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.
Must be a typo let me correct it for ya
"vocal anti illegal immigration folks"
No need to thank me, I do it all the time.
There is no one more devoted to our Nation on the FR. This does not equate to being moronic however and believing that we should spit in the face of one of our best allies in the world. This nation has been a strong ally of ours since its founding 30+ years ago.
The anti-Globalists are the nutcases who demonstrate and riot at international conferences. True nationalists support deals which are in our national interest which this definitely was. True nationalists support those nations which support us we don't insult them and treat them like enemies. Only morons do that.
This has certainly not strengthened any view of our integrity and has shone that The Party of Treason and panicked GOPers have none.
Surely you are not so clueless as to believe that UAE has not been a great asset in our military efforts. If so you need to listen to people who are informed NOT Schumer and REid.
Thanks RightWhale... I know I have looked! :)
I find it a useful acid test to point out that whne the borders are controlled we will need greatly increased legal immigration from Mexico. If I see a horrified reaction,
I question their motives for opposing illegal immigration.
Are you for President Bush's amnesty guest worker plan too? Or would you rather see our borders defended? Be careful, you might be described as a useful idiot for refusing to go along with the breakdown of our national soveriegnty...
Offered here again for your enjoyment; if you repeat a pantload often enough people will start to think it's dinner.
Do you have a point? I'm not going to grope around in your thought processes trying to figure out your motivations. Speak plainly or go somewhere that thrives on innuendo.
Please stop with the LIES. There have been no boats rammed into tankers in the UAE.
Of course without LIES the antis will have nothing to say but the silence will be sweet.
"I'm not worried about it, I'm more concerned about our sovereignty and security. Next to that, money means nothing."
While you are quite correct to value sovereignty and security I would suggest that those are both ties to wealth and that is tied to trade.
LOL!
That one is spamming the thread with her utter ignorance.
Really? Are their leaders elected democratically? Do they have freedom and equal rights for all their citizens? Do they allow women to control their own destiny? Do they have freedom of speech?
OK, I thought about it. Not one of those points has anything to do with being an ally.
Think about it.
We shouldn't be giving away the keys to our ports in order to gain some limited help in the War on Terror. We didn't have to give our allies in WW2 control of U.S. national security interests. They were just our allies because they believed in the same cause.
Maybe the real problem is that we have to bribe an Arab sheikhdom in order to gain their "friendship"...
I presume there was a point in posting that. But not likely one that makes much sense.
Great point. Thanks.
Yes, you said there would be no meaningful legislation, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC doesn't want it.
See how that works?
Again,The latest poll by Quinnipiac University found that 88 percent of those asked think illegal immigration is a serious problem. Put another way, 94 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Democrats see illegal immigration as a serious issue .
Go ahead, twist away.
Yes, I guess the American people still do have a say-so on occasion. (At least, that's what I always thought the House of Representatives was for...)
What I have learned here just reaffirms what I already knew. There is a large number of so-called conservatives who are happy to follow the leadership of the Party of Treason/Treason Media and who do not care in the slightest that they are led by the noses like cattle into error.
So, now that I have asked you to back up your first claim, you're changing the claim, do I have that right?
I do recall you saying that the UAE had few terror ties, etc...
Again, I never said any such thing.
And whatever this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1584285/posts is, I'm not on that thread, so I have no idea why you posted it.
OH YEAH! I remember the other one... that Bush had no role in this port deal and didn't know of it. Yah. Now, I couldn't find proof outright proof, but COME ON. I don't have the links here at work, but I have gathered enough evidence on my own to think that he *was* involved. And knew. That was the big one. How could he *not* know?
Good lord; that is W E A K. Which is it, you have proof (which is what you said in the beginning) or you don't.
BTW, if you *think* one way and I *think* another, that doesn't make ME wrong, you know? You could be the one who is wrong, right?
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.