----While the organization is free to oppose it, there are those of us that are related to people who are homosexual.----
Word.
-Dan
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.
LOL!
Agreed. Hey, you know, it's the modern times man. Those old guys didn't understand the need for a global economy. Hell, they didn't even have cars or aeroplanes!
Speaking of service women, how are they treated in that good ol' ally of ours?
You were wrong. An ally is 'one who assists.' Great Britain doesn't exactly have a government, laws or customs just like ours.
It's refreshing to hear someone say that. It should be an obvious point, but a lot of people I've argued with over the ports try to put the UAE on the same level as Great Britain. Obviously, it's possible to make an argument for the deal that doesn't resort to silliness or venom.
Word.
-Dan
i am simply amazed that people are calling this blackmail. DPW and dubai have been demonized here for weeks, yet freepers feel that any change in purchasing decisions based on how they have been treated is 'blackmail?'
how can anyone actually expect them to keep smiling and take it? Would any freeper keep buying from a chain that demonized them in the store one day? If they said they were going to not shop there any more unless management quit hassling them, is that blackmail?
if this is the face of the republican party, there is no hope.
What a bunch of cowards here--i agree it was the thing to do (have the deal)in the big picture--BUT ,AMERICANS by a wide margin didnt want this to go thru.If this is a govt.for the people,then the people spoke.Too BAD --UAE--stick it,----now you still want to work with the U.S.A. who protects your oil from IRAN and others?Do you want our products which are the best??Then work it out with us ,a argument amongst
"friends" can be worked out eventually
But they do have democracy, freedom, and equal rights for women and all religions.
You're right. Perhaps I should, like you, simply take Bill Clinton's word for it and accept the deal no questions asked.
OOOO Thanks for that!!!
What dragged out theatrics? I was the one called a racist, told I said every Mexican should be rounded up and deported - which I have NEVER said, and was told I was stupid etc etc etc.
I will find it quite funny if I am zotted for the statements on this thread. I have saved them all.... because I KNEW you would threaten that.
Who posted such things to you?
I'm sure you can find the links, can't you?
i have thought for some time that the more whacky anti-american elements in the DNC are covertly funded by foreign powers, i.e. china russia or whomever. I have read that it is known as fact that the USSR did fund some of the same types in decades past, and only a fool would think that no one does now - Heck, the PRC helped fund the 1996 DNC campaign fairly openly.
The natsec implications of this affair will pay a nice dividend on foreign penetration of our political parties.
Your beloved Howlin did. Gotta go catch a bus. I can post her nastiness later. Feel free to go back over this thread. It's ALL in it.
If this President were trustworthy on border and homeland security issues then I would accept his word for it. But he is not, in fact he has clearly demonstrated a concept of borders that runs antithetical to my concept of nationhood.
You must remember the ping rule ping Howlin quickly to that post!
I see one of your cherished "conservative principles" is cheaing your boss out of worktime.
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.