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.
"You think they would have gotten a clue when the Dems are against the port deal."
Dems like Carter and Clinton were *for* it! There is a one party establishment that croses partisan lines, and Bush is a part of it. No thanks!
"Good! Maybe it'll wake up all these Smoot Harley idiots."
How about we let the Arabs run the Pentagon, while we're at it? We can't be protectionist.
"Ah, the joys of protectionism!"
Protectionism? I am not aware of Congress banning trade with the UAE. Let the Arabs sell oil and buy planes if they agree.
But operating national infrastructure - the means with which business can be done - is a different thing. Operating ports is not trade.
OK but I never claimed there was such a concept within Islam.
Neither is there concept of nationalism in Communism, Capitalism or Christianity. Nationalism is a new concept in human thought. Mankind being organized in Kingdoms, Empires, Commonwealths, etc until less than five hundred years ago. So that is a moot point. Catholics owed more alligance to Rome than their political sovereigns until a few centuries ago and Americans believed the Pope would control a Catholic president until fifty years ago.
Theoretically Christians and Moslems both own primary fealty to their God and his religious authority. We both know theory only goes so far.
The real point is that Islam came upon entities which predated it such as Eygpt and Persia. those are still organized politically as nations and most of their citizens show alligance to the nations. The states will certainly prosecute you in the name of the nation state and speak on the world stage as such.
The prime problem we are dealing with is the small percentage of those Moslems which are faithful to the original ethic of War and Terror which motivated Mo and the Boys, Khalid, Omar, Abu. The current crop appears to be more motivated by sheer reiligous concerns than the first attackers too.
This is why the destruction of this port deal is so bad for US interests. The only hope of avoiding a cataclysmic escalation of the war between the West and Islam itself is to split off those rational enough to understand that the latter Cannot win and must reform. The Emirates have that recognition and must be rewarded for their absolutely CRUCLE assistance to our military. (It is inconceivable that 77 thousand visited there last year with NO terrorist occurances.)
Those who refuse to recognize that Moslems throughout that region are fighting and dying alongside our Military I will call bigots and worse. They are lining up in the freaking streets in Iraq knowing that there is a GREAT probility that a lunatic in a car will blow them UP. Enlisting knowing this endangers their families; speaking in support of the US knowing they could literally lose their heads.
Musharef has had multiple assassination attempts against him by Mad Mo's boys; generals in Iraq are killed, mayors shot, Emirs killed. They are realizing that any of them are subject to death from this shadowy group and they are protected by the US.
You will find NO one on this site more disdainful of the Islamic lunacy but we are dealing with more than that. We are dealing with people.
But most important is the FACT that the campaign against the UAE has been based entirely upon LIES.
Ironic and fascinating one must admit. Reminds of those great episodes and debates throughout history wherein absolute lunacy swepts things away. The Children's Crusade comes to mind.
Nope National interest is entirely behind this deal. There is nothing but LIES supporting the opposition.
Darn .. I'm in Chicago .. I think I've got my times messed up. I so hope I didn't miss it .. it's 10 pm here.
Britt is on at 11 here .
Oh .. good, and thanks ;).
Savage must be very pleased with himself these days....along with Hillary, the DNC, RINOS, the buchananites, and the chicken littles among us. It's been similar to watching the stampedes at the European soccer matches....knuckledraggers who don't realize how very important the Dubai port and it's geographical position is to the USA. They should be airing up their bike tires.
About 40 percent of the world’s crude oil shipments pass through the two-mile wide channel of the Persian Gulf’s strategic Straits of Hormuz.
Yet these same clowns will be the first to scream that we need to do something about Iran without blessing us with their incredible geo-political insights as to how to accomplish that while at the same time insulting the very party necessary to accomplish their demands.
"I think I will shoot the quarterback then demand we win the Super Bowl"
Good analogy.
Arabs have a very serious thing about "losing face", like it or not, agree with it or not.
I fear we have just lost a very major WOT battle.
I suppose so, but it's depressing nonetheless.
Watch Brit's show right now .........listen word to word to what James Carafona says.
"I hope the people on this forum who chose deliberately not to educate themselves about the issues are proud of themselves. Because I'm disgusted with them."
Same here. I did get educated on this matter before sounding off. I am really worried about loss of intelligence cooperation in the GWOT.
There are American blacks, whose ancestors probably came to America long before your ancestors did, who are Muslims.
There are whites, such as Jihad Johnny from California, who are Muslims.
Both of these groups are AMERICANS, but most assuredly NOT ARAB in any way, shape, manner, or form!
There are Americans of Arab background, living in America or born here, who are CHRISTIANS!
Muslim and Arab are NOT synonyms!
Words have set definitions and when you deviate from them, it is YOU who lose the debate immediately; not to mention look foolish and stupid.
Oh and By the way, I know a woman who was born in Egypt, but who has been an American citizen for longer than you've been alive. She is a Muslim, but is a VERY patriotic American and I bet that she isn't the only one. She is NOT an Arab, but she IS a better CONSERVATIVE than YOU are; so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :-)
I saw it this afternoon.
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.