SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: P&O PORTS DEAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABU DHABI 000942

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA;
INR/B; RRU-NEA
IIP/G/NEA-SA
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC
SECDEF FOR OASD/PA
USCINCCENT FOR POLAD
LONDON FOR MCKUNE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OIIP KMDR AE KPAO
SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: P&O PORTS DEAL


1. SUMMARY: A COLUMNIST IN "AL-ITTIHAD" IS SKEPTICAL OF U.S.
OFFICIALS' NEGATIVE STANDPOINT AGAINST P&O DEAL AND WONDERS WHY
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS IN FAVOR OF
THE DEAL. "AL-KHALEEJ" RAN AN UNSIGNED FRONT-PAGE EDITORIAL IN
WHICH IT CONVEYED A MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ON
HOW SHEIKH MOHAMED'S DECISION ON THE P&O DEAL SHOWED WISDOM AND A
VISION FOR FREE TRADE. AN EDITORIAL IN "GULF NEWS" RAISES THE
QUESTION OF ANTI-ARAB DISCRIMINATION AND OPINES THAT THE RECENT
DP WORLD INCIDENT WILL HURT FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE U.S. END
SUMMARY.


3. Under the headline "Dubai deal: Testing the U.S.-Arab
friendship", a columnist, Yousif Ibrahim, wrote in Abu Dhabi-
based Arabic daily "Al Ittihad," (circulation 65,000) 3/10:

"Call it hypocrisy or whatever. The position of Senator Clinton
on the Dubai deal is shocking. Her husband has frequently
visited the Arab region and made a lot of money from the speeches
he made there... So while he is making money from the region, his
wife is objecting the Dubai deal! Former Secretary Albright has
joined those in favor of the Dubai deal hoping to make more money
from Arab wealth. This is unfortunate giving that she spent most
of her time as Secretary on establishing bans and punishments on
Arab and Muslim states. Now she miraculously supports Arabs...
In summary we can say that the Americans are showing
contradictions which are part of the democracy they are trying to
sell by force to other countries... The Bush administration
should have been clear and transparent in explaining why it is in
favor of the deal. It should have also been clear and
transparent in explaining the relationship between the U.S. and
the UAE on fighting terror... If the U.S. considered the UAE a
true ally in fighting terror, it should have dealt with the UAE
in a better and more friendly manner."


5. Under the headline "A message to the people of the United
States" which was unsigned and displayed on the front-page,
Sharjah-based pan-Arab daily "Al Khaleej," (circulation 85,000)
3/11 wrote:

"The reason behind Sheikh Mohamed's directions regarding the
transfer of 6 U.S. ports to a U.S. company as part of P&O deal
does not require any explanation... The Sheikh's wise decision
was made in accordance with the values of free trade and
internationalization. This is unlike the U.S. congressmen, the
majority of whom do not carry passports and have never left the
U.S. They are not aware of the latest developments in the world
and their actions, sorrowfully, are influenced by their narrow-
angled interests and discriminatory visions... Ultimately, this
brave decision should be perceived by the Americans as a friendly
message to the people of the United Sates and as an invitation to
rational people among the congressmen to not allow an imbalance
between peace and free trade to happen as it has among the values
of peace, human rights and constitutional freedom which were
meticulously set up by the early founders of America. "


5. An unsigned editorial in Dubai-based, English daily "Gulf
News" titled "We heard you loud and clear" (circulation 95,000)
3/12 wrote:
According to a Gulf News poll, 64 per cent of readers say the DP
World affair "changed their opinion for the worst" about
investing in the United States. A number of businessmen told the
newspaper yesterday that Arab investors would think about other
destinations. The majority agreed that DP World has been forced
out of the US port operations due to "racism".
President George W. Bush admitted Congress has sent the "wrong
message" to the rest of the world.
We don't feel that DP World lost. It in fact won the respect of
the international business community when it won the bid to
acquire the British P&O Company. It gained the admiration of the
political community when it showed the maturity to bow out with
grace.
Nevertheless, the whole affair served as a lesson for other Arab
companies who may have thought of investing in what has proved to
be a hostile US atmosphere. All the free trade talk proved to be
just empty rhetoric. Another irony is that the Democrats, the
supporters of globalization, were the key opponents of the deal.
There must have been something else behind the sudden change of
heart.
It was definitely not the concern for national security, as they
fully know the Bush administration had run a meticulous review of
the deal, which established it was not a threat. Was it the
"Israeli element" as some have suggested? Maybe. Otherwise, why
would some Congress members bombard the DP World executive,
during last week's hearing, with questions about the Arab boycott
of Israel? Did they want to force the UAE to end the pan-Arab
boycott of Israel in order approve the deal?
These questions need to be investigated. But the fact remains it
was an ugly scene in Washington. Other foreign-owned companies
run US ports but they were not Arab. That is the message.
And we got it.

SISON