Wash. Post editorial adopted Bush administration's false "Arab" versus "British" company comparison
SUMMARY: A Washington Post editorial adopted the Bush administration's false suggestion that there is no difference between Dubai Ports World (DPW) and Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O). The Post, like the Bush administration, suggested that criticism of the ports deal was based on DPW's Arab ownership and was therefore discriminatory. In fact, there is a key difference as a matter of law between DPW and P&O: DPW is a state-owned company, whereas P&O was not, prior to its acquisition by DPW.
In a March 10 editorial on the reported demise of the deal that would have let Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- assume control of terminal operations at six major U.S. ports, The Washington Post adopted the Bush administration's false suggestion that there is no difference between DPW and Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), the British company that controlled the ports, which DPW purchased. The Post, like the Bush administration, suggested that criticism of the deal was based on DPW's Arab ownership and was therefore discriminatory. In fact, there is a key difference as a matter of law between DPW and P&O: DPW is a state-owned company, whereas P&O was not, prior to its acquisition by DPW.
On March 9, DPW announced it would divest its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports after the House Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly to block the deal. As The New York Times reported on March 10: "The action averted a showdown with Congress that Mr. Bush was all but certain to lose, as signaled on Wednesday by a 62-to-2 vote of the House Appropriations Committee to reject the transfer, because it allowed the sale of some terminal operations to an Arab state company."
According to the March 10 Washington Post editorial:
No one should underestimate the potential damage. Any government in a Muslim-majority country will have to ask itself: Why take the risk of friendship? If governments find no good answer to that question, the fight against radical Islamic terrorism will suffer. Meanwhile, Arab investors may think twice before putting their money in a country where their companies risk expropriation. With the price of oil so high, Arabs are rapidly becoming a major supplier of foreign capital. This isn't a good moment for Americans to discourage foreign investment, given the nation's dependence on foreign capital (see: Congress, drunken spending by). Nor will the message -- that foreign ownership was unobjectionable when it was British but intolerable when it was Arab -- do much to advance U.S. efforts to promote equitable investment rules for its own companies abroad.
This language strongly echoes comments President Bush made at a February 28 press briefing: "[W]hat kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company ... from the Arab world."
As Media Matters for America noted, critics of the deal have argued that the administration ignored 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."
In its initial 30-day review of the deal, CFIUS determined that it did not raise national security concerns. But critics of the deal have noted that the UAE does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state and was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, they have cited a discovery by U.S. investigators that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission's finding that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks." These critics contend that because DPW is controlled by a member state of a country with what is arguably a "mixed" record on terrorism, CFIUS' review of the transfer was not in accordance with the law.
Just amazing that the newspaper that upended Nixon has shrunk to shrubworship in this fashion, parroting the unpresidential smearing of those who: 1) don't want their government functions sold to any corporation, including one owned by any foreign government; 2) who see the "foreign investment" touted here as further purchasing of pecuniary control over domestic affairs in a world increasingly dominated by govermental leaders whose concern for earning a dollar is not limited by raising the standard of living for anyone making less than a half million or so a year; and, who understand the fact that the only "mud" the UAE would have to endure being "dragged through" is of its own shameful making. Congress has backed off its responsibilities rather than risk offending its corporate sponsors in almost every bill to cross its voting apparatus for the past five years, and it is high time it didn't back down on something many of its members objected to long BEFORE
... long BEFORE the polls assessed public opinion. The Post's editorial is about as ridiculous as most of the spin coming from the mouth of Scotty, but this writing will assure it a continued seat in the front row of the press announcements, won't it?
You might notice if you go to the WP web site that MM is not listed among its links to bloggers writing about the editorial, and the Post sure isn't going to have a link to a site of its own for easy response in the fashion of MM. Guess which of these forms of journalism has more integrity ...
NOBODY SIGNED THEIR NAME TO THIS WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL?
Read the editorial, it's titled HAPPY NOW? (how's that for an editorial 'tone'?) and then ask yourself "why would nobody sign their name to this?"
One reason is pointed out by MMFA: because it intentionally ignores the fact that the company DPW is state-owned.
Another reason is because it intentionally ignores the fact that the UAE is one of the nations that funded the attacks of 9-11, and were perhaps so helpful as to also provide two of the hijackers: A fact conveniently not found in the editorial, conveniently overlooked by its unnamed writer.
More reasons to cowardly not sign a name to such a disgrace?
How about using the characterization that this 'deal' was opposed "in the exalted name of anti-terrorism": This unsigned editorial ridicules anti-terrorism as a concern of the People and the Congress? Whoever wrote these insulting unsigned words better wake up:There's nothing ridiculous about anti-terrorism. It is a serious concern to the American People and their Congress.
And how about the lament that "Americans may be unable to distinguish you (the Arab world) from al-Qaeda": Right, immediately following the attacks of 9-11, I and many Americans looked to the 'Arab world' to hear voices of outrage, and to see co-operation in identifying the hijackers. Instead, the Saudi Royal Family (the President's 'good friends', and this anonymous editorialist's too, I bet) whom issued passports and money to those hijackers, in addition to supporting them in this country as they awaited their orders to attack, that Saudi Government confused and confounded the identification of the hijackers after the attacks; they helped not at all, and instead evaded all responsibility, and frustrated Justice; therefore leaving the American People's anger and grief undirected, until the Bush Administration conveniently directed it to Iraq. Don't even go there with that ""Americans unable to distinguish" crap; that's direct fallout from this Administration's policy of not getting Justice (but instead an invasion of Iraq) in response to 9-11; a policy I have no doubt the anonymous editorialist supports, thereby disqualifying his or her criticism of it's fallout.
And as for the "friendship" we risk of what the snake of a writer now hisses as "Muslim-majority countries", in regard to the U.S. requirement to "fight against radical Islamic terrorism"? It's not about "friendship" pal, it's about NATIONAL SECURITY. What kind of appeasement crap is that 'friendship" nonsense? Do you really think that We the People should go easy on our National Security concerns, so that we don't risk the "friendship" of "Muslim-majority countries"? (Those are the writer's words; I'm not making this up!) Too disgusting for the American People to stomach: appeasement for "friendship".
And then the writer wraps things up with "Some will blame the public, because opinion polls showed overwhelming objections to this deal. But it was Congress that brought this matter to public attention": You got it backwards pal! Not only were the American opposed from the start to this 'deal' that compromises National Security, they still are!
Did you think your cowardly unsigned disgrace of an editorial would gather some kind of shame among the People, or a shame among the Congress, for standing up for the National Security of our nation's ports?
Did you think your cowardly unsigned disgrace of an editorial would help smooth over the UAE's and the Bush Administration's Public Relations problems over this matter?
Think again pal.
They are the ones that started the fear mongering so who's fault is it that it has come back to bit them in the rear end. Also, If I were British, I would be a bit put off by the suggestion that there is no difference between doing business with a company that is based in a Great Britian, our strongest ally, and doing business with a state-owned company that may have ties to terrorists. I can't imagine the British sneaking a bomb or biological weapon in through our ports to do us harm.
They are the ones that started the fear mongering so who's fault is it that it has come back to bit them in the rear end.
Too true...scared into Iraq, turning a blind eye to warrantless wiretaps and now into blocking the DPW deal.
Also, If I were British, I would be a bit put off by the suggestion that there is no difference between doing business with a company that is based in a Great Britian, our strongest ally, and doing business with a state-owned company...
I don't have a poll to reference off-hand, but word from relatives over there suggests that the general consensus is we're nuts.
...that may have ties to terrorists
You mean like how Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda?
I can't imagine the British sneaking a bomb or biological weapon in through our ports to do us harm.
Neither can I...nor an American, Indian nor Aussie...the four nationalities making up DPW's management. However, ever heard of Richard Reid?
CD
I guess I when I said the British, I meant the British (or Canadian) as a nation not individually.
My mistake. You did write "the British." In that case, though, I would note that P&O wasn't "the British," but a UK-based corporation with global operations. In fact, if you look at the P&O website, the "About P&O" section starts off...
P&O is a major international logistics and transport company founded in 1837. We employ 22,000 people across the globe in the following business activities.
I'm guessing, but willing to bet, that not all 22,000 are UK citizens. So, P&O isn't "the British" at all...which makes me wonder why we would trust them anymore than DPW.
I guess what I find strange is: - we're willing to entrust our port security to a corporation with a British management team, yet not to one with Americans, most noteably the COO. - P&O either didn't percieve or ignored the security threat we perceive in DPW...yet we'd still trust security to P&O. - A UK judge reviewed various economic and security concerns raised by the sale and concluded there were no grounds to block it...yet our attitude is DPW will operate the ports when hell freezes over.
So, I'm sitting here thinking, Bush should have been careful for what he wished. He has been selling irrational fear for almost 5 years now, but this time it bit him in the butt.
CD
p&o more than dpw.
1.I don't see any issue with the ownership transfer.
I went to a maritime school and subsequently went into the maritime industry. I should point out the ownership of an American Terminal Facility is not a security issue or even inviable. Dispite the fact that DPW is under government ownership, the UAE must operate the terminals as set forth by U.S. law overseen by the USCG and the CPB, they can't operate under the laws of the UAE. Most vessels operating at these U.S. terminals are here under foreign flags with foreign crew that includes Middle Eastern Nations (Lyberia, Saudia Arabia,UAE, ex-Iraq, Etc.) . The biggest security issue we have is immigration. It was the biggest hole the first time and it still is. We just can't shut down intangible borders into the U.S. The hijackers of those flights saw that and used it, each had patiently waited for their Legal U.S. Visa's.
We have more terrorism at home by our own citizen's every day than we ever will from abroad.
Google the news you have the following right now: Arson, Rape, Bombings, Murder, Uncontrollable roving gangs, Shoot outs, Armed robbery, cults, etc.
2. What's wrong with Dubai?
The UAE is almost like the Switzerland of the Middle East and it genuinly appears to be improving itself beyond the current state of most arab nations. It's not anymore corrupt and nasty to it's neighbors or itself than the U.S. It's got less dependency on Oil (Foreign and National) than the U.S. But, it's still a recognized nation and complaint's that it argued with the other nations over what to do with itself at home, is kinda ridiculous. So what's our collective problem.
Is it really as George Carlin said "If you're a country with a lot of brown people look out, cause we'll probably bomb you every 2 years or so."
3. I think Bush honestly thinks what he does is right and what he says is the truth but, that doesn't change the fact he's an Idiot and that's absolutely terrifying. What's even worse is when he's actually right. You can't just say no deal to another country simply because of the implication that one day, one of it's citizen's or banks or businesses may have connections with terrorism. Check out our own before casting stones. We're supposed to be liberals guys and you're advocating that the U.S. seal off part of the world because of impossible to defeat fears and phobia's. It's silly stuff and I've seen it on both sides.
"Try and remember that the opposite of Terror is Tranquillity, Not Pre-Emptive Strike."
I agree christiandemocrat. I certainly haven't done the research that you have. I just know that something doesn't feel right. I had heard before also that there are many foreign-owned companies leasing our ports. I think that I even hear that one was Chineese. It's just that one day the administration is making us fear the (muslim) terrorists. and then another day they are asking us to trust them wtih our ports. And when they cry terrorism it can be a pretty vague term and it has come to be known to many American's to mean Middle Eastern Muslims.
How paranoid I sound now with all of this "them" and "they"
sorry for the typos
I agree something doesn't feel right. I'm just of the opinion that DPW ownership is a distraction for the real issues. Some issues that come to mind:
1) Why were exemptions - e.g., records requirements - made on the DPW deal? What other port operators are the beneficiary of similar exemptions?
2) Why has the administration ignored port security? Why aren't the Democrats using this opportunity to more vocally push their reforms?
3) Why are we (once again) getting cozy with dictators while being overtly antagonistic towards democratically elected governments?
At the moment, my mind starts to wander a bit off-topic after that...e.g., how many laws can the administration break, but not be impeached?
CD
I have a bad feeling about this too, and can't put my finger on it. The whole solution to the DPW thing is largely cosmetic and should have been done in the first place if the administration wanted to avoid the controversy. One thing I see is that Republican politians up for re-election in 2006 have been able to distance themselves from the president, and as it turns out they didn't even have to commit to a vote to do it.