My goodness! The RINO'S must be all over FR now. How sickening is that! 
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 not so funny. If I was Ahmadinajhad in Iran, I'd be doing my darndest to throw out the Emir in Dubai and dump the US out of the only serious port in the Gulf. Haven't you noticed that the supply lines to Iraq are seriously vulnerable?
And wait until we need them to be on our side when we have to deal with Iran and other hot spots in the ME.
When I first heard about this deal, I wasn't happy about it at all. Within a day or two, as the facts came out amidst the hysteria on FR, I just kept saying that now we've ticked off the very people we need to trust and the military has trusted. This is about as bad an outcome as I could envision.
I'm listening to Gen. Pace on Rush right now and he's saying he couldn't ask for a better partner in that region.
To your delight the President will not veto the bill because our REPUBLICANS in the House of Representatives inserted the blocking of Dubai Ports into the appropriation bill for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This deal is dead and now be ready for the bad consequences.
I agree 1000%.
It comes down to this: Sell us these rights, ( sell us (x) in the future) or we'll...
No bases now. What will be the threat in the future? Sell us this, or else?
I wouldn't sell an Arab/Muslim a bottle of water to save them from death by dehydration, much less the rights to anything in this country.
Now its not that they have the chance to buy these rights-they DEMAND it. Typical Arabs.
I am a Bush supporter- but in this I think he's wrong.
Blackmail is ending military cooperation with the war on terror and evicting our bases from their country over a failed business deal. Business deals fail all the time. The Emir of Dubai and his cronies needs to get over it and stop making threats on our future security.
Try READING before reacting....
I don't preclude having Arab Muslims as allies, but NOT to the extent that our economy or security are DEPENDENT or held hostage and BLACKMAILED by them...
This very instance of UAE's potential to severely impact a critical American business because some Sheik or "Royal Family" is in a snit over a troubled business deal - is an example of the hazards we should have been aware of --- dealing with these "folks"....
If reports of the threatened "blackmail" by UAE against Boeing or others are true, then they themselves prove the weakness of their "ally" status...
Make a deal with the devil, deal with the heat...
Semper Fi
Furious Islamists making threats? Imagine that.
Savage is obviously an idiot.
An excellent point that is often missed in all the hysteria around here.
This just proves why we shouldn't have ANY kind of foreign port operation/ownership/tourism/references in poetry/whatever. Making threats is not a diplomatic method of getting your way. Smacks more like Iran of late.
I'm very happy we didn't do business with these phonies. Their true colors are shining through.
Yep, and let all those employees of Boeing bleat when they're laid off because of cancelled contracts.
Truth.
My goodness! The RINO'S must be all over FR now. How sickening is that!
You've been suckered Junior...
This is a critical point. If we're going to get the Arab on the street's respect (rather than them becoming Al Queda), we need to step carefully. Scrutiny has been given, they've passed muster, the deal should go through. To do otherwise is clearly prejudice. Bush *must* veto an attempt by Congress to block this deal. No more pussy-footing around with empty veto threats like with the budget deals.
No one cares that we have a foreign company running airports or that UAE has flights going to JFK daily. The ports now aren't very secure, this won't change that to make them less so.
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.
