Bush [hearts] Dubai

Just Wondering ....

Hooray! Oh wait...

Your friend and mine Lileks. And an interesting little anecdote from Dreher.

What will be the negative propaganda ramifications of saying that foreign capital can own companies with security implications for the U.S., provided that they're not Arabs?

bush <3 dubai

I'm on the fence with this one. Yes, they have used the old fear card in the grand American tradition - foreigners, anarchists, reds, commies, etc..., but I think for a relatively unsophisticated (read 'dumb') administration, they've been pretty consistent about saying this is not a war on Islam or on Arabs but on terrorists. Inasmuch as being openly racist about capital ownership in the U.S. specifically targets Arabs, it makes for bad press.

It worries me that Democrats, in our hatred often as irrational as the Republicans hatred of Clinton was, miss the Libby story for the shotgun one, and will miss the story about corporate ownership and concomittant lax security (i.e. for commercial reasons) for a misguided opportunity (in concurrence with 'conservatives' of the most xenophobic stripe) to kick Bushco in the nuts.

Thus, though, my 'implicitly' comment -- I think that without actually saying it, they've been at the least extremely unwilling to tackle those expressions of virulent xenophobic hatred one can all too readily encounter. All I've ever noticed are a couple of photo ops.

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The White House has issued a statement from Washington DC announcing the nomination. The confirmation process will begin in February.

Mr Sanborn currently holds the position of Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America for the Dubai-based company

Mohammed Sharaf, CEO, DP World said:
“While we are sorry to lose such an experienced and capable executive, it is exactly those qualities that will make Dave an effective administrator for MarAd. We are proud of Dave’s selection and pleased that the Bush Administration found such a capable executive. We wish him all the best in his new role.”

Ted Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer, DP World said:
“Dave’s decades of experience in markets around the world, together with his passion for the industry and commitment to its development, will allow him to make a positive contribution to the work of the Maritime Administration. We wish him well for the future.”

Mr Sanborn, a graduate of The United States Merchant Maritime Academy, joined DP World in 2005. He previously held senior roles with shipping lines CMA-CGM (Americas), APL Ltd and Sea-Land and has been based, besides the US, in Brazil, Europe, Hong Kong and Dubai during his career. He has also served in the US Naval Reserve.

Mr Sanborn is due to take up his new role based in Washington DC later in 2006.

And yet the reaction isn't.

(Nice nepotism find, stencil!)

Otoh, it will be interesting to see what a Bush veto looks like.

As far as I can see they are far more dedicated to playing themselves in this case than being played.

Ethan is unsurprisingly quite correct.

President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Hmmm.

hrm, any issue?

If they are smart they should be able to convey that Bush's allegiance to humongo-corporate interests trumps his commitment to national security (and with the issue of globalization and the outsourcing of America's own security as an icing on the cake).

but that's the thing, in this case there's no real reason to suspect that this deal has much, if anything, to do with "national security," given the details.

I think the average man on the street would see it a little differently. Republicans from Gov. Pataki on up to Frist have immediately read the tea leaves on this one, which is why they've been willing to split the party by digging in their heels against Bush's line. I don't think the Dems should do anything to make it easier on them.

"We think that kneejerk xenophobia is deplorable. We want to take some time to look this deal over and if it's as unobjectionable as the presdient says it is we won't object to it, but we do feel that the security of our ports is at risk, has been at risk for some time, that the Admisitration knows and has known about it and just as they failed to act on intelligence in the summer of 2001, they're failing here and we want to know why. Are their corporate contributors pressing them to compromise national security for their own narrow interests?

On the hypocrisy of the Democrats, I completely concur with the Journal. See my column: They are all profilers now. But that's about the only thing I agree with in the piece.

It's time to get heads out of the sand and stop drinking the Kool-Aid: In a post-9/11 world, the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company demands much more than a business-as-usual rubber stamp. Outside the Beltway, this is gob-smackingly obvious.

A lot of the people barking about this seem like they either believe (a) or they're trying to appeal to people who believe (a). None of them seem to realize quite what a massive and serious thing that is to say, in terms of principle. As for (b), that's pretty out of my league to judge. This administration's easy dealing with the corporate world is not reassuring, I admit, but it's not like we have any evidence here yet -- it's not like there's any actual indication yet that anyone skimped on the vetting process, or ignored any security concerns. So in the meantime I think we have to take it at face value.

i'm not sure if it was racist, but it seemed pretty non-sensical and a bad decision.

Worrying about the ownership by a foreign government of a vital national security function is not xenophobic, it's just common sense.

tell that to whomever runs citgo. oh wait, hugo chavez!!!

michelle malkin otm

and dp world has a helluva lot of uk management already, even before the effects of the merger get sorted. again, as far as the transaction goes (aka the appease-ned caveat), it's a non-issue.

Company officials would be briefed on security procedures and countermeasures that, if compromised, could allow foreign terrorists to get through various screening procedures, the official said.
The Coast Guard is responsible for port security, tracking ships, crews and cargo and search vessels based on intelligence. There is no cohesive hiring or screening process for port workers, however.
Critics said the port deal reflects the Bush administration's pro-business policy bias. The Treasury Department's point man on the issue, Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt, was described by officials as a liberal Republican who in the past clashed with conservative national-security officials during interagency policy disputes.

Intelligence and security officials opposed to the deal with Dubai Ports World said ports are vulnerable to the entry of terrorists or illicit weapons because of the large number of containers that enter U.S. territory, regardless of who manages them.

uh, yeah.

They could say that the mgmt. should be nationalized as no aspect of nat. sec. should ever again be managed like a cash cow for foreign profit. They could harken back to the early days of the Bush admin. (port strike on West Coast) and talk about workers rights. But where's that money going to come from and who's going to oversee it, DOHS? Because they don't always look like they know wtf they're doing.

see, that's some ends justifyin' the means kinda action, afaik. i mean, i definitely agree that nothing has been done vis-a-vis port security post-9/11, but i'm not sure that this is the best way to make it an issue (tho i s'pose it's more "sexy" or whatever than any non-superficial discussion of the problem would be). again, port security (or lack thereof) is a big issue no matter who's running the ports. and c'mon, post-katrina who doesn't think dhs is a joke anyway?

Port Security Is Still a House of Cards

tho i s'pose it's more "sexy" or whatever than any non-superficial discussion of the problem would be

Exactly. For all the seriousness of this problem, politically it was a non-issue until suddenly an Arab company got involved. That may say something about the level of public discourse, but for better or worse, that's the reality of how issues come to public attention. And now that it has come to public attention, it would be remiss of the Dems to allow the opportunity to chastize the administration on this issue to pass, simply because of some fastidiousness about defining the problem.

The administration's review of the deal was conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a body that was created in 1975 to review foreign investments in the country that could affect national security. Under that review, officials from the Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies, were charged with raising questions and passing judgment. They found no problems to warrant the next stage of review, a 45-day investigation with results reported to the president for a final decision.

However, a 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.

If it turns out that this was really rammed through, it'll be genuinely kind of disgusting. I get the feeling that even people who think this administrationi is relentlessly wrong about national security at least like to imagine that it's genuinely concerned about it. If any real demonstration of commerce-over-security came through here, that would indeed be pretty serious.

I think the fact that this deal was waived through without even the due diligence required by the existing regulations is symptomatic of Bush's too cozy relationship with mega-corporate interests and his extreme laissez-faire regulatory attitude. As that CFR article points out, implementing real improvements to the system would add only pennies to the cost of goods at Wal-Mart and other major importers, but I have a feeling that even those pennies would be too much to ask in Bush's view.

uh, you mean saudi arabia?

This is just incorrect. The only reason people say this is because some al-Qaeda money was funnelled into shell corporations in Dubai, which has zero relevance to anything. Dubai is the world's #1 boomtown no-tax capitalistic freak-out zone; it would be weird if money WEREN'T funnelled through some corporation there.

I would certainly include them in that category, yes. There are larger issues here than the ownership by DPW, as I mentioned. But I think it's too easy to just assume that all countries are equal under God and its wrong to discriminate against them when it comes to operation of ports or any other activity. All countries are not the same, and some might present special risks. I'm not saying that DPW should necessarily be blocked from operating the port, provided that they can demonstrate that appropriate safeguards are in place. However, to assume that there couldn't possibly be any reason to be concerned other than racism seems kind of presumptuous to me.

less or more presumptuous than not giving a shit about port security before hearing the name "dp world?"

(admittedly that name conjures up horrors of a different kind for me - porn is a hell of a drug)

(A: "I take it you have not read the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.")

"Why can't the job of making our ports secure be given to skilled Americans who need the work?"

it already is - it's the job of the coast guard and customs. dp world (that name again) is NOT a port security company, people!

uk: has single monarch
uae: has federation of monarchs

uk: death rate of 10.18 deaths/1,000 population
uae: death rate of 4.26 deaths/1,000 population

uae: life expectancy 75.24
uk: life expectancy 78.38 years

uae oil reserves: 97.8 billion bbl
uk oil reserves: 4.5 billion bbl

xpost

xpost: you surprise me!

House Chair: GOP Can Defeat Bush On Ports Deal

WASHINGTON -- New Jersey Rep. Jim Saxton said Wednesday that Republicans can override any veto from President Bush regarding legislation that would halt the pending sale of shipping operations at Port Newark and five other major U.S. seaports to an Arab company.

"This deal doesn't pass the national security test," said Saxton, chairman of the House Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities subcommittee. "I think it's a mistake. If necessary, Congress should act independently of the president."

"Frankly, I think we can override a veto. We have more than enough votes to do it," said Saxton, R-Mount Holly.

No Republicans on Capitol Hill have emerged to back President Bush on the pending sale of shipping operations at the six seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. All six of New Jersey's Republican congressmen are opposed to the deal, as are the six Democratic congressmen and two Democratic senators.

Bush has brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports, and has pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement involving the sale of a British company to the Arab firm.

Saxton, a ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said he and committee chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., are drafting legislation that would protect ports and all critical infrastructure from being managed by foreign governments.

Republicans are opposing this are mainly trying to play the "distance myself from the loser prez" card.

Democrats are opposing this are mainly trying to play the "Anything Bush does is bad" card, which slightly feeds off the latter.

Republicans that are opposing the Democrats opposing this are trying to play the "Democrats are hyocrites" card by being hypocrites themselves.

More popcorn, please.

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."

Our ports are one of organised labor's last stronghold and the United Arab Emirates is a black hole for labor rights. How can this company, which is owned by a country which essentially consists of an ultra-powerful, feudalistic elite & the exploited workers that serve them, some in a state which could be effectively described as indentured servitude, be considered as an appropriate manager for six ports that rely on organised labor for their daily operations? In the UAE, strikes and unions are illegal, does this company even have the relevant experience to respect the institutions of labor that move goods through our ports, or to adapt to the local situation?

On top of all of this, following a bi-partisan Congressional backlash, Bush is now threatening to veto any and all bills that come across his desk until the Dubai Ports World deal goes through. I can't underscore how significant that threat is, as Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill since taking office, and now he's apparently willing to use his veto power arbitrarily to force this deal through. That moves the conflict over the deal into another sphere - is this deal really a proxy attack on organised labor by the Bush administration? Or is it more of the "looking out for his friends" politics that have been making messes globally over the past 5 years?

I hope I was exercised about nothing. Some people spend their days hoping that their worries will be proven true, so everyone finally sees what they see. I hope all my fears turn out to be nonsense. Most will. As for the ones that come true – well, we’ll see. Or not. I'm not saying that this should make everyone pass a thousand restless nights. I'm just curious why I'm expected to sleep easier, simply because they say I should.

Please note that in light of Pleasant Plains' sharp little summary of the Lileks Approach to Life over here that there is fun to be had.

I'm pretty sure the Port of Oakland is owned by Oakland.

At least one of the ports where DP World is set to operate, Baltimore, has been dogged by security shortcomings for years. A Baltimore Sun investigation in June 2005 revealed that the port's fiber-optic alarm system on the perimeter fence malfunctioned and was usually switched off, and that port police were so understaffed that their patrol boats often dry-docked because there was no one to operate them. The newspaper also found that a pair of "video cameras" guarding the entrance to one important marine terminal were actually blocks of wood on poles.

Last summer, a tour of the port, the nation's eighth largest, revealed gaps in perimeter fences, unattended gates, surveillances systems that didn't work and insufficient police patrols on land and sea. State officials have acknowledged security gaps and said they have been working to close them.

A study completed last year by the Coast Guard and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security identified 66 of the nation's 359 ports as being especially vulnerable to terrorist attack. But while the country has spent $18 billion securing airports since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it has spent just $630 million to improve security at the nation's ports. The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General last year sharply criticized the port-security program, saying it didn't direct funds to the most vulnerable ports and compromised the nation's ability to stave off terrorist attacks.

Fun fun.

heh heh good old british standards. I bet the police all ate powdered egg too.

Everyone has been saying the politics of the Dubai Ports World deal is bad news for President Bush. Well, now we have an idea of just how bad. Rasmussen Reports has just released a poll showing that Americans now trust Democrats in Congress more than President Bush on the issue of national security by a margin of 43% to 41%. Only 17% of those polled favor the DPW deal, 64% oppose.

A desperation play

Nobody is talking about what is really going on with the Dubai port deal. Consider these facts:

• George Bush has warned us about buying oil from countries that he says may not like us.

• Bush has encouraged the use of technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

These two statements explain the situation. The United States desperately needs oil and will pay any price to get it. The Arabs know this and are waiting until we get desperate enough to pay whatever price they ask. Today, it's control over a few sea ports; tomorrow, a few more.

Stopping this deal would do nothing to change these underlying fundamentals. The United States is desperate for oil and ultimately will be forced to pay a lot more for it than just a few ports.

— Donald Clark, Ocean Shores

National anathema

Many seem to be in an uproar over the possibility that the United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World could be taking over the running of a half-dozen major U.S. ports.

I don't know why those folks should be so concerned. This Dubai outfit probably would have as much loyalty to the U.S.A. as any major so-called American corporation; you know, the guys who like to outsource jobs to cheap foreign labor in order to keep their profit margins way up.

I'll bet you could even get the UAE outfit to pledge allegiance to our flag. I doubt that most of our own corporations would remember how that's done. Their sole allegiance is to the next quarterly report.

— Bob Wojtyna, Woodinville

1. anything stopping this deal
2. the mccain torture amendment
3. stem-cell research

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Click to learn more...

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations

In other words, "Dude, we're just the Coast Guard, how are we supposed to know?"

haha

cheney's at 18%. 18%.

If Bush was running for re-election, there would be a decent argument for replacing Cheney.

barring some sort of spiro agnew action (which of course could happen, maybe), they're not dumping cheney.

As it stands, I was thinking that whoever has to run for the GOP in 2008 surely has to run implicitly, if not explicitly, *against* Bush and whatever legacy there is. Which will be interesting.

there is a real bind cuz bushco loyalists are a bigger demo in the party than prolifers even and yet overall the guy is an anchor - none of frist's distancing moves seems to have won him points (except the ability to say 'i disagreed with president about that' in general debate come 08 should it come to that which it won't). throw in immigration (which depressingly is really gaining steam) and the real wedge seems to be between rove and alot of the party base.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060228/ts_nm/security_ports_frist_dc

In fact, even when MP recalculates the CBS job approval results for the most recent survey using the average party composition reported on their last three surveys (33% Democrat, 28% Republican, 39% independent or other), the Bush approval percentage still rounds to 34%. The reason is that my recalculation just increases the number of independents at the expense of Democrats. However, Bush's rating is now so low among both subgroups as measured by CBS that the adjustment makes little difference.

Efforts by the White House to hold off legislation challenging a Dubai-owned company's acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports collapsed yesterday when House Republican leaders agreed to allow a vote next week that could kill the deal.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) will attach legislation to block the deal today to a must-pass emergency spending bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A House vote on the measure next week will set up a direct confrontation with President Bush, who sternly vowed to veto any bill delaying or stopping Dubai Ports World's purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steamship Co.

Hmmm. No wonder Bush is all of a sudden interested in line-item vetos. ;-)

In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.

By 62-2, the House Appropriations Committee voted to bar DP World, run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

Bush has promised to veto any such measure passed by Congress, but there is widespread public opposition to the deal and the GOP fears losing its advantage on the issue of national security in this fall's elections.

About the only thing going for Bush is that even on most days of the week he comes across as saner than the likes of Duncan Hunter, but they're the ones currently riding high. This is going to be a debacle of huge proportions for Bush if he stands his ground.

My simple complaint is that Bush stinks at defending his own policies, and I've grown weary of doing it for him.

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) announced on the Senate floor shortly before 2 p.m. that Dubai Ports World would "transfer fully the operations of U.S. ports to a U.S. entity." Warner, who had been trying to broker a compromise on the issue, said DP World would divest itself of U.S. interests "in an orderly fashion" so as not to suffer "economic loss."

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

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."

Of course.

http://www.aaiusa.org/polls/ArabAttitudes2005.htm

BUSH: Thank you very much.

Jerry likes to give a short introduction.

(LAUGHTER)

I appreciate you letting me come by to visit with you some. And I look forward to answering some questions you might have. You can't come to a newspaper deal without deal without answering questions.

Probably not many, but at least we are a democracy, so when our government has dealings with UAE we at least have the illusion of having been consulted. The point is that what Bush calls "cooperating with moderate allies" is often part of the very problem that makes the US is so unpopular over there. US approval ratings are often lowest in the authoritarian, undemocratic Arab states in which the US supposedly has good relations with the government. The fact that we collaborate with repressive regimes does not really work in our long-term favor in building bridges with the Arab world.

Democracy has the capacity to turn enemies into allies; to cause, kind of, warring factions to come together.

*sigh*

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/middleeast/12dubai.html?_r=2&hp

Excellent article on plummeting economy in Dubai.
The catch here is that when you owe debt there, you don't just get bad credit, you go to "debtor's prison".
Neighboring emirite apparently knew Dubai was a Walmart Creepshow all along.

gah!

Now, many expatriates here talk about Dubai as though it were a con game all along. Lurid rumors spread quickly: the Palm Jumeira, an artificial island that is one of this city’s trademark developments, is said to be sinking, and when you turn the faucets in the hotels built atop it, only cockroaches come out.

this dubai is kinda awesome in theory - abandoned skyscrapers, sinking islands, violent gangs of foreigners roaming around...

“Why is Abu Dhabi allowing its neighbor to have its international reputation trashed, when it could bail out Dubai’s banks and restore confidence?” said Christopher M. Davidson, who predicted the current crisis in “Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success,” a book published last year. “Perhaps the plan is to centralize the U.A.E.” under Abu Dhabi’s control, he mused, in a move that would sharply curtail Dubai’s independence and perhaps change its signature freewheeling style.

sonned by an abu dhabi in a bubble economy city beef.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html