The UAE Backs Down, Bush takes a nap and sucks his thumb

[Sylvester McBean]

Updated: 2:35 p.m. ET March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - An Arab-owned company said Thursday it was giving up its management stake in U.S. ports, a move made as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.

It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation blocking the deal, which has become a sticky election-year problem for Republicans.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, took the Senate floor to read to colleagues a press release from Dubai Ports World disclosing its new stance.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity,” DP World’s chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement that Warner relayed to other senators. The announcement did not specify which American company would be involved.

The move came as the White House, facing a Republican rebellion in Congress, played down President Bush’s veto threat and said he was trying to find a compromise to resolve the uproar over the company’s plan to take over significant operations at several U.S. sea ports.

DP World said it will transfer all interest in U.S. port operations to an American-based company, but it was unclear immediately how DP World would manage the divestiture. The company indicated that details of the surprise deal were still being worked out.

Warner said that Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, “advised the company ... that this action is the appropriate course to take.” Dubai is in the emirates.

Click for related story

The Daily Nightly: What's behind DP World's sudden shift?

Just after Warner’s announcement, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal was cautious.

“This is obviously a promising development, but the devil’s in the details,” Schumer said. “Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World.”

Warning to the White House
Republican congressional leaders had told Bush at a White House meeting earlier Thursday that both the House and Senate appear ready to block the takeover, GOP officials said.

In softening the White House’s previous stand, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, “Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats. It’s on how we can work together and move forward.”

He said Bush did not mention his veto threat during his talks with the GOP leaders. “It doesn’t mean the president’s position has changed, it means our emphasis is on how we can work together to move forward,” McClellan said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the leaders told Bush they want to protect the American people. “We will maybe have our differences, but we think we’re going to continue to do that,” the speaker told reporters.

The fast-moving developments came one day after a GOP-controlled House committee voted 62-2 to block the transfer, which has prompted a GOP revolt — made all the more striking because it is related to the war on terrorism.

Republicans on the defensive
Senate Democrats also demanded a vote on the issue, and while Republicans struggled to prevent one, they conceded they were on the political defensive.

“I admire what the House did,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “They said we know the president feels strongly about this. We know he said he’s going to veto this. But we’re going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our constituents.”

Senate Republican GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal. At the same time, administration officials were using the time to try and ease the concerns of lawmakers.

That strategy collapsed in dramatic fashion on Wednesday, when the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly signaled its opposition to the deal.

Increasingly, it appeared the controversy was headed in one of two directions — a veto confrontation between Bush and Congress, or the decision by the company to shed its plans. The company had arranged to hold the rights as part of its takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that holds contracts at several U.S. ports.

Bush has defended the deal, on grounds of open, free trade, and, he says, because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong ally in the war on terror.

By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday attached the ports legislation to a $91 billion bill providing funds for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Developments in the legislature underscored the political concern among congressional Republicans in the run-up to midterm elections. The GOP has long held an advantage over Democrats on issues relating to national security and the war on terrorism, but pollsters from both parties agree the gap has narrowed significantly in the past few weeks.

At the same time, individual Republicans have said their constituents are calling and writing to express overwhelming opposition to the port arrangement.

 

[MAKmom]

Thanks

 

[lindalinda]

The UAE Backs Down, Bush takes a nap and sucks his thumb

Thats such a great visual!

 

[Laz]

Bush nominates an unknown, unproven woman to the Supreme Court and must withdraw her name due to Political pressure. Instead he get Roberts and Alito. Who won?

Bush supports the UAE and must withdraw the company due to Political pressure. Instead an American company will run it. Which US company can come close to handling it? Try Haliburton. Who wins?

The President is dumb like a fox.

I also find it interesting that no one in Congress complained back when Carter allowed control of the 2 ends of the Panama canal to the Chinese, but now everyone is up in arms over the UAE. Remember, we were right in the middle of the Cold War. Could the reason be that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats?

 

[Beth76]

The UAE Backs Down, Bush takes a nap and sucks his thumb

Thats such a great visual!

I know! I'm wondering if his heiny is up in the air too. I always think it's so cute when my sons sleep like that.

 

[Teejay32]

I also find it interesting that no one in Congress complained back when Carter allowed control of the 2 ends of the Panama canal to the Chinese, but now everyone is up in arms over the UAE.

Not everyone was. It's just politics.

 

[dcentity2000]

All I know is that Emirates run a darn tootin' airline company - very swish!



Rich::

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Updated: 2:35 p.m. ET March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - An Arab-owned company said Thursday it was giving up its management stake in U.S. ports, a move made as congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block the takeover.

It was not immediately clear whether the announcement would be enough to cool widespread sentiment in Congress to pass legislation blocking the deal, which has become a sticky election-year problem for Republicans.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, took the Senate floor to read to colleagues a press release from Dubai Ports World disclosing its new stance.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity,” DP World’s chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement that Warner relayed to other senators. The announcement did not specify which American company would be involved.

The move came as the White House, facing a Republican rebellion in Congress, played down President Bush’s veto threat and said he was trying to find a compromise to resolve the uproar over the company’s plan to take over significant operations at several U.S. sea ports.

DP World said it will transfer all interest in U.S. port operations to an American-based company, but it was unclear immediately how DP World would manage the divestiture. The company indicated that details of the surprise deal were still being worked out.

Warner said that Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, “advised the company ... that this action is the appropriate course to take.” Dubai is in the emirates.

Click for related story

The Daily Nightly: What's behind DP World's sudden shift?

Just after Warner’s announcement, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal was cautious.

“This is obviously a promising development, but the devil’s in the details,” Schumer said. “Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World.”

Warning to the White House
Republican congressional leaders had told Bush at a White House meeting earlier Thursday that both the House and Senate appear ready to block the takeover, GOP officials said.

In softening the White House’s previous stand, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, “Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats. It’s on how we can work together and move forward.”

He said Bush did not mention his veto threat during his talks with the GOP leaders. “It doesn’t mean the president’s position has changed, it means our emphasis is on how we can work together to move forward,” McClellan said.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said the leaders told Bush they want to protect the American people. “We will maybe have our differences, but we think we’re going to continue to do that,” the speaker told reporters.

The fast-moving developments came one day after a GOP-controlled House committee voted 62-2 to block the transfer, which has prompted a GOP revolt — made all the more striking because it is related to the war on terrorism.

Republicans on the defensive
Senate Democrats also demanded a vote on the issue, and while Republicans struggled to prevent one, they conceded they were on the political defensive.

“I admire what the House did,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “They said we know the president feels strongly about this. We know he said he’s going to veto this. But we’re going to do it because we think we have an obligation to our constituents.”

Senate Republican GOP leaders had been hoping to prevent any votes until the conclusion of a 45-day review of the deal. At the same time, administration officials were using the time to try and ease the concerns of lawmakers.

That strategy collapsed in dramatic fashion on Wednesday, when the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly signaled its opposition to the deal.

Increasingly, it appeared the controversy was headed in one of two directions — a veto confrontation between Bush and Congress, or the decision by the company to shed its plans. The company had arranged to hold the rights as part of its takeover of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British company that holds contracts at several U.S. ports.

Bush has defended the deal, on grounds of open, free trade, and, he says, because the United Arab Emirates has been a strong ally in the war on terror.

By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday attached the ports legislation to a $91 billion bill providing funds for hurricane recovery and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Developments in the legislature underscored the political concern among congressional Republicans in the run-up to midterm elections. The GOP has long held an advantage over Democrats on issues relating to national security and the war on terrorism, but pollsters from both parties agree the gap has narrowed significantly in the past few weeks.

At the same time, individual Republicans have said their constituents are calling and writing to express overwhelming opposition to the port arrangement.

So what does this have to do with naps and thumb sucking?

 

[HaleyB]

Well you see, he was going to go hunting with Dead Eye Dick, but his advisors felt that a nap was a better idea.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Well you see, he was going to go hunting with Dead Eye Dick, but his advisors felt that a nap was a better idea.

Oh, now I understand -- it's another insult the President thread.

 

[TCPluto]

So what does this have to do with naps and thumb sucking?

Not a thing of course. Just a juvenile comment with no meaning. You didn't expect more though did you?

 

[momof2inPA]

“This is obviously a promising development, but the devil’s in the details,” Schumer said. “Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World.”

I think I'll keep pressuring my representatives to consider the larger picture of who controls our security, our borders, our highway systems. It should be U.S. citizens, not foreign countries.

I'll wait to see how this pans out, kind of like the rape victim in Disney World story last week. I'm not sure we're getting the whole story yet.

 

[Planogirl]

I think I'll keep pressuring my representatives to consider the larger picture of who controls our security, our borders, our highway systems. It should be U.S. citizens, not foreign countries.

I'll wait to see how this pans out, kind of like the rape victim in Disney World story last week. I'm not sure we're getting the whole story yet.

I agree wholeheartedly. All of this just looks a little too convenient and cozy if you get my meaning.

 

[dcentity2000]

Nerg, nerg, personal insult, hate, nerg

And nothing of value was lost



Rich::

 

[Sylvester McBean]

So what does this have to do with naps and thumb sucking?

the overwheming resentment coming from the country about him trying to push another self-serving agenda caused his little baked potato brain to overload. so Barbara flew in and put him down for a little night-night.

clear enough?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

the overwheming resentment coming from the country about him trying to push another self-serving agenda caused his little baked potato brain to overload. so Barbara flew in and put him down for a little night-night.

clear enough?

Yeah, your thinking is clear.

 

[Sylvester McBean]

maybe not in your world Joe, but I don't goose-step to W. like you do.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

maybe not in your world Joe, but I don't goose-step to W. like you do.

Goose step?? Is this a thinly-veiled Hitler comparison?

 

[Geoff_M]

Well, it was certainly nice of the UAE to save Bush from having to engauge in a political war. And if it turns out that Halliburton is indeed the "American entity" that DPW sells off the American port contracts to, I'll be laughing my rear end off!

However, if the Democratic objection wasn't merely political opertunism, playing into American fears, and they are instead really serious about this new-found zeal about protecting our borders... then they should keep the "big mo" going by turning their ire and righteous indignation at the following list of threats:
1) Our open borders - A million or so people simply walk (or are trucked) undetected into our country each year. How about hearing Nancy, Harry, Howard, and Chuck get all bend outta shape over this most obvious threat? It'll be nice to hear this crowd talk about "illegal imigration" and drop the "undocumented guest" PC mumbo-jumbo.

2) Airports - If we follow the logic of those categorically against DPW controlling the loading and off-loading of cargo ships at American ports, then they must also demand that the landing rights of national airlines from Arab nations be immediately revoked. We can't have them controlling the passenger lists, cargo manifests, or having their employees doing the actually loading and unloading of the aircrafts. WMD's don't have to be the size of shipping containers (they don't call them "suitcase nukes" for nothing). If the Coast Guard and Customs Service controlling security of the ports isn't good enough, then how can similar control by the TSA be any more satisfactory? Let's see a media swarm on this parallel threat!

3) DHL - They fly many tons of cargo into our country each day. They're owned by a foreign entity (Deutsche Post) with the German government as it's largest stockholder. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by the infamous "Hamburg Cell". Germany claims to be our ally, but has been resistent in helping the US in the GWOT. German courts don't have a good track record at punishing the "supporting cast" of the 9/11 attacks. They 9/11 terrorists received money through German banks. etc. etc. If we are to believe people when they raised similar points when refuting the notion their objections to the DPW deal was based in xenophobic knee-jerking, then they should look at DHL with the same jandiced eyes.

In a fine twist if irony... People that actually took the time to look into the way that DPW runs their operations have concluded that DPW would probably have actually made the ports they would have operated safer then they currently are:

Still Dubious About Dubai?
By Robert M. Green : 09 Mar 2006

Critics of the plan that would put a United Arab Emirates (UAE) company in charge of operations at six major U.S. ports have cited security as their central concern. Advocates of the deal have most often argued that security will not be effected by Dubai Ports (DP) World management, largely because port security is the province of domestic U.S. agencies.

A third argument has not yet been made by the major factions, and may never be. That argument says that the UAE company's role here might result in better security implementation for the cargo container terminals than would otherwise have been possible.

Two factors explain potentially improved security under DP World management. The first is merely deductive. Given the intense furor already stirred to life in the media, the pressure to assure security could rise to a make-or-break agenda item for the ambitious company which already operates more than 40 terminals around the world.

Even before the media firestorm, a member of the U.S. committee that originally approved the DP World deal said that because the company is Persian Gulf-based it has "a strong incentive to make sure [terrorist threats to U.S. ports] never materialize." If anything, that incentive doubled when critics made a billboard issue of the deal.

More studied reasons for supposing port security in the U.S. could improve under DP World begin with the company's demonstrated ability to significantly grow its business managing shipping hubs while operating within environs associated with terrorism. In the same period that terrorist Web sites have increasingly advised jihadists on different ways of attacking or infiltrating ports and commercial maritime activities, the port of Dubai in UAE has soared from a mid-level operation to one of the busiest ports in the world.

Carved from the Dubai Ports Authority, the company's reputation for technological implementation dates back to its project to automate many of its processes in the 1990s. At that time, Dubai became one of the first ports in the world to implement so-called e-shipping, digitizing most of its planning, scheduling and operations while "building out" a CRM (customer relations management)/Web portal system that was one of the first of its kind used by a port.

According to American e-commerce experts who followed the UAE technology implementation as it has evolved, it was Dubai's willingness to invest in IT that allowed it to offer container shipping and related services at lowered costs for its customers. Last year, a Homeland Security official called the two-terminal Dubai facility "modern and extremely efficient ports."

While the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the implementation of the White House-backed Container Security Initiative (CSI) tested the resilience of port operators both here and abroad, the port of Dubai continued even in that period to grow both in volume and influence in worldwide shipping. In 2004 Dubai made another bold-stroke decision, becoming the first Middle Eastern port (and 35th overall) to agree to the CSI, signing formally last March. CSI gives U.S. Customs personnel a foothold in foreign ports and requires that state-of-the-art security systems such as gamma ray, x-ray and radiological detection systems be implemented for cargo inspection.

Dubai's interest in security has seemingly followed the same upward curve that most critical infrastructure operators have followed. All confront greater threats from terror groups, and particularly from al Qaeda.

The attack on the USS Cole in 2000 made it clear that Osama bin Laden's group was acutely interested in wreaking havoc on maritime targets, if it could. The Cole attack was, in fact, masterminded by an operative whose nickname inside the group was "Prince of the Seas," and who had gathered reconnaissance information on about 150 potential, mostly seaside targets around the world at the time of his arrest.

The port of Dubai itself has not gone unscathed as transnational terror has spread. The oft-cited use of the port by the notorious A.Q. Kahn nuclear weapons black market involved the creation of a bogus computer company in the Emirates that subsequently was able to ship banned materials to Libya. A few other conventional weapons proliferation incidents have been traced back through the port, though such problems are not exclusive to Dubai.

In fact, if DP World's most recent project is any indication, the Dubai company might already have absorbed its lessons and staked a claim in what is fast becoming a "security market." At the recently opened Pusan Newport in South Korea, DP World and tech partner Samsung of Japan worked with the Korean port authority to build a state-of-the-art security port.

Pusan opened for business late last year fashioned around a Samsung-developed central security system in which threats are anticipated and met via a network of monitors including advanced CCTV, lasers, radiological and other sensors, and explosives- and motion-detection fencing of the sort normally found in high-sensitivity military settings.

Samsung often relies on security specialist companies, such as GVI Security Systems of Texas, which increasingly build "intelligent" systems that rely on a portfolio of technologies including "smart cameras" that can send alerts and trigger other defenses, vulnerability analysis and remediation systems, biometrics and identity management devices, and other emerging applications.

Pusan aside, most ports around the world are analog facilities often operated more in accordance with maritime traditions than modern efficiencies. In fact, shipping in general is so under-automated that even an investment in advanced security can exert downward pressure on overall costs — such as that which occurred during a study of container "e-sealing" done in 2003 in Singapore.

Sponsored by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, officials from BearingPoint added radio frequency identification (RFID) chips to container seals for better cargo tracking, and not only achieved a higher level of security but a probable shipping cost reduction of about $220 per container if the port in Thailand and the one in Seattle (used in the study) were fully networked.

The value of automation in tracking cargo from points of origin through the supply chain to the destination has already been accepted conceptually elsewhere too, including the New York/New Jersey "Megaports Project." But projected security enhancements and cost savings related to RFID and other shipping innovations "will remain elusive" unless ports are prepared to more fully automate and network with one another so as to leverage Web services and other supply chain management practices, the Asian study determined.

The driving force for such innovations in hundreds of ports worldwide begins with the broadest international treaties and agreements and works down through national governments to ports and their operators. To all outward appearances, DP World's business model has seemingly been crafted around a parallel acceptance of e-commerce and technological standards, leading to better security such as that at Pusan.

The company's willingness to embrace technology could be the most significant edge it brings. While Bush administration officials and other supporters for the deal continue to insist that DP World is not going to be the security provider for ports in the U.S., security experts often note that the quality of organizational security is ultimately determined not by specialist providers or security officers but by the support (or lack of it) that operations and management interests bring.

To the extent that it can be measured, U.S. commercial port operators have not been all that committed to security. One Coast Guard estimate puts the security shortfall at American ports at about $7 billion overall, and the New York Times has reported that the very terminals DP World would operate here are among the lacking.

Moreover, as noted in the 2003 RFID test and by other technologists, the enterprise security model best suited for large and multifarious undertakings like port operations will likely be less than effective if built into an otherwise under-automated (or porously automated) operational infrastructure.

It requires no facts or metrics to say (with or without hysteria) that an Arab company represents a higher risk than weak technology does, merely because most terrorism is generated in Arab environs to begin with. But to all appearances, DP World's embrace of security innovation as encapsulated at the Pusan Newport in Korea and its own rise to prominence via broad technology investment, might indicate it uniquely understands the risks, in part because it faces them at point-blank range. If so, DP World could become a focal point of improved security at U.S. ports.

Robert M. Green is senior editor for the Washington-based Public Sector Institute.

Link

It would have been nice to have those level of security systems in place in some of our ports... but oh, well!

 

[Puffy2]

One foreign company down...how many more to go that still manage matters that are closely tied to our national security. This shouldn't die with Dubai - we need to get rid of ALL foreign controlled businesses with their hands in our national security cookie jar - and that includes our "allies".

And just because an American company should manage these tasks doesn't mean that corrupt Halliburton should be the one doing it. Sharks and Wolves aren't our only options.