Hello Drummers,
I refer you to my Yahoo: AlasBabylon posting #24481 to explain this phenomenon:

Abu Musa is just one of the islands smack-dab in the narrow Strait of
Hormuz [SOH]. The other islands under Iranian control are the Tunb
Islands, but I will just focus on Abu Musa for now in this essay.

From this link:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3503

Next, here is an informative link that discusses Iranian military
strategy and past military exercises to possibly counter Iranian
moves:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/arabian-gauntlet.htm

Plans were laid long ago to lockdown the MidEast-- we are just now learning the extent of the plans. Time will tell.

Even though the UAE oil may not currently go mostly to the US, the relationship building you refer to certainly gives the gov't here a greater voice (let's call it) as to where it is directed in the future, and at what price. It also gives them a trustworthy gatekeeper at this end, so that any shenanigans that take place would only be authorized shenanigans. I don't know enough about the industry to speculate as to what those shenanigans would be. But I know enough about our gov't to know that there will be shenanigans.

That NG is going to be used for EOR is also telling. I don't remember what's been written about the efficiency of this, but it again indicates a  reluctance (here) to move away from oil to EVEN NG.

The thing I'm not clear about is what form your paranoia takes? None of us thinks our own paranoia is paranoia -- it's justified fear and suspicion. Mine is directed at our US gov't, not Arab or other gov'ts who are always suspected of agency or complicity in terrorism. I won't repeat my views on that here.

> by awarding multi-billion dollar contracts
> to the UAE, the US is accomplishing at least two things.
>
> Propping up the UAE's ability to produce...
>
> Cementing good geopolitical relations...

The DPW deal isn't "propping up" anything, certainly not the UAE's ability to produce oil. Can you really imagine how that scene would play in the ADNOC boardroom:

"Sorry, guys, the P&O deal is off... looks like we're gonna have to shut in those 3 million barrels of oil a day we were producing for less than a dollar a barrel. Pity, we really could use the money."

Even if the deal gets squelched by Uncle Sam, I don't see the UAE being any less willing to ship oil to the United States. At least, as long as American consumers are willing to match the fifty-whatever dollars per barrel that buyers in other countries are currently willing to pay.

Sometimes, governments are foolish enough to make marketing decisions based on personal likes and dislikes. Chavez seems to be doing this, to the great glee of the lefty press, but they're mostly arts-graduate scum who don't understand the difference between a stb and a MMscf. Those "Bolivarian" gestures actually represent a tiny, tiny fraction of Venezuela's output. Most of the rest is being shipped to the Great Satan, same as always; they're the only country with the sophisticated refineries needed to upgrade Venezuela's miserable crude. PDVSA will end up subsidizing Chavez' childishness in the form of slightly higher shipping costs; you can be damn sure the Chinese won't be stupid enough to pay the extra to ship that stuff across the Pacific.

It's possible that blocking the deal might slightly reduce the willingness of the UAE to do business with Exxon, Chevron et al (in favor of Sinopec, ONGC, Total, Shell, BP...) if ever a big production or petrochem deal comes along and they're looking for foreign partnership. But that won't hurt you directly; it might cost the US government a few hundred million a year in corporation tax, and US shareholders a similar amount in dividends, but there are plenty of non-US companies who are happy to import and market oil in the USA.

Of course, this works both ways. I don't know if the US imported anything from Iran before choosing to ban direct trade, but by adding a little friction to the oil market, the Iran boycott decreases efficiency and increases prices to the American consumer. Probably only by cents a barrel, though; it makes a lot more geographical sense for Iran (and the UAE, and the Saudis) to supply China and India.

The physical market as a whole just rebalances itself. I don't worry about oil market boycotts, and neither should you.

1. Security for the WTC, Dulles airport, and American Airlines on 9/11 was run by Securacom.  Officers were Marvin P. Bush (the president's brother) and his cousin Wirt Walker III.  A Kuwaiti firm was the major investor.
   
2. It is well known that Fox News is owned by Australian born Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp.  The second largest investor is a Saudi.  Wave that US flag boys!

This is NOT nearly a big deal as the press is making it seem.  

I think the write up by Andrew Leonard at Salon, of all places, is the most rational one I've seen on the subject.

I'm not going to completely copy it, as that would be a disservice to both Leonard and Salon, but I'll quote the most relevant parts.

There's been a lot of dumb rhetoric about the sale: Contrary to what politicians are saying, the United Arab Emirates company will not "own" or be running security at the ports. Nearly all American ports are already operated by foreign companies, Dubai Ports World has a sterling reputation around the world, and it just happens to be run by a senior staff that includes a bunch of, guess what, Americans.

and...

First, George W. Bush is not "scheming" to outsource anything. Operation of these ports was already in foreign hands, and the purchase of a British company by a United Arab Emirates company is hardly a result of malign White House maneuvers. Meanwhile, as Time magazine notes, the International Longshoremen's Association workers who currently offload ships at the U.S. ports will continue to do so, regardless of who has the contracts to run the ports.

The rest of the article is here

Basically, the fact is all that is changing is the overall ownership.  And, while, yes, it could be feasible in some sort of wild conspiracy that the new owners, who have absolutely no motivation to muck with their US business relationships, could somehow change shipping logs or fudge some reports without tipping off at least one pro-US worker, the chance of this pales in comparison with some of the other port-related security issues that are STILL unaddressed.  

To me, this entire issue just seems smeared with racial overtones and partisan politics.  Democrats see it as a chance to raise their numbers in security related issues, and Republicans, aware of this possibility, are moving to block that move.  

Ugh.. it's nauseating.

http://tinyurl.com/a3ymn

Why don't tighten up the borders in the US, because there is no real threat.  They would rather spend billions upon billions to install camera systems in all the cities, spy on the citizens through the NSA, and destroy any remaining "freedoms".  Same with the ports, it shouldn't surprise anyone.  It will just be a convenient excuse for the next psyop terrorist attack on US citizens.  After all the citizens are who they are really afraid of...

==AC

"Given the right leadership and sufficient external threat, the primary product of such spirituality may be social cohesion. ...Almost every leader of note has, either consciously or unconsciously, fished these murky waters at some time or other.
Their reward is a united people armed with humanity's shining Excalibur.  To unsheathe this magic blade, such visionary leaders must first win over the populace with the primal fairy tale, which invariably contains two ingredients;
1.) A Monster-preferably one who speaks an alien tongue, prays to heathen gods, wears peculiar clothing, and/or has different-colored skin.
2.) A Miracle-earned only by sacrifice, but culminating in triumph for the home team and a nasty end for the Monster.

This tired old routine has worked its magic with astonishing regularity since the dawn of history, and no one with fully functioning DNA seems wholly immune to the lure of it.  Its genetic nature shines through the grisly statistics that follow every major conflict, especially those that incorporate genocidal slaughter."
~Reg Morrison, 1999 "The Spirit in the Gene, Humanity's Proud Illusion and the Laws of Nature"

PRIMAL FAIRY TALE CONFIRMED:
1.) http://tinyurl.com/7rz38  http://tinyurl.com/97r5f
2.) The Miracle, by sacrifice, and the "nasty end for the Monster":

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.  
We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Americans are asking, why do they hate us?  They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government.  Their leaders are self-appointed.  They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."
"This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.  There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.  They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror.  They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction."

"Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices -- and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: "I know what honor is. ... It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to.... Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting."
~George W. Bush

Well, let's review some real facts beyond the scope of your presentation.  

If anything related should have leaped out at people, it would be the January nomination of DP World's Dave Sanborn to serve as the administrator of the U.S.Maritime Administration.  

Essentially, many individuals have missed the big picture on what is occurring.  This latest buyout by DP World is about global control of cargo movements via port and terminal operations.  The sale of P&O to DP World will move DP up to the number three global position.  A significant move in terms of global cargo handling.  And this provides a pretty good indication of what crude oil revenues can buy in terms of sustainable investment opportunities in other industries on the global stage.  

Now, I'm not pleased to see a growing number of U.S. port operations run by any foreign corporate interests.  It's rather disgusting to know that the U.S. major port authorities are turning to foreign interests to operate their support facilities.  But, pushing that aside, this buyout is logical from DP World's point of view as it expands its operations globally.  And rest assured that DP World, as a young transnational corporation, is moving along at breakneck speed on multiple fronts to establish a growing share of world dominance.  

Check this out:  

Dubai National Government
http://www.dubai.ae/

Dubai Ports World
UAE-based global operation

"DP World is a leading global port operator with a portfolio of operations in Asia, Australia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.  The company has 22 container terminals in 15 countries."  

"DP World is the result of the integration of Dubai Ports Authority ("DPA") and DPI Terminals ("DPI") in September 2005. This new entity continues the tremendous success of the DPA and DPI businesses, which have been at the forefront of Dubai's extraordinary transformation into one of the world's leading trade and commerce hubs."

"DP World manages the commercial and operational aspects of the port network, formerly developed and managed by DPA and DPI. In 2005, the terminals operated by DP World handled an estimated 13 million TEU which include ports on five continents from the Americas to Asia."

DP World home page 1
http://www.dpiterminals.com/

DP World home page 2
http://www.dpiterminals.com/dpworld_main.asp

Company History
http://www.dpiterminals.com/subpages.asp?PSID=1&PageID=21

* Includes listing of facilities located in each country where DP operates.  Worth noting.  

Management Structure
http://www.dpiterminals.com/subpages.asp?PageID=25&PSID=1

DP WORLD EXECUTIVE NOMINATED FOR PRESITIGOUS US GOVT POSITION
http://www.dpiterminals.com/fullnews.asp?NewsID=39

This pertains to Dave Sanborn, who was nominated in January 2006 by President Bush to head up the  Maritime Administration, a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation.  

Regional Offices - Overview & New Regional Structure
http://www.dpiterminals.com/subpages.asp?PageID=24&PSID=2

Regional Office Locations - Map interface
http://www.dpiterminals.com/mainpages.asp?PSID=2

Global Terminal Facilities - Map interface
http://www.dpiterminals.com/maincats.asp?CatID=1

Affiliated Company => Jafza International
http://www.jafzainternational.com/

Affiliated Company => Crane Services
( Info thus far not posted)

New Developments
http://www.dpiterminals.com/maincats.asp?CatID=2

Latest Global Acquisition => Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O)
London-based corporation
http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?_pageid=71,207172&_dad=pogprtl&_schema=POGPRTL

Sidebar:  U.S. Maritime Administration
http://www.marad.dot.gov/  

I find it amazing that the most obvious thing UAE has is being ignored in this thread and by this blog: Military Bases for Force Projection.

Spook86 at "In from the Cold" has already written up on this, so I'll quote the Spook:

"Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight-even with political allies. ... Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy-anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports. Such criticism, in turn, would cause other Gulf allies to question Washington's long-term committment to the region, and make it more difficult for the U.S. to sustain basing rights in such countries as Qatar and Bahrain."

More on US bases in UAE here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/uae.htm

Finally, throwing down my white cain, heaving myself out of my armchair by the fire and jumping on the revolutionary barricade for a moment, let me finish by urging you all to, Defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Say "No!" to an imperial Presidency and the Long War! No blood for oil! Power to the People, Right On!

I think this ports issue is a scam. Many ports are foreign owned. This smacks of jingoism and grandstanding for the next election. What's next? Torching kebab houses since terrorists could feed us poison lamb kebabs.

I guess it's hard for Bush to show his cards. He knows there is nothing we can do to stop the variety of terrorism we face--that's why he let this deal go through in the first place. It won't matter--terrorism can infiltrate a UAE port as easily as a British one. Just as the metal detectors and irritating security at airports does nothing, it's a show to placate the public. So is the hoopla around this port deal.

Our country only embarrasses itself as we succumb to wild nationalist fears and erode our own dignity and freedom in the name of safety.

Why do we have so many enemies? If it was a small radical fringe they'd be ineffective--we'd have no need to worry. But we are as intent on swelling the ranks of terror cells through our military campaigns as we are wedded to baroque security procedures and destroying civil liberties and manufacturing fear based on the county of origin of a company.

The gist was this:

1.  The UAE is just swimming in dollars from the sale of oil.
   
2.  They know that oil is finite and will run out sometime in the future (yes they actually said this on the radio).
   
3.  The UAE is trying to convert their dollars into hard assets so that when oil peaks (the spokeman said this as well)they are diversified into other things and can keep their economy going.
   
4.  The UAE have been buying lots of foreign assets to meet this diversification goal.  The ports are just the latest example.

The US did not "award the contract to UAE". A UAE based company was the highest bidder in a private deal. The US authority have approved the deal, in the sense that they can't find any good reason to reject it (political or otherwise). Sure, the US is more inclined to approve deals with friendly oil suppliers than Chinese exporters, but that is as far it goes, it's just obvious politics.

The security issue is a complete red herring as even with the current set up anyone can easily get a container through unnoticed.

This is just a minor coincidence, it is only through the distorting lens of PO fanaticism it becomes a major global conspiracy. It does not warrant paranoid analysis. I gave up peakoil.com because of this stupid stuff, please don't let TOD go the same way.

While I know that the Bush regime didn't actually 'authorize' the deal, I stongly suspect that  it would not have gone forward without their back-channel approval.

The simplest explanation I can think of is: If the US is nice to the UAE, the UÅE will be nice to the US.  And, exclusive of favorable oil and gas terms, how can the UAE be nice to the US?  I think the prvious posters who cited military cooperation have the answer.  It wouldn't surprise me in the least that one element of this whole thing is an unwritten understanding regarding future US military basing in the UAE. Perhaps a conclusion has been reach in the Pentagon that the establishment of several large permanent bases in Iraq might not turn out be as easy or as 'permanent' as originally thought.

Yep, if there is anything sinister about this whole deal, I would have to lay my money on the military angle. No evidence, just a guess like everyone else's.

Er, let's get our facts straight. It's not a "UAE-based company," but rather a company owned by the UAE government. Big difference. HUGE difference.

The UAE government is a monarchy with ties to Osama Bin Laden.

You want them running our ports? I sure don't.

Second, there's a fairly good, and fairly simple, geopolitical reason for the Bush Administration not to nix the deal.  The Administration is asking (and pressuring) Middle Eastern governments to cooperate in the GWOT, and is attempting to divide the ME so that the US is not fighting the entire region.  In order to do that, the US must offer carrots as well as sticks.  If the Administration kills this deal specifically because an Arab country is involved, then it sends a fairly strong signal to the entire Arab world that the US is not open for business to Arabs (beyond buying hydrocarbons, that is) and will not reward them for cooperating in the GWOT.  That would be a mistake.

Could some grand conspiracy be at work?  Sure.  Such things have happened in the past.  Personally, I'll stick with Occam's Razor until I receive extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

I've been reading TOD daily for several months now despite the fact that altogether I am usually reticient to comment on blogs for what ever reason. Yet I felt complelled to do so now.

Dave: A suggestion to you - just a suggestion, that's all. In the future it is probably a better idea to veer a course that stays clear of anything that is redolent of politics, at least when it not tangetially so. It is refreshing to find a blog that is not politcal that, yet, touches on sensitive issues that have tremendous geopolitical implications. I doubt that anyone here at TOD, regardless of policical persuasion thinks that future energy wars are inevitable. But still, I think it is better to stay clear of it in headline posts, because it invites lots of needless acrimony on the boards and detracts from the main purpose of the PO issues and threatens the future viability of discussion. Many trolls just look at headlines on blogs before commenting, and the more neutral the blog is the less likely that this board will become partisan.

All that being said, I couldn't help reacting to one comment:

"I think this ports issue is a scam. Many ports are foreign owned. This smacks of jingoism and grandstanding for the next election. What's next?"

So what? This is nothing new, and when backed into a corner the Democratic Party has no choice but to act dishonestly. Most of the liberal base has for long argued that not enough has been done to act WITHOUT intellectual integrity with the American public, because the electorate responds only to talking points and controversy. They contend that they have lost elections because of it and thus have no choice but to fight fire with fire.

Anyway, my second comment can be construed as contradictory to my first one yet, on the other hand, may actually illustrate what he former insinuated.

Best regards,
Jaccques

On this particular thread there seems to be rather heavy use of the terms, 'paranoia' or 'paranoid'. As best I can tell, the operating criterion is: If I think something is amiss, I am merely being'suspicious'; but if YOU think something is amiss that I don't think is amiss,  then YOU are being 'paranoid'.  Oh well.

At the risk of being called paranoid, I will make an all-encompassing statement: Since 9-11 the Bush regime has become totally paranoid about security. There, I got it off my chest. The thing that bothers me though is that their paranoid is high inconsistent. Some examples.

• An Ohio kindergarten class had to cancel its class trip to a NASA research facility because the Dept. of Homeland Security recently instituted a policy allowing only US citizens, and two of the six-year-old kids were not US citizens.

•  A family couldn't make a Thanksgiving holiday trip because their 4-year-old daughter somehow got on the No-fly List.

• An eighty-year-old woman in a wheel chair is strip-searched because airline security 'felt' something was suspicious.

Contrasted to that, the Bush regime seems to have little concern that  our border with Mexico is about as tight as a sieve. Why?

Also contrasted to that is that the Bush regime has no problem whatsover with the government of an Islamic country taking control of vital port management activities. Why?

Now, it has been argued that the UAE company is merely buying a British-owned company and that nothing will really change one way or the other.

I totally take issue with this claim, based on my own experience with the takeover of a US company by a foreign company. While at first nothing changes, little by little the new company gradually implements changes, puts its own people in top positions, and eventually changes the whole character of the original company. What is also rather troubling is that the owner of this company is not just another company, but rather a government, a Middle Eastern government at that. While this government may be friendly now, what about the future?

The only explanation I can come up with as to why the Bush regime shows great concern over even minor security non-issues such as the example of the Kindergarten class, and is seemingly totally oblivious to thing like our border and the UAE takeover, is that much of its War on Terrorism is bogus and is more of a mechanism to increase its power and control over the American people.

If that's being paranoid, then I guess I am paranoid.

UAE is accutely aware that their reserves will not last forever and are proactively planning for their future.  By buying gas now at very low prices, they are reinjecting it to recover immediate oil and at the same time storing a supply of NG for them to use after their oil runs out, which I think is supposed to be in 7 years for one of the Emerates city states (I may be off on that).  UAE states are attempting one of the most rapid diversificatins I've ever seen.  You almost can't get around in Dubai due to all the construction going on there.  They can't build it as fast as the people want to come in.  Even residence status is offered to go along with the right purchase of certain condos.  Where did you ever hear about that before?  Do they want to diversify or what?

In keeping in line with their diversification plan, they will be actively buying up anything they consider good investments.  Their ONLY immediate problem is they have too many USD.  The mideast is SWIMMING in money today.  With all the extra stuff floating around there, ESPECIALLY USD!, what else are they going to do with them, except try to buy high value long term income producing properties denominated in USD, and the best place to find that is the USA?  They're up to their necks and choaking on old US T-bills.

The US politicians see an opportunity to STAND UP for the American worker and appear to be FIGHTING TERROR, BOTH at the same time.  How can they resist?  Why else do you think both Democrats and Republicans are sleepig together?  They can't lose.  Good for them if they block it, even better if the Pipsqueek vetos it.  Who GAS? The Pipsqueek's dead anyway.  We're just waiting around to see how he gets buried.

The Dubai state and the UAE is the safes of all mideast countries.  They are well controlled and diciplined and have no terror threats against them.  They are small and secure.  They just want to buy a good thing when they see it.  Besides all the US west coast ports are owned by the Japanese or somebody anyway.  What have you been doing about that?  Nothing.

Dubai Construction Status,
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/cs/?id=100485
Check this photo,
http://www.aidan.co.uk/photo1594.htm
Dubai Construction Center facts and figures,
http://www.dcci.gov.ae/content/Bulletin/Issue19/MarketMonEn_ISSUE19.pdf

New airport just finished.  Large indoor ski slopes.  Banks (tax haven) They want to 3X tourism in 5 years.  Building shopping centers everywhere.  Everyone in the world seems to want an office there.  

http://www.ameinfo.com/16488.html
http://www.firstclasstravel.de/construction_in_dubai.htm
http://www.businesseye.co.uk/stories/?issueid=27&storyid=116

I'd far rather read an interesting and informative  post that comes from a perspective I disagree with than one that is PC from my point of view but doesn't teach me a damn thing.

Curiously, we now have an American who is a senior officer in a Dubai corporation nominated to run the Maritime Administration.  To whom does he owe allegiance? DP, Dubai? The Maritime Adminstration?  Is he an officer of DP running the Martime Administration?  Where is the check sent?  Or does he receive two checks?  And to whom does DP owe allegiance?

I am not necessarily picking sides here, but I think countries themselves are slowly losing control of operations that they formerly reserved to themselves.  Outsourcing creates confusion, as does off-shoring.  Who represents only a country's interest?  

Transnationals and Multinationals are slowly controlling almost every aspect of economic life--including military operations.  They have their interests.  Do they have mine?

"The Desert Camp, February 1999
"During the winter of 1998-99, intelligence reported that Bin Ladin frequently visited a camp in the desert adjacent to a larger hunting camp in Helmand province of Afghanistan, used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located there, and apparently remained for more than a week. This was not in an urban area, so the risk of collateral damage was minimal. Intelligence provided a detailed description of the camps. National technical intelligence confirmed the description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the UAE. The CIA received reports that Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited with Emiratis. The location of this larger camp was confirmed by February 9, but the location of Bin Ladin's quarters could not be pinned down so precisely. Preparations were made for a possible strike at least against the larger camp, perhaps to target Bin Ladin during one of his visits. No strike was launched.

"According to CIA officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike might kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. The lead CIA official in the field felt the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the UBL unit chief at the time agrees. The field official believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.

"Clarke told us the strike was called off because the intelligence was dubious, and it seemed to him as if the CIA was presenting an option to attack America's best counterterrorism ally in the Gulf. Documentary evidence at the time shows that on February 10 Clarke detailed to Deputy National Security Adviser Donald Kerrick the intelligence placing UBL in the camp, informed him that DOD might be in position to fire the next morning, and added that General Shelton was looking at other options that might be ready the following week.

"Clarke had just returned from a visit to the UAE, working on counterterrorism cooperation and following up on a May 1998 UAE agreement to buy F-16 aircraft from the United States. On February 10, Clarke reported that a top UAE official had vehemently denied that high-level UAE officials were in Afghanistan. Evidence subsequently confirmed that high-level UAE officials had been hunting there.

"By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on and the immediate strike plans became moot. In March the entire camp complex was hurriedly disassembled. We are still examining several aspects of this episode."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_6.pdf

Dave

The UAE has the largest per capita ecological footprint in the world:

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/asia_pacific/where/united_arab_emirates/about/threats/i ndex.cfm

They're burning it. Mostly to power air conditioning, I suspect.

A lot this stuff will be aired again (usque ad nauseam) in the coming weeks and months. Like it or not, the petro-bloc will need somewhere to stash that torrent of dollars. In ten years, more of us will be working for the benefit of those guys than are now. And the question of how to influence the holders of reserves in the ground to give access to US rather than THEM will continue to exercise the political classes.

Finally, I'd like to apologize to scum everywhere for bracketing it with arts graduates. That was out of order; clearly I went too far, and it touched a nerve. I won't do it again. Sheesh... lighten up guys

Back to lurking (for now)

How easy is it for a foreign corporation to own and/or operate a company, or purchase land in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)?  

NOT.  

The Dubai Facts:

"The [UAE] Federal Companies Law applies to all commercial companies established in the UAE and to branch offices of foreign companies operating in the UAE. Companies established in the UAE are required to have a minimum of 51 percent UAE national ownership."

"The [UAE] Commercial Agencies Law requires that foreign principals distribute their products in the UAE only through exclusive commercial agents that are either UAE nationals or companies wholly owned by UAE nationals."

"The [UAE] Federal Industry Law stipulates that industrial projects must have 51 percent UAE national ownership. The law also requires that projects either be managed by a UAE national or have a board of directors with a majority of UAE nationals. Exemptions from the law are provided for projects related to extraction and refining of oil, natural gas, and other raw materials. Additionally, projects with a small capital investment or special projects governed by special laws or agreements are exempt from the industry law."  

"The [UAE] Government Tenders Law stipulates that a supplier, contractor, or tenderer with respect to federal projects must either be a UAE national or a company in which UAE nationals own at least 51 percent of the share capital or foreign entities represented by a UAE distributor or agent."

"Up until recently, only Emiratis and other GCC nationals were permitted to own land in the UAE, while foreigners, who comprise 80-85% of the population, had been restricted to renting."  [GCC = Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, a.k.a. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)]

"Perhaps the most important impediment to freeholds is that owners cannot register titles with the Dubai Land Department, a step that allows owners access to the full range of legal protections and transactions that property ownership requires. If a national and foreigner try to register a change of land title, the Land Department normally turns them away."  

"Defense contractors with an eye for investment in the UAE must negotiate directly with the UAE Offsets Group (UOG), and invest an amount that will generate a profit equal to 60% of their contract in the UAE. UOG investment projects generally must show the required profit after seven years. The contractor may not own more than 49 percent of the project, and UAE nationals must hold the remaining 51 percent."

"There is no national treatment for investors in the UAE. The UAE maintains non-tariff barriers to investment in the form of restrictive agency, sponsorship, and distributorship requirements. In order to do business in the UAE outside one of the free zones, a foreign business in most cases must have a UAE national sponsor, agent or distributor. Once chosen, sponsors, agents, or distributors have exclusive rights. They cannot be replaced without their agreement. Government tendering is not conducted according to generally accepted international standards, and re-tendering is the norm. To bid on federal projects, a supplier or contractor must be either a UAE national or a company in which UAE nationals own at least 51 percent of the capital or have a local agent or distributor."

"Title to all land in Abu Dhabi, the largest emirate, resides in the ruler."

Source:

U.S. State Department - United Arab Emirates 2005 Investment Climate Statement
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/ifd/2005/42194.htm

Library of Congress - Federal Research Division - Country Profile: United Arab Emirates
December 2005
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/UAE.pdf

The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for U.S. Policy
May 9, 2005
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48385.pdf

State - Background Note: United Arab Emirates
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5444.htm

CIA World Factbook - United Arab Emirates (UAE)
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ae.html
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ae.html

EIA Country Analysis Brief - United Arab Emirates (UAE)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/uae.html

Library of Congress - A Country Study: United Arab Emirates
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/aetoc.html
* Older presentation (Dec 1992)

It's highly unlikely in my judgment that the Administration will reverse its decision.  The Administration is stuck, for a multitude of reasons.  Moreover, a reversal wouldn't necessarily stop the legal sale of P&O to DP World.  That is a foreign to foreign transaction.  (more later on this point)

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld steps to the mic:

News Transcript, DoD News Briefing with Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace, February 21, 2006
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060221-12543.html

It's entertaining to note Rumsfeld's 'knowledge innocence' on the sale of P&O to DP World during the follow up Q&A with the news media. One is led to think that DoD didn't have a chair at the Committee table (U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). That's complete nonsense, of course.  

The Secretary of Defense is a member of the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  Did he skip all of the supposed meetings?  Sec Rice appears to know about the meeting(s) and the thinking that resulted in the Committee's decision.  If Sec Rumsfeld further delegated the E.O.  committee role (not sure he has any authority to do that...), did that individual not keep him fully informed on the activities and decisions of the Committee?  Rumsfeld acts as though he had no knowledge of the Committee activities prior to, during, or after the Committee meetings on the sale of P&O to DP World.  He says that he didn't know anything until this past weekend. I call Rumsfeld's hand on his remarks to the news media.  If he's telling the truth, then I have little confidence that the Committee held any meaningful meetings.  Who the hell attended?  Not DoD...?

Turning to the Congressional side of this issue...

If the Congress intends to get off its collective butt and address the notable differences in airport operations vs port operations and security of infrastructure operations in general, any serious legislation put forth would provide the foundation for initiating an equalization of the security treatment considerations being applied to U.S. infrastructure facilities and operations.  Right now, we're not witnessing a level playing field.  

The Congress has, in the last five years, failed to go back and adequately readdress the Exon-Florio provision in such a manner as would address the ownership of U.S. ports by U.S. port authorities, and terminal operations/ownership, and/or functions contracted out to foreign subcontractors (such as the operation of entire ports or major terminals ).  If the U.S. Congress doesn't want foreign ownership or control of U.S. ports and/or terminals, then that needs to written into U.S. Code.  

Stepping back, the bigger question is what actually triggered the current Exon-Florio provision review by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.  Perhaps it is the 50% P&O ownership of the Port of Miami.  Beyond that issue and any other related U.S. corporation asset ownership considerations, I don't see where the sale jurisdiction comes into play if focusing on the language of the Exon-Florio provision.  

U.S. Department of Treasury - Exon-Florio Provision (as exercised under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States)
http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/

A careful read of the jurisdiction responsibility of the Committee is in order if one is to understand that the U.S. really doesn't have any authority to prevent the sale of one foreign corporation to another foreign corporation (or nation state), unless arm twisting the new deal if the first foreign corporation owned or took control of U.S.- based U.S. corporate assets.  As such, that would imply that the U.S. exercised prior approval of P&O ownership of whatever U.S. assets may be involved.

P&O can be sold to DP World without any approval by the United States Government.  Now, having said that, it may be the case that DP World could be forced to divest itself of the 50% ownership of the Port of Miami.  That's a strong possibility under U.S. Code.  For those who bothered to research news releases from P&O or DP World, it is the case that P&O recently sold some U.S. assets prior to the agreed upon sale of P&O to DP World.   Similarly, some effort could be undertaken to "encourage" or force DP World to sell its recent U.S. rail line assets.  

Obviously, the six port authorities affected in the sale of P&O to DP World (and the nation state of Dubai) can pursue legal means to void the existing operational support contracts with P&O/DP World. Beyond the Port of Miami ownership issue, the Exon-Florio provision may be of little help in voiding those contracts unless there is a legal determination that operation of terminals at any U.S. port authority facilities in the United States falls under the jurisdiction of the statute or related statutes that address matters of U.S. national security.  

Oh - back to that AWOL deal on Rumsfeld.  Maybe someone should call Gay Hartwell Sills at Treasury and find out the real story on Rumsfeld.  The number?  Phone: (202) 622-9066  Also: (202) 622-1860

Rumsfeld's the one member of the Committee who should never miss a meeting.  Those meetings are supposed to focus on national security issues.  

Right, Rummy?  

Mikey Chertoff for Dummies - Chapter 7, Section 161

Here are just a few of the things we haven't heard Homeland Secretary Chertoff mention in recent days...

UAE and Terrorism
December 2005 update
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/UAE.pdf

"Dubai is strongly linked to the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States; more than half of the hijackers flew directly out of Dubai International Airport to the United States."  

"As of late 2004, however, evidence suggested that al Qaeda was continuing to use Dubai as a logistical hub for international travel, planning, and finance."

The United Arab Emirates (UAE): Issues for U.S. Policy
May 9, 2005
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48385.pdf

"The UAE was one of only three countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the others) to have recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, after the movement captured Kabul in September 1996. During Taliban rule (1996-2001), the UAE continued to allow Ariana Afghan airlines to operate service to UAE, and many U.S. officials believed that Al Qaeda activists might have spent time in UAE."

"Two of the hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks were UAE nationals, and there were reports that the hijackers had used financial networks based in the UAE in the plot. Since then, the UAE has publicly acknowledged assisting in the 2002 arrest of at least one senior Al Qaeda operative in the Gulf, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri."  

"The UAE record on assisting U.S. anti-proliferation efforts may be of somewhat greater concern. In connection with recent revelations of illicit sales of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea by Pakistan's nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.  Dubai was named as a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sold by Khan. Two Dubai-based companies were apparently involved in trans-shipping such components: SMB Computers and Gulf Technical Industries."

--

--

Mikey Chertoff for Dummies - Chapter 7, Section 162

Mikey was completely tone deaf while defending UAE during the past week, forgetting his principal role and responsibility in this Federal prosecution:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v-ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI a/k/a "Shaqil," a/k/a "Abu Khalid al Sahrawi
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

U.S. Prosecutors:  

1. Michael Chertoff, Assistant Attorney General
   
2. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia  
   
3. Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Southern District of New York

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT: (excerpts)

On or about August 23, 1996, a Declaration of Jihad indicating that it was from the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan entitled, "Message from Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden to His Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula" was disseminated.

In February 1998, Usama Bin Laden endorsed a fatwah under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders." This fatwah, published in the publication Al-Quds al-`Arabi on February 23, 1998, stated that Muslims should kill Americans - including civilians - anywhere in the world where they can be found.

In an address in or about 1998, Usama Bin Laden cited American aggression against Islam and encouraged a jihad that would eliminate the Americans from the Arabian Peninsula.  

In or about April 1998, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI was present at the al Qaeda-affiliated Khalden Camp in Afghanistan.

On or about May 29, 1998, Usama Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and the Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

In or about June 1999, in an interview with an Arabic-language television station, Usama Bin Laden issued a further threat indicating that all American males should be killed.

On or about June 29, 2000, $4,790 was wired from the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Manhattan.

On or about July 19, 2000, $9,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

On or about July 26, 2000, in Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh wired money to Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) in Florida.

On or about August 7, 2000, $9,485 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

On or about August 30, 2000, $19,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohammed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

In or about September 2000, in an interview with an Arabic-language television station, Usama Bin Laden called for a "jihad" to release the "brothers" in jail "everywhere.  

On or about September 18, 2000, $69,985 was wired from UAE into a Florida SunTrust bank account in the names of Mohamed Atta (#11) and Marwan al-Shehhi (#175).

On July 18, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) gave power of attorney to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi for Fayez Ahmed's Standard Chartered Bank accounts in UAE.  

On July 18, 2001, using his power of attorney, Al-Hawsawi picked up Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards in UAE.

Between July 18 and August 1, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi caused Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards to be shipped from UAE to Fayez Ahmed in Florida. (The VISA card was then used for the first time on August 1, 2001, in Florida.)

On June 25, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi used a cash deposit to open a checking account at a Standard Chartered Bank branch in Dubai, UAE.

On June 25, 2001, at the same Standard Chartered Bank branch in Dubai, UAE, Fayez Ahmed (#175) used a cash deposit to open a savings account and also opened a checking account.

On or about July 30 and 31, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name "Ahad Sabet," received two wire transfers, totaling approximately $15,000, from "Hashim Abdulrahman" in UAE.

On or about August 22, 2001, Fayez Ahmed (#175) used his VISA card in Florida to obtain approximately $4,900 cash, which had been deposited into his Standard Chartered Bank account in UAE the day before.

On or about September 3, 2001, in Hamburg, Germany, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, using the name "Ahad Sabet," received approximately $1500 by wire transfer from "Hashim Ahmed" in UAE.  

On or about September 4, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) sent a FedEx package from Florida to UAE.

On or about September 8, 2001, an Arab male retrieved the package from Mohammed Atta (#11) at FedEx in Dubai, UAE.  

On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $2,860 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in UAE.

On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta (#11) wired $5,000 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in UAE.

On September 9, 2001, Waleed M. al-Shehri (#11) wired $5,000 to "Ahamad Mustafa" in UAE.

On September 10, 2001, Marwan al-Shehhi (#175) wired $5,400 to "Mustafa Ahmad" in UAE.

On or about September 11, 2001, Mohammed Atta, Abdul Aziz Alomari, Satam al-Suqami, Waleed M. al-Shehri, and Waleed al-Shehri hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, which had departed Boston at approximately 7:55 a.m. They flew Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan at approximately 8:45 a.m., causing the collapse of the tower and the deaths of thousands of persons.

On or about September 11, 2001, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald al-Shehri, Ahmed al-Ghamdi, and Marwan al-Shehhi hijacked United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which had departed from Boston at approximately 8:15 a.m. They flew Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan at approximately 9:05 a.m., causing the collapse of the tower and the deaths of thousands of persons.

On or about September 11, 2001, Khalid al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Hani Hanjour hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, which had departed from Virginia bound for Los Angeles, at approximately 8:10 a.m. They flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Virginia at approximately 9:40 a.m., causing the deaths of 189 persons.

On or about September 11, 2001, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Nami, Ahmed al-Haznawi, and Ziad Jarrah hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, which had departed from Newark, New Jersey bound for San Francisco at approximately 8:00 a.m. After resistance by the passengers, Flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania at approximately 10:10 a.m., killing all on board.

On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $16,348 was deposited into Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.

On September 11, 2001, in UAE, at about 9:22 a.m. local time (the early morning hours of Eastern Daylight Time), Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi moved approximately $6,534 from the $8,055 in Fayez Ahmed's (#175) Standard Chartered Bank account into his own account, using a check dated September 10, 2001 and signed by Fayez Ahmed; Al-Hawsawi then withdrew approximately $1,361, nearly all the remaining balance in Ahmed's account, by ATM cash withdrawal.

On September 11, 2001, in UAE, approximately $40,871 was prepaid to a VISA card connected to Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.

On September 11, 2001, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi left the U.A.E. for Pakistan.  

On September 13, 2001, the VISA card connected to Al-Hawsawi's account was used to make six ATM withdrawals in Karachi, Pakistan.

On or about October 7, 2001, in Afghanistan, Ayman al-Zawahiri called on Muslims to join the battle against the United States.

On or about October 7, 2001, in Afghanistan, Usama Bin Laden praised the September 11 attack, and vowed that the United States would not "enjoy security" before "infidel armies leave" the Saudi Gulf.

On or about October 10, 2001, Sulieman Abu Ghaith announced, on behalf of al Qaeda, that all Muslims had a duty to attack United States targets around the world.

--

U.S. Trade with UAE

I believe I will leave this subject area to Stormy.  I have complete confidence that he is well armed on the issue.  

--

U.S. and UAE - Military Defense and Sales

The U.S.-UAE defense relationship and military sales pictures are outlined with the following sources.

Allied Contributions to the Common Defense Reports to the Congress
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied.html

These are good summary reports that address the defense role of the GCC and UAE.  

The following offer some appreciation for U.S. military sales to UAE.

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) Search - type in United Arab Emirates [UAE]
http://www.dtic.mil/

According to Agence France-Presse - "Countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE), together spent about 277 billion dollars on defense and security between 1995 and 2002, according to Arab League figures. ...The GCC states spent about 37 billion dollars on defense in 2004, according to Jane's. ... The UAE historically has purchased its major combat systems from France, but UAE officials now appear to believe that arms purchases from the United States enhance the U.S. commitment to UAE security. In March 2000, the UAE signed a contract to purchase 80 U.S. F-16 aircraft, equipped with the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM), the HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile) anti-radar missile, and, subject to a UAE purchase decision, the Harpoon anti-ship missile system."
http://www.dtic.mil/dodsrch/docView?c=5EF526FDCBB753A6&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.au.af.mil%2Fau%2Fawc% 2Fawcgate%2Fcrs%2Frl31533.pdf

Examples of Foreign Military Sales to UAE:

The United Arab Emirates and Foreign Military Sales(appears to be a 1998 document)
http://www.bis.doc.gov/DefenseIndustrialBasePrograms/OSIES/ExportMarketGuides/MidEast/uae.pdf

September 16, 1998 - In support of a potential commercial sale of 80 F-16 Block 60 aircraft - sale of AIM-120B Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and AMRAAM training missiles; AIM-9M 1/2 SIDEWINDER missiles and SIDEWINDER training missiles; AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) and HARM training missiles; AGM-65D/G MAVERICK missiles and MAVERICK training missiles; AGM-84 HARPOON missiles; MK 82 and MK 84 general purpose bombs; MK 82 and 560 MK 84 air inflatable retard kits; BLU-109 bombs; GBU-10 and GBU-12 PAVEWAY II laser guided bomb kits; GBU-24 PAVEWAY III laser guided bomb kits; CBU-87 combined effects munitions; CBU-58 inert cluster bomb units; BDU-33 training bombs; MK 106 training bombs; 20mm and 20mm inert bullets
http://www.defenselink.mil/srch/docView?c=A3B245203F9EBEC5FC8C306E4AAF152F&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.d efenselink.mil%2Fnews%2FSep1998%2Fm09161998_m143-98.html&q=military+%3Cand%3E+foreign+%3Cand%3E+ sales+%3Cand%3E+uae&p=Simple

March 1999 - SecDEF meeting with UAE officials in Dubai regarding the potential sale of F-16s
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_03/armmr99.asp

"On his March 8 stop in the UAE, Cohen met with government officials to discuss outstanding issues in the proposed F-16 purchase. Washington has so far refused UAE requests that it release the software codes used in the F-16's on-board electronic warfare systems. As in the earlier AMRAAM negotiations, the UAE has threatened to take its fighter buy elsewhere if its demands are not met."

April 28, 2000 - F-16 aircraft
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2000/b04282000_bt216-00.html

Analysis of the F-16 Block 60 sale
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/fal00/phifal00.htm

26 April 2001- F-16 tail kits
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/UAE%2001-07.pdf

25 October 2001- Harpoon missiles
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/UAE%2002-07.pdf

4 September 2002 - Refurbished/upgraded E-2C Aircraft to the E2C HAWKEYE 2000
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/uae_02-44.pdf

17 July 2002 - Upgrade to Apache Helicopters
http://www.dtic.mil/dodsrch/docView?c=3BB10E3FB4075C08&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dsca.mil%2FPressRelea ses%2F36-b%2FUAE_02-30.pdf

November 14, 2003 - Harpoon Missile Block II retrofit kits and warhead section kits
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2003/ct20031114.html

17 November 2004 - JAVELIN anti-tank missile systems, missile rounds and associated
equipment and services
http://www.dtic.mil/dodsrch/docView?c=3BB10E3FB4075C08&dk=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dsca.mil%2FPressRelea ses%2F36-b%2F2004%2FUAE_05-09.pdf

Dubai air show Nov. 22, 2005 (note military sales discussion)
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=7994

Related GAO analysis reports on weapon systems sales to Middle East nations
http://searching.gao.gov/query.html?col=+&qt=+GAO-01-1078&charset=iso-8859-1&ql=&x=1 4&y=14

Meanwhile, after September 11, 2001, UAE was classified as an 'Imminent Danger Pay' zone for U.S. military personnel:

DFAS memorandum and change in 'Imminent Danger Pay' zones
November 26, 2001
http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/fmr/07a/07AIC40-01.pdf

--

UAE?  The Selective Knowledge Vacuum at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

All of this brings me to the President of the United States. And the White House staff.

President Bush. The leader of the United States of America. And those around him.  The inner circle, plus those down the hall and in the basement, as well as those next door in the Old Executive Building.    

We are supposed to believe that the President didn't have any knowledge of the activities of the CFIUS?  He had no knowledge whatsoever that DP World was bidding on the acquisition of P&O? None? At any time before this past weekend?  

Why not?

Did none of the CFIUS members, including Sec Rice, Sec Chertoff, and/or Sec Rumsfeld (oh, that's right...he knew nothing, too) advise the President or his immediate staff of the national security decision? None? Not one word? Not even a nod?  No report?  No summary?  No memo? Nothing?!

You're trying to tell me that Sec Snow, the CFIUS Chairman, did not inform the President of the United States of the Committee's recommendation to the President? That's how it works under Exon-Florio provision, by the way.  

NOT ONE WORD ABOUT A NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION??  

Uh, huh.  Right...  Whatever.  

Did Dave Sanborn, the Maritime Administration nominee, not advise the FBI or any single member of the White Staff that his firm, DP World, was in the process of attempting to purchase P&O?  He didn't mention the pending action during any interviews?  The FBI background package (the appendix) is a blank page on this NATIONAL DEFENSE subject?

Karen Hughes (over at STATE) didn't breathe a word?  Not a word?  Not even to the First Lady?  

I would lay odds that Barney, the President's dog knows the truth.  But he's not talking to the news media.  Barney's probably worried that someone is busy practicing for a hunting trip.  He might be hiding out.  

And that's exactly what we're hearing from Sec Rumsfeld and the White House Staff.  The See and Hear Nothing crowd. And we're supposed to buy into that BS.  Again and again.  

The President? He might not have known.  But I believe that he did know.  

It's high time that this Administration stop trying to con the American public.  We're getting a bit tired of the "Didn't Know" routine.  It's child's play.

If the White House staff, the Cabinet, and the President are that ill-informed and oblivious about ongoing events and activities, then we should ask them to step down.  Negligence is not among the attributes that we expect and demand of national leadership.  

Step Up or Step Down, people.   Do It Now.

--

http://www.pinr.com/

23 February 2006
"Economic Brief: U.S. Ports Deal, Italian Banking Sector"

Last week, Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, purchased British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. for US$6.8 billion. The acquisition, approved by the Bush administration, gives control of ports in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami to Dubai Ports World, sparking controversy in Washington and in state capitals among Democrats and Republicans.

Many lawmakers have questioned whether handing control of major U.S. ports to the U.A.E., which is considered an ally in the "war on terrorism" but has a mixed record, is in the best interests of national security. In a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow, who also heads the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.), several members of Congress asked that he conduct a 45-day investigation of the acquisition that "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." The letter also cited the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were U.A.E. nationals, that the FBI found that the U.A.E.'s banking systems were used to transfer funds for the 9/11 attacks, the U.A.E. had recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan and that the Treasury Department criticized the U.A.E. for a "lack of cooperation" in tracking down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.

Much of the commentary on the deal focuses on the fact that the U.A.E. is an Arab and Muslim state, and that the major issue is whether the U.S. should entrust its ports to such states. However, a key motive behind this argument is that Democrats, depicted by Republicans as weak on defense since 9/11, are seizing the opportunity to appear tough on national security and portray the White House as negligent ahead of the 2006 and 2008 elections. As such, lawmakers have pledged to pass legislation that would ban companies controlled by foreign governments from acquiring U.S. port operations, regardless of the fact that firms from England, Denmark, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan currently operate other U.S. ports

The Dubai Ports World deal was quietly approved as a precursor to a free trade agreement between the U.S. and the U.A.E. that recently entered a fourth round of talks. Trade between the two countries will rise significantly as a result of a free trade agreement.

The heavy secrecy under which the White House usually operates is another motivation for Congressional resistance. The Bush administration's disregard for Congressional approval, especially with regard to the N.S.A. spying program, has angered many members of Congress, who undoubtedly see the ports deal as an opportunity to strike back. In calling for hearings on the matter, Democrat Nancy Pelosi stated, "In the meantime, Congress must put an immediate halt to this deal that the administration hastily approved in secret without input from the Congress or state officials."

The White House now finds itself in unfamiliar territory of asking Congress to look beyond the 9/11 attacks so that the U.S. may cultivate relationships with friendly Muslim states. Bush has threatened to veto any measure that would block the deal, and members of Congress claim to have the support to overturn a veto. Bush now faces unprecedented opposition from Republicans in Congress and needs the U.A.E. deal to pass in order to save face.

Expect Congress, particularly Democrats, to continue to point to this deal as a major lapse by the Bush administration, and for Bush to struggle to maintain his steadfast commitment to national security and free trade.

"...according to sanctions experts and numerous U.S. court and regulatory cases, Iran uses Dubai to evade U.S. economic sanctions on Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.  The U.A.E. doesn't recognize those sanctions.

"Iranian front companies in Dubai routinely obtain prohibited U.S. goods, federal court records show.  In one undercover investigation by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that resulted in a November 2005 guilty plea in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the representative of an Iranian front company was caught on tape assuring an undercover agent posing as a businessman not to worry about sanctions regulations.

"'You are going to export to Dubai, which does not have any regulations.  It's a free, uh, country for importing, exporting,' said Khalid Mahmood, according to his guilty plea.  Asked if the equipment would then be shipped to Iran, Mr. Mahmood replied, `Once it comes here, we'll ship it anywhere in the world, no problems.'" [p. A12]

"No problems" indeed.