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.
Amen!
The biggies are No Profanity, that one is stickly enforced. No racist posts, no inciting violence, no personal attacks. These are also enforced but a little laditude is granted since this is an adult forum. Lastly if you refer by name to another poster you should ping them to the post. Also this is a conservative forum so if you are not conservative you might get the zot. Newbies in particulars, the longer you've been a member the more slack moderators will give you, but long timers are expected to set the examble and not immune. Hope that helps.
but I'm not among the classic conservative homophobe stance.
That "Bareback Mounted" movie is going to be the death of us. Next it will be "Gumsmoke."
That they had no ties to Bin Laden construction, when they did. They may not now, but they did. I'll have to go look, like I said.
He can veto a bill? Who Knew?
On most issues, I think most of the folks here are in agreement. Unfortunately it just makes sense that the most visible and action-packed threads are the ones where we're at each other's throats.
Thank you monkeywrench for your excellent assessment.
tell me more about the role dubai plays in Iraq...and what their role is in helping the US in the Middle East.
LOL!!!! Now that was funny no matter what side of the debate you are on.
I caught a little bit of Reid talking, and it was nauseating, him pausing for effect and then mentioning Katrina, etc.
It seems like many here are doing almost the same thing: saying this is payback for the border situation. In other words, opposing this port deal is less about the ports than it is other "issues" and overall axes to grind with Bush. And in the midst of that, they don't care if we just crapped over a critical (not perfect, but important) ally at a really, really bad time. To think the UAE would jeopardize their economy by being complicit in or in any way allowing an attack through DPW is insane. After their oil resources are gone, business and tourism will be what they rely on.
Perhaps you don't think it's an insult to say that my values change dependent on who occupies the White House. Perhaps you don't think it's an insult to say that I support things I don't believe in just because people of a certain party support them, or a certain President is in the Oval Office. Perhaps you think that accusing a person of being weak and lacking values is not an insult.
Since that apparently is the case, I can draw the conclusion that you were not even aware that it was you who began the insults, and not I.......and feel a bit sorry for you.
But, since I have vowed not to get into any of these back biting sessions for the time being, and since you seem intent on biting and denying, and accusing me of lying on top of it, I shall leave you to reflect on the enormous condecension exhibited here in your response to my very civil first post to you.
btw on the subject.......open your eyes. The posts are here to support what I have said.
I never said that. Period.
I never mentioned bin Laden or his family's company in the course of this deal.
You are quite wrong.
"ICBMs don't need to dock."
While I generally value your view on things military, I would like to point out how infrequently ICBMs are useful while ships with marines, cruise missiles and planes are both frquently useful and also highly visible projections of American power.
freep mail
No, they do not; being reelected is all important, don't you know?
To think the UAE would jeopardize their economy by being complicit in or in any way allowing an attack through DPW is insane.
Why people would ignore this fact is proof beyond a doubt what this is about. It's sickening.
And... you do not?
"Homosexuality far predates us"
That does not compute.
Do you know what 'non-sequitur' means? It means; I called you out on a big lie, you respond with something unrelated to the lie as if it were relevant.
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.