Author Topic: Dubai firm backs off ports deal  (Read 329 times)

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« on: March 09, 2006, 01:50:54 PM »
3:37 p.m. EST Update: The Senate has voted to ignore its Republican leaders and clear the way for a vote on blocking a Dubai-owned company's U.S. ports deal.

Quote
WASHINGTON (March 9) - As congressional leaders warned President Bush that both the House and Senate appeared ready to block a Dubai-owned company from taking over operations at some U.S. ports, the company said Thursday that it was prepared to give up its management stake.

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 an election-year nightmare for Republicans.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor to read to colleagues a press release from the company disclosing its plans.

"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 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 Dubai-owned company's plan to take over significant operations at several U.S. sea ports.

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.

"Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said. "It's on how we can work together and move forward."

He said that 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.

The developments came one day after a GOP-controlled House committee voted 62-2 to block the transfer, which has prompted an election-year Republican congressional revolt against the administration -- made all the more striking because it is related to the war on terrorism.

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 a decision by the company, DP World, to shed its plans to operate U.S. port terminals. The company 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.

Five Republican lawmakers attended the meeting with Bush where the ports deal was discussed. The conversation was described by two officials, both of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussions. Bush's response was not described.

Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, said the discussion of the ports deal had occurred at a regularly scheduled meeting between the leaders and the president. Frist "gave the president his assessment of the situation in the Senate," she said, although she declined to provide details.

The developments 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.

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.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., offered the ports amendment on Wednesday, saying the Senate must act because of public opposition to the ports deal.

"We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal," he said.

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.

The measure includes $67.6 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19.1 billion in new money for hurricane relief and rebuilding along the Gulf Coast.

The bill would bring total funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $117.6 billion for the budget year ending Sept. 30. Total spending on Iraq and Afghanistan since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 would reach almost $400 billion.


3/9/2006 14:01:50




Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2006, 03:17:41 PM »
It's a moot point, DP world has agreed to sell its management stake in US ports to a US owned company...

DP World Will Sell Management Stake in U.S. Ports

WASHINGTON -- Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports.

DP World, the firm involved, issued a statement saying it would "transfer fully" the planned operations to a "United States entity," according to Sen. John Warner, who read the announcement aloud on the Senate floor.

Other Republicans said the firm had privately pledged full divestiture.

The announcement appeared to signal an end to a politically-tinged controversy that brought President Bush and Republicans in Congress to the brink of an election-year intraparty veto battle on a terrorism-related issue.

Lawmakers who have been trying to block the deal involving DP World said they were studying the company's announcement to see if it adequately addressed their concerns about an Arab government taking over major operations at six U.S. ports.

Underscoring how much the issue has veered out of the Bush administration's control, the Senate rejected an effort by its own Republican leaders to thwart Democrats who want a vote on derailing the DP World deal. The Senate voted 51-47 to consider the Democratic legislation, falling 16 short of the 67 votes GOP leaders needed to prevail.

Details of the surprise deal were still being worked out. The company said its decision was "based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

DP World finalized its $6.8 billion purchase earlier Thursday of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm that through a U.S. subsidiary runs important operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. It also plays a lesser role in dockside activities at 16 other American ports.

A leading critic, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., applauded the decision. He predicted that if the company's announcement were to represent a total divestiture, then lawmakers would be appeased.

"It would have to be an American company with no links to DP World, and that would be a tremendous victory and very gratifying," said King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, announced the company's decision to colleagues on the Senate floor.

"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. The announcement did not specify which American company would be involved.

The company's U.S. operations were never the most prized part of the global transaction, which focused primarily on lucrative Asian markets. DP World valued its rival's American operations at less than 10 percent of the nearly $7 billion total purchase.

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.

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."

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.

"We will maybe have our differences, but we think we're going to continue to do that," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., 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.

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.
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2006, 03:53:47 PM »
DP World... :rofl

Sounds like a DVD set that bodhi would buy.
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2006, 03:58:31 PM »
It is not moot, it will have consequences.

The UAE has been an oasis of reason in the middle east and the best ally the US has (had?) in the region. US Navy ships dock there, aircraft fly from there, it has the best intelligence sharing toward fighting extremism in the area.

In the passion for promoting fear that the muslims/arabs are coming to slaughter everyone, rational analysis of the facts has been suppressed.

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2006, 04:00:50 PM »
It's all so confusing....I thought we are suppossed to hate all muslims, not just some of them?!?!?!

Offline USHilDvl

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2006, 04:27:04 PM »
Unfortunately, I'm afraid we're guilty of societal racism on this one...and I mistrust that whole bunch as much as the next guy.  To tell an Arabic company that they can't work in the US simply because they are Arabic is not proper.  The UAE isn't Syria, for Pete's sake.

However, I'm pretty sure UAE has been a reliable, sigificant and supportive ally...and this uproar is a knee-jerk reaction that gained some political steam.

I was severely concerned when I first heard about this, then I got a bit edumacated and a bit more perspective.  Ultimately, DP World would handle the shipping, scheduling and longshore work.  Port Security always has been, and always will be, entirely in US hands.  And that is the thing everyone's really concerned about.

Concern over our security is a top priority.  But...I think we are embarassing ourselves practicing a double-standard, in a scenario that most clearly do not understand.  I certainly didn't at first.

We won't hear of it, but you be sure that the radical fundamentalists will make plenty of hay from this, demonstrating how racist and unjust we are.  Not the way to encourage moderates to stay that way.

And, just wait til an Arab government does this to an American company.  THEN we'll REALLY hear noise...and have conveniently forgotten all about this.

Offline StarOfAfrica2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5162
      • http://www.vf-17.org
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2006, 05:34:07 PM »
Just out of curiousity, IS there a totally US owned company that is capable of taking over the port operations in disupte?  If they simply divest themsevles of the US portion of their company, which is only about 10% of what they bought BTW, that new company is still going to have ties to its former parent.  Will that satisfy Congress with elections coming up?  Will that totally US company be able to survive financially only on its income from managing the port operations?  

Stay tuned!

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2006, 06:07:22 PM »


Karaya
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline ROC

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7700
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2006, 06:36:10 PM »
Quote
IS there a totally US owned company that is capable of taking over the port operations in disupte


Wouldn't it be funny if the only company that could meet the conditions was Haliburton :)
ROC
Nothing clever here.  Please, move along.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2006, 08:36:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
It's all so confusing....I thought we are suppossed to hate all muslims, not just some of them?!?!?!

But according to Gordo, we're supposed to HATE UAE because 19 of 20 hijackers on 9/11 were arab! ;)

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2006, 08:39:09 PM »
Hehe...UAE...Saudie...let's call the whole thing off.....

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2006, 08:52:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ROC
Wouldn't it be funny if the only company that could meet the conditions was Haliburton :)


Now that made me laugh.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2006, 07:32:15 AM »
I thought this news was unfortunate as well.

At some point we've got to start building bridges someway, somehow. And the UAE is probably the best place to start. A lot of americans and people from other western and east asian countries work in the UAE, either on a temporary basis or as expats.

Wouldn't have been surprised if the UAE company would've provided better securtiy than a US company.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Dubai firm backs off ports deal
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2006, 09:36:24 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ROC
Wouldn't it be funny if the only company that could meet the conditions was Haliburton :)



roc, you beat me to it:lol