----We do have SOME decorum around here, you know?----
Folks, you couldn't make some of these people up if you tried. :)
-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.
The promotion of homosexuality, and personal attacks garnered the scrutiny. I am all for "love the sinner" and all that. Just do not promote prohibited things on Jims forum, since these things tend to get linked to all of us. I did not call the mods on you, since you had not attacked or threatened me. I did ping some folks that will engage you in discourse, and you will decide whether or not you get ZOTted. Pretty cool, huh? You get to determine your own destiny here.
Folks, you couldn't make some of these people up if you tried. :)
-Dan
Jhohanna aka dbad ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1292589/posts ) zotted again.
I don't know Howlin, but could be employer scantions? Could be national ID card? Could be greater law enforcement presence on the border? Could be building a fence? Could be lots of stuff other then mass roundup and deportation. You might have asked before leaping to the most extreme conclusion.
I am with you on that. I have done my share of rallies in Olympia, Washington (the other Washington) and Support our Troops rallies.
I do say that we have been slow on the stick to see through the BS to overcome the tsunami effect. However, this is how the DemonRATs calculated the strategy. It has caused things to happen so fast that there was no time to mount an opposition to the insanity.
FOTFLOL!
We figured retread when she posted to me "YOUR BELOVED HOWLIN"
Did you voice support for the Chinese operation of those facilities when it came to light? I certainly didn't----I thought it was an awful move. I didn't even know about the Saudis until this Dubai deal made news. So I can see your point about how that would make this whole deal even more offensive to the UAE; but that doesn't mean that they should get the contract. It means we never should have given contracts to the Chinese and Saudis.
Sneering at the way FR works is your right; although doing it in the post before the owner's is kind of dumb.
Seems as some folks prefer to keep their heads in the sand and overlook all them facts you posted.
It is necessary because we lack sufficient clarity and unity to speak truthfully. I am afraid that until we have such focus, we are not ready to win. The very fact that it is necessary tells me that victory is not yet close.
The Islamo-fascists are doing their damnest to see to it that we gain that focus. More unspeakable violence awaits us. Once the majority of the citizenry feel the fear of loss of their life and liberty in their very bones, then we will be prepared to win.
LOL! I forgot to ping you, MY BELOVED HOWLIN!! Me bad.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593184/posts?page=1546#1546
I'm for that.
Could be national ID card?
But I thought the anti's were against that.
Could be greater law enforcement presence on the border?
I'm all for that.
Could be building a fence?
Fine by me.
Could be lots of stuff other then mass roundup and deportation.
Not on the threads I see here on FR.
You might have asked before leaping to the most extreme conclusion.
Why? Since that's most of what's on those threads, can't I assume that's what they want?
After watching this I wouldn't count on it. ;^)
Ok, since you are obviously into semantics, let's just refer to it as "calling someone stupid" when you should either post a informed response.
However, you staked out a position, not me.
Oh, I thought we each had a position, which was in contrast to one another.
I (and a dozen others) have soundly refuted it.
I saw some passionate arguments in favor of allowing the deal to go forward. But only you seemed to be attacking those who disagree with you as "stupid".
You have yet to post one thing of substance to back up the outright lies "control our security interests" "control our ports."
Again with semantics. Substitute "operate" for "control". I suppose we could always take back our ports militarily if we ever went to war with the UAE. My point is why should we have to? Why should we allow another government to "own", "operate", "inhabit", "rent", "lease", or otherwise "control" in any way any of the ports in this country?
I believe that out of 300 million Americans, we could find a company owned by one or more of them to do the job instead. In fact, it should be required. That idea is just sort of obvious to me, and that shouldn't cause anyone to say that I am "stupid". You could certainly disagree, and that wouldn't be "stupid" either, just a difference of opinion.
I've been on Free Republic for quite some time now, and it's a good thing to argue these issues. But sometimes the President, and you, are just wrong. He is wrong on the borders too.
I reiterate, folks.... you can NOT make some of these people up. :D
-Dan
The globalist that gave us the Jay treaty?
Lucky he didn't have the "conservative" blogosphere to deal with back then.
Don't worry; as you can see, she's been "taken care of". We don't like "facts" around here.
-Dan
That you, sabertooth, what with the little attention demanding icon?
I guess Johhannannanana had to hurry to catch the "short bus," eh?
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.