----You just violated the rule.----
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.
Good...get your heels clicking, I'm sure they eagerly await you.
Speaking of service women, how are they treated in that good ol' ally of ours?Very well, actually. Just talked to a buddy who spent some time there. He said he had a good time there. If you look into it, supposedly close to 80,000 US service members have taken leave there during the current war.
You just violated the rule.
Nasty, nasty, nasty.
There's that 'operating our ports' lie again. Oh, well.
I have read and heard quite a bit of both sides but their attitude towards Israel is what killed it for me.
Not every Isreali sees it that way...
Israeli shipper endorses DP World
If you actually read the article there you'll find out why.
MY BELOVED HOWLIN?
ROTFLMAO!
What he has done with regard to Islamofascism certainly does not lack clarity, however.
There is going to be confusion, IMO, because we have the constant drumbeat of the left muddling the issues, vascillating back and forth..........and unfortunately in this case, Republicans without the backbone to stand up against the whims of poll numbers and the fear of upcoming elections.
I am thankful that we have a President who is up to this enormous task. Without his leadership, we would be in deep trouble, and fighting for our very existence. I believe our children and grandchildren will live in freedom, and they will have the historical perspective to look back on this time and see why they do.
Schoolyard snitch ping!
I obviously should have spelled checked:
cheating is what I meant.
With persistence and patience, the UAE might just be one more country in the Arab world to go democratic. Like the commercial says: "The cost of some stupid politician's reelection campaign, $2 million. The cost of some US port operations, $5.6 billion. The cost of democracy, priceless!"
Should have known you were lurking, there hall monitor.
Oh, please; it's forum etiquette. You should know that.
BTW, I answered a question for you in this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593184/posts?page=1445#1445
No reply?
Which old puritan are you?
Melodramatic indeed. There have been may posts insistent that UAE is the most crucial ally, even that they control the gateway to the world! Reciprocal agreements are important. Yet we should not lose perspective. The world will not end because a small part of a deal gets divested. We need not be over sensitive about offending sensibilities. Business is tough. Negotiations require patience and toughness. Markets change, and governments change the rules on the fly. No need to bash America, or other folks here. It just worked out this way.
Excellent. Lat's wait until they do before letting them operate our ports. We have a lot of other things to offer in the mean time that are not as critical to our national security interests.
The one on the LEFT
SS: Ahh yes, you have an indefensible position, so you resort to namecalling. Nice job.
I fail to see the name in that. However, you staked out a position, not me. I (and a dozen others) have soundly refuted it. You have yet to post one thing of substance to back up the outright lies "control our security interests" "control our ports."
I characterize that lack of intellect as "stupid" but that is not name-calling.
;0)
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.