Dubai threat to hit back (UAE Threatens Against Boeing and US Bases Support)

The Hill.com ^ | March 9, 2006 | Roxana Tiron

[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.

[MikefromOhio]

u so funny!!!!

NOT!

Have fun being in bed with Hitlery and Schumer!!!

[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.

They have helped us with intelligence since 9-11. They did not have to. Now, you bring up financial purposes, so let me ask you why the UAE would jeopardize their economy which in 10-15 years will rely almost entirely on business and tourism by "allowing" a breech or attack through DPW at one of our ports, or any Western port?

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 ?

I could ask the same of you, how simpleminded can you get? The more info the better. The more access the better. What part of that is hard to understand?

[BlackbirdSST]

Have fun being in bed with Hitlery and Schumer!!!

As with you and the Bent One! Good luck with that. Blackbird.

[MikefromOhio]

you idiot....that's EXACTLY what they want you to see!!

Hello!!!!!

Hillary is on one side of the issue, Bill is on the other. That's QUITE A freakin coincidence ISN'T IT????

But go ahead and keep lying to yourself and backslapping with your friends that you've done something "Great". It's a sick joke that you've fallen prey to the biggest rope a dope the Clintons have pulled since at least October 2000.

[TexKat]

"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT - Duncan Hunter Interview - Transcript

DOBBS: Key leaders in the House and the Senate, at least initially, stood up to the White House and his -- the president's threat of the veto.

One of those leaders is Congressman Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, joining us tonight from Capitol Hill.

This is, Congressman, would you say the beginning or the end?

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, I think that the right message has been sent, but these papers haven't been signed yet, and the transfer from Dubai Ports World to this American company has not been completed. So when it's completed, then I think -- then it's over. But it ain't over till it's over, and right now we have a statement from Dubai Ports World and little else. So before we spike the ball in the end zone, Lou, let's watch this thing come through to completion.

But beyond that, we've got lots of critical infrastructure in this country. And I've got a bill that requires the secretary of defense to identify critical infrastructure in America, whether it's ports or power plants or other pieces of infrastructure. And once that's identified by the secretary of defense, in concert with the secretary of homeland security, that has to be American-owned, managed and operated.

DOBBS: What kind of support do you have for that legislation?

HUNTER: Well, we've just introduced it. I think at this point, we've got 25 co-sponsors. We get more on every couple of hours, and I think that we're going to be able to get that or something similar through the House of Representatives, and I think through the Senate, because I believe there's some momentum now for really securing this infrastructure.

And that includes -- that includes making sure that we inspect 100 percent of the cargo containers coming through these ports. We've got the -- we're the masters of surveillance, and we ought to be able to inspect these doggone cargo containers. And I look forward to having a good old colonel out of the 101st Airborne coming back from Iraq and being a port director who gets that kind of stuff done.

DOBBS: That's a terrific idea, and I hope your colleagues are listening to you.

I'd like you to, however, listen to something that General John Abizaid, the head of the U.S. Central Command, said just a few hours ago. If we could roll that sound bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: The United Arab Emirates is absolutely vital to our stake in the Arabian Gulf area, that they have been good partners, good allies. I'm very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States, that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing. That was totally unnecessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: What is your reaction to a member of the general staff getting involved in what is, first of all, by the White House's assertion, a commercial transaction, one that would work tirelessly for -- but to hear the head of the Central Command accuse the opponents of this deal of being anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and inject himself into a domestic political discussion?

HUNTER: Well, first, General Abizaid and other generals have said that this -- that the UAE and Dubai have been very cooperative. What they've seen, Lou, is a cooperative side when we're making military operations...

DOBBS: But, Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt you...

HUNTER: But they don't...

DOBBS: I'm talking about what he said about the critics of this deal. And he injected himself specifically into it. That's got to concern you.

HUNTER: Yes, I can just speak for myself, and that is, I don't know if he's referring to my criticism, but my criticism is based on 66 nuclear triggers being shipped through Dubai while American agents are sitting there asking the Dubai government not to let them go, and they say we don't care what America's position is; they're going. Now, that's not anti-anything expect pro-American security.

DOBBS: Exactly.

HUNTER: I don't think the general knows about those things. I think he sees -- he sees the smiling face of Dubai when we're making military operations.

DOBBS: It is in my judgment, and I will say it this way, and in my judgment it is unseemly to see this administration and this Department of Defense literally -- and I hate to use this, in all respect for the uniform and the men, these men who serve the country so well -- to be trotted out to support a deal that is a commercial transaction and a domestic political issue like this. Does that offend you?

HUNTER: Well, actually, Abizaid, General Abizaid was over here to give his regular briefings to...

DOBBS: No, I understand.

HUNTER: Which he did in private session, and he was asked that question. So to his credit and to Tommy Franks' credit, Lou, those guys have seen when we have been moving men and material into war, they have seen the Dubai government and a UAE that has accommodated us. The problem is they accommodate the bad guys when that's in their interest.

DOBBS: Congressman Duncan Hunter, we thank you for being with us.

HUNTER: Let's stick with this issue, Lou. We've got a lot of work to do.

[KJC1]

Sam, is that open for vote? Blackbird

No prob. Let's register you and the Sham voting against Gen Franks, Gen Pace, the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, and President Bush.

They are some simpleminded f*cks, eh? Pity they don't share your deep and all-encompassing knowledge.

[BlackbirdSST]

you idiot....that's EXACTLY what they want you to see!! Hello!!!!! Hillary is on one side of the issue, Bill is on the other. That's QUITE A freakin coincidence ISN'T IT???? But go ahead and keep lying to yourself and backslapping with your friends that you've done something "Great". It's a sick joke that you've fallen prey to the biggest rope a dope the Clintons have pulled since at least October 2000.

Well idiot! Are you not in the same freaking spot? Geez idiot, can't you even see your own circle jerk logic? Some of you freaking appeasers simply go into conniptions with your own spin. See YA! Blackbird.

[BlackbirdSST]

They are some simpleminded f*cks, eh?

Evidently, and you're along for the ride.

Pity they don't share your deep and all-encompassing knowledge.

They sure could use a history lesson in Islam, like about 1700 years worth. Blackbird.

[Sam the Sham]

Now, you bring up financial purposes, so let me ask you why the UAE would jeopardize their economy which in 10-15 years will rely almost entirely on business and tourism by "allowing" a breech or attack through DPW at one of our ports, or any Western port?

Did the people of Iran care that putting Khomeini in charge might impact the Shah's overseas holdings ? Do you comprehend that a handful of religious fanatics, who do not respond at all to economic incentives and are very plentiful in Muslim countries, could wreak great havoc ?

The Emir plays both ends against the middle. It is what small neutral countries in a war zone do. They help us with intelligence and front for Iranian smuggling. If you think that is 'alliance' I have a bridge to sell you.

I could ask the same of you, how simpleminded can you get? The more info the better. The more access the better. What part of that is hard to understand?

Do you base this on the tremendous success the Europeans have had in assimilating their Muslim populations ? Why with all the access they've had they should all be secular humanists by now ! Back in the 70's 5/7ths of the Earth was covered with water and 1/7th by Iranian overseas students. So naturally with all those Westernized Iranians the country should have become a liberal democracy. Right ?

[MikefromOhio]

LOL

keep going on and doing Hillary's dirty work for her.

Nice comeback too BTW.

So now Hillary looks strong on defense AND how much you want to bet that Bill still pockets that money?

Way to go, I am sure you are so proud.

BTW, can you write a post without leaving your name at the end of it?

[TigersEye]

What are you going to do, rationally, about those businesses that have employed the illegals?

Who has the greater inherent duty to obey U.S. law? Americans or foreign nationals?

Lock up employers of illegals and the illegals will quickly deport themselves at their own expense. I have no problem with a well-regulated guest worker program. I do have a problem with rewarding law breakers when thousands have been waiting years doing it legally.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Thanks for the transcript! A refreshing break from the name-calling that has re-erupted (is that a word?). It provides more context, and I appreciate it.

[Sam the Sham]

I'm certain that 30 years ago there were plenty of American generals and politicians assuring us of the strength and stability of our alliance with our friend the Shah of Iran.

Will you never learn anything ?

[TexKat]

bump!

[KJC1]

HUNTER: I don't think the general knows about those things. I think he sees -- he sees the smiling face of Dubai when we're making military operations.

DOBBS: It is in my judgment, and I will say it this way, and in my judgment it is unseemly to see this administration and this Department of Defense literally -- and I hate to use this, in all respect for the uniform and the men, these men who serve the country so well -- to be trotted out to support a deal that is a commercial transaction and a domestic political issue like this. Does that offend you?

HUNTER: Well, actually, Abizaid, General Abizaid was over here to give his regular briefings to...

I'll admit to being tired, but this sounds like Hunter, who gets briefs from Abizaid, saying he knows more than Abizaid. From your post, here is what Abizaid said himself:

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: The United Arab Emirates is absolutely vital to our stake in the Arabian Gulf area, that they have been good partners, good allies. I'm very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States, that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing. That was totally unnecessary.

[AmeriBrit]

You two still don't get it do you?

THE PORTS WERE NOT FOR SALE.

[Howlin]

A Political Surrender To Protectionism? - By Larry Kudlow

So the White House arranged a sale of Dubai Ports World that will transfer its port operations to a yet-to-be-named U.S. entity. We don't even know if it is a private American company or a government agency of some sort.

Here's something Sen. Schumer can fume about -- one of the very few private American firms capable of running a bunch of port terminals is HALLIBURTON. That's right, Halliburton. Remember them? Every Democrats' favorite.

But the big question is whether foreign investors are being repelled by neo-protectionist American politicians who are using phony national security reasons to advance an anti-trade, anti-investment, xenophobic agenda. This is a point that Steve Moore over at the WSJ is putting forth and it is vitally important. Do we really want to tell foreign capital not to come here? Do we want it in China? Russia? Brazil?

An international think tank estimates that U.S. jobs from foreign direct investment average over $60,000 per job; 34 percent more than U.S. capitalized jobs.

Today's stock market opened up, but at precisely 2:00 p.m. EST when the Dubai Ports World sale was announced, stocks turned tail and closed down 33 points on the day. What does that tell you?

Do we really want to send a message to world investors that we don't want their capital? Do we really want a political surrender to protectionism? Do we really want to emulate the political economy of Smoot Hawley of the 1930s? I don't think so.

- Larry Kudlow, Host of CNBC's Kudlow & Co.

[jpsb]

No you made your point.

[Howlin]

I think you are dead on in you assessment.

[gotribe]

Well, are we all happy now...

We're not scared, that's for sure.