Skip navigation
presented by 

Coast Guard was unable to analyze port risks

Gaps in U.S. intelligence about Dubai-based company cited weeks ago

NBC VIDEO
Coast Guard's warning on ports
Feb. 27: The Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it could not determine whether an Arab company seeking a stake in U.S. port operations might support terrorists. NBC's David Gregory reports.

Nightly News

Video: Security  
Inside the bin Laden family
May 13: Pulitzer Prize-winner Steve Coll discusses his new book, ‘The Bin Ladens’, which addresses how the wealth and diversity of one of Saudi Arabia's most eminent families influenced its most famous son, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

  Stand and be counted
Gut Check America

What keeps you up at night? Gut Check America wants you to tell us what really matters to our country. Click here to learn more and get involved.

  Photo features  
  More
Image: A young boy plays in Lake Malawi
Reuters
  The Week in Pictures
Natural disasters devastate parts of Myanmar and China, while natural – and human – wonders in Chile and Switzerland strike awe.
Image: University fire
AP
PhotoBlog
View and discuss the pictures and issues that caught our eyes.
updated 7:53 p.m. ET Feb. 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World’s plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports.

The Bush administration said the Coast Guard’s concerns were raised during its review of the deal, which it approved Jan. 17, and that all those questions were resolved.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement

The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

“There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment” of the potential merger, the unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.

“The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities,” the assessment said.

  Click for related content

The Coast Guard said the concerns reflected in the document ultimately were addressed. In a statement, the Coast Guard said other U.S. intelligence agencies were able to provide answers to the questions it raised.

Concerns addressed
“The Coast Guard, the intelligence community and the entire CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) panel believed this transaction received the proper review, and national security concerns were, in fact, addressed,” the Coast Guard said.

That multi-agency government panel reviews foreign purchases of vital U.S. assets.

The report raised questions about the security of the companies’ operations, the backgrounds of people working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. The Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World’s request for a second review of the potential security risks related to the deal.

Congressional leaders who brokered the arrangement for a second review hoped it would defuse a bipartisan political uproar over port security and scuttle any push for legislation this week that would force such an investigation and could embarrass President Bush.

Senators introduced several bills Monday anyway, even though Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters in Detroit, “I don’t think it’s necessary to legislate.”

Criticism persisted from both Republicans and Democrats.

“This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps,” said Collins, R-Maine. “That language is very troubling to me.”

Officials: No review needed
Appearing before the Collins committee, administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of the business transaction following their initial review.

“In this case, the concerns that you’re citing were addressed and resolved,” Clay Lowery, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for international affairs, told Collins. “There were no national security concerns that were not addressed.”

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

“Any time there’s a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record,” Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. “And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements,” he added.

Rate this story LowHigh
 • View Top Rated stories

Sponsored links

Resource guide

Search Jobs

Find your next car

Find Your Dream Home

Find a business to start

$7 trades, no fee IRAs