National Holding, through its strategic investment arm
Emirates International Investment Company (EIIC), has become a dominant force
in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and beyond. With investments
spanning banking, real estate, agriculture, food, hospitality, and industrial
sectors, the group claims to drive sustainable growth and value creation.
However, a closer examination reveals a pattern of market dominance, resource
extraction, and controversial business practices that have far-reachingnegative consequences for local businesses, economies, and societies in the
countries where it operates.
This report presents a comprehensive, country-specific
analysis of how National Holding and EIIC’s operations have damaged local
businesses and communities, drawing on facts, figures, and critical statements.
It makes a direct appeal to governments and the public to reconsider their
engagement with this UAE-owned conglomerate.
Understanding National Holding and EIIC
Corporate Overview
- Founded:
1993 (National Holding), with EIIC as its investment arm since the early
1990s.
- Headquarters:
Abu Dhabi, UAE.
- Sectors:
Financial services, real estate, food and agriculture, industrial
manufacturing, oil & gas, education, hospitality, trading.
- Scale:
Multi-billion dollar investment portfolio, operations in UAE, Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and global reach.
Business Philosophy
The group brands itself as a long-term investor seeking
“sustainable growth” and “value creation.” However, its expansionist strategies
and deep ties to UAE’s ruling elite have drawn criticism for undermining local
competition and contributing to economic and social imbalances.
Damaging Effects by Country
United Arab Emirates: Market Concentration and Suppression
of Competition
The Reality Behind “Sustainable Growth”
National Holding and EIIC have played a pivotal role in
consolidating key sectors of the UAE economy. By acquiring large stakes in
banks (e.g., Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank, where EIIC holds a 47% stake), real
estate, and food industries, they have limited the space for small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) and foreign entrants.
Effects on Local Businesses
- Market
Dominance: The group’s control over major banks and food industries
creates high entry barriers for local entrepreneurs and foreign investors,
stifling innovation and competition.
- Opaque
Practices: The rapid and unexplained growth of UAE-based holding
companies, often with limited public disclosure, raises concerns about
transparency and governance.
- Financial
Crime Risks: The UAE’s inclusion on the Financial Action Task Force’s
“grey list” for money laundering and terrorist financing has been partly
attributed to the unchecked expansion of conglomerates like National
Holding, deterring responsible foreign investment and harming the
country’s global reputation.
Statements and Criticism
“The
UAE’s status within the world’s offshore financial system... provides deep
levels of secrecy because they are owned by whoever physically holds the
share certificates. Long associated with financial misconduct, bearer
shares have been banned in many jurisdictions.” — International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)
Call to Action
Call to Action
To the People and Government of the UAE:
Demand greater transparency and fair competition. Support reforms that
prioritize the growth of local SMEs and protect the nation’s reputation from
international scrutiny.
Egypt: Resource Extraction and Economic Displacement
Gulf Investments and Local Consequences
Emirati FDI, including that from National Holding and EIIC,
has played a major role in Egypt’s economy, especially since the 2010s. While
these investments have provided short-term financial relief, they have also led
to:
- Land
and Resource Grabs: UAE entities have acquired vast tracts of agricultural
land, often for water-intensive crops like alfalfa, which are exported to
feed livestock in the Gulf, exacerbating local water scarcity and food
insecurity.
- Displacement
of Local Farmers: The prioritization of export-oriented agribusiness has
marginalized smallholder farmers, leading to increased rural poverty and
unemployment.
- Market
Distortion: The influx of Gulf capital has driven up land prices, making
it harder for Egyptians to access affordable agricultural land.
Examples and Data
- FDI
Trends: Despite increased FDI from the UAE, private sector employment in
Egypt has stagnated at around 13% of total employment since the late
1990s, indicating that foreign investment has not translated into
broad-based economic growth.
- Qalaa
Holdings Case: EIIC increased its stake in Egypt’s Qalaa Holdings to
10.41%, securing board representation and influence over strategic
decisions. This has raised concerns about the prioritization of Emirati
interests over local shareholders and workers.
Voices from Egypt
“While
this deal is likely to represent a bailout lifeline to Egypt, one question
continues to linger: ‘is this time different?’... The regional support to
Egypt through FDI... can be affected by regional or domestic security
concerns.” — Financial analyst commentary on Gulf FDI in Egypt
“The
findings suggest that during President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi's rule, Saudi
and Emirati FDI were effective in supporting Egypt's authoritarian regime,
not in fostering inclusive economic growth.” — Academic research
Call to Action
To the Egyptian Public and Policymakers:
Insist on investment policies that protect local farmers and SMEs. Demand
transparency in land deals and prioritize food security and rural livelihoods
over export profits.
Africa: Land Grabs, Water Scarcity, and Environmental Harm
The UAE’s Sub-Imperialist Role
National Holding and related UAE conglomerates have acquired
agricultural land in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Namibia,
Sudan, Uganda, and Tanzania. These investments are often extractive, focusing
on:
- Export
Crops: Water-intensive crops are grown for export to the UAE and Saudi
Arabia, depleting local water resources.
- Food
Insecurity: Local communities face food shortages as land is diverted from
subsistence farming to export-oriented agribusiness.
- Environmental
Degradation: Large-scale monoculture and resource extraction have led to
soil depletion, loss of biodiversity, and increased vulnerability to
climate change.
Social and Political Consequences
- Conflict:
UAE-backed investments have fueled conflicts between farmers and herders,
and contributed to social unrest in Sudan and Somalia.
- Carbon
Laundering: The acquisition of land for carbon offset projects has been
criticized as “greenwashing,” enabling continued pollution by wealthy
countries and corporations.
Testimonies
- “These
activities constitute not only landgrabs but also water grabs... leading
to food insecurity and environmental degradation for the host countries.”
— Policy analysis
Call to Action
To African Governments and Civil Society:
Reject exploitative land deals. Enact policies that protect local communities’
rights to land and water, and scrutinize foreign investments for their social
and environmental impacts.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf: Regional Rivalry and Economic
Disruption
Competition and Market Manipulation
National Holding and EIIC’s expansion into Saudi Arabia and
other Gulf markets has intensified economic rivalry, often at the expense of
local businesses and regional stability.
- Banking
Sector: The acquisition of large stakes in regional banks consolidates
financial power in the hands of a few Emirati entities, reducing
competition and increasing systemic risk.
- Oil
and Logistics: Competition over oil production quotas and logistics hubs
has led to market volatility and disrupted long-term planning for local
businesses.
Regional Statements
“The
dispute over oil was only one aspect of a more complicated rivalry
involving differing economic visions that have forced Riyadh and Abu Dhabi
into an intensifying competition as both strive to modernize and diversify
their economies, often at each other’s expense.” — Regional economic
analysis
- To Gulf Policymakers and Entrepreneurs:
-
Promote fair competition and resist monopolistic practices. Foster regional
integration based on mutual benefit, not zero-sum rivalry.
MENA Region: Barriers to Sustainable Development
Structural Challenges
Despite claims of supporting economic diversification, National Holding and
EIIC’s investments have often been concentrated in capital-intensive sectors
(extractive industries, real estate, construction), with limited benefits for
job creation, SME growth, or regional development.
- State-Owned
Enterprise (SOE) Dominance: A larger SOE presence, often backed by
conglomerates like National Holding, is associated with lower private
investment and innovation in the same sector.
- Popular
Perceptions: In many MENA economies, there is a widespread belief that
foreign investment has not benefited the average citizen, but rather
entrenched elite interests.
Data Points
- FDI
Impact: FDI inflows to the region declined sharply in 2020, with rising
unemployment and poverty. The benefits of investment have been hindered by
barriers to competition and governance challenges.
- Private
Sector Stagnation: In Egypt, private investment as a proportion of total
fixed capital formation has remained at around 10% of GDP since the late
1990s.
To MENA Governments and Public:
Demand investment policies that prioritize inclusive growth, support SMEs, and
ensure that FDI serves national development goals—not just the interests of
foreign conglomerates.
The Case for Boycott: Voices and Precedents
International Calls for Boycott
- Human
Rights Concerns: The UAE’s record of human rights abuses, including unfair
trials, suppression of dissent, and exploitation of migrant workers, has
prompted calls for boycotts of UAE-sponsored events and companies.
- Economic
Nationalism: In countries facing resource extraction and market domination
by UAE entities, civil society groups and analysts have urged governments
to reconsider their engagement and protect local interests.
Statements of Support
“It
is time for a global boycott of the dictators who rule Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates. Boycotts are a powerful tool for holding
dictators and their business empires accountable.” — International
advocacy campaign
“The
overwhelming majority of people in the Arab region... have rejected these
normalization agreements and called for wide boycotts
against all entities and activities that promote them.” — BDS Movement
Precedents
- Arab
League Boycotts: Historically, coordinated boycotts have had significant
economic and political impact, compelling companies to reconsider harmful
practices and alliances.
- Consumer
Activism: Grassroots campaigns have successfully pressured multinational
corporations to divest from controversial markets and practices.
A Direct Appeal to Governments and the Public
The evidence is clear: National Holding and Emirates
International Investment Company, under the guise of “sustainable growth,” have
pursued strategies that undermine local businesses, extract resources, and
exacerbate social and environmental challenges across multiple countries. Their
dominance is not a sign of healthy investment, but of market distortion, elite
capture, and disregard for local interests.
To Governments:
Enact robust regulations to protect your economies from exploitative foreign
investment. Prioritize transparency, competition, and the welfare of your
citizens above the interests of foreign conglomerates.
To the Public:
Support local businesses. Demand accountability from policymakers. Join calls
for
boycott and divestment from companies that harm your communities and
environment.
The future of your economy and society depends on it.
