Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dubai threat to hit back (UAE Threatens Against Boeing and US Bases Support)
The Hill.com ^ | March 9, 2006 | Roxana Tiron

Posted on 03/09/2006 9:02:17 AM PST by prairiebreeze

Dubai is threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests if Washington blocks its $6.8 billion takeover of operations at several U.S. ports.

As the House Appropriations Committee yesterday marked up legislation to kill Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O), the emirate let it be known that it is preparing to hit back hard if necessary.

A source close to the deal said members of Dubai’s royal family are furious at the hostility both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have shown toward the deal.

“They’re saying, ‘All we’ve done for you guys, all our purchases, we’ll stop it, we’ll just yank it,’” the source said.

Retaliation from the emirate could come against lucrative deals with aircraft maker Boeing and by curtailing the docking of hundreds of American ships, including U.S. Navy ships, each year at its port in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the source added.

It is not clear how much of Dubai’s behind-the-scenes anger would be followed up by action, but Boeing has been made aware of the threat and is already reportedly lobbying to save the ports deal.

The Emirates Group airline will decide later this year whether it will buy Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner or its competitor, Airbus A350. The airline last fall placed an order worth $9.7 billion for 42 Boeing 777 aircraft, making Dubai Boeing’s largest 777 customer.

Dubai in mid-February also established the Dubai Aerospace Enterprise, a $15 billion investment to create a company that will lease planes, develop airports and make aircraft parts to tap into growing demand for air travel in the Middle East and Asia.

The family-ruled sheikhdom may buy as many as 50 wide-body aircraft from Boeing and Airbus during the next four years, according to Aerospace Enterprise officials.

The UAE military also bought Boeing’s Apache helicopters. Meanwhile, Boeing has been in talks with the emirates to try to sell its AWACS planes.

An industry official with knowledge of Boeing’s contracts with Dubai said that the company has been involved in the emirate and that it would take a lot “to knock” those relationships.

“Nothing about the [ports] controversy diminishes our commitment to the region,” said John Dern, Boeing’s corporate spokesman. He added that at this point the company has no indication that there is or will be an impact on the company.

Any repercussion to Boeing could put House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in a delicate position. Boeing’s decision to move its headquarters to Chicago has been seen as calculated to facilitate a close relationship with Hastert. He is against the ports deal, and his office did not return calls by press time.

Several businesses have expressed concern that the controversy over the $6.8 billion ports deal could damage trade with the UAE. Dubai is one of the seven emirates. The United States and the UAE are meeting next week for a fourth round of talks to sign a free-trade agreement. The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, which has no affiliation with the U.S. government, said that Arabs may hesitate to invest into the United States, according to a report by Reuters.

A Republican trade lobbyist said that because the ports deal is a national-security issue blocking it would not be in violation of World Trade Agreement rules.

“In terms of them retaliating legally against the U.S. … I don’t think there are many options there,” the lobbyist said.

But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

“If we reject the company in terms of doing the [ports] work, they are going to lose a lot of face. In the Arab culture, losing face is a big deal,” a former government official said. “We risk losing that help. It is not an empty threat.”

Dubai is a critical logistics hub for the U.S. Navy and a popular relaxation destination for troops fighting in the Middle East. On many occasions since the ports story erupted, the Pentagon has stressed the importance of the U.S-UAE relationship.

Last year, the U.S. Navy docked 590 supply vessels in Dubai, plus 56 warships, Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, said in a Senate hearing last month. About 77,000 military personnel went on leave in the UAE last year, he added.

During the hearing, he warned about the implications of a negative decision on the ports deal: “So obviously it would have some effect on us, and I’d not care to quantify that, because I don’t have the facts to quantify it. It would certainly have an effect on us.”

Although owned by the Dubai government, the company at the heart of this controversy, Dubai Ports World, is trying to distance itself from any kinds of threats, said a lobbyist closely tracking the deal.

Another lobbyist monitoring the controversy said K Street still believes there will be a compromise that allows the Dubai deal to go through while meeting congressional security concerns, even though a bill aimed at that result, put forward by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), was widely repudiated amongst lawmakers Tuesday.

Senate leaders have indicated that they would wait to take action until the new 45-day Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review is completed.

Meanwhile, in London, DP World cleared the last hurdle for its take over of P&O. The Court of Appeal in London refused Miami-based Eller & Co., which opposed the deal, permission to appeal against clearances for the legal and financial measures necessary to implement the takeover.

P&O said it expects to file the requisite court orders, making the takeover terms binding on DP World, according to the Financial Times.

Elana Schor contributed to this report.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: americafirst; dubai; howdareyouopposew; nationalsecurity; portgate; thenwebetterbendover; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 2,441 next last
To: justshutupandtakeit

"The anti-Globalists are the nutcases who demonstrate and riot at international conferences."

Haven't been to one, but lets just be smart globalists, and be honest brokers of the deals to the american people, and that includes us noncompliant conservatives.


1,401 posted on 03/09/2006 2:47:37 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1383 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

I bet it starts with an M and ends with ONEY.


1,402 posted on 03/09/2006 2:48:00 PM PST by Huck (space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jhohanna

Your Tales from the Crypt have no bearing on this issue.


1,403 posted on 03/09/2006 2:48:24 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: WatchingInAmazement
Yes, you said there would be no meaningful legislation, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC doesn't want it.

Where exactly is the poll that says that they want illegals sent home en masse?

1,404 posted on 03/09/2006 2:48:47 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1397 | View Replies]

To: Bubba M. Aurelius

Right, because our first priority should be making sure Boeing sells airplanes.


1,405 posted on 03/09/2006 2:48:47 PM PST by Huck (space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
"No right [should] be stipulated for aliens to hold real property within these States, this being utterly inadmissible by their several laws and policy."

--Thomas Jefferson: Commercial Treaties Instructions, 1784.

Folks, that was a pig that just flew. I agree with Willie 100% on this one.

1,406 posted on 03/09/2006 2:48:51 PM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1373 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

"I said there will be no meaningful legislation." Acutally you said something very much like "the people to not want it" ..... It being illegal immigration ended.


1,407 posted on 03/09/2006 2:49:00 PM PST by jpsb (Proud USMC vet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1379 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever

I was specific. I put it in my post. Think "longshoremen."


1,408 posted on 03/09/2006 2:49:12 PM PST by TigersEye (Everywhere I look all I see are my own desires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1376 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
I mean, after all, Dubai SHOULD bow to us right?

No, and we shouldn't have to purchase their friendship either.

1,409 posted on 03/09/2006 2:49:14 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: teawithmisswilliams

Another LIE. This was started by the RATs and the gullible followed right along.


1,410 posted on 03/09/2006 2:49:39 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Thanks there jpsb... that helps a lot.

It's nice to see that those rules are so followed (especially the racist and attacks). *rolls eyes* I do try to stick to those because they are the basic rules of being a decent person. Good to know about the pings... I try to do that as well. Thank you a lot for cluing me in.

And I may not be a long timer on here, but I have been around for a *very* long time on the 'net, and have written many times about netiquette. But where does one draw the line with being Conservative? I have many many conservative views, but a few that are ardently liberal... such as my friends who are gay. Etc. But I do try to set the example and treat others the way I wish to be treated.

Which is why Ms. Howlin doesn't get responded to, because I do not wish to be treated as she has done, and if I don't incite it. Well... ya know. That's the best way that I can portray myself and not get all riled up! :)
1,411 posted on 03/09/2006 2:49:55 PM PST by Jhohanna (Born Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Anymore... I forgot that part! :P


1,412 posted on 03/09/2006 2:50:09 PM PST by Jhohanna (Born Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1323 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

right


1,413 posted on 03/09/2006 2:50:10 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1400 | View Replies]

To: SunStar

What money are we spending in this port deal to claim the friendship of Dubai?


1,414 posted on 03/09/2006 2:50:37 PM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1409 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
While you are quite correct to value sovereignty and security I would suggest that those are both ties to wealth and that is tied to trade.

Wealth and trade are all well and good, but with no restrictions whatsoever? How does selling our port operations to a foreign entity bolster our sovereignty and security?

1,415 posted on 03/09/2006 2:50:40 PM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1390 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen

No, actually, I don't.


1,416 posted on 03/09/2006 2:51:42 PM PST by ohioWfan (PROUD Mom of an Iraq War VET! THANKS, son!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1338 | View Replies]

To: Jhohanna

"And if he's got a problem with it, well, he can tell our lifelong friends! :P"

He is playing the part because he loves you and doesn't want to cause strife. just kidding. :) I don't have dog in the anti-homo fight (with some small exceptions). they live their life, I live mine. As Bush said on a phone not realizing he was being recorded, "I don't differentiate sin." We all have our issues.


1,417 posted on 03/09/2006 2:52:03 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("If not now, when?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies]

To: Solson
Is the Arab Sheikhdom or the Chinese government better?

Neither, of course.

1,418 posted on 03/09/2006 2:52:15 PM PST by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

To: Tulsa Ramjet
That "Bareback Mounted" movie is going to be the death of us. Next it will be "Gumsmoke."

Oh DON'T I KNOW IT!!!!!!!! You know, even the gay crowd hates that movie.

But now that I am forced to carry 2 queer channels by Cox Cable (but can I carry Playboy, NO!), all I see in the guide is stuff about Gays in Rural America. I'm scared.

I accept Gays and Queers for who they are, not who they screw. But I also banter them constantly on their own Gay Agenda.. and you'd be surprised how many of them hate it, and hate that they are being pandered to by the Dems and such. Many of them are Republican!
1,419 posted on 03/09/2006 2:52:29 PM PST by Jhohanna (Born Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1325 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
We didn't have to give our allies in WW2 control of U.S. national security interests. They were just our allies because they believed in the same cause.

Maybe the real problem is that we have to bribe an Arab sheikhdom in order to gain their "friendship"...

Good point.

1,420 posted on 03/09/2006 2:52:37 PM PST by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1394 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 2,441 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson