Bear in mind that I think the port deal is being blown out of proportion but I feel a little uneasy about the words in your quote from the Christian Science Monitor story:

hey note that P&O will not be "managing" the ports, as many news organizations have reported. Instead, the company is one of many that leases terminals at the port.

If they lease the ports does that not make them responsible for their day to day running? As the story itself points out they are still responsible for loading, moving cargo and hiring labour (not for security).

If I buy lease an apartment I'm responsible for what furniture I put in and keeping it tidy and clean (to whatever standard I choose). In effect managing it.

This is just spin from PR.

Regarding this whole U.S. port issue, I have two questions:

Are any port berths in the UAE managed by American, or any English speaking company?

Two nights ago I heard a FL Congressman state on MSNBC that American businesses may only invest in a finite geographic area of the UAE (a free trade zone?) and may not own more than a 49% interest in any asset in that country… is that true?

I have approached this port controversy from the perspective of the above two questions. Any time I have tried to argue against this deal based on free trade, I have immediately been called hysterical and Islamophobic. Or, I didn’t understand the issue, yada, yada, yada. When I rebut that I was against the front company for the Red Chinese owning leases in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach back in 96’, that issue is ignored. I have made an effort to check out trade equality between the U.S. and the UAE to no avail. It seems the rhetoric has become so hot that no one wants to investigate this angle.

I regularly read a blog out of the UAE titled Secret Arabian Journal. Today, they posted an entry in which they said that the Arab world should start limiting availability of trade with the U.S. as “payback”. Well, if my above two questions/statements are true, don’t they already do that? Considering that the UAE currently owns CSX rail line and, that at one time a Japanese company owned Rockefeller frickin Center (which sucked for them), I would say that the U.S. is much more open to foreign investment than the Arab world.

On the political front, this deal has sparked a house fire for a few reasons.

First: The Bush administration has done an abysmal job of protecting our borders and the base is totally fed up with the situation. The base views the port deal as just another failure to protect our borders (whether this is a rational thought or not is beside the point).

Second: Bush has been beating the “free trade” drum rather loudly of late. Within the last two weeks I saw Bush give a speech from an Intel factory in NM in which he repeatedly stated that American workers can compete globally given an even playing field. Is this an even playing field? I also watched a press conference he gave with an official of the country of Columbia extolling the virtues of equal trade between nations. Is this deal an example of equal trade?

Third: The continued fighting and dying of our sons and daughters in the Middle East in the name of democracy and national security juxtaposed with the cartoon wars and other forms of lunacy by the Islamic street. I do believe that the Republican base is having a hard time justifying our continued involvement in a region of the world that seems culturally so out of control. Ergo, the rejection of an Islamic country controlling any aspect of our ports.

Fourth: Of course the Democrats, who have been beaten to a pulp on the national security issue, will use this to regain some credibility.

I would appreciate it if you would consider these questions and possibly head me in the right direction to find the answers. I have also sent these comments to a number of other bloggers including the Secret Arabian Journal. It will be interesting to see if anyone responds…

Thanks!

Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey... I guess we know who Bill Burket got the documents from.

Babs, well, yes and no. I don't think very many people consider it a free trade issue, they're looking at it solely from a national security issue.

One reason the US is so open to foreign investment is because we're so big. Consider this: Theoretically, there are a bunch of small, poor countries the US could just outright buy if they didn't put any restrictions on foreign investment. Then you would run into sovereignty issues, if your country is owned and operated by another country, it limits your diplomacy with the other country to "Whatever you say, please don't shut down the country". This is why pretty much every country has rules like that, and one of the reasons we have the Committee on Foreign Investment. I'm actually surprised the UAE's ownership limit is so high considering, oh, let's just say the "regional sensitivities to foreign ownership of assets". Yes, it is a free trade issue, but it's not exactly the same as restrictions/tariffs on goods and services.

And I'd say your first question ("Are any port berths in the UAE managed by American, or any English speaking company?") is irrelevant. Free trade doesn't mean equal trade. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd be able to explain it well myself, I'd recommend reading this book or perhaps asking your question somewhere at this blog, they'd be able to explain it better than I could. Hope that helps.

White House and Congress Trade Away American Security

The United Arab Emirates ports management deal finally exposes our economic and trade policies for what they are: a government's pursuit of money (for a select few) over the interests of most Americans.

The ports management deal is not an isolated mistake. Far worse has happened, but perhaps nothing as nakedly blatant. For example, how does it benefit Americans when:

Drug companies are allowed to write a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that keeps prices artificially high for seniors by forbidding government-negotiated prices based on volume?
The American-funded Import/Export Bank subsidizes Chinese nuclear power development? Is it possible we are not sending enough money to Communist China?
Congress has repeatedly neglected our national and economic security:

The majority of our oil comes from abroad, much of that from countries with unstable, unfriendly populations
The majority of our computer equipment is manufactured overseas
The majority of our food in imported from foreign countries
Over two-thirds of the products sold in major retailers is imported from countries like Communist China and Mexico
Our soaring budget deficit leaves deeply indebted to foreign countries like Communist China, to whom we owe $1 trillion
Illegal immigration is accepted—and legal immigration is abused—to secure cheap labor (exposing us to unknown security risks)
Congress sees the results of these unhealthy dependencies (declining American wages, record trade and budget deficits, national security vulnerabilities) and just pours fuel on the fire. It passed CAFTA after NAFTA. It refused to crack down on widespread illegal Chinese trade practices by threatening to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Most in Congress have demonstrated that they will not change course; they are simply too indebted to big-money campaign donors and lobbyists. We must replace them.

QAEDA CLAIM: WE 'INFILTRATED' UAE GOV'T

By NILES LATHEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 25, 2006 -- WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port...

johnkonop -

Take everything Al Qaeda says at face value?

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah, and look at all the trouble that al Qaeda infiltration caused them after they didn't release the detainees in 2002. That same document is mentioned in this article titled "U.S. Intelligence Agencies Backed Dubai Port Deal". An article that contained the following:

While contents of the intelligence assessments remain classified, current and former intelligence officials yesterday spoke highly of the level of counterterrorism cooperation provided after Sept. 11, 2001, by Dubai and several of the other states that make up the United Arab Emirates.

A former senior CIA official recalled that, although money transfers from Dubai were used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, Dubai's security services "were one of the best in the UAE to work with" after the attacks. He said that once the agency moved against Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and his black-market sales of nuclear technology, "they helped facilitate the CIA's penetration of Khan's network."

Al Qaeda was blowing smoke.

This is cool, you have to try it. I guessed 66048, and this game guessed it! See it here - http://www.funbrain.com/guess/

ionolsen21 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen23 Hello Jane, great site!

ionolsen40 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!

generic viagra .

generic viagra .

viagra .

buy viagra .

Thanks for nice site! Best regards! http://ringtonephone.blogcu.com

Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...

Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron...