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.
I am not trying to say we need to go it alone. What my postion is is that we should use our leverage where we can and this UAE deal is perfect for us to do so. I suspect this is why Bush will veto congress meddling. But congress has played its part quite well, dont worry.
Cut out the name calling.
I can't fix everything...that's it.
Thank you.
Precisely.
How will this deal reduce our trade deficit? And we have had a trade deficit for how long now?
Who's pissing on whom? If you didn't notice, the Dubai royal family are the ones making blackmail threats to the United States right now. Not much of an ally to be making threats like that.
I would be pissed too if I was given a 45 day "review" period but because of skewed poll numbers the "leaders" ended the promise and killed the deal anyway.
I call'em like I see 'em.
Okay - Arab/Muslim investments. That's better.
Bush is not the one without a clue. Bush is not the one lapping up the barf of the Party of Treason.
Should I trust Bush or Chuck Schumer on this OR ANYTHING ELSE? You must have had a real hard time answering that.
Your schtick is getting old.
Look---this shakeup in the relationship is just one of a hundred pieces of fallout that started after 9-11 and will continue in some form for YEARS/ I understand who is playing this for politics, and WHY, but automatically going to Bush's side because the Dems and some Republicans are using the issue just leads to more of the usual partisan stasis. It gets us nowhere. This Ports deal may be the beginning of a disentangling process with these people , who, I would remind everyone, would not even EXIST as players on the world stage were it not for their good fortune to be sitting atop a precious natural resource/ And if the "Royals" in Dubai are truly as peeved as reported, just how important IS it to them financially, strategically, or any other way to keep this deal?
cAN'T THEY FIND SOME OTHER PORTS, OR SOMETHING ELSE TO DO WITH THEIR UNEARNED BILLIONS?
I hope this begins a process of let's call it "creative isolationism", but it will be a long , slow process.\\
I'm patient.
ROFL. You don't ignore my posts; why just last week you were posting to me. Try not to lie; I know it's hard, but do try, dear.
Probably Diego Garcia, but regardless it is so far away any ship is out the area for a long time just in transit to and from and Bahrain unless they have opened up more port facilities can't handle more than a few ships at once and if IRC the port is too shallow for any flattops.
And some of us don't believe those goals to be mutually exclusive.
I absolutely agree with you--maybe I've been naiive, but it feels to me like we are beginning to peel the lid off of a festering pile of corruption, from ALL PARTIES. Is our government bought and sold by big busimess? Have we lost control? WHat about government 'by the people'? (Again with the naiive). Where do the interests of big business and the interests of the American people come to cross purposes? This deal was just going to be shoved down our throats. But we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it.
you don't trust muslim? why? what have they ever done to us?? they have been such good boys you know, and have our best interests at heart, yes, what could you be thinking? we can trust them, just ask them!
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.