Bush Again Defends Deal on U.S. Seaports

Critics Cite Dubai's Role in Israel Boycott

Edward H. Bilkey, left, an executive of the Dubai firm that is buying a British operator of U.S. ports, , testifies that his company has nothing to do with the boycott of Israeli goods. Robert Scavone, right, represents the British firm. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)

President Bush said yesterday that he continues to believe it is safe for a Dubai-based company to take over terminal operations at six U.S. ports, evoking fresh attacks from critics of the deal who said the administration's new probe of the transaction is biased.

"My position hasn't changed," Bush told reporters at the White House after a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

"If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's mind that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward," the president said, referring to the takeover by Dubai Ports World of a London-based port firm.

"On the other hand, this company is buying a British company that manages the ports," he added. "What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company that has been . . . cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?"

Bush's comments reiterated views he has stated before -- and that, his opponents said, was precisely the problem, because over the weekend the administration and Dubai Ports World agreed that the transaction would be subject to a more extensive 45-day investigation in which the president would be the final arbiter. That move came because of the uproar that ensued over the disclosure that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a secretive interagency panel, had approved the deal after a standard 30-day review.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the new review is "meaningless" without more congressional input. He blasted what he called "the Orwellian Bush administration" for "saying we want 45 days, but on the first day -- the first day -- [the president] said: 'I approve the deal.' "

Reid's comments underscored the zeal with which Democrats are continuing to lash the White House on the issue. At congressional hearings, Democratic lawmakers heaped scorn on administration officials for having blessed the deal. "It doesn't take 45 days. It shouldn't take 45 minutes" to conclude that the transaction should be blocked, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said at a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee.

The Democrats also raised a new objection: Dubai's support of the Arab boycott of Israel. They cited a Jerusalem Post article published yesterday asserting that the parent company of Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the Dubai government, helps enforce the boycott.

Under questioning from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Edward H. "Ted" Bilkey, a U.S. citizen who is the company's chief operating officer, acknowledged that the Dubai government respects the boycott. He pleaded ignorance to questions from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) about the role that a corporate affiliate plays in keeping Israeli goods from entering the emirate.

Bilkey maintained, however, that his company has nothing to do with the boycott and has an extensive business relationship with one of Israel's largest shipping companies. "We serve everyone in our terminals around the world," he said.

Administration officials rejected the criticism, asserting that they had taken an in-depth look at the implications before concluding that the transaction would not increase the risk of a terrorist attack on the United States. John D. Negroponte, the administration's intelligence chief, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "On the basis of our inquiry, we assessed that the threat to U.S. national security posed by DP World to be low. And we did not see any red flags come up during the course of our inquiry."

But Democrats were not the only ones persisting on the attack. Aides to Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.), long an advocate of free trade, said he plans to introduce legislation today with Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) to ban foreign companies from investing in U.S. port operations.

Most container terminal operators are already foreign-owned -- three-quarters of the containers entering U.S. ports go through terminals leased by foreign firms, according to testimony at yesterday's hearing of the commerce panel. But those operators would not be affected by the legislation, aides to the two lawmakers said.