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.
If you need any help on that resume, let us know. Sellout appeaser. Move over there and enjoy life. The reasonable among us recommended divestiture from the beginning.
Long Live Isolationism (Sarcasm beyond belief).
For instance?
Do you spend your entire weekend online trying to get to know them and supporting our troops and talking with the various posters?
If you can say that with a straight font, that certainly puts the lie to your original statement about you "knowing what I'm about," wouldn't it?
You said -- "And if there is still no American company that wants it?"
That means that the U.S. Government would have to create such a company and pay five times as much to operate it -- just to satisfy all these crazies who have been screaming about the deal. Of course they will be happy to spend five times a much money just so they can give the appearance that they have "won" on the issue of security. What a deal.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Are you unaware that Congress passed the legislation that required absolute secrecy in making such a deal. Had the participants told anyone...Rove, Bush, anyone...they would have been in violation of the law passed by Congress itself.
Have you taken me on as a personal project, Jhohanna?
If you've decided so, send me your email address and I'll get back to you the SECOND I'm interested in what you think of my posts.
If there's anyone out there saying "kill all the Arabs", they should be disregarded.
But I am confident that if it was President John F. Kerry in the White House, you and all of the other Republicans vigorously defending this deal would be on OUR side opposing it just as vigorously.
Plenty! I always have open arms!
As if rules apply to him.
My feelings would be hurt if I was the only one he did that to.
BTW, thanks.
If you need any help on that resume, let us know.
Hey! Wait a second! I added that last line to another poster's whining. You paint me wrong.
Isrul is the foremost expert in Middle Eastern affairs in the world and he knows that region like the back of his hand, so please do not question his opinion on this subject (extreme sarcasm).
"Are you unaware that Congress passed the legislation that required absolute secrecy in making such a deal."
No. Please cut and paste the verbage, and a possible link.
Is "absolute secrecy" like double-secret probation?
BUMP
Do your own homework.
Well, they're all over the place on this forum, and it's not 'playing the race card' to bring it up. And, I personally don't think they should be 'disregarded.' They are dangerous, and they shouldn't be dismissed by you, just because they are on your side of this argument, Junior.
As for your John Kerry comment........too vaccuuous an argument to reply to. But just keep using it. I know you think it's cute......otherwise you wouldn't keep saying it, and exposing yourself like that.
If you can't stick with the issue you brought up, and I responded to........that is, racism..........then I'm not interested in continuing this with you. If you have actual thoughts on the issue, please bring them up. Otherwise, thanks anyway, I'm not here to be personally insulted.
Should be a Live Thread coming up anytime now for the Mars orbital operation. Things are getting tense at the control center, but all systems are go and they are confident for tomorrow.
"The four political virtues: Wisdom Temperance Courage Justice Sounds like our politicians could use a lot of that right about now. Especially the first two. *smile* You know who wrote it? Plato"
Plato push for homosexuality among troops. http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/plato.htm
Any other philosphers you wanna quote?
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.