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 ... 1,721-1,7401,741-1,7601,761-1,780 ... 2,441 next last
To: Tulsa Ramjet

I misspoke; that is not acceptable to the anti-immigration crowd on FR.


1,741 posted on 03/09/2006 6:37:42 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1737 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
Grip, get one!

You don't treat allies, even marginal ones, in this manner.

ass-kiss it
1,742 posted on 03/09/2006 6:38:34 PM PST by MikefromOhio (Imagine this: FReepers aligned with Chuckie Schumer hurt our troops in the ME. Sad Days.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1668 | View Replies]

To: Thetaxman
Troll? What is a troll?


1,743 posted on 03/09/2006 6:40:29 PM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1721 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

Thank you, thank you. Oh I don't know who to thank! There were just so many people who had to play along and/or get fooled to make this happen. I guess I would like to thank IGNORANCE first and foremost. Because without ignorance, this would have never been possible. Thank you ignorance!

*applause*

1,744 posted on 03/09/2006 6:42:39 PM PST by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teawithmisswilliams; Carolinamom
I should also add that the funniest part of this whole port deal was the fact that the DUmmies wanted this port deal killed NOW, not 45 days from now, not run through the microscope of public scrutiny through public hearings on the Hill; they and their union buddies wanted it killed NOW. DPW was all FOR the 45-day investigation, and they were complying from day one of this story.

Why? Well, I will tell you why. This was a political loser for the left, and had it gone through the 45 day investigatory process, you, me, and everyone else paying attention to this port deal story would have learned of the TRUTH and the FACTS, and it would not have been seen through the prism of alarmist hysteria.

The Democrats and their unions were panicking.

1,745 posted on 03/09/2006 6:45:00 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1632 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

Iraq and Afghanistan are not 'allies'.

The Kurds need us because they are surrounded by enemies and we can keep the Turks off their backs. The Shiites find us temporarily useful. The Sunnis now think they can get us to protect them if there is an Iraqi Civil War.

And as for Afghanistan the Pashtuns were the Talibans key supporters but the others support Karzai to a point to keep the Pashtuns from taking over again.

Where you fail and fail foolishly is to misunderstand that every Muslim country is an ethnic balancing act among several groups. When we intervene in a Muslim country we disrupt the ethnic pecking order and find ourselves sucked into the civil war that follows. Like in Lebanon where we found ourselves against the Druse and Shiites supporting a Maronite government. Or in Afghanistan where its the Haziris and Dari against the Pashtuns. And alliances shift around easily. The Maronites discarded us and made peace with Syria. And al-Sadr, the emerging Shiite leader, is hardly an ally of America. We are a new card in an old game of intrigue and imagining that any ethnic group is our 'ally' is the height of idiocy.


1,746 posted on 03/09/2006 6:45:42 PM PST by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1738 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Yup - darn them.
1,747 posted on 03/09/2006 6:47:30 PM PST by ThePythonicCow (The biggest Lie of all: that we are the Master of Knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1727 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
It's so refreshing to read your voice of sanity and fact,Sky. Thanks.


1,748 posted on 03/09/2006 6:48:47 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1735 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
"The Democrats and their unions were panicking.

No kidding! I wonder also how many union people were calling Republicans to kill this deal.

1,749 posted on 03/09/2006 6:50:53 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1745 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

Answer this question, which I've already posed to you:

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?


1,750 posted on 03/09/2006 6:53:01 PM PST by KJC1 (Bush is fighting the War on Terror, Dems are fighting the War on Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1746 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

ROFLMAO! Well done!


1,751 posted on 03/09/2006 6:53:28 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1744 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
No kidding! I wonder also how many union people were calling Republicans to kill this deal.

I'm sure they had a hotline to that bozo Jerry Lewis. (R-CA).

1,752 posted on 03/09/2006 6:54:20 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1749 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

"We have ample reason to fear the muslims. However, that being said unless we are prepared to commit genocide and kill every single muslim in the world we are going to need a way to bring them out of the dark ages. I can't think of a better way than doing business with them and bringing them the benefits of modernity. Eventually a society that enjoys the benefits of a civilized, modern society will become peaceful."



I would like to go on record that I don't 'fear' Muslims. I don't have a deep resevoir of trust in them, that's certain, and I would not turn my back on them, but I don't fear them.


I thought the rest of the post, on the surface, presented a somewhat condescending or patronizing view-

I don't think that's how you meant to portray yourself, however, and I wonder if I am correct in that assumption.


1,753 posted on 03/09/2006 6:54:46 PM PST by freema (Proud Marine FRiend, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: KJC1

And as I have said, there is no alliance. There never was. Nor could there ever be. It is just a deal with the Emir of Dubai for his own financial purposes. Not an alliance with a nation.

We have no more 'alliance' with UAE than we had with Imperial Iran. Will you ever learn anything about that part of the world or will you always be this simpleminded ?


1,754 posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:46 PM PST by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1750 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Yes, it's an interesting blog. I read his comments on Iran with interest. And uneasiness...


1,755 posted on 03/09/2006 6:56:24 PM PST by prairiebreeze (The Old Media: today's carnival barkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1736 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
"I just have to wonder why he is so determined to see this through."

The UAE is not prepared to accept Freedom of Religion for better access to the best free market.

They are still free to invest almost all they want into our economy (minus the obvious defense contracts). In fact, it would have been UAE money that funded port security whilst we Americans actually did the security (similar to how China pays off our debt).

Congress, particularly Republicans, WOULD have stressed Human Rights and even used this to influence Communist China...especially before the 2008 Olympics.

The deal would have been very simple. Congress says to the Middle East, "You want to make a fistful of US cash simoleans, then our priests and preachers get to evangelize Arabs and Somalians. You want to build your mosques in our neck of the woods? Then we get to erect our Crosses your neighborhood. You want to bring your sharia law onto Western influence, then we want to share Christ's light yoke with over burdened peasants."

The UAE is not ready to play on a level playing field. They're still under the shadow of very real terrorist threats (Iran is just a fast canoe ride away). It's too bad for the UAE considering all of the peer pressure they're under. They are a very relaxed country to the West.

Maybe that's why President Bush paid India a visit. The UAE may get to pay extremist fundamentalism a weary lip service, and still invest in America through an Indian intermediary.

This will all work out in the end.
1,756 posted on 03/09/2006 6:56:43 PM PST by SaltyJoe (A mother's sorrowful heart and personal sacrifice redeems her lost child's soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

The Democrats are still pushing this issue even after Dubai agreed to sell the contracts to a US company. They are now the part of port security....give me a break!


1,757 posted on 03/09/2006 6:58:38 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1752 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio
ass-kiss it

No thanks, that's something you professional knee padders do best, why would I involve myself in your personal affairs? Blackbird.

1,758 posted on 03/09/2006 6:58:52 PM PST by BlackbirdSST (Diapers, like Politicians, need regular changing for the same reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1742 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

Like I said, it's a polticial issue, and the Democrats are going to milk it like a holstein.


1,759 posted on 03/09/2006 7:00:56 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1757 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham; KJC1
We have no more 'alliance' with UAE than we had with Imperial Iran. Will you ever learn anything about that part of the world or will you always be this simpleminded ?

Sam, is that open for vote? Blackbird.

1,760 posted on 03/09/2006 7:01:49 PM PST by BlackbirdSST (Diapers, like Politicians, need regular changing for the same reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1754 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,721-1,7401,741-1,7601,761-1,780 ... 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