The $1.24 billion purchase is not unlike the United Arab Emirates (UAE) DP World purchase of P&O, another British firm; P&O had operations in 22 US ports (although major media continue to understate US holdings). Doncasters has operations in nine US locations, primarily along the Southeastern seaboard. Two locations deal with medical equipment.
Analysts report that UAE firms -- like other oil-rich nations -- are seeking a home for record oil revenue. For example, Reuters notes that Dubai International Capital has purchased "Britain's Tussauds Group, owner of Madame Tussauds waxworks, and [has] a stake in car maker DaimlerChrysler."
The sums involved, in the aggregate, are not insignificant. According to zFacts, in today's dollars, we are spending "more than four times as much per year to import fossil fuel as we were back in 1974, when we first set out to become energy independent."
According to Monsters and Critics, annual US exports to the United Arab Emirates are valued at about $8.4 billion. In return, UAE has ordered "80 F16 e/f combat aircrafts from the United States at a cost of some $6.4 billion," and a national carrier, Emirates Airlines, has a $20 billion order with Boeing. According to census data, the US runs a significant trade surplus with UAE.
Reportedly, the Bush Administration approved the Doncasters deal in February, but due to the backlash of the Dubai Ports deal, decided to conduct a new 45-day review.
Given that the development of US weapons is subsidized by taxpayers, is it reasonable to restrict components to US-owned firms and equipment? If so, would it, for example, give Pratt and Whitney engines a leg up over Rolls-Royce? Take our poll or comment on this blog.