Ports Part2

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Was wondering how this would be settled and appears UAE is the 1st to blink and let GW out of trap he was in. Outcome probably best and only solution--but concerned about aftermath down the road---I can think of several stocks I'd be unloading if I owned them.

Dubai threat to hit back
By Roxana Tiron

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.
 
Last edited:

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
Imagine, if this is the way they react to the first problem encountered in the 3+ years of being "good" to the U.S., how in the hell could we trust them for the remaining lease period on the ports?

Who know how they would "retaliate" after the first "problem" arose with the ports operation. :shrug:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
`sigar/.....exactly....what if we decided to move toward some sorties to curtail iran`s nuclear ambitions?.....and they disagreed...saw it as some sort of insult to the middle east?...

what else?...more cartoons?

should we be basing our foreign policy on the wishes of a nation/company that allowed nuclear technology to flow freely through their ports to hostile entities...that blocked our investigations into bin ladens dealings....that is known as a masking/cover port in the moving of illicit goods all over the world...

i think some sort of legislation to cover all of our infrastructure...over time...would help salve any wounds...to show that we aren`t singling out the arab world(which we should be,imo..)

i think most of the globe`s wheelers and dealers will still play with the wealthiest nation in the world...

why do we deal with them to begin with?...why they with us?...

money...strategic importance....that door swings both ways...

i`d be shocked if the uae retaliates...like cutting off their nose to spite their face...

i still ask the question...if the uae is so pro-west,why aren`t they on al qaeda`s radar?....

attacks on other pro-western states like jordan and egypt.....

how many on the uae?...they`re so progressive...shouldn`t they be a hot target for islamofascism?.....they appear to be the antithesis to what the zarqawi`s and bin laden`s believe in....

is there more here than meets the eye?
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
It's an interesting topic, Wayne. One that we'll probably see more of in the years to come in this "global economy" business/political world.

I think the problem lies in not dealing with all of these things before the deal was approved so quickly. Probably why the 45 day requirement should be used in cases of this magnitude, to consult with people and consider ramifications plus and minus beforehand.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top