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.
There are. Now and then the posting guidelines are posted. I don't have them handy, but someone no doubt does.
The first voices were RAT voices. You need to get out more. ;)
That is not exactly true (Plato gay), it was a diferent era, with diferent views of the roles of men and women. The short version is: women are intelectually infeior to men, so much so that man could not have a real 'soul mate' with a women only another man. Sex was a diferent issue altogether.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Your initial post to me, and my initial reply to you were both civil. Then, unhappy with my reply you started letting the insults fly. Anybody can go up in the thread and see that, so I don't see the point in lying about it. As for your assertion that this forum is filled with people who want to "kill all the arabs", I don't see any of them either. As much as you would like to rely on the race card to cut short the debate, there simply is no justification for it.
"I have heard that also. Just makes me sick to my stomach."
I just think it sounds odd to quote someone just because they lived thousands of years ago and were greek, then it makes great wisdom.
sorta like saying today, "Oh Yeah!! Well Barney Frank said...."
No, you don't even need to be consistent, realistic, or rational. Bush does, though.
DITTO, Peach.
Oh OK if you say so. LOL, do you listen to conservative talk radio?
I'd love to know the percent of people on this thread that have ever engaged in business with a foreign based company. From the looks of it, it cannot be many.
BS; I have not ATTACKED you. In fact, it is you who has made false claims about me, which I'm still waiting for an answer on.
People don't put forth what they really want to share for fear of reprisal.
Really? Perhaps I should tell the people who I post with all day long they should be in fear; you're not going to find many hear fearful of me.
Reprisal? The facts?
And I might remind you that YOU start this with your post to me; I made a simple statement about how long I had been posting and observing on this site and you've been making snarky remarks and lecturing me ever since.
To use another gambling term, what it really is, is calling a spade a spade. When people on this forum use the term 'raghead' with regularity, and talk about bombing them ALL (including the 'nits'), it IS a problem, and it's dangerous..........no matter how hard some try to turn the accusation around on the one speaking the truth.
If people don't think racism was a factor in some people's opposition to this port deal (which was approved by the U.S. military), then they're in complete denial.
Please...tell me more about the role dubai plays in Iraq...and what their role is in helping the US in the Middle East.
It's 1914-1917 immigration policy all over again. woopee.
That's big time projection; you started this.
I don't understand why you are so nasty to me in particular, or to the others that I have seen you do.
Only to people who misstate facts.
As you have done about me.
And I am STILL waiting for the link to my post about bin Laden Construction Company and the UAE.
Coulda, shoulda. Divesting is the best option. Saves face for Dubai, and brings the rhetoric down a few notches. Immigration is inextricably tied to this. I wrote and called my Representative and Senator regarding this. And regarding immigration. I fall into the "let's do something reasonable about illegal immigration" crowd. No round them all up. No wall. No trade the Green card for Gold card. Yes for document compliance, workplace enforcement, wage/hour/safety enforcement. The only way to plan a viable policy is to get an accurate count of illegal immigrants and register them. I do not pretend to know exactly how the program should work. That is why legislators make the big bucks. I do know that there is a problem, and the Dims are whipping people into an isolationist/nationalist frenzy regarding Mexico.
"Why does being gay automatically discount something, because you don't like it?"
Does your husband know you are pushing the homosexual agenda? :)
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.