Schieffer failed to note Dubai Ports World, Dubai International Capital are owned by a foreign government
SUMMARY: CBS anchor Bob Schieffer reported on deals in which Dubai Ports World (DPW) would assume control of terminal operations six U.S. ports and in which "another Arab company" plans "to buy plants in the United States that make parts for planes and tanks." However, in both instances, Schieffer failed to mention that the companies involved are owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- a legal distinction that is central to whether each deal should be subject to an additional 45-day review for national security concerns.
During the March 2 broadcast of CBS Evening News, anchor Bob Schieffer reported on the deal in which Dubai Ports World (DPW) would take over the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), and assume control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports as well as a separate deal in which "another Arab company" plans "to buy plants in the United States that make parts for planes and tanks." However, in both instances, Schieffer failed to mention that the companies involved are owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- a legal distinction that is central to whether the deals should be subject to an additional 45-day review for national security concerns. The administration initially resisted conducting the 45-day review in the DPW deal but finally acquiesced to an investigation of the transaction.
Scheiffer failed to mention that DPW and Dubai International Capital, the other "Arab company" he referred to, are both owned by the government of Dubai. The Washington Post has reported that Dubai International Capital is seeking to purchase a British firm that "has operations in nine U.S. locations and manufactures precision parts for defense contractors."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), numerous media outlets, in reporting on the ports deal, have failed to mention that DPW is owned by the Dubai government, instead choosing to describe it as an "Arab company" or a "Dubai-based company." In simply describing DPW as a company based in an Arab country, these media outlets have obscured the source of the bipartisan controversy over the takeover. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, as well as other critics, have argued that, in approving the deal, the administration flouted a federal law governing the transfer of American assets to foreign, government-owned companies. Enacted in 1988, the Exon-Florio provision established the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets. As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review 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."
From the March 2 broadcast of CBS Evening News:
SCHIEFFER: Well, the deal is about to go through for an Arab company to buy the British company that operates major U.S. ports. A Bush administration official says tonight it is expected to happen by Monday. Under pressure from Congress, the Arab company has agreed to hold off actually running the ports while the U.S. government does a security review. It turns out the government will also be reviewing plans by another Arab company to buy plants in the United States that make parts for planes and tanks.
and the fact that the Dubai corporation is owned by the government is a crucial fact. That CBS would leave this out of their brief summary is a glaring example of what is wrong with the press. So little time to give the public the facts they need to make a judgment... gotta run to commercial for luxury car, lady Clairol, latest wonder drug (with teeny tiny side effects like death and diahrrea); back to "the news" now (just making this up)we're on the teacher comparing Bush to Hitler; back to commercial...and so it goes; not enough time to cover the real news as it should be covered to have an informed citizenry....
...that nobody knows that DPW is owned by the government of UAE. Stop beating a dead horse, everyone knows the difference.
Chevyman:
You chide reporting that notes that Dubai is GOVERNMENT OWNED, a clear distinction from a publicly owned business.
But you bring up a good point: What is the real DIFFERENCE?
This thread would be a good place to examine WHY it makes a difference, something our "mainstream media" has neglected almost entirely. The American People should hear the many reasons WHY Government ownership should be viewed completely differently from a standard "business" deal.
I'll offer one reason, then you should add another. As other contribute, we'll have an itemized file of the issues involved.
IF A GOVERNMENT other than your own is managing shipping, what decisions might they make concerning other alliances? For example, Dubai does not recognize Israel. America ships arms and other strategic supplies to its ally, Israel, from commercial ports.
What is our assurance that there would not be "delays" or "SNAFUs" in these shipments, explained by "mistakes" or "oversights" but instead based on political/governmental ideology? "TRUST" is not an acceptable answer. Shipping strategic supplies should be done in a way that has ZERO doubt as to the allegiances of all involved: It's a matter of National Security.
[I just cautioned MMFA against using "open-ended questions" in their presentations, but in this instance it's a question to which we have no answer, and if there ARE such questions about a "deal", then the deal should NOT go through.]
Why do you support this deal? You seem fairly adamant. As Tex points out, there ARE good (fact-based) reasons why this deal should not go through. But, I want to hear from the Righties out there... Why? Why is this deal in our (yours and my) best interest?
- "During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World" - Statement from Zim Integrated Shipping, Israel's largest shipping company.
Additionally the GOVERNMENTS of the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan all have ownership in companies that operate US ports.
The media has done a poor job of reporting the facts and a great job of stoking the partisan political flames.
"Additionally the GOVERNMENTS of the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan all have ownership in companies that operate US ports."
so Wesley, in your view, is this a good thing? Does it impact port security? Is the US doing what it should be doing to protect ports?
Would you be ok with the Dubai corporation/gvt. operating U.S. airports? & why or why not?
What is your overall view of outsourcing and its impact on US labor? Thanks
In my view the issue is about protecting Americans...not the partisan bickering about foreign countries/foreign companies. The security at our ports and terminals is regulated and enforced by Americans.
I believe we can always improve security measures...but current measures have prevented another 911 type disaster.
You'll have to explain your query about out-sourcing US labor...
It is really impossible to prove one way or another that security has prevented another attack. But we do know that only 5 to 7% of cargo is actually inspected. We also have heard many experts warn about lax security around chemical and nuclear plants. Regarding ports, though, this information is from a piece by Joe Conason:
Clark Kent Ervin is the former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, who currently directs the Homeland Security Initiative for the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan research center. Joseph King is the former Customs Service special agent in charge of counterterrorism for that agency until 2003. Both men have expressed doubts about the Dubai deal citing problems of national security. I presume than they know more about this than you or I...
Coast Guard officers have warned the Committee on Foreign Investment of the "intelligence gap" in the Dubai deal after examining classified information.
In other words, those who have exercised actual responsibility for ensuring the security of our ports believe there is ample reason for concern over Dubai.
In a statement, the Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the excerpt ultimately were addressed and that other U.S. intelligence agencies answered the questions raised.
In other words, those who have exercised actual responsibility for ensuring the security of our ports have performed their duty by raising concerns and having the system improved.
Honest reporting benefits Americans...mongering hysteria benefits partisan politicos.
I think it a bit over the top for you to claim any questioning of this deal as hysteria or partisanship. Source for your coast guard statement, please. Also, did the two gentlemen mentioned in my previous posting now say all their concerns were addressed?
Do you think this deal is good for the U.S., after non-partisan reflection and good old common sense? As their are other threads discussing this topic, I'm moving elsewhere. Assume you have read "Top ports deal myths and falsehoods" on the Media Matters home page.
Nope Mary, I didn't say "any" questioning of this deal was partisan or hysterical. In fact, the Coast Guard questioned the deal. It was their responsibility to raise concerns. They have subsequently stated that those concerns were addressed.
The media has promoted a kind of hysteria by printing inaccurate or misleading stories. Partisans have taken that misinfo and played politics with our national security.
As to satisfying the two gentlemen you quote...they are "former" officials and as such have no official standing. Their concerns are addressed in the arena of public debate. That debate should focus squarely on our national security and not half-truths about boogey men operating our terminals.
President Bush, President Clinton and Gen. Tommy Franks have all testified that the UAE has proven to be a valuable ally in the war on terror.
You're correct. We SHOULD be allies with the UAE. No one (I repeat - - No one) has ever suggested that we should not foster an equitable relationship with the UAE. But, why should we hand over port security to this unruly (untrusworthy) group.
So, as I posed to Chevyman above... I want to hear why YOU support this deal? What's the rush? You know, the last time I wanted to be friends with someone, I didn't hand them over the keys to my house.
Well peet, your premise is all wrong and you have taken the media bait. At no time has the deal ever been based on handing over port security to anyone. Regardless of who operates a US terminal the security is regulated and enforced by the US.
The deal is about American security not the strawman of partisan politics. Any analysis of the deal should be based on what is best for our security.
You have called the UAE unruly and untrustworthy. There are many who feel otherwise...Clinton, Bush, and Franks have stated that they are valuable allies...directly countering your position. In case you haven't noticed...the debate has not been centered on security but democrats versus republicans for political gain.
There is no rush to vette DPW as an operator of a US terminal...the facts should be studied and the best decision for American security should drive the ultimate decision. The media has done their usual poor job of reporting this situation accurately and the politicos should be ashamed for pandering to politics.
A valuable ally does not necessarily mean that ally is trustworthy. As I said, I'm all for having the UAE as allies.
You still haven't answered my question (regardless of what other politicians say). Why is this in our best interests? If you believe that the UAE -- a country with a LONG history of human rights violations, less-than-reputable political ties, a chaotic and disorganized method of gov't... oh yeah, let's not forget that Al-Quaeda had actually infiltrated the UAE gov't -- should be allowed to run any sort of operation on our homeland... well, I think you should answer your own question. Maybe you've been duped? Why the rush? Why this deal? Allies are good. I agree with you on that.
I'm not getting good answers from anyone (you included). Just a bunch of deflections (well, the UAE won't actually be in charge of security... we need them as allies... you're being racist... the Brits ran the ports before... ) That's all BS. Why do we need to do this? That garbage about 'pre-9/11' mentality, I guess, is just fine when there're billions of dollars in the pot.
I have stated several times that there is no rush to approve DPW...that is simply your deflection.
Have you contacted your congressmen and let them know of your position on the UAE? Tell them that you don't what a bunch of unruly Arabs having the keys to your house. I don't find it out of line for a foreign country/company to operate a US port...as long as...all security measures have been implemented.
An email to your elected reps might provide you with the answers you seek.
Yes. You have stated that an investigation should take place.
The UAE are valuable allies for us (the US)... They are situated strategically in the ME and I believe we can and will have an equitable relationship with them. However, their history and current practices pose (in my mind) significant security risks. To suggest -- as many have -- that not allowing the UAE to operate our ports is in some way slighting the UAE... well, that's unfortunate. Perhaps we (the wheelers and dealers) should have thought about that first.
You are a proponent of the deal. I just want to hear why the proponents think it's okay. But, I hear only deflection (as you say). Doesn't matter if Clinton or Carter or any democrat says it's okay. You suggest that I'm being unfair or racist -- accusations I believe are unwarranted, especially in light our current "war on terror", etc.
I have suggested nothing that paints you as unfair or racist. You're opposed to the UAE operating US terminals...I'm not opposed.
You've stated beliefs that others hold about the UAE. My concerns are different than yours. That's one reason our republic is great...we elect leaders to make these decisions. They should listen to the public debate but in the end they are not bound by majority rule. They are bound to perform their duty...yeah kinda like a supreme court justice.
Our duty is to hold those leaders accountable at the ballot box...I'm guessing we can agree on that.
Agreed (this may be a repeat... my posts don't always go thru).
"CBS anchor Bob Schieffer reported on deals in which Dubai Ports World (DPW) would assume control of terminal operations six U.S. ports"
This is overstating what they do. They are not in full control of all operations in the ports.
The media has done a good job of creating strawmen like "shadowy foregin governments" operating US ports and "sinister Arabs" infiltrating the ports because of dubious foreign ownership.
They create a phony hysteria and then use flawed polls to support their reporting.Schieffer failed to mention the foreign government ownership of DPW...mmfa failed to report that many foreign governments already have ownership in companies that operate US terminals.
Honest reporting has diminished while pandering to partisan causes has flourished...no wonder very few people trust the media.
So, which "partisan cause" do you think the media is pandering to in regard to this UAE deal?
you quote mmfa, but then say it overstates what the company does. but they would control "terminal operations". exactly what was said. no one said they would control all operations in the port. and since only a small portion of cargo is actually checked then what hits the dock is free and clear after that.
The media fails to contrast the Dubai corporation from other corporations.
First of all, as MMFA notes, the Dubai corporation is majority owned by the the government of Dubai. Second, the media fails to note that the Dubai does not have a democracy, which essentially means we are turning over control of the ports to a ruler(s) who won't let his own people vote for its own government. The parliment that they do have is a sham government of selected officials to make it look like a western government. What does a government corporation mean in a country run by dictators, nothing. The dictator makes the rules establishing his own corporation. The media is failing on this one. And finally, what is one of the principal purposes of a corporation? To raise money and to limit the liability of the owners. In the oil rich UAE, raising the funds to establish this corporation shouldn't be an issue. That leaves limiting liability, or perhaps using the form of a corporation to make disguise to westerners that its ports are being run by dictators.
One thing I have failed to see addressed is whether the Bush Administration, John Snow, should be ruling on a major deal like this when Snow stands to make millions if it is passed.
I always thought that Politicians in Power were supposed to put aside Business Dealings while in Office. I gues that Cheney's profits from Halliburton, Frist's from HMA, opens up the door for Snow.
Anything that makes a Profit is Good for America!
Why is it that no one is mentioning the fact that Dubai is not simply a foreign "government"--it is a monarchy! I thought we were supposed to be fighting for democracy in the middle east... Putting aside idealism, practically speaking isn't it a lot more dangerous that this company is controlled by a foreign monarch? Essentially, it is at the mercy of one person. At least if they were a democracy, there would be some sense of accountability.