The ‘face-saving’ deal on Dubai Ports World

Over the weekend, it appears several parties in the Dubai Ports World controversy — Republican lawmakers, Republican White House, and the company itself — reached a cease-fire of sorts. The 45-day investigation the Bush administration decided not to do the first time around will happen after all.

The “breakthrough,” if we want to call it that, came over the weekend when the company itself “invited” the administration to perform the higher-scrutiny investigation. The idea, the New York Times reported, is that the administration-driven probe would assuage lawmakers and slow down any kind of legislative remedy to the controversy. To this extent, the “face-saving” deal is working — several key GOP lawmakers backed off some of their threats yesterday.

There are, however, two angles to consider. One is the fact that this adds a great deal of responsibility to the president personally.

The Dubai company seeking to take over some terminal operations at six American ports formally asked the Bush administration on Sunday to conduct a deeper investigation into security concerns surrounding the deal. The request will leave President Bush in the politically delicate position of having to personally approve or disapprove the takeover.

If the deal remains unpopular, Bush won’t be able to rely on the “out of the loop” defense. His signature, with no congressional input, will make this deal happen. Politically, that’s a real risk for the White House.

The other angle, as Judd at ThinkProgress noted, is that the “face-saving” deal itself is not quite the compromise it appears to be.

1. The deal would not actually be delayed. Dubai Ports World has just offered to alter its management structure until the review is completed. “The company said that during the renewed scrutiny, or until May 1, a London-based executive who is a British citizen would have authority over DP World’s U.S. operations. It pledged that Dubai executives would not control or influence company business in the U.S., but said it was entitled to all profits during the period.”

2. If the outcome is different, Dubai Ports World said it may sue. “In the legal papers sent to the White House, DP World said it would abide by the outcome of the lengthier review but indicated it could sue if the results were any different.”

3. The administration has already made up their mind. Unless Congress has a role, it’s meaningless. “[Sen. Chuck] Schumer said Congress should have a chance after the review to approve or reject the administration’s decision. ‘If the report is completed and kept secret and only given to the president, who has already come out for the deal, it will not reassure Americans,’ Schumer said.”

A few things to consider over the next 45 days.

Point 4: WTF is ANY company doing telling our government how things are going to happen? This review is, apparently, required under law. Where does any company get off saying, “oh, we are going to voluntarily comply with the law?” It’s not voluntary, and it is rather a mark of hubris from the company (maybe on BushCo’s advice?) that they are ‘offering’ this.

  • It’s not a deal; it’s merely a delay. Lke Gollom, the Bush Crime Family just can’t let a source of profit go. We’ll still have this issue to hang around the Shrub’s neck this November.

  • Actually, putting the “burden” of approving the deal on GWB is politically astute at this point for the Republicans. What we have to realize – what we will increasingly realize for the next three years – is that Bush is a lame duck. However bad his political standing gets, in the end it really won’t matter. He will increasingly take on a convenient role as lightening rod, deflecting anything that may threaten the GOP’s chances of hanging onto Congress. Thanks to this little “compromise”, Republican Congressmen facing tough re-election fighs will be able to say, with a note of gravitas, “Well, I had serious questions about that deal, and we forced the Administration to review it, but in the end the President gave his approval, and it was his call, so that was the end of the matter. But enough about the past. Cut taxes! Kill gays!”

    Thus has the Dubai deal vanished as a factor in 06 or 08. Karl wins again.

  • BC,

    Thus has the Dubai deal vanished as a factor in 06 or 08. Karl wins again.

    Not so fast with the pessimism, please. Hurting Bush helps us in the midterm elections. Sure, he’s not up for election, but he is the most public face of the GOP. The malleable center will be less enthusastic about supporting GOP candidates if they know that they will just do Bush’s bidding. Until they actually publically break with W (e.g. call hearings into any of the scandals, pass a bill that he has threatened to veto, etc.), then Dem candidates can say, “sure my opponent is a fine person, but as a member of the GOP is clearly subservient to the Bush Administration. The last thing this district can afford is more of the corruption and incompetence of the GOP. Vote competence, vote against corruption, vote for me”.

    The worse off W is, the worse off the GOP is. His fundraising and power of the pulpit are diminshed and that directly impacts the midterms. Whether or not that’s enough to overcome the gerrymandering remains to be seen.

  • Okay, so what we get is the usual run-around. The company has “acquiesced” to being reviewed, the Admin will “review” it. Congress forgoes its powers once again. The deal will be approved and UAE’s DPWorld will be running our east coast ports.

    God help the GOP if any terrorists plots or WMD should happen to come through our ports because of their negligence.

    Its a bad idea, I don’t care how they sell it, I don’t care how “friendly” the UAE is.

    (cue Bush walking into sunset holding Sheikh Abdullah.)

  • just to be vain for a moment, this is precisely what i predicted would happen on this very blog last week when our host asked for our thoughts about how this would be worked out.

    what i also said at the time, and reiterate now, is that the dems should not focus on this deal: rather, they should keep pounding away at the bigger point – why has the bush administration and the gop resisted 4.5 years of democratic efforts to improve port security in general?

  • I hope it goes through and that the GOP in Congress give it their approval. But Dems need to stand up and express their opposition, and cintinually reming\d the public of the President’s claims during the 2004 election on “selling our security” and of the GOP congresspersons who initially opposed this. This really could be the issue whixh swings national security back to the Dems, or, at a minimum, levels the playing field on that issue. The GOP caused an expensive and horrible mess in Iraq, a country that had no real ties to al qaida, but the GOP gives control of our ports to a country that had such ties, and cost us a shot at OBL. I think the public will understand that one.

  • The port security issue, combined with the Katrina response and the military situation in Iraq has exposed Bush and the repubs as NOT capable of providing security and are infact dangerous bunglers.
    No matter what the outcome of the deal.. if the Dems don’t latch onto the Security issue and hammer away with single minded focus…then Rove can bring out his circus of family values distractions.
    Security is trump no matter what the port deal outcome.
    Lock and load and happy hunting.

  • This really could be the issue whixh swings national security back to the Dems, or, at a minimum, levels the playing field on that issue.

    well said, bubba. Dems must take advantage of this, per Kali’s comments. Security can trump God & Gays, especially in the political center.

  • The Dems must capture this issue and never let it go. Even Patrick Buchanan got it right, on the McLaughlin gasbag group, when he said that when Bubba in Mississippi wakes up and realizes foreigners have taken over our ports….

    It’s an issue which can only die if Democrats let it die through willful neglect.

  • NEWS – Coast Guard Warned of Port Gaps. According to the Houston Chronicle:

    WASHINGTON — Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

    See the story for more.

  • Comments are closed.