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