Think this will help? :D
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.
It's over. Feelings aside, it is going to be more difficult to entice anybody in the ME to enter into business partnership with the US, and that is all we have to offer.
LOL, learn to read, it is a big help when debating on FR. Hint, "methods and data".
I always thought the label "The Stupid Party" had to do with the fumbling of our congress critters. But lately I've discovered truely why we're called the Stupid Party. It's because some incredibly stupid people elected those stupid congressmen.
So you believe the president will sell out our security for a few bucks?
If so, push for impeachment already.
But since you have no evidence, who do you think you are accusing any person of being a traitor and a greedy sellout just because you don't like something they support?
Think this will help? :D
Ahem. This IS a global economy. You think our boycott of French products after the UN vote didn't affect THEIR economy?
Yes, as a matter of fact. Dubai's oil reserves are estimated to run out in 2016, so for the past several years, Dubai has been looking for alternative sources of money.
Without the port deal, Dubai can and will certainly look elsewhere for U.S. cash flow. This threat of retaliation from one of our allies (delivered to us by an anonymous source--convenient, eh?) smells like a bluff.
"Bush Sr. set up Saddam Insane in Iraq. At that time he appeared reasonable. He wasn't. He had another agenda which we now live with today.WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? This is ancient history."
Blaahahaha! "Ancient history" presented by MoveOn.org.
We didn't setup Saddam, we encourged him to fight the Iranians that's it.
When you say Israel, who exactly do you mean? The general population or politicians? If I were a Jew, I certainly wouldn't support it. But it looks like it won't happen anyway so it's really a moot point.
It's funny how the Friends of Dubai on FR are trying to rationalize the Emir of Dubai threats to end support for the WOT and to evict U.S. bases from the UAE. They sound like Spaniards after Al Qaeda blew up their trains.
Is everything that seems so messed up actually going precisely according to the Bush Master Plan again?
So what did Rush say? So far all I've seen on this thread is remarks that he "gave away the plan" with no summary of what he said.
And filling up with dhimmies, appeasers and apologist.
I take it you were one of those people who thought that selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia was absolutely "essential" to our victory in the Cold War?
You may be right and I've been trying to follow this but THEY have made a big mistake. There are a vocal few that will say no problem but most Americans don't take well to threats .
No comparison.
If you buy(x) and it's defective or bad, you ask for your money back in return for the bad item.
You're not told to keep the bad item or else.
You're not told you have to BUY the bad item or the seller will retaliate by not selling you any other goods.
This is a better analogy, IMO.
I have a car for sale. You say you want to buy it. Initially I say ok, then change my mind and decide to keep it or sell it to someone who offered more.
Are you right to threaten me for not selling it to you? Tell me I can't drive through your neighborhood, or-perhaps not shop at your establishment?
Buying and selling should be voluntary. Reciprocation is good, but not mandatory. I don't have to buy clothes from you if you buy milk from me.
To threaten to keep me out of your store if I don't sell you my car is blackmail.
The stereotype of Arab traders is based on fact.
WOW! You have a way with words....:) I like Savage, even though at times he is a little harsh for me, but he is passionate about his opinions and I like that.
It is also wise to remember that one should never fall in love with a politician.
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.