Reply #3: Hutchinson Whampoa is bad news [View All]

[starroute]

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0141.html

Finally there’s Perle’s connection to Global Crossings, the bankrupt telecommunications company. Perle was hired by the Hong Kong-based company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd where he has a fat consulting deal, purportedly worth $750,000, to ‘smooth the way’ for its purchase. Global Crossings handles a lot of US military communications and Hutchison Whampoa is closely linked to the Chinese government and their military.

On edit: Here's more on Perle and that deal. It looks like this was what lost him his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board:

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/richard_perle.html

3/27/03

Global Crossing's management, according to the grapevine, hired Perle to help "overcome national security concerns" within the Pentagon about the Hutchison takeover. And these are not small concerns for the Pentagon. They arise from long-standing links between Hutchison's billionaire owner Li Ka-Shing and the Communist Chinese government -- including its armed forces. The Defense Department is not exactly pleased to see a Chinese-connected firm take hold of Global's huge fiber-optic networks, which is used -- by the way -- by American military and defense agencies. . . .

Perle said, in an affidavit dated March 7, that his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board gives him a "unique perspective" on and "intimate knowledge" of the national defense and security issues that will be raised by the US Committee on Foreign Investment, which has the power to block the deal. Global Crossing is paying Perle $750,000 for Perle's "perspective" -- and $600,000 of this fee is conditional on US government approval of the deal. . . .

In an odd exchange with New York Times reporter Stephen Labaton, Perle was firm: "I'm not using public office for private gain, because the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with the CFIUS process." But when asked about his "unique perspective," Perle claimed the deal was drafted by lawyers and he had not noticed that phrase. Later, after realizing his blunder, he called Labaton back to elucidate, saying that the sticky phrase was "in an earlier draft," and that he had noticed it and crossed it out. Perle claims that someone put the phrase back in, and Perle then signed it without noticing.

As I recall, CFIUS is the same board that botched the Dubai Ports deal. Not exactly reassuring.