Update [2006-2-21 13:20:32 by susanhu]: CNN just announced that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) are announcing an emergency bipartisan Congressional measure to try to stop the contract, along with numerous senators and congresspeople of both parties. And, ABC News Local reports that “Senator Charles Schumer and Long Island Congressman Peter King are expected to announce emergency legislation to try and put a stop to this. Critics do point out that two of ‘9/11’ hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates. Rep. Peter King, (R) New York: ‘I’m confident, certainly very hopeful that if we speak loudly enough and really focus on this issue, we can get the contract delayed, get it frozen, get it held’.”
—————-
”’The overall threat to the United States and security, I don’t think it exists,” Carter said on CNN’s The Situation Room. ‘I’m sure the president’s done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat’,” writes the Miami Herald‘s Lesley Clark today. Clark adds:
President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, …
The show of support from [Carter], who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it’s unlikely to block it.
Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.
”This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don’t want to give Democrats an opening,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter. (Read all)
MORE BELOW:
This has all put Karen Hughes’ “mission” in more difficulty: “Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress’ criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment …”
Related discussions here at BoomanTribune — that illustrate how the issue crosses typical political boundaries — include Larry Johnson’s story, “Security Disconnect” and “Is this LGF or Booman Tribune? Terrorist Lovers Controlling Our Ports!.” ThinkProgress blog has posted, “UAE Would Also Control Shipments of Military Equipment For The U.S. Army” and CNN’s Lou Dobbs spent most of his hour-long show on the issue yesterday (transcript) and, no doubt, will do so again today at noon ET.
Below, more on the prejudice issue, and some interesting information on the current British administrators that own 50% of Miami’s port operations:
More from the Miami Herald:
”The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,” Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been “a strong partner in the war against terror.”
PREJUDICE ALLEGED
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
”No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they’re most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,” said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. “It’s what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.”
But lawmakers like [Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican], who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.
”They’ve been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?” Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.
As for Miami’s ports?
The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter “raises issues.”
At Miami’s port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.
I looked up P&O Ports.
The company rusn the New York City’s Manhattan Passenger Termnial, and other similar passenger ports around the U.S., South America, adn elsewhere. From its Web site:
It is a world leader in cargo handling services and port management throughout Europe, the United States, South America, Asia, Africa and Australasia. It is as at home in the emerging markets as it is in more mature economies. P&O Ports is headquartered in London.
Some crack economist/business type should look into why P&O Ports didn’t get the gig that’s causing all the hoopla. Or has someone?
If I understand this correctly, P&O did get the contracts, or perhaps had them already. Apparently what triggered this was an approval on the part of the US to the DP acquisition of a controlling interest in P&O.
It appears that what is really happening is “corporate” in nature, ie: DP taking over the assets of P&O.
The water is being muddied for political gain and I, for one, am having difficulty sorting the wheat from the chaf…to totally wreck two perfectly good metaphors.
Peace
Thanks, dada!
Boo and I were just trying to sort it out on the phone.
This is one of those times I wish i still had my brother’s WSJ subscription … will try to check other financial publications later for more.
The Dubai company wanted to buy the other company.
Of course UAE is a US client state, and cannot go to the bathroom unless US says it may.
However, client states are not free, and require increasing amounts of tax dollars to ensure that the population, which may not like being a US client state, is adequately prevented from engaging in terrorist activity like overthrowing the installed puppet and electing their own government.
The fees for this service were recently raised, in UAE and all other client states, as a result of an ill-planned US attempt to increase European support for Operation Iranian Freedom and thereby reduce the cost of said support.
Thus, faced with an increase in expenses, when a reduction in them had been hoped for, US gave its permission for the Dubai company to buy the other one.
Carter is right in that I don’t think we are in much additional danger from this deal, but he’s ignoring two basic points that deserve far more attention. First, why exactly is the UAE a major ally in the war on terrorism in the first place when they have so many ties to terrorists that they refuse to address? Bush does a horrible job of choosing allies, and there should be significantly more media attention on that fact.
Second, the US budget for port security is falling despite the fact that fewer than 5% of cargo is currently inspected. This is why it doesn’t really matter who runs the ports: we are going to be attacked through our ports UAE or not because the administration is doing a horrible job protecting us. The UAE corporation won’t be handling security, and neither does anyone else. We’re screwed and no one is doing anything about it. Killing this deal won’t change that.
side issue: Lou Dobbs will spend every show for a month on this topic, he is probably the most xenophobic person in the world (even more than Pat Buchanan). Anything having to do with keeping foreigners away from the US will inevitably dominate his show until the issue is long dead elsewhere. Dobbs is probably the most anti-Bush anchor on the cable news shows, but his reasons are frequently slimy and prejudice-oriented.
show that UAE has already arranged to outsource all port maintenance, construction, food and cleaning service to Mexicans, who as everyone knows are all secretly #2 Al Qaeda leaders.
To address your other question, UAE is a vital ally in the war on terror because it is a client state. Bahrain and Kuwait, just to name a couple of others, are also vital allies in the war on terror. This means that US can use them as bases, count on the native overseer to maintain a strict crackdown on populations who might wish to govern themselves instead of being kept under strict crackdown, and elect a government that would serve their interests instead of the interests of rich American businessmen. It also means that the native overseer can be counted on to sell his baby sister to the US for a little R&R if he is presented with the desired quanity of US tax dollars above that which is already required for strict crackdown, the fees for which just went up, BTW, and in most cases, several automobiles and a Rolex watch or two.
How do wages/employee benefits/labor standards compare between the UAE port company and the UK company?
They aren’t the overwhelming threat that Mexicans are, but Lou rarely completes a show without some reference to China draining away our industry with unfair trade practices.
But the political tone-deafness he is showing here illustrates why he was a one-termer.