Dubai Ports decision gets president off the hook

0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Mar 11, 2006

GEORGE W. BUSH owes executives at Dubai Ports World a great big, wet smooch of gratitude.

By withdrawing plans to take over operations at six major U.S. ports, DP defused a roiling controversy that prevented a lameduck president from exercising his heretofore -- and still -- unused veto power. Since Congress was poised to override a veto, it would have been the most embarrassing defeat in Bushs six years at our nations helm.

Congress rebellion against the administrations ill-advised, ill- handled agreement to turn over ports to the state-owned United Arab Emirates firm is going away. You can almost hear Washington heave a giant sigh of relief.

In classic understatement, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, It does provide a way forward and resolve the matter.

Executive H. Edward Bilkeys announcement that DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity, came less than a day after the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to block DP World from holding leases to the ports. That clear-cut tally -- and warnings from GOP lawmakers -- bugled the inevitable outcome.

Americans opposed the deal. As Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, chairman of the appropriations committee, said, This is a national security issue, keep Americas ports in American hands.

It followed three weeks of controversy triggered when, without informing congressional leaders that such a deal was in the works, the administration approved DPs purchase of terminal operations from a London-based firm.

That surprise was ill-advised since two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were from UAE and some terrorist funds were laundered through that country.

Having an Arab-based firm controlling port operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia didnt settle well with American citizens or politicians of either party -- especially in an election year. Republicans feared it would give Democrats an advantage and dissed a president who heretofore had their undying support.

The 45-day period of review the administration had accepted didnt even run its course. Its just as well. Opinions seemed to calcify with time, not become more flexible.

Some members of Congress suggested that DP try to salvage its bid by subcontracting operations to U.S. firms. But Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, proposed prohibiting any foreign entity from operating shipping facilities that the Defense Department and Homeland Security deemed critical to national security.

As many as 80 percent of American terminals are operated by overseas-based firms, but theyre not Middle Eastern. In the wake of 9/11, it was risky and shortsighted to let a firm from a country with direct links to terrorism run our ports, perhaps giving anti- American forces easier access to goods and cargo containers flowing in and out of our ports. Ports remain, after all, among the most vulnerable entry points into our country.

Americans were uncomfortable with that prospect and voiced distrust of the Bush administrations handling of the deal. DPs withdrawal took them off the hook.