DPW absolved of routine restrictions in secret agreement:
"The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries." LINK
To be sure, the negotiations and provisions are secret as a standard matter. How about that, all these guys in government hoping for and coming from big paying industry jobs meet in secret to determine whether the people they want those jobs from can purchase American national security interests. How very democratic. This raises further questions about John Snow, who sits on the secret panel that reviews these kind of things and had business ties to DPW when he was CEO of CSX railways and David Sanborn who left an executive position at DPW to become the US Maritime Administrator.
Though the dwindling defenders of the Bush administration have said that the deal would not impact security, the leaked agreement actually contains specific language regarding security compliance. Anyone who is familiar with the law can see the wiggle room in the diction:
"Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers 'to the extent possible.' It promised to take 'all reasonable steps' to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials." (AP in Guardian, linked above)
I suppose if there's a security breach at one of our ports John Snow and David Sanborn will be the first to assure us that "all reasonable steps were taken to the extent possible."
This deal needs more scrutiny. We need to have more open government. That's not specifically levelled at Bush but just the way this stuff being secret breeds cronyism and undermines legitimate business with the specter of cronyism. In the end, there could be an agreement that balances America's interest in protecting its security and in having open trade relations. This isn't about "protectionism" no matter what false dichotomies Bush wants to push. But such an agreement should be reached openly, restore the routine restrictions typical of these agreements and must remove diction that weakens DPW's security obligations.