UAE Investments Worldwide

[Dubai-Lover]

Istithmar holds 2.4% stake in Time Warner
By Shakir Husain, Staff Reporter



Dubai: UAE investment firm Istithmar controls 2.39 per cent of US media company Time Warner's stock and has hired one of US financier Carl Icahn's entities as its advisor, according to a regulatory filing.

Icahn has been trying to influence the direction of Time Warner and owns about 3.5 per cent of the company's stock.

Istithmar acquired the stake in January through $2 billion in participation notes issued by Swiss bank and global asset manager UBS.

Istithmar said last month it had signed an agreement with UBS to create a derivative instrument that would give Istithmar exposure to Time Warner shares. The issuance of the instrument to Istithmar Media Investments (IMI), a subsidiary of Istithmar, was aimed at investment purposes only, it said.

The participation notes give Istithmar effective control of more than 109 million Time Warner shares, citing the company's filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.

Exposure

A participation note is a form of loan. However, the payoff is not only dependent on the rate of interest but also on the profit or loss of some underlying stock.

"In a typical situation the investor accepts a low or zero interest rate in return for exposure to a share," London-based derivatives expert Cormac Butler said. Time Warner is facing a proxy battle with Icahn, who has proposed break up of the world's largest media company into four groups.

"Icahn wants sufficient control to achieve his strategy of breaking up Time Warner," Butler told Gulf News.

Under the agreement with Istithmar, UBS does not have economic exposure or control over the shares.

"When there is a closely fought proxy battle, the value of the right to vote is usually very high. Carl Icahn represents just under 3.5 per cent of Time Warner's shareholders. It does look as though UBS has transferred voting rights to Istithmar," Butler said.

[dubaiflo]

they won't like to hear that...

poor US guys...

[Face81]

Originally Posted by dubaiflo

face, please read it again.

Flo,

it says that Etihad and QA are competing for Man U.

The last says that Emirates ALREADY sponsor Arsenal.

[dubaiflo]

yeah but what i say is that emirates/arsenal and etihad/manu will have a tough fight then

[Face81]

oh ok. i get your point now.

[DUBAI]

wow, 17mill is huge!

im worried about this 'presenting rights' though. if either company touch the old trafford name, their brand will be ruined in the uk.

[BinDubai]

Originally Posted by dubaiflo

Dubai may touch Dh55b mark

this figure doesn't include investments already owned by Dubai Government
they only cover what has been announced so far

[Krazy]

Some "interesting" articles about the Dubai ports deal in the US

Lawmakers urges White House to review Arab port takeover

Critics contend deal could affect national security

Sunday, February 16, 2006


Operations at Port Newark, one of the facilities affected by the deal allowing an Arab company to run operations.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. lawmakers formally asked the Bush administration Thursday to reconsider its approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

The lawmakers, including four senators and three House members, sharply criticized the UAE as inconsistent in its support of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

They also said the country was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only three nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

"Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York. "The administration needs to take another look at this deal."

The Bush administration defended its approval of the sale. A spokesman for the White House National Security Council, Frederick Jones, said Thursday that security implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed."

The Associated Press reported Saturday that government-owned Dubai Ports World had won approval for the $6.8 billion deal from a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.

Since then, a growing faction in Congress wants the White House to reconsider its approval of DP World's purchase of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which British shareholders approved Monday.

The British firm, the world's fourth-largest ports company, runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed the transaction and did not object. The committee, run by the Treasury Department, also includes officials from the departments of Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Although it declined to comment on the committee's decision last week, the Treasury Department said Thursday the consensus of the panel's 12 members was that the sale did not present national security problems. The review included an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies, the department said.

"Clearly no responsibility of government is more important than protecting the national security," the department said in a statement.

Critics have complained that control over port operations by DP World could endanger U.S. security. They cite the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks against New York and Washington.

The lawmakers pressing the White House on Thursday included Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Reps. Chris Shays, R-Connecticut, Vito Fossella, R-New York, and Mark Foley, R-Florida.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said he spoke to senior White House officials, whom he declined to identify, and urged them to review the purchase. King said he believed the White House took the issue "very seriously and will look into it."

Treasury Secretary John Snow, asked during a budget hearing Wednesday about the committee's approval, said he was not permitted to discuss specific transactions the panel considers.

Congressman: Port deal lacks sufficient security

Arab company would be allowed to run six ports

Sunday, February 19, 2006


Operations at Port Newark, one of the facilities affected by the deal.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. terms for approving an Arab company's takeover of operations at six major American ports are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said Sunday.

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told The Associated Press.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al Qaeda or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?" King said.

King spoke in response to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments Sunday about conditions of the sale. King said he learned about the government's terms for approving the sale from meetings with senior Bush administration officials.

Chertoff defended the security review of Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, the company given permission to take over the port operations. Chertoff said the government typically builds in "certain conditions or requirements that the company has to agree to make sure we address the national security concerns." But Chertoff declined to discuss specifics saying that information is classified.

"We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint," Chertoff said on ABC's "This Week."

London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was bought last week by DP World, a state-owned business. Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Lawmakers from both parties are questioning the sale as a possible risk to national security.

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Most Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why this company from this region now," Graham said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, on CBS' "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab journalists in an interview Friday at the State Department, that it was "the considered opinion of the U.S. government that this can go forward." She pledged to work with Congress because "perhaps people will need better explanation and will need to understand some of the process that we have gone through."

At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned for later this month.

"Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings," Chertoff told CNN's "Late Edition." "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system," he added. (Watch senator attack deal -- 2:55)

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, who is working on legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from running port operation in the U.S., said Chertoff's comments showed him that the administration "just does not get it."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, joined some family members of September 11 victims at a news conference Sunday to urge President Bush to personally intervene. The president "should override the agreement and conduct a special investigation into the matter," Schumer said.

Dubai Ports World should not be excluded automatically from such a deal because it is based in the UAE, Chertoff said.

Critics have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of September 11, 2001. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

Dubai Ports World has said it intends to "maintain and, where appropriate, enhance current security arrangements." The UAE's foreign minister has described his country as an important U.S. ally in fighting terrorism.

"I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things," Rice said in the interview with the Arab journalists.

Suit seeks to block Arab firm's takeover of U.S. port operations

Sunday, February 19, 2006


Operations at Port Newark, one of the facilities affected by the deal.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of shipping operations there by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

The effort is the first American courtroom effort to capsize a $6.8 billion sale that has prompted a national debate over security risks at six major U.S. ports affected by the deal.

The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased this month. In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules.

A spokesman for Peninsular and Oriental indicated the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and declined to comment immediately.

The lawsuit represents the earliest skirmish over lucrative contracts among the six major American ports where Peninsular and Oriental runs major commercial operations: New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. The lawsuit was filed moments before the court closed Friday and disclosed late Saturday by people working on the case.

The sale, approved by the Bush administration, has drawn escalating criticism by lawmakers in Washington who maintain the United Arab Emirates is not consistent in its support of U.S. terrorism-fighting efforts. At least one Senate oversight hearing is planned. (Read about congressional opposition Sunday)

The Port of Miami is among the nation's busiest. It is a hub for the nation's cruise ships, which carry more than 6 million passengers a year, and the seaport services more than 30 ocean carriers, which delivered more than 1 million cargo containers there last year.

A New Jersey lawmaker said Saturday he intends to require U.S. port security officials be American citizens, to prevent overseas companies operating domestic shipping facilities from hiring foreigners in such sensitive positions. Republican Frank A. LoBiondo, chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, cited "significant" security worries over the sale to Dubai Ports World.

Caught by surprise over the breadth of concerns expressed in the United States, Dubai is cautiously organizing its response. The company quietly dispatched advisers to reassure port officials along the East Coast, and its chief operating officer -- internationally respected American shipping executive Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey -- is expected to travel to Washington this week for meetings on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

The Bush administration in recent days has defended its approval of the sale, and has resisted demands by Congress to reconsider. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the United Arab Emirates on Friday as a "long-standing friend and ally" and said the United States and UAE had a good relationship.

But Mayor Martin O'Malley of Baltimore on Saturday criticized the president's approval of the ports deal as an "outrageous, reckless and irresponsible decision" and urged the White House to reconsider the sale. Baltimore is one of the affected ports, and O'Malley is co-chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Homeland Security. O'Malley also is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Maryland.

[smussuw]

they just dont like the fact that Arabs are owning them now

[Dubai-Lover]

Jumeirah appointed to manage Shanghai's most prestigious new luxury hotel development

Jumeirah, the dynamic and rapidly growing luxury hospitality group, manager of the world famous Burj Al Arab hotel in Dubai, has been appointed by Shanghai Lixing Hotel Limited, a joint venture between Shanghai Hotel Investments Limited and Shui On Private Group, to manage Shanghai's most prominent and prestigious new hotel development in the downtown Luwan District.
United Arab Emirates: 17 minutes ago


An artist impression of HanTang Jumeirah Shanghai

The project brings to reality the vision of Leo Koguan, Chairman of Shanghai Lixing and through the appointment of Jumeirah creates a partnership of excellence. This partnership is expected to redefine the luxury hotel standard in China.

HanTang Jumeirah Shanghai will be part of Xintiandi, the exciting food & beverage, retail and entertainment component of a master-planned 52 hectare development in the heart of downtown Puxi, Shanghai, which will encompass prestigious office space, high-end residential complexes and quality retail facilities. The luxury hotel, designed by New York based Kohn Pedersen Fox Architects and Japanese interior design firm Super Potato, will feature 338 spacious guestrooms, suites and villas, extensive, state-of-the-art conference & banqueting facilities as well as a luxury spa. The hotel will also feature unique food & beverage concepts that will reflect the commitment to quality and innovation that will be evident throughout the development. The hotel is scheduled to open in mid 2008.

Shanghai is considered to be one of the world's most vibrant and progressive cities, striving to become one of the most prominent financial centers in the world. The unique nature of this development will further enhance the destination's global standing and will create a memorable experience for both business and leisure travellers to the city.

This management agreement with Shanghai Lixing follows Jumeirah's recent announcement of its intention to accelerate its portfolio growth, and closely follows the group's entry into the North American market with the launch of Jumeirah Essex House in New York on January 15th this year.

Leo Koguan, Chairman of Shanghai Lixing commented: 'Life is magical and precious, therefore we have to celebrate life. I am delighted to partner up with Jumeirah and together we will redefine the meaning of luxury. We will treat each of our guests as a VIP and provide facilities that enable them to celebrate his or her life to the maximum.'

Gerald Lawless, CEO of Jumeirah commented:
'We feel privileged to have been appointed by Shanghai Lixing to manage this luxury hotel in the heart of downtown Shanghai, China's primary commercial city, and are proud to be associated with such a high profile and prestigious development.'
He added: 'The essence of Jumeirah can be expressed in two words - 'Stay Different' - and we believe that this hotel development represents a unique opportunity to create one of the world's greatest and most individual hospitality experiences.'

[Krazy]

Bush Didn't Know About Ports Deal


An aerial view of the Port of Miami is shown in this May 26, 2005 file photo. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006, that his brother, President Bush, would adequately protect national security as part of the federal government's approval of the sale of a ports operator to a state-owned company in the United Arab Emirates. Under a proposed deal, a British company that has been running some operations at six U.S. ports would be acquired by Dubai Ports World. The British company owns a 50 percent share in the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co. (AP Photo/Alan Diaz, File)

WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.

Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House that the $6.8 billion sale could raise risks of terrorism at American ports. In a forceful defense of his administration's earlier approval of the deal, he pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

But Lawmakers determined to capsize the pending sale said Bush's surprise veto threat won't deter them.

"I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it," said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. King and Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) of New York said they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal.

Another Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, urged his colleagues to force Bush to wield his veto, which Bush — in his sixth year in office — has never done. "We should really test the resolve of the president on this one because what we're really doing is securing the safety of our people."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday the UAE company, Dubai Ports, "is a reputable firm that went through a congressionally approved vetting process." He said the U.S. has "the necessary safeguards to make sure that the security of our country is in place" and that rejecting the deal would send "a dangerous signal to people overseas that America plays favorites."

"The president wants this deal to go forward because it was followed by the book and he wants Congress to understand that," Bartlett said on CBS' "The Early Show." He told Fox News Channel that Bush felt strongly that "we need to be adding strategic partners" in the Mideast.

But Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said the bipartisan opposition to the deal indicated "a lack of confidence in the administration" on both sides. "Sure, we have to link up with our Arab friends but ... we want to see and those in Congress want to know what ... safeguards are built in," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a foreign, state-owned company is set to be completed in early March. It would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

Defending his decision, Bush responded to a chorus of objections this week in Congress over potential security concerns in the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

Bush's veto threat sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Schumer.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bush said protesting lawmakers should understand that if "they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

[Krazy]

Since when did Dubai become such a big threat to the national security of the US?

[Tractor]

It isn't, but a lot of American's are not educated enough to tell the difference between countries in the Middle East ... and also political opponents will cease upon anything just to win some favour with the public.

Another good article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4737940.stm

[Krazy]

Bush Port Defiance Fuels Bipartisan Anger



WASHINGTON - President Bush's marquee issue, the war on terror, is being turned against him by Democrats and rebelling members of his own party in an election-year dustup over a deal that allows an Arab company to manage major U.S. ports.
ADVERTISEMENT

People in both parties are suggesting it's another case of Bush seeming to be tone deaf to controversy — on top of government eavesdropping, Katrina recovery and Vice President
Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

The storm is forcing the president to choose between losing face with the Arab world and embarking on what would be his first veto battle with the GOP-led Congress. And it has enabled Democrats to seemingly outflank him on a key GOP issue: national security.

Has Bush lost his way politically — or at least his touch?

"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO," conservative Rep. Sue Myrick (news, bio, voting record), R-N.C., wrote Bush in a terse letter on Wednesday that she also posted on her Web site.

No matter that no American port is actually being sold, Bush faces a spreading rebellion among Republicans, Democrats and port-state governors.

"I think somebody dropped the ball. Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information," said Rep. Vito Fossella (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y.

At issue: Bush's strong defense of an arrangement that would put a government-owned United Arab Emirates company in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

The deal transferring port management from a British firm to Dubai Ports World has already been approved by both companies and an adminstration review panel.

Despite Bush's assertion that UAE has been one of the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker
Dennis Hastert of Illinois threatened legislation to put the deal on hold. Bush, in turn, vowed to cast his first veto — if necessary — to stop any such attempt.

"It's a strange thing for Bush to have slipped into, given the savvy you expected from this administration, with a vice president who spent over a decade on Capitol Hill," said Princeton University political scientist Fred Greenstein. "It seems as if his people would have seen that there was potential for trouble, and at least done their homework on the Hill."

Although a veto showdown could still be avoided, port-deal opponents were optimistic they could muster the two-thirds majorities needed to override one. "This deal doesn't pass the national security test. I think it is a mistake," said Rep. Jim Saxton (news, bio, voting record), R-N.J., chairman of a House subcommittee on terrorism threats.

Bush learned about the arrangement himself only in recent days amid increasing news coverage, said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

While Bush had struck a defiant tone on Tuesday in back-to-back sessions with reporters on Air Force One and outside the White House, McClellan on Wednesday acknowledged Congress should have been briefed earlier "given all the attention that has been focused on this and given the fact that it has been mischaracterized."

The phrase "tone deaf" to describe Bush's interaction with Congress was uttered by lawmakers as politically different as Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joseph Biden, D-Del.

The Dubai Ports deal "is not a national security issue," suggested GOP consultant Rich Galen. "It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light."

With Bush's ratings stuck at about 40 percent, the incident is one more major distraction to his efforts to focus on his second-term domestic agenda.

Syndicated radio host Laura Ingraham was among the conservatives criticizing the deal, asking on her Wednesday program, "How do we know people they're hiring are passing background checks?"

The dispute brought to mind a 1999 flap when conservatives admonished the Clinton administration for acquiesing on Panama's awarding of a contract to a China company, Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa Ltd, to run ports at both ends of the Panama Canal.

But then, almost all the criticism was from Republicans. Now, it's bipartisan.

"I think there are certain things you have to be really worried about. And one of them is port safety," said Robert O. Boorstein, a senior national security adviser in the Clinton White House.

"You have to call it an increbile tin ear that this administration could do that, with nobody stopping and saying, `excuse me?' said Boorstein, now with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

[Krazy]

This is getting pretty serious now

Port Authority sues over Dubai control of NJ port

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Friday to stop a United Arab Emirates company from taking over management of its container terminal at Port Newark in New Jersey.

The authority, jointly owned by the states of New York and New Jersey, argued that the deal under which state-owned Dubai Ports World would take over management from the British company P&O violates the terms of P&O's lease.

The transaction is part of a $6.85 billion deal under which DPW would manage terminals at six major U.S. ports. The plan has sparked protests from federal and local lawmakers and officials who fear the ports' security will be hurt if they are managed by a company whose owner has been accused of having links with terrorist groups.

The Port Authority said it has a right to review changes in port management under the existing lease agreement. The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court in Newark, urged the court to declare that the purchase of P&O requires consent of the Port Authority under the lease, that the container terminal is in breach of its lease, and that the lease is terminated.

The suit names P&O Ports North America, and Port Newark Container Terminal LLC as defendants.

Lawmakers opposed to the takeover noted links between UAE and al Qaeda but
President George W. Bush has defended the deal, calling the UAE an ally in the war on terror.

"The Port Authority has been deprived of its right to conduct a thorough review of the purchase ... of the identity, qualifications, experience and reputation of the purchasers ... and of the proposed impact that the change may have on the control and ownership," the lawsuit said.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine urged the other governors of states with ports affected by the DPW deal -- Louisiana, New York, Florida, Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania -- to join the lawsuit.

Democrat Corzine issued the invitation in letters to each governor, saying the lawsuit "will seek to enjoin this sale of vital assets to a foreign nation without our states having had the opportunity to determine the extent of the threat to the safety of our citizens."

In London, a U.S. company at the Port of Miami, Eller & Co. Inc., filed a petition in High Court opposing the takeover.

On Thursday, the State of New Jersey sued the federal government to block the deal.

Officials at P&O Ports North America did not return phone calls seeking comment.

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez on Friday dismissed DPW's offer to delay assuming control of the port terminals.

"We can't rely on non-binding promises from foreign governments to secure our ports," he said. "If the Bush administration will not stop this deal from closing, Congress must."

[smussuw]

Friday, 03 March 2006
7DAYS

History may yet teach us a lesson – that some things never change The news of TECOM’s $160 million SmartCity investment in Malta broke while I was there on a press trip.

Al Arabiya Television were making a documentary, Arabian Business magazine was represented as was Al Hilal Publishing. I presented my Dubai Eye travel show live from the island via an ISDN line.

But, we were all interested to see how the news of the new IT village would play out in Malta and what, if anything, we could learn.

While UAE residents might yawn at yet another multi-billion dollar investment announcement the Maltese were almost dancing in the streets about this seemingly paltry sum.

We, the anesthetised residents of this country, probably wouldn’t even notice a $160 million investment announcement unless it was a slow news day. What that says is anyone’s guess.

Malta is a small island with a lengthy history that has seen the country’s fortune wax and wane over the centuries. The small republic was even under Arab rule long ago. The return of the Arabs is far more welcome this time.

No Maltese politicians were complaining about security or trying to push through ridiculous law suits about foreign ownership or Arab management a la Hillary Clinton.

The posturing former First Lady who is definitely not running for President in 2008 hasn’t done her Middle Eastern credibility any good – if she ever had any. And, I can’t help finding it strange that her husband spends so much time in the Middle East, but then maybe it is to keep away from her plus he’s paid good money. I digress.

The Maltese politicians could not ignore the opportunity of having their say about the Dubai Internet City clone of course.

The initial perceived benefits were not necessarily the investment, the redevelopment of a virtually derelict area of the island (Ricasoli) or the jobs that will be created (5,600 over five years).

The first thoughts were that the government would have to pull its finger from wherever it had been hiding it in order to speed up company formation and slim down bureaucracy in general. Indeed, it would have to contractually agree to do that.

It appears, from the local media coverage, that Malta’s government can be a little sluggish. An open appeal in The (Maltese) Sunday Times from the Malta Employers Association was: “That bureaucratic barriers will not hinder this seminal project.”

The government has hopped, nay, leapt into action and set up a new department to deal with this requirement. Just what governments always need - another department?

One columnist, called Roamer, thought that the Maltese government should not rest on its laurels now that it has secured this deal, well, almost secured the deal, announcements were made for political gain in Malta, I overheard in one conversation.

Nothing is signed yet. Nevertheless, Maltese Consul General, Anthony Tabone, based in Dubai, assured me it was a formality.

Resting on ones laurels apart from being mildly uncomfortable means to the Maltese columnist that they shouldn’t forget road construction and traffic management (sound familiar to anyone)?

They should also not forget overflowing drains and occasional power cuts (spooky). They should not forget that a visit to any government office or department should be swift and efficient (I’m saying nothing).

What Roamer was getting at I fear, was that even with great developments in certain areas responsibilities in the more mundane areas should not be forgotten.

In closing the columnist said, “It would be a pity if we got the macro picture in focus and allowed micro levels of government to wallow in inefficiency because department heads and their middle management remain unaccountable for what is happening down the line.”

If a country with a six thousand year history has these kinds of problems, we perhaps should not moan quite as much about the similarity of the issues we have to face.

What else did we learn from this investment into Malta by TECOM, the parent of Dubai Internet City, and ultimately owned by the Dubai Government?

We learned of a shrewd investment. Malta is still a geographical gem and reasonably priced as a springboard into Europe. I didn’t mention that?

It has strong ties with one of the last gems in the oil and gas world, Libya. I didn’t mention that either? Emirates will soon increase flights, via Larnaca, to the island to five times a week. Now if you’d listened to my travel show I definitely said that.

[Matthias Offodile]

WHEN WILL THE UAE START TO INVEST MORE IN AFRICA?? Not all countries there are basket cases. Look at Ghana, Senegal, Botswana, Gabon, Namibia, Kenya or South Africa...these countries are all yelling for investors and are almost virigin territory.

PS.I DO LOVE YOUR COUNTRY VERY MUCH

[Tractor]

I would say Algeria would/should be a prime target for Middle Eastern countries to invest in ...

[Matthias Offodile]

Yes, of course Algeria but I was talking about sub-saharan Africa..there are vast opportunities literally "yearning" to be exploited

[DUBAI]

What do you think dubai should invest in?


im faily sure DP world have seveal projects in africa.

i also think etisalat may be building a phone network somewhere.