Wash. Post, USA Today obscured and misstated lawmakers' criticism of Dubai Ports deal
SUMMARY: In reporting on the Bush administration's decision to approve the takeover of the British firm that manages six U.S. ports by a state-controlled Dubai company, articles in USA Today and The Washington Post obscured or misrepresented lawmakers' objections to the deal, failing to make clear that their criticisms center on the fact that the acquiring company is owned by a foreign government with what The New York Times editorial board has referred to as a "mixed" record on fighting terrorism.
In reporting on the Bush administration's decision to approve the takeover by Dubai Ports World (DPW) of a British company -- a deal that will transfer control of six U.S. ports to a state-owned company -- February 24 articles in USA Today and The Washington Post obscured or misrepresented lawmakers' objections to the deal. While both articles noted that DPW is controlled by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), neither made clear in their descriptions of opposition to the transaction by members of Congress that -- as many of these critics noted -- the law requires an additional 45-day review of such deals if the acquiring company is owned by a foreign government and the acquisition "could affect the national security of the U.S."
In The Washington Post article on the lobbying efforts of former Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS) on behalf of DPW, staff writer Jeffrey H. Birnbaum correctly noted in the first paragraph that the company is "Dubai-owned." But he later reported as fact that members of Congress have "threatened to scuttle the transaction" simply because the company is Middle Eastern:
Dubai Ports World beefed up its lobbying efforts, including on Capitol Hill, after lawmakers threatened this week to scuttle the transaction. The lawmakers said they feared that national security might be compromised by letting a Middle Eastern firm manage key U.S. ports.
Birnbaum's reporting echoes the Bush administration's repeated suggestion that the widespread criticism of this deal is discriminatory and based on the company's Arab ownership. In order to make this point, the White House has repeatedly conflated DPW and Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P & O) -- the British company that currently manages the ports -- omitting the highly relevant fact that, before its acquisition by DPW, P & O was not controlled by the British government or any other foreign government:
- On February 21, Bush told reporters: "I really don't understand why it's OK for a British company to operate our ports, but not a company from the Middle East."
- At a February 22 press briefing, White House press secretary Scott McClellan argued that critics of the transaction were holding "a company from the Middle East to a different standard from a company from Great Britain."
- Following a February 23 cabinet meeting, Bush said: "What I find interesting is that it's OK for a British company to manage some ports, but not OK for a company from a country that is also a valuable ally in the war on terror."
But contrary to the administration's claim -- and Birnbaum's report -- many lawmakers' objections to the transaction have arisen not from the mere fact that DPW is based in the Middle East. Rather, they cite a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1993, which amended the Exon-Florio provision* to require an additional 45-day investigation if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made this argument during a February 23 meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee, at which she said that her concerns about the deal do not simply stem from DPW's Arab origins. They stem from the administration's apparent decision -- in her view -- to ignore the legal requirements of the Exon-Florio provision:
CLINTON: We've heard from numerous administration spokespeople that those of us who are raising concerns are somehow out of place because, after all, it was a British company that was engaged in these activities selling to the Dubai company.
For many of us, there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government entity. Under the Exon-Florio statute, which governs these foreign investments and the process that you undertook, if we are at all impacting national security, the full 45-day investigation of an investment by a foreign government is mandatory if it, quote, "affects national security."
Yet the CFIUS board voted unanimously -- according to our information -- not to conduct an investigation that, by my reading of the statute, is required. Since D.P. World is controlled by a foreign government, under the statute, the transaction requires a 45-day investigation if it affects national security.
In a February 22 USA Today op-ed, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) similarly argued that their criticism of the deal "has nothing to do with the fact that the United Arab Emirates ... is an Arab nation":
The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States was established to answer these important questions of national security. Yet, in this case, CFIUS only completed a brief 23-day staff review and didn't even begin the 45-day investigation required by law when a foreign government is involved in a deal. More must be done.
Our call for increased scrutiny of this deal has nothing to do with the fact that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is an Arab nation. Our seaports remain the most vulnerable aspect of our homeland security. Therefore, handing over their operation to a foreign government, especially one with reported terrorist ties, deserves thorough review.
While the USA Today article reported that Senate Democrats on the Armed Service Committee argued that the administration "ignored the law when they dispensed with a 45-day security review of the company," it did not explain the basis for the Democrats' argument -- that DPW is controlled by a foreign government with what critics have referred to as a questionable record on terrorism. Moreover, throughout the report, USA Today referred to DPW as a "United Arab Emirates company" and a "Dubai-based company." It was not until the final sentence of the 26-paragraph story that the article mentioned the company's foreign ownership:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., plan to submit a bill to bar all companies controlled by foreign governments from operating U.S. ports.
A February 24 Post editorial, headlined "How to Lose Friends," similarly obscured lawmakers' criticism of the DPW deal, while also parroting the administration's claim that these objections were purely discriminatory. The editorial referred to the company as "based in the United Arab Emirates," but never mentioned it is owned by the government of Dubai, a UAE member state. Further, the editorial highlighted Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England's February 23 statement before the Armed Services Committee that U.S. allies should be treated "without discrimination":
If members of Congress really want to burnish their "tough on terrorism" credentials, they should start by focusing on real presidential lapses, which are sufficient, and forget about the phony ones. As Mr. England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security ... especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said. And he suggested that it is the terrorists who want the United States to "become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist."
*CORRECTION: The original version of this item stated incorrectly that "a 1993 amendment known as the Exon-Florio provision ... requires an additional 45-day investigation if 'the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government' and the acquisition 'could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S.' " In fact, this requirement was established by the "Byrd amendment" [Section 2170(b)] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993. The amendment modified a 1988 law known as the Exon-Florio provision.
We are holding a rogue, mostly chaotic middle-eastern gov't like UAE to the same standard as Great Britain. That's why there are concerns.
There were no concerns from Mrs. Bill Clinton when her husband sold 80 F-16's (and not just run of the mill F-16's, but the Block 80 version) to Dubai? Where was the lefts outrage then?
Not quite sure myself this is a Left/Right issue, despite MMFA's subtle attempts to make it so.
Besides, I don't remember the Right being outraged about the F-16 sale back then (as they appear to be now). I could be wrong, but can you show me examples of widespread Right-wing criticism back then either?
You are quite correct: there was no outrage - at least, there was no widespread outrage that I can see.
The sale was in 1998 - BEFORE 9/11 (which, I hear, changed everything, at least according to the Bushies). The UAE was a partner in containing Saddam, and Clinton needed their support to continue to run operations like Desert Fox (the REAL reason there were no WMD in Iraq).
From the 9/11 report:
"The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem. From 1999 through early 2001, the United States, and President Clinton personally, pressed the UAE, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off its ties and enforce sanctions, especially those relating to flights to and from Afghanistan. These efforts achieved little before 9/11.
In July 1999, UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hamdan bin Zayid threatened to break relations with the Taliban over Bin Ladin. The Taliban did not take him seriously, however. Bin Zayid later told an American diplomat that the UAE valued its relations with the Taliban because the Afghan radicals offered a counterbalance to "Iranian dangers" in the region, but he also noted that the UAE did not want to upset the United States. "
So you can see the problem: Clinton had to give a carrot to the UAE to make them feel safe against Iran, and he needed them to contain Saddam. But they were recognizing the Taliban. Clinton had to try to get them away from bin Laden while keeping them as a counterweight to both Iraq and Iran.
The world is much more complex than Newsmax makes it out to be.
But did Clinton ever suggest the UAE was trustworthy enough as an ally to be able to safely run our ports? No.
Why is the first instinct of every Bush apologist to run and find something - ANYTHING - even remotely tied to Clinton? Why can't Bush lovers argue their Dear Leader's actions on their own merits?
The answer to your questions is: because the Bush administration's Machiavellian genious for extricating themselves from the traps laid by their own arrogance and incompetence is their only real talent. Attacking their critics and deflecting attention from the substantive argument is the core of that genious.
Didn't stop this transaction from taking place. Infact they voted for it, a vote that is required by law. The block verison you are talking about is 60 not 80. Also Lockheed can't sell this verison to any other nation, including the US.
Where was the outrage from the right when Saddam used chemicals we provided to gas his own people and Iranians?
Where was the outrage from the right when Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after the Beirut barracks bombing?
Where was the support from the right when Clinton bombed al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan? Oh, that's right; they were outraged, claiming he did it to distract us from more important matters.
Haven't you gotten the news? Everything changed after 9-11.
A government (Dubai) owned company operating U.S. ports, whose government has allowed money to be siphoned off to support terrorist activity? & may have officials complicit in same?
No, I don't think people should look through Left/Right wing lenses at issues. Port security and the outsourcing of operations to corporations in other countries (which has been going on for some time now) is concerning. Outsourcing has accelerated in the past few years and the suffering of our middle class and decline in job security has many far reaching ramifications.
Re the F-16 sales. Hmm. selective aren't we? Reagan/Bush years: How about Iran Contra, & all those weapons sold to Iraq & given to faux freedom fighters around the globe?
Our government in my view should be exporting peace, not weapons, to the rest of the world. Any polititician no matter the party working for peace would get my vote.
But back to the topic. Either you think the port deal is a good deal for the U.S. because it is cost effective & will provide the best security, or you think it's a good deal because you see through partisan lenses and like to live infantasy.
No foreign country should have anything to do with operations concerning U.S. national security. Without the attachment to one's home country the door is swung open to bribes, blackmail and other forms of corruption.
While temptations may always exist, only people who are indifferent to America could be so easily persuaded. Who else would reliably put America's interests first? A critic of the administration and its policies, if an American, has a higher degree of devotion to his nation that any indifferent or antagonistic foreigner.
Show me one example of how Clinton was concerned with the Taliban and you may have a point (lobbing one or two cruise missiles at an aspirin factory on the eve of his impeachment hearings doesn't count :)).
Clinton rode into office on a campaign promise of "a long-term effort to reduce the proliferation of weapons". He quickly retreated from that stance and aggressively sold weapons to any and all takers, no matter what their countries track record on human rights issues were. Every president approves selling weapons, but just for perspective, during Clinton's first years in office US arms sales doubled. Between 93-97 Clinton approved, sold or gave away over $190 billion in weapons. He had a penchant for arming regimes that are not in line with American values. Indonesia, Colombia, and let's not forget the space/rocket technology to China that his pals Charlie Trie and company masterminded. All escaped prosecution by fleeing the country.
I do stand stand corrected from an above post as pointed out. The F-16 version sold to UAE was in fact the Block 60 version not the Block 80. It is now commonly known as an F-16 E/F. Good catch!
Back to the original question of why did we trust the UAE with weapons sales in 2000, but now we don't trust them with handling the running of six ports?
But, two wrongs don't make a right. You've brought this same point up now several times.
So, since we made a somewhat questionable deal with the UAE in the past... well, hell, we should just roll out the red carpet huh? Give 'em everything. Why don't you say Clinton again, just for emphasis.
Read my other post in the other thread. I'm not even saying it was a questionable deal with the fighters. The UAE is a strategic area. I doubt that the port deal will fall through because of that alone.
I get your point. We (Clinton) dealt with the UAE and that was supposed to be okay (to liberals). My point is, why deal with them now? Why do we have to do this? We can be allies... We don't need to turn over port security to the UAE. Bush and his crew are (once again) selling us out for their own gain.
I don't care what happened during the Clinton era. I'm not apologizing for Clinton's actions. I believe that Bush is a threat to our country and nat'l security. It's like a big game with lots of dollar signs. But, we all get screwed.
I don't care about the Clinton administration in RELATION to this deal. The two don't equate in my mind. I know they do in yours. Tha's okay.
In all likelihood, we DO need the UAE as allies... they sit pretty in the ME and can help us. But, why the ports? Why? No one can give me a good reason how this needs to be done.
...WHY this needs to be done.
(i need a beer).
Port security will still be handled by the USCG, Customs, and the individual terminal operators to include state and local port authorities. They already have security plans in place. Nothing will change if the UAE takes over. If anything, I imagine they will increase existing security in light of this brouhaha.
Once again I'm not necessarily defending this, just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.
...I'm being a bit too simplistic. Perhaps a bit too naive. But, why take the chance? The UAE have not shown themselves to be upstanding. Perhaps, in relation to all the other Arab states they are? Not sure that makes it any better.
I do believe much of my fervor is driven by my supreme lack of trust of Bush and his cadre (proven again and again over the past 6 years). If you're rich, you can do what you want. Who'll see these billions anyway? Port security in general must be overhauled... is this a positive step in that direction?
The company in UAE is a fron and owned by the government of the UAE. So a company in Great Britian owned the rights. It does make a bit of a difference when the company is owned by the government....not an issue in Great Britain!