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 ... 1,801-1,8201,821-1,8401,841-1,860 ... 2,441 next last
To: ARealMothersSonForever
The Republican Chairman of the Armed Services Committee makes a statement and you say he can not or will not back it up. The Republican President makes a statement and how DARE the ignorant masses question the infinite wisdom. Do I have this correct?

Not quite.

The president is the CIC in the WOT. You left that part out.

You list Hunters credentials in this manner but you don't mention the president's credentials.

Are you trying to be objective?

1,821 posted on 03/09/2006 7:56:02 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1809 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever

Two dissenting votes:
Jim Kolbe (R) AZ
Jim Moran (D) VA


1,822 posted on 03/09/2006 7:56:15 PM PST by onyx (IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1802 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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.

I hope nobody is counting on upsetting Chuckie Schmucky's apple cart. When asked about Halliburton taking this deal he said, and I quote; "I have no problem with that." He's learned some triangulation of his own. The Dems have duped the GOP into committing sepaku.

1,823 posted on 03/09/2006 7:56:56 PM PST by TigersEye (Everywhere I look all I see are my own desires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1777 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
The problem is they accommodate the bad guys when that's in their interest.

Then, again, why does he not demand that any and all U.S. assets be removed from the UAE?

Why is Duncan worried about safety at OUR posts, where the U.S. Customs is in charge, and NOT worried about the UAE ports?

1,824 posted on 03/09/2006 7:57:31 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1802 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
I'll just take him at his word. I guess there are just some things that need to be kept from the media if at all possible.

The presidents words contradict Hunter's words.

But you'll take Hunter's word for it.

1,825 posted on 03/09/2006 7:57:56 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1810 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
You've got it!!

Yes I do. I am afraid that you do not, however.

1,826 posted on 03/09/2006 7:58:23 PM PST by KJC1 (Bush is fighting the War on Terror, Dems are fighting the War on Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1820 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I actually heard that today; I had an out of body experience just for a second.


1,827 posted on 03/09/2006 8:00:56 PM PST by Howlin ("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1823 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
Duncan Hunter continues to make this charge without citing any sources.

FreeReign, Do you realize that you are calling the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee a liar, and blindly trusting the Emir of Dubai? The world is upside down.

Son, it doesn't logically follow that one is calling somebody a liar, when they ask them for evidence. (Only a nonobjective person or a dope would think such).

But using your false logic I will now point out to you that you are calling the CIC in the WOT a liar.

You're upside down.

1,828 posted on 03/09/2006 8:02:16 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1818 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Duncan Hunter continues to make this charge without citing any sources.

Or dates. Also, on another occasion, he phrased it as "could be used for nuclear triggers." Also, the heavy water he cites, by his own say-so, went to India. They already have nuke-everything. Why should I give a rats heiney if India gets some heavy water?

1,829 posted on 03/09/2006 8:03:16 PM PST by TigersEye (Everywhere I look all I see are my own desires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1788 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Bingo!


1,830 posted on 03/09/2006 8:03:35 PM PST by KJC1 (Bush is fighting the War on Terror, Dems are fighting the War on Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1828 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
The presidents words contradict Hunter's words.

The last that I heard from the President was that he did not know too much about the transaction.

But you'll take Hunter's word for it.

I'll put it this way. Hunter and I are in agreeance on this.

1,831 posted on 03/09/2006 8:04:01 PM PST by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1825 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
...what the hell do you think we could have done ?

Like...try not to further destabilize the region...

1,832 posted on 03/09/2006 8:05:16 PM PST by danmar ("Reason obeys itself,and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it....... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1807 | View Replies]

To: KJC1
Yes I do. I am afraid that you do not, however.

Thats yet to be seen.

1,833 posted on 03/09/2006 8:06:39 PM PST by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1826 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Then, again, why does he not demand that any and all U.S. assets be removed from the UAE?

Because this whole thing is not an "all or nothing" proposition. The UAE does it risk-benefit analysis, we do ours. Nobody got gut-checked, and the divestiture is not going to close port operations and lead to global chaos. It was business hardball and some congresscritters expended political capital. President Bush actually comes out pretty well, and HClinton has not said "Boo" today.

1,834 posted on 03/09/2006 8:07:12 PM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1824 | View Replies]

To: AmeriBrit

You're right; and thanks for taking the time to contact your legislator about this.


1,835 posted on 03/09/2006 8:07:12 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1797 | View Replies]

To: danmar

Be specific. What are you talking about ?


1,836 posted on 03/09/2006 8:07:28 PM PST by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1832 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

LOL


1,837 posted on 03/09/2006 8:07:41 PM PST by TigersEye (Everywhere I look all I see are my own desires.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1827 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze

They have management of a fair amount of our assets in this country and it's never been a problem until a few democrats tried to play games, again, and stupid Republicans fell for it.


1,838 posted on 03/09/2006 8:09:00 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1718 | View Replies]

To: TexKat
Thats yet to be seen.

What is NOT yet to be seen is that you are taking Duncan Hunter's "word" over that of those on the ground and in charge.

1,839 posted on 03/09/2006 8:10:06 PM PST by KJC1 (Bush is fighting the War on Terror, Dems are fighting the War on Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1833 | View Replies]

To: freema
"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 do fear them, the same as I fear psychotic people.
___________________________________________

"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."

It may seem condescending, but I do believe that the Muslims are stuck in the dark ages. What great scientific achievements do you see coming from the middle east? What great doctrines of individual liberty, freedom to dissent, and property rights do you see in the middle east? What great peaceful societies exist in the middle east?

All that being said, it makes the magnitude of what we are trying to do in Iraq and throughout the middle east that much more heroic. We don't conquer for land or resources. We conquer to free people, help them establish a better life and then peacefully do business with them. If the roles were reversed do you think the muslims would fight to free us or enslave us?
1,840 posted on 03/09/2006 8:10:27 PM PST by wmfights (Lead, Follow, or get out of the Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1753 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,801-1,8201,821-1,8401,841-1,860 ... 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