Day: March 9, 2006

Reuters is at it again.

After an incredibly long day of travel (tube rides, Heathrow Express, waiting in Heathrow terminal for hours, boarding the plane, barely surviving the 9+ hour flight, landing, immigration, getting hassled by an over zealous immigration cop, retrieving my bag, getting out of the Vancouver, Canada airport, traveling home in 60+ mile per hour winds and beating rain…phew!) I get home and I’m sick. Actually, I was nursing a cold in London and it got worse by the smoke filled convention center. This is the second time I’ve come home sick after a business trip. Hmmm, what does it mean? (It means I should take better care of myself, I guess.)

Today, I feel pretty miserable. The wife has been pumping me full of all sorts of naturopathic junk. She’s trying to convince me that it’s helping. I’m doubtful, but we’ll see. I absolutely have to go into work tomorrow so here’s hoping it works.

All this is to say that the ‘Light Blogging’ sign remains illuminated.

Dubai’s royal family are po’d at the furor over the ports deal brought on by Capitol Hill Republicans and Democrats. They’re preparing to retaliate, not with military might, but with a power equal to. They’re ready to kick our wallets.

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.

And don’t think that doesn’t scare some folks.

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.

And when the subject is Boeing, it becomes a matter of interest to Congress. Specifically, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

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.

There is reason for the White House to be concerned. If Dubai feels like they’re being disrespected by the United States, one response could be to limit our military’s ability to use ports in their country.

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.

It all comes down to money and access. Congress will find a way to pass the deal if a loss of state dollars is at stake. Likewise, the Bush administration will find a way to keep our military vessels in Dubai. So, this leaves me wondering if the fight against the port deal is really just a waste of time for everyone involved. While it may score short term political points for one side or another, it doesn’t appear that any of this will stop Washington from pursuing the goal – pocketing the money and securing the needed access.

Dubai Ports World has had enough, and they’re not going to take it anymore.

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal.

It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation.

As much as the president wanted this deal to go through, it was dead the minute the blogosphere took hold of the topic. Soon after, the MSM grabbed on and then the calls started coming in from voters nationwide. That’s when Congress’ ears perked up, and all the action started.

We haven’t reached the end on this deal though

White House officials have not backed down in the face of the brewing revolt, however. At the same time the GOP leadership was meeting with Bush, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeated Bush’s vow to veto any legislation that interferes with the deal. He has made clear the president’s position is unchanged.

I still don’t know why the president is willing to go to the mat on this whole matter, especially if he didn’t know about it until after his administration had given it the green light. There seems to be a whole lot more to this story than we know today.

I think books will be written on this subject and only then will we see the full picture. For now it’s an explicitly divisive political issue, one that won’t go away as long as Bush continues the fight.