Get PJ Media on your Apple

Customs Deal Gives Big Advantage to UAE Over U.S.

Administration says the pact is about national security, but the Emirates called the shots in a way that could seriously wound U.S. airlines and jobs.

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

July 10, 2013 - 9:16 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Ranking Member Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said the pre-clearance facility would subject just three planes a day to extra scrutiny.

“It is understandable that an agency of the federal government subject to sequester, subject to furloughs, subject to waiting times that deter economic activity and tourism to the United States would say, well, gee, can’t we get another source of revenue?” Sherman said of the UAE offering to chip in 80 percent of the CBP facility’s costs.

“But, if the net effect of this is to diminish the number of people who fly on U.S. carriers and to give an unfair advantage to the airline based in Abu Dhabi then what looks like a good deal for American taxpayers may in fact not be.”

McAleenan, testifying before the panel, said one reason Abu Dhabi was chosen is “to shut down different routes” for terrorists in the region.

“DHS and CBP engaged many governments in this region in response to the emerging aviation security threat from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula over the last several years there’s been ongoing conversations,” the CBP official said. “…A lot of these flights from source countries for extraneous activity are coming through the Arabian Peninsula. They are coming through the UAE and Abu Dhabi. We’d like to close off one of those outlets with our most strongest security program that we can project abroad.”

Lawmakers noted that it doesn’t stop terrorists from simply avoiding the pre-clearance outlet.

Sherman said he thinks the security benefit is “very slight.”

“It’s not like this person, if they chose to go to Lagos or Frankfurt on the way to the United States, would be subjected to that pre-clearance,” he said. “…So I think we have to evaluate this on an economic basis.”

The head of the trade association for U.S. airlines, Nicholas Calio of Airlines for America, told the committee “it doesn’t matter that CBP’s claiming a national security — it’s also a matter of economic security, and they play into each other.”

“What we have here basically is the United States government picking winners and losers in the international aviation business, and the winners are the international competitors of U.S.-based airlines,” Calio said. “…For the UAE this is not a national security issue, it’s a commercial play. It’s about diverting traffic that otherwise would fly on American metal to their own planes for which they don’t have the population to fill.”

He noted that the UAE has on order twice as many new wide-body jets than the U.S. carriers have combined — and is looking for a way to fill them.

“These governments and their airlines have made clear publicly, repeatedly that their goal is to make airports like Abu Dhabi the world hub. They’ve further made clear that an integral part of the plan, in fact, the indispensable part of the plan is to do this by skimming international passengers from U.S. carriers,” Calio continued. “…So what we have here basically is the United States government facilitating the business strategy of these foreign governments and their airlines.”

President Obama called UAE Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan on Tuesday; the White House said the leaders focused on Egypt and “the strong partnership and friendship between the United States and the UAE.”

Lawmakers contend that partnership is blossoming at the expense of Americans.

“We have every confidence that U.S. airlines can be marketplace global leaders in commercial aviation – but that we cannot possibly expect them to succeed when this Administration helps foreign national carriers at the expense of domestic airlines,” said the Meehan-DeFazio letter to Napolitano.

“Providing explicit support for a government-owned foreign competitor by opening a CBP Preclearance facility in Abu Dhabi is wrongheaded, and we strongly urge you to abandon this agreement.”

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my neighbor's step-mother makes $89/hr on the internet. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her check was $17981 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more... www.Can99.com
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just more fodder for King Obama's "transformation" of America.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"This agreement falls in line with both parties’ commitments to protect their borders from any risks..."

What risk does Abu Dhabi run? That a team of enraged Judeo-Christians impelled by the Bible will fly airplanes into the sparkling new condo towers there?

From our standpoint, wouldn't America be better off if there were no more Moslems landing here?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The UAE has an "open skies" bilateral aviation treaty with the U.S. which allows any carrier of either country to fly to, through, and via any point in the world to Dubai, or any other airport in the UAE. The fact that, at the moment, no U.S. carrier uses Dubai is a business decision, not a problem with getting "permission" to fly to/from Dubai.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your comment is irrelevant. "Airspace" and "Airports" are not the same thing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, "airspace" and "airports" are not the same thing. One must fly through "airspace" to get to an "airport." One picks-up and delivers passengers, mail, and cargo to "airports" by flying through "airspace."

There are, depending on how one interprets the International Civil Aviation Organization Chicago, Bermuda, and Montreal conventions five, six or seven "freedoms of the air." Signatory nations to the ICAO Conventions are allowed, subject, in some cases, to bilateral agreements, to exercise those "freedoms" in providing civil aviation services between and among the signatory nations. The "first freedom" is the right to overfly the territory of another nation without landing. The Second is to land in the other country to refuel without taking on or discharging passengers, mail, or cargo. The Third is the right to carry passengers from your home country to another country. The Fourth is the right to carry passengers from another country to your home country. The Fifth is the right to fly from country Home to country B via country C and to pick up passengers, mail, and/or cargo in country C and carry it/them to country B. The Sixth freedom is the right to fly from country C to country B and carry passengers destined from C to B but not Home while enroute to Home on the same flight/plane. The Seventh freedom is the right to base, for example, an Emirates aircraft in Singapore and operate it on routes to Australia without any operations to/from the UAE.

The only operation not allowed for Emirates is to carry domestic U.S. origin/destination traffic. That is called cabotage and is a right not granted to any foreign flag carrier.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What we are dealing with is a leadership which is far removed from U.S. interests, despite their blatherings to the contrary. And whatever caveat they throw, yes, it is good for the U.S. - blah, blah, blah - most understand it is nothing of the sort.

And the fact of the matter is that the terror aspect is nonsensical, on its face. Terrorists will circumvent this and that. But it IS the case that Barack HUSSEIN Obama has been seeking - ever since he disgraced the People's House in his first term - to bring America to its economic knees, and raising up third world countries to higher status.

In effect, this new strategy appears to be of piece with said designs - http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/27/dhs-americas-planned-deconstruction-via-valerie-jarrett-domestically-foreign-policy-wise-addendum-to-barack-hussein-obamas-deconstruction-plans-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Clear as a bell.
Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All