[Committee on Foreign Investment = a secret panel that we can't know anything about]
For a "secret" committee, they sure issue a lot of public comments about the subject of foreign investment...
"Noteworthy is the fact that Treasury Secretary John Snow, chair of that committee, is the former head of CSX Corp., which owned and operated SeaLand and CSX World Terminals, a port terminal operating company. In fact, DP World had previously acquired CSX World Terminals."
So Snow used to work for a company that was bought out by DP. I'm not sure how that implies a conflict of interest with this purchase? Would he benefit from DP's purchase of P&O? Unless he is against the deal, that's proof of "cronie-ism"? Ditto for Sanborn... once he was appointed, anything less than negative views of DP on the part of the USA is automatic proof of "cronie-ism"?
UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The attackers used a
bank in the country. They also used credit cards issued by US banks. To my knowledge, there's no evidence that the UAE bank(s) were aware of the nature of the transactions... for that matter they just as well could have used a Swiss bank.
Besides the fact that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE.
Yep, and Richard Reid (AKA "The Shoe Bomber") was from the UK... so are we supposed to black-ball businesses from that nation?
UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.
What evidence is there was envolvement or complacency on the part of the UAE when it comes to these transactions? What does this have to do with how the P&O, owned by DP, would operate the ports they hold the contracts to?
I have a Sryian-born friend who lived here for several years and then moved back to the middle-east to be closer to family. He chose the UAE. It's a "crossroads" in that part of the world. It's got the most "liberal" government, is a "boom-town" in that part of the world, and is a magnet for people from all Arab countries.
If people want to argue against the deal... How about some
concrete examples of how the operation of the ports might be directly affected by the DP ownership of P&O? What are the specific dangers? How might a terrorist organization be able to leverage the ownership and bypass the security operations and rules that still would govern the running of the ports? I would prefer more damning evidence against the purchase instead of "Duh, it's the UAE! Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from there! They thought it was a good idea to recognize the Taliban back in 1994."
According to that information, a U.S. company would not be permitted to operate a port in Dubai. Why would we allow them to operate one here?
There are lots of countries we do business with that have similar requirements and require US companies to have "local partners" within their borders. Are you suggesting that we prohibit the companies from all such nations from doing business here? This would represent a pretty radical departure from long standing US policy!
The UAE has also apparently had problems with worker's rights abuses.
The ports whose contracts DP would hold would not become sovereign UAE territory. If you think they're going to bring the long shoreman's unions to thier knees, I think your fears are unwarranted. And again, you suggesting that any business (private or nationalized) from a country with "problems" with worker's rights be barred from our shores?
Why don't we just go to Geraldo for a neutral and solid factbase? wink wink
