Bush Supports Arab Control of US Ports Through Veto Power

Katczinsky · 02-21-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Bush says he'll veto laws to sell ports
Lawmakers seek more thorough look at takeover by UAE firm

Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Posted: 8:00 p.m. EST (01:00 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday defended a deal that would let a United Arab Emirates-based company run some key U.S. seaports, telling reporters that he would veto any bill to hold up the agreement.

Bush, who has yet to veto a bill during his administration, warned that the United States is sending "mixed signals" by attacking a Middle Eastern company after the American ports were run by a British firm for several years.

Lawmakers who have called for the deal to be blocked need to "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard," he said.

Among the lawmakers from both parties threatening to hold up the deal is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

"If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review," Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, said.

The administration has faced a wave of criticism this week over its decision to let a subsidiary of UAE government-controlled maritime management firm Dubai Ports World run ports in New York and New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana.

Critics say the takeover raises security concerns, noting that two of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington came from the UAE and that the hijackers drew funds from bank accounts in Dubai, the financial center of the Persian Gulf.

But a port security expert said security fears are based on "bigotry" against Arabs.

"This whole notion that Dubai is going to control or set standards for U.S. ports is a canard," said Kim Petersen, head of SeaSecure, a U.S.-based maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, which represents 70 percent of the world's ocean shipping.

Dubai Ports World recently acquired the British-based firm that currently directs commercial operations at those ports, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation. The takeover by Dubai Ports World means that it will be in charge of those operations.

"I don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports but not a company from the Middle East when we've already determined security is not an issue," Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One after Frist urged the administration to block the deal.

The Bush administration argues the deal was properly approved and poses no security threat. (Watch what role the UAE plays in the war on terror -- 1:57)

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

The agreement is scheduled to take effect March 2. It was approved by the federal Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which includes representatives of the FBI, Pentagon and Treasury, Commerce and Homeland Security departments.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, has called for hearings and, "in the meantime, Congress must put an immediate halt to this deal that the administration hastily approved in secret without input from the Congress or state officials and without a thorough review of how it might affect America's security."

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, already have introduced a bill to put the deal on hold. Democratic Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Hillary Clinton of New York are sponsoring a bill that would block the sale of U.S. port operations to foreign governments.

"My office today has received more phone calls on this than any issue in the 14 years I've been in the United States Congress, and every one of them is in support of what Senator Schumer and I are doing," King said.

Ereli said Homeland Security officials have had good relations with Dubai Ports World, and he said the United States has a "strong and effective partnership" with the UAE "from a counterterrorism point of view."

But Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and the chairwoman of the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, said that "although the UAE is an ally in the war on terrorism, the country has historically been used as a base of terrorist operations and financing," she said.

A Dubai Ports World spokesman said Monday that the firm has received all the necessary regulatory approvals and that the security systems in place at the ports would only get better under new management.

"We intend to maintain or enhance current security arrangements, and this is business as usual," the spokesman said.

CNN

Latest thing in the news and I didn't see any disscussion on it here in the forums. I just wanted to know your guys' take on this latest development. I think its pretty outragous myself.

Dylan · 02-21-2006, 09:38 PM

I... Actually agree with George W. Bush on something....

I think my brain just imploded...

That being said, I think that it's just outsourcing. There's no reason that a security company in the UAE will be less relable than one in Britain. If the company screws up, then they lose our business, so they have an incentive to do a good job. It's just outsourcing.

A Middle Eastern company is cheaper than a British one, hands down.

Jefferson · 02-21-2006, 10:29 PM

Here's a kicker.

Jimmy Carter supports Bush's stance on the sale of the ports.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...iherald_nation

Dylan · 02-21-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Here's a kicker.

Jimmy Carter supports Bush's stance on the sale of the ports.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...iherald_nation

That might not be a good thing.

We all know what a great job Jimmy Carter did as president.

It's nice to see a nonpartisan issue though.

hevusa · 02-23-2006, 03:13 AM

How can this be good for U.S. security?

It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ports_sec...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

indago · 02-23-2006, 04:10 AM

A poster on another message board suggested that this Arab company be given a test project first to see how that turns out. They should be given the operation of Air Force One.

hevusa · 02-23-2006, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by indago

A poster on another message board suggested that this Arab company be given a test project first to see how that turns out. They should be given the operation of Air Force One.

hahahaha!

teethandclaws · 02-27-2006, 11:13 PM

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. I have been super busy and didn't find the listing for this on the recent topics, and figured something this major would be on the recent list. Instead it's been debates over jokes.

Just so that you know, the UAE flogs women for getting pregnant outside of marriage, (though after they give birth, isn't that considerate), as two migrant women were so punished. One received 150 lashes, over 2 sessions, and the other received 100 and was sentenced to one year of prison.

There is no labor legislation to protect migrant workers, such as the two women above, yet there are unconfirmed allegations of abuse, physical and sexual, as well as non-payment of wages.

For these reasons, I am leary of doing business with a country that allows such practices. Human rights need to be universally expected and accepted.

If you would like to learn more, this is where I got this information from:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/are-summary-eng

foundit66 · 03-01-2006, 02:12 PM

In a related issue, the poll doesn't discuss how much of the ratings dip is associable with Bush's decision, but I think it's clearly having an impact....

(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.
.....
Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1350874.shtml

foundit66 · 03-02-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1350874.shtml

Stephen Colbert had a take on this statistic the other night that had me speechless.

He said (paraphrased): *Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing. Doesn't that also mean that fifty-nine percent approve of what the president is NOT doing?*