[Ｓｉｎｋｉｎｇ�。帷。樱瑁椋穑穑椋睿纭。模澹幔靅 奔馳a200l

　　GRIM SECURITY BURDEN: Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson (center) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security attends a Senate hearing on the Dubai Ports World acquisition deal. Despite the Bush administration’s backing, the Arab company’s bid to take over U.S. port terminals has been rejected in Congress
　　
　　
　　An Arab company is forced to relinquish management of six U.S. ports amid alleged security concerns
　　
　　Post-September 11 America will never be what the country once was. That became clear again when Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that was to take over operations at six major U.S. ports, announced March 9 its decision to relinquish control of the ports to a “United States entity.”
　　The day before, U.S. lawmakers moved to block the deal on the ground, contending that handing over the ports to a Gulf Arab state-owned firm would threaten U.S. national security. In February, Dubai Ports World agreed to acquire UK-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates the U.S. ports, as well as others around the world.
　　The political drama had been intense because the White House held the opposite stance on this issue. President George W. Bush threatened to veto legislation opposing the deal February 21 and declared in early March that he would stand by the port deal unless there was a “true security threat” to the country.
　　“What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it’s OK for a British company to manage the ports but not a company that has been secured--that has been cleared for security purposes--from the Arab world?” Bush asked.
　　The American public, however, is not so sure that the UAE is secure. Still vivid in people’s minds are the memories of the twin towers of the World Trade Center being brought down by Arab terrorists. Two of the hijackers of the airplanes that crashed into the buildings were from the UAE, where terror planning and financial transactions occurred.
　　A CBS News poll released February 27 showed that 70 percent of Americans were opposed to the deal, while only 21 percent supported it.
　　
　　Domestic politics intrudes
　　
　　By a 62-2 vote, the House Appropriations Committee approved March 8 a budget bill amendment that was aimed at blocking Dubai Ports World from gaining control of the six U.S. ports. The company’s gesture of concession the next day could be best explained as a move to spare President Bush a showdown with Congress.
　　“This ownership provides Dubai Ports World no unique access or opportunities to make mischief because security requirements at the port would be the same for any company, foreign-owned or not,” wrote Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Jay Carafano.
　　Despite repeated explanations from senior security experts and the media, public opinion erroneously believes that the Dubai ports company would own the ports themselves and be responsible for security. Meanwhile, gearing up for the mid-term elections in November, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have seized upon the port row, which has already eroded Bush’s approval rating, as an opportunity to flag their national-security credentials.
　　An editorial in the Shanghai-based Jiefang Daily explored the Republicans’ rebellion against a president from their own party from a long-term perspective. “Since ‘counterterror’ and ‘national security’ have become the hottest issues in American society, opposing a president is not a big price compared with Republicans’ demonstration to their constituents of the party’s determination in guaranteeing national security.”
　　The article said that while the president will leave office for good in three years, Republican legislators are looking to win another term. Therefore, the issue of whether the takeover would benefit the American economy is far from the Republicans’ top concern.
　　
　　More evidence of xenophobia?
　　
　　The aborted port takeover is reminiscent of a similar case last May, when a potent storm of criticism from lawmakers forced Chinese state-owned energy company China National Offshore Oil Corp. to back out of a bid to acquire U.S. oil producer Unocal. The House of Representatives voted 398-15 for a non-binding resolution last May 30 that said the takeover “would threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”
　　“We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal business exchanges between enterprises of the two countries,” China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement days later.
　　Although some leading American economists maintain that overseas takeovers of U.S. firms often bring an infusion of capital and create additional markets, political outcries in Congress keep winning the day when purchases of assets are in so-called “sensitive industries” like energy and technology.
　　“I think it is very dangerous to enter a new world in which every purchase of an American asset by a foreign entity is scrutinized by the government,” Kevin Hassett, Director of Economic Policy at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., told The New York Times.
　　At least two deals are getting the extended security review that Dubai Ports World avoided. One is an Israeli hitech company that is paying $225 million to acquire a software firm that sells computer firewall protection to customers including the Pentagon. The second involves another Dubai firm that is embarking on a $1.2-billion takeover of a British company with plants in the United States that produce engine parts for military planes and tanks.
　　According to a Newsweek article by Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey, the people benefiting from such a scenario are Congressional lobbyists, who foresee an increased workload and a bigger payday in foreign takeovers of all sizes, which require extra paperwork and path-smoothing to avoid a political firestorm.
　　
　　Poisoning the investment environment
　　
　　U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow said the political furor over Dubai Ports World’s withdrawn bid was an isolated case, insisting that the United States was still “open for business.”
　　“I don’t view this as anything but an isolated incident,” Snow said in an interview with CNBC television.
　　Snow’s comments could do little to soothe fears that the United States is becoming a less-welcoming place for foreign investment. In an interview with The New York Times, Clyde Prestowitz Jr., a former trade official in the Reagan administration, said, “We need a net inflow of capital of $3 billion a day to keep the economy afloat. Yet, all of the body language here is ‘go away.’”
　　A backlash among Gulf investors, whose money is an important source of external funding to cover the U.S. current account deficit, has already started as UAE central bank governor Sultan Nasser al-Suweidi said March 12 that the central bank was looking to convert up to 10 percent of its foreign exchange reserves from dollars into euros, rather than the previously set 5 percent. He told Reuters on the same day that investors from his country are going to look at investment opportunities in the United States through new binoculars.
　　America’s export markets might also be on the victim list. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for government affairs, told Agence France-Presse that he has a concern about the potential for trade retaliation. Stressing that 30 percent of the U.S. economy is driven by international trade, he said, “The concern from where I sit is glaringly obvious: The United States on a worldwide basis has the most to lose.”
　　
　　Profound repercussions
　　
　　Dubai Ports World CEO Edward Bilkey said the company’s decision to divest its U.S. operations was made “because of the strong relationship between the UAE and the United States and to preserve this relationship.” But the affair has put a strain on relations between the United States and the Gulf nations.
　　In a Reuters report, Wadah Al Taha of the National Bank of Abu Dhabi was quoted as saying, “It’s American double standards. Do you think that businesses and governments here won’t react and even retaliate?” He said the issue was likely to adversely affect trade talks later this month between the two countries.
　　U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, however, responded that the United States hopes to clinch a free trade pact with the UAE within a few months.
　　The aborted effort may also take on a regional dimension. Commenting editorially on the same issue, Dubai-based Gulf News said that on the one hand, the deal was unlikely to have lasting, adverse effects on relations between the United States and Gulf countries on a government-to-government level. On the other hand, other nations in the Middle East may look upon the events as a typical example of American animosity toward this region, fueling further grudges and anti-American feelings there.
　　Professor Yu Jun of the China National School of Administration analyzed the issue from the viewpoint of national security. “The fear of transferring the management of ports to a foreign-owned company hammers the United States deeper into a homeland security dilemma: The more it seeks absolute security, the more dangerous it feels.”
　　
　　Timeline of the Port Deal
　　November 29, 2005 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) announces agreement to be bought by Dubai Ports World for $5.7 billion.
　　January 2006 PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) International offers contesting bid for P&O.
　　February 10 Dubai Ports World wins P&O with a bid of $6.8 billion.
　　February 17 Two Democratic senators announce plan to introduce legislation blocking the U.S. port takeover.
　　February 21 President Bush vows to veto any legislation blocking the deal.
　　February 23 Dubai Ports World and the White House agree to delay the port deal to give the president more time to convince members of Congress the takeover is no threat to U.S. national security.
　　March 8 House Appropriations Committee votes 62-2 to block the port deal.
　　March 9 Dubai Ports World agrees to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to a U.S. entity.

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Sinking Shipping Deal Ｓｉｎｋｉｎｇ�。帷。樱瑁椋穑穑椋睿纭。模澹幔� a sinking feeling like a feeling