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.
Actually they were publically slapped in the face, repeatedly by both sides of the political aisle and aren't happy about it.
Not a suprising reaction whatsoever. But our dingdongs in congress couldn't look a half-mile down the road to see what the reaction would be.
I hope the people on this forum who chose deliberately not to educate themselves about the issues are proud of themselves. Because I'm disgusted with them.
I agree.
Those Republicans in Washington who did this for reelection have just cooked their own goose. They look like democrat idiots now. They listened to the Democrats - to their own demise. They should know better than feel threatened by the democrats and liberal press. You'd think they would have figured that out by now.
Unless he's attempting to say Smoot-Hawley: I have no idea. :)
You are absolutely right. This gives our country a bad reputation for all future deals, too--all it takes is some grandstanding idiotic legislators to squelch any legally crafted deals. Our word isn't worth much, if this deal is blocked by these weasels.
Buzz off.
Because it is a gigantic insult to one of our most important allies in the War Against Terrorists. Like this is so hard to figure out? Who in their right mind would believe the Party of Treason gave a sh!t about National Security?
I think he meant Hawley-Smoot idiot. As in the Hawley-Smoot tariff act of 1930.
"1930, passed by the U.S. Congress; it brought the U.S. tariff to the highest protective level yet in the history of the United States...The act brought retaliatory tariff acts from foreign countries, U.S. foreign trade suffered a sharp decline, and the depression intensified."
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/HawleySm.html
I'm not for discouraging foreign investment in America - just Arab investment.
And Mr. Wythe nails it in once sentence.
"The thought of an Arab country operating our ports just doesn't sit too well with me."
Why? You can't imagine we could westernize them? Unless we are willing to kill them all, we are going to have to westernize the middle east to eradicate Islam. The latter method is being harmed by this block.
FR's moron content appears to be about 40% doncha think?
Schumer and Dean are high-fiving each other as we speak. They set the trap and the idiot Republican Congressmen fell for it.
On who's authority?
Our Navy needs those ports period!!!!
Blackmail? Are you kidding? If they were the ones saying WE were untrustworthy and shouldn't be allowed to do business in their country, what would you be saying then? We just slapped them in the face. They are reacting accordingly.
A little higher actually. LOL
Where do you come up with economic isolationism? I dont see this at all with this deal, pro or con. I agree, its all for show at this point, uae will have thier ports, it would be very bad for the USA to deny them at this point. Once again, you as a pro port person miss the entire point. Its not their money. This is a govt who is spending its citizens money in order to do a business deal. think about it.
I never said they did. What a completely irrelevant riposte.
It's about business AND alliances AND friends.
Do you have any friends you do business with? Try spreading the word that you won't do business with him any more because he's not trustworthy and see what happens: you'll lose the friend AND the business.
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.