|
 |
News |
 |
|
| |
Email this article | 
Print This Page |
| |
Protests mount in US over P&O-Dubai port deal |
| |
2/17/2006 7:38:34 AM |
| |
WASHINGTON - A Dubai-based company's deal to gain control of six major US ports has sparked a storm of criticism from US lawmakers and others who question whether security would be compromised.
On Thursday, seven US lawmakers called for a top-level US government review of the security implications of the deal that would give DP World of Dubai control of the ports.
DP World agreed earlier this week to buy British port and ferries group Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P and O) for 6.8 billion dollars.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is headed by the Treasury Department, approved the deal that would make the UAE firm manager of facilities in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore.
But US Senator Chuck Schumer, who voiced concerns earlier in the week about the takeover, along with three other senators and three members of the House of Representatives, urged Treasury Secretary John Snow to reconsider the government's approval.
"This United Arab Emirates government-owned and operated company could be perfectly qualified to operate ports around the world, but the question that needs to be answered is whether or not they can be trusted to operate our ports in this post 9-11 world," Schumer said.
"The administration needs to take another look at this deal."
"Handing the keys to US strategic ports to a regime that recognized the Taliban is not a sound next step in our war against terror," added Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
"I urge Secretary Snow to investigate this agreement that could seriously undermine our national security."
New York Representative Vito Fossella said, "we cannot cede control of strategic assets to foreign nations with spotty records on terrorism."
"This decision seems inconsistent with American efforts to enhance our national security," the lawmaker added. "The lack of transparency has left many questions unanswered as to why the UAE would be granted control of United States strategic assets."
Also signing the letter were senators Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Chris Dodd of Connecticut; and representatives Chris Shays of Connecticut and Mark Foley of Florida.
"Six of our largest commercial ports are being handed over to a country that is seeking to be Iran's free trade partner and has been linked to the funding and planning of 9-11," Foley said.
"If our ports are the most vulnerable targets for terrorism and if we are at war, as the president says, we should be overly critical of handing over management of our ports to any foreign countries ... Instead, this was done in the dead of night," Foley added.
The plan also drew criticism from news media.
A New York Times editorial urged the US administration to "reverse" its decision on national security grounds.
"National security experts have long warned that the ports are a key point of vulnerability," the newspaper wrote.
"One of the worst fears about terrorism is that a nuclear device might be shipped from overseas and set off when it arrived in a port in a large city. The federal government should be doing everything it can to ensure that port security is as rigorous as possible, including keeping port management in trusted hands."
The conservative Washington Times offered even blunter criticism of the deal.
"Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where Al-Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?" The Washington Times asked in an editorial.
"We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder," the editorial said. "President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn't happen, Congress should take action."
DP World could not be reached for comment.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the deal "went through the national security review process" under CFIUS, but declined to elaborate.
Former homeland security chief Tom Ridge, however, told CNBC: "I don't think any secretary in this administration would approve of that kind of investment unless they were absolutely assured there would be no breach in security protocols." - AFP/ir
|
| |
|
| |
www.channelnewsasia.com |
news |
| |
Email this article | 
Print
This Page
|
|
 |
| |
|
| Upcoming Events |
 |
|
| Upcoming Sports |
 |
|
| Featured Links |
| |
|
|
|
