White House scrambles to save UAE port deal

US President George W. Bush did not know about the agreement until "the last several days," after it was completed, because questions about security "didn't rise to the presidential level," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

But "the counterterrorism experts looked at it. The intelligence community did an assessment to make sure that there was no national security threat," McClellan told reporters.

Unless US lawmakers prevent it, Dubai Ports World's acquisition of the British firm which currently manages the ports is to be finalized on March 2.

Ports affected by the deal are in New York; Miami; New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The president has vowed to veto any legislation stalling the agreement, which congressional critics charge would hand sensitive seaport activities to a country with a spotty record on battling terrorism.

Republican Representative Sue Myrick (news, bio, voting record) summed up the opposition with a curt letter to Bush on her Internet site: "Dear Mr President. In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO -- but HELL NO!"

One Republican congressional aide, who requested anonymity, said the White House should have realized that the agreement raised uncomfortable questions about national security -- a key issue ahead of November legislative elections.

McClellan acknowledged that the administration should have done a better job of briefing the US Congress, where opposition Democrats and Bush's Republicans have closed ranks against the agreement.

"Despite the significant number of transactions that go through this (vetting) process each year, this is one where we probably should have consulted with, or briefed Congress on, sooner" said McClellan.

The White House has been surprised and stung by lawmakers' opposition to the 6.8 billion dollar agreement, which may face congressional hearings and even lawsuits to block it despite Bush's aggressive effort to save it.

"The president believes it is the right thing to do. We shouldn't be holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company," said McClellan, who said halting the deal would send "a terrible message."

"The United Arab Emirates is a strong partner in the war on terrorism. We work very closely with them," with military-to-military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and targeting terrorism funds, the spokesman said.

The spokesman stressed that security operations would remain under the control of the US government, with the US Coast Guard overseeing the physical security of the ports and the US Customs and Border Patrol watching cargo shipments.

McClellan also denied suggestions of a conflict of interest tied to Bush's nominee to run the US Transportation Department's Maritime Administration, David Sanborn, a former executive of Dubai Ports World.

"He was nominated to run the Maritime Administration because of his experience and expertise," McClellan said. "My understanding is also is that he has assured us that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase this British company."

If Bush vetoed legislation upsetting the deal, it would be the first time since he took office in January 2001 that he used that presidential prerogative -- and it might lead the US Congress to override him.

Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said he believed the Senate would be able to muster the 67 votes needed to override a Bush veto, while Republican leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives have also called for freezing the agreement.

Source

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.