an respected, qualified company be excluded simply because of its nationality?

This is the fear-mongering that I hate in the Republican party-- now being used by prominant Democrats Clinton and Shumer. This is a knee-jerk reaction ("Oh no, its the Arabls") with no real reason. No one has shown any reason, other than ethnicity that this company would harm security in the least.

The kneejerking is being done out there in the red states. It started with Peter King (R) of New York's Long Island but quickly spread to Kansas.

It's a win/win for the Democrats.

Joe Nation wrote:

The kneejerking is being done out there in the red states. It started with Peter King (R) of New York's Long Island but quickly spread to Kansas.

The Republicans may have led the way in voting against the deal, but it was the Democrats who led the way in inciting the people with demagogy until the Republicans had no choice.

Joe Nation wrote:

It's a win/win for the Democrats.

Unless they can convince Halliburton to pay full price for these leases, the taxpayers are going to have to buy out the leases and give them to Halliburton.

In addition, we have managed to spit in the face of a close ally -- and one of the most moderate Arab states to boot.

The Democrats' demagogy may have resulted in a win for them, but it also resulted in a loss for America, probably a loss for the taxpayers, and probably a win for Osama.

Shame on the Democrats and their demagoguery!