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.
Sgt. Asan Akbar
Why not just admit you were trying to paint all arab Americans as terrorists?
You're the one who is confused. Did you bother to read the original accusation....or are you just jumping on the bandwagon without any thought?
You got 'em on the ropes! Give 'em the "they All don't want to kill us...just some of them" ROP knock out punch!
Since Lynn Stewart was the LAWYER, for the blind sheik and said sheik WAS/IS in jail, HE was hardly the "letter carrier" for Lynn Stewart!
FYI...Egyptians don't consider themselves to be ARABS and nobody else does either.
I didn't use the blind sheik as an illustration-although I find it odd that you two refuse to specify what constitutes an Arab-American, does he have to be born on U.S. soil, have gained permanent residency, what precisely are the criteria being used-but the 100+ unindicted co-conspirators during the 1st WTC bombing trial, all of whom were Muslims, almost all of them Arabs, and most being Americans of one stripe or another.
I'm asking for PRCISE language to be used. You have a problem with that, do you?
Basically deceptive covers used by him as he served as an intermediary between Muslim terrorists here and ones overseas.
You kept on writing ARAB AMERICANS. That is incorrect. Not all Muslims are ARABS!
And hyphenated Americans are disgusting...but I digress....
If you aren't a citizen of America, you aren't an AMERICAN!
If you don't write coherently, your positions become null and void.
Islamists are bound through death, not by residency.
The N.Y. Post is on line and they DO have an archive. I suggest that you go read the stories about this.
And FWIW, there is NO rule here, that states that one must continuously be on one thread, from start to finish, in order to be relevant. But since you are incapable of any other reply, you made that silly one up. Well, it is off topic, irrelevant, and silly to boot.
My definition of what an Arab-American-and I use the term Arab and Muslim synonymously since Zogby, the person who started this dispute, is protecting Arab-MUSLIMS alone-is just as valid-and more accurate-than yours.
If you're a true Muslim, then you do not ever pledge your fealty to a man-made state.
You bow only to Allah and Mohammed.
And whether you were born in Indiana, subsequent to which your family flew overseas, only to return in order to wreak destruction upon your native land, or have lived in this country your entire life, or for that matter, are a recently naturalized citizen, you can not have dual loyalties.
You can either be devout Muslim, or be a patriotic American.
The two are mutually exclusive.
And just how do you know what Schumer thinks? Again, I am not really concerned about the security issue. I am concerned about letting a country who refuses to acknowledge Israel to operate our ports. And it looks like I don't have to worry for awhile anyway.
What an intelligent reply! We need more of that on FR.
I know the ports weren't being sold. What is your point?
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.