About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NY Times, WSJ reported that DPW sought extended security investigation, ignored bipartisan claims that law requires it

March 01, 2006 1:36 pm ET

SUMMARY: Ignoring the bipartisan argument that the law requires it, both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that Dubai Ports World (DPW) requested that the Bush administration conduct an extended 45-day security review of a deal through which the company would take over port operations in six U.S. cities.

5 Comments

In March 1 articles, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported that Dubai Ports World (DPW) requested that the Bush administration conduct an extended 45-day security investigation into the company's proposed acquisition of port terminals in six major U.S. cities, ignoring arguments from lawmakers of both political parties that the investigation is required by law. The Times reported that the review was "sought by the company," and the Journal wrote that it occurred "at DP World's request" -- both crediting DPW for taking the initiative while failing to note that, according to critics, the investigation should have occurred anyway.

The Bush administration's Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) approved the deal, between DPW and Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), on January 17 -- without demanding the additional security review. But while DPW and the Bush administration eventually agreed to the review, they did not do so until after both Democrats and Republicans in Congress publicly pointed out that the investigation was required as a matter of law.

As Media Matters for America has noted, a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 requires the additional 45-day investigation of foreign direct investment in the United States if the entity making the investment "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."

DPW is owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As critics of the deal have noted, the UAE was one of just three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, U.S. investigators have found that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission found that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks."

From the March 1 New York Times article by reporter Carl Hulse:

Lawmakers raised new objections on Tuesday to the proposed takeover of some terminal operations at six United States ports by a Dubai company, demonstrating that the administration-backed plan still faced significant obstacles despite an agreement for a more extensive review of any security risks posed by the change in control.

[...]

President Bush reiterated his support for the deal on Tuesday and urged lawmakers and the public to withhold judgment until the new review, sought by the company, was completed.

From the March 1 Wall Street Journal article by staff reporters Greg Hitt and Jason Singer:

The deal will give DP World control of terminal operations at five U.S. ports. Mr. [DPW chief operating officer Edward] Bilkey persuaded the Bush administration to clear the acquisition in January. But as concern spread on Capitol Hill, the administration, at DP World's request, has agreed to begin another interagency security review.

[...]

Later on Sunday, Mr. [Sen. John] Warner [R-VA] announced on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the company had agreed to accept a new investigation. Mr. Warner praised DP World's "excellent record" and sought to raise the stakes in the debate. "This is a bigger issue for our country than just this commercial agreement," Mr. Warner said. "We're in a global situation. It is diplomacy. It is our economic standing in the world. And it is the military security."

The White House that day accepted the company's overture, agreeing to open the new probe. Before the weekend's events, Mr. Bilkey complained that DP World had become "a little bit of a football" in Washington. "We've kind of come into the political maelstrom," he said.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by olivelawyers (March 01, 2006 1:51 pm ET)
         

      The problem with this (NYT, WSJ) reporting may be generated by the "column inches" and "keep it concise" mentality, but it remains a problem. It isn't inaccurate: it is merely incomplete. I'm not sure there is a solution. Those of us who try to stay abreast of what is going on know pretty much about what "the rest of the story" is, but people leading busy lives picking up tidbits here and there who finally find a moment to read an entire article don't get the details that are necessary to understand the context in which these events occur. On the one hand, I'd like to see the papers educate the public with facts, but on the other, it is our own job to read "all the news that's fit to print" (the banner slogan that came from a guy who actually started out in the news business in Knoxville, TN).

      Thank goodness for MM's being there to fill in the gaps for those willing to come to this site to get the links for the entire background. Good work.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mybrotherskeeper (March 01, 2006 3:13 pm ET)
           

        I am not sure column inches is the answer to the lack of coverage of vital information. I think there is a lot of spinning going on, a lot of pressure from the White House, and there are perhaps broader foreign policy and financial interests as well. Did you know the law that requires a 45-day review also requires the president to sign off on the deal? And besides the obvious reasons, why might this deal have raised security concerns? According to this very informative column, there exists an unclassified document from 2002 in which al Qaeda boasts of having infiltrated various government offices of the UAE: [link to www.shns.com]

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mybrotherskeeper (March 01, 2006 5:18 pm ET)
             

          Here is an excellent overview and history of CFIUS by James Rosen: [link to www.knoxstudio.com]

          BTW, I should have written (above) that al Qaeda claimed in 2002 to have infiltrated the security offices of the UAE.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by olivelawyers (March 02, 2006 1:13 pm ET)
             

          So why aren't we getting references to this on all of our DNC and Kerry fund-seeking spam? Thanks for the link, I now need to find out why our local Scripps Howard paper censored this from our pages (couldn't be because we are in a publishing range of a state region that is in the "last throes" of support for/control by Senator Frist (Rep) Senator Alexander (Rep) Congressman Duncan (Rep) Zach Wamp (Rep) ... you guessed it, the state that failed to vote for its native son in 2000, the Volunteer State that voted against the Swiftboat volunteer in 2004 in favor of ... well, you know).

          Report Abuse
    • Author by tophers495287 (March 02, 2006 1:15 pm ET)
         

      Could it be possible that numerous such deals have already gone down and no one even noticed that the law was being violated? It seems that since so much of America has already been sold that this may have occured many times over. And it is not just Bushboy,who happens to get his hand caught in the cookiie jar more times than not,no this is and has been a bipartisan rip off of the American people for many years. I guess the strangest thing about the Dubai deal is where it all started, with Pappa Bush and the data to support that is all over the Internet.Yet not one major news service is on the real story,all one has to do{ as always} is simply follow the money. Tophers

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace