OK...We have had enough

We have been very quiet on the CNOOC, Chevron (ticker: CVX) and Unocal (ticker: UCL) quagmire.

Initially we felt that  the US was overreacting, UCL's assets are not going to swing the balance of energy power into the Chinese favor...there are some UCL patents but they are not technological breakthroughs and the only R&D I could think of was UCL's inability to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Now it seems the gloves are off on CNOOC's side
and they have fired off a salvo that goes too far and frankly is the
reason this blog has to say no deal.  Here is the quote that set me off:

"We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing
economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal commercial
exchanges between enterprises of the two countries," the Foreign Ministry said
in a written statement. "CNOOC's bid to take over the U.S. Unocal company is a
normal commercial activity between enterprises and should not fall victim to
political interference. The development of economic and trade cooperation
between China and the United States conforms to the interests of both sides."

"Normal commercial exchanges between the enterprises of the two countries?".  This could be a fair statement if both countries were normal.  The fact is that China is not normal.
An investor in the United States is not allowed to own more than 49% of
a Chinese enterprise.   My esteemed colleague within the Seeking Alpha Network, Ezra Marbach  tells me that though this rule is expected to loosen  in the future, it is true. 

(Ezra is the author of the China Stock Blog.  We implore you to bookmark him for the Energystockblog believes China's role in developing a thesis on an energy sector outlook is enormous.) 

In today's Wall Street Journal Fu Chengyu, CEO of CNOOC Ltd. (ticker: CEO), contributed a  editorial  titled  Why Is America Worried? In it Mr. Fu writes in  with a savvy capitalist voice spewing key phrases like "all-cash", "tremendous growth" and "fiduciary obligation".  He makes some very good points and goes directly to the concerns the politicians have been firing at him. 

My questions are
    Why is the topic Chinese protectionism not brought up?
    Doesn't the 49% ownership rule fly in the face of "fiduciary obligation"?
    Is there something more to this story?