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.
Yes well I knew this thanks to Tony Snow, but hell why let facts get in the way? Lets jump on the Bash Bush Express! ?Sarc Off
Then he should shut up.
The thing has been fixed, and he's making it worse all over again.
He may be a fine general, but he's a stupid politician.
Which is normal for generals.
I'll just say that I'm somewhere between "deport them all" and "give them all the keys to the treasury."
I guess you haven't been reading the immigration threads, huh?
That is NOT acceptable. That's amnesty.
Most times it's people who ask "What's a troll?"
They will, but man's seemingly inexhaustible capacity to commit violence against other humans will first be put on grave display, yet one more time.
Unfortunately, I believe you are right, Cow. I never thought that so many Americans would forget the horror of 9/11, but many clearly have.
The Dems and media have succeeded in lulling too many people into lethargy by saying there is no threat, and by placing the blame on President Bush.
In a sense, the President is being punished by his own success. People have begun to feel safe because there have been no attacks, and do not realize all that he has done to make sure that hasn't happened.
It's a strange situation, and I hope we're both wrong in thinking that only another attack will make people get serious about this threat, and this very real war.
Schumer didn't jump on board. Peter King did. This port deal had NOTHING to do with national security, and had EVERYTHING to do with politics. More specifically "neo-protectionism".
The Congresspeople against this port deal happens to be the most ill-informed bunch of rubes I've ever been witness to. Suffice is to say, they were propagating the complete distortions perpetuated by the media. They misreported this whole port sale from the word "go", not the least of which, they misrepresented the facts as well.
What's more. These Congresspeople were spreading the alarmist goobledygook the media happend to be reporting, and FReepers were aligning with the likes of Schumer and Clinton, and RINO's like Peter King. The ridiculous fact is, everyone against the port deal were all using the same talking points ad nauseum. Devoid of any factual logic when it pertains to usual business transactions, and who is actually in charge of security in this country; specifically border security.
ROFLLLLLL!!!
YUP!
You really are confused. Actually your "playing dumb" game stinks worse with every post.
Get lost.
The American people intelligently do not share your confidence in 'allies' where a corrupt elite sides with us and the man in the street hates us. How 'allied' would Egypt be if it had a fair election ? Just as the Europeans realize that their Muslims will not be assimilated by secularism, socialized medicine, and the dole, so the American people realize that money hasn't got one damn thing to do with the problems of people sitting on top of the richest cash cow on this planet.
The entire assumption that Muslims are 'just like us' and 'want the same things we do' is collapsing in the face of facts throughout the Western world.
The Emir of Dubai does business with us and thinks he can bribe any politician in Washington. But he is not an ally. Nations are allies. We made this same mistake with Imperial Iran where we had an alliance with the Shah.
Welcome to Fr...my advice is to lurk and learn.....
It's so refreshing to read your voice of sanity and fact,Sky. Thanks.
http://varifrank.com/archives/2006/02/thank_you_for_f_1.php
I hope you clicked on the link ;-)
Found quite by accident this morning, looking for something else.
I thoroughly enjoyed the irreverent style.
The only pang of wonder and guilt that I've had through this is the vague recollection of COSCO and Long Beach back in the late 90's and up to 2003 or so. Letting COSCO take a port was anathema - I took it as an article of faith and never researched "how ports work."
That is NOT acceptable. That's amnesty.
What are you going to do, rationally, about those businesses that have employed the illegals?
Look, Sham. What you keep missing is that we HAVE ALLIES in the Middle East and we NEED them. Iraq and Afghanistan are the newest ones. They are predominantly Muslim, so you tell me, should we crap on that or use that alliance to our benefit? The same holds for the UAE. Let me ask you a question I asked another poster today: Would the WOT (and therefore the U.S.) be better served by A) an alliance with the UAE or B)not having the UAE as an ally. A or B?
Nobody is saying "Muslims are just like us" by the way, except YOU. Stop muddying those waters, Sham.
I think that's why we stuck with this thread instead of jumping all over the forum trying to have a discussion. Continuity.
Oh really. Weren't you just saying you have read FR for years?
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.