Memo to Reporters Covering Port Controversy; Media Matters Presents Media

[NVMojo]

3/3/2006 4:40:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Daniela Colaiacovo, 202-756-4124, [e-mail] or Jeremy Funk, 202-756-4109, [e-mail] - both of Media Matters for America

WASHINGTON, March 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a memo from Media Matters for America to reporters covering the port controversy:

Faced with widespread criticism in recent weeks, the Bush administration and some of its supporters have promoted numerous false and misleading claims intended to downplay the approval of a deal that would turn over control of terminal operations at six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World (DPW) -- a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) -- and cast critics of the transaction as racist, politically opportunistic, or both. The media, in turn, have often repeated these claims without challenge or correction.

For complete analysis of coverage of the ports deal, visit http://www.mediamatters.org.

No. 1: DPW is simply "Dubai-based"

In reporting on this controversy, numerous news outlets have ignored the fact that DPW is state-owned, referring to it simply as an "Arab company" or "Dubai-based." But the distinction between a company owned by a foreign government and one simply based in a foreign country is critical as a matter of law.

Indeed, critics argue that, in approving the deal, the administration ignored a federal law governing the transfer of American assets to foreign, government-owned companies. The Exon- Florio provision established the interagency panel that oversees all foreign acquisitions of American assets, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States' (CFIUS). As amended by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, the law requires an additional 45-day review if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."

In its initial, 30-day examination of the transaction, however, CFIUS determined that the deal gave rise to no national security concerns and declared this full review unnecessary. But critics of the deal have noted that the UAE does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state and was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Also, U.S. investigators have found that more than $120,000 was funneled through UAE bank accounts to the 9-11 hijackers, and the 9-11 Commission reported that the UAE "ignored American pressure to clamp down on terror financing until after the attacks." Critics of the deal contend that because DPW is controlled by a member state of a country with what is arguably a "mixed" record on terrorism, CFIUS' review of the transfer was not in accordance with the law.

--

No. 2: There is no difference between DPW and the British company that previously managed the ports

In failing to report that DPW is state-owned, certain news outlets have bolstered the false premise advanced by the Bush administration that the widespread criticism of the deal is based on the company's Arab ownership and is therefore discriminatory. In order to make this point, the White House has repeatedly conflated DPW and Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O), the British company that currently manages the ports. For example, Bush said during a February 28 press briefing, "(W)hat kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's OK for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company ... from the Arab world." But such comments ignore the fact that, unlike DPW, P&O was not controlled by the British government or any other foreign government prior to its acquisition.

more...

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=61827

[The Magistrate]

1. Excellent Points, Ma'am

Worth remembering for everyone....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[NVMojo]

4. yes! And we must keep the facts straight on this deal!

[TomInTib]

2. There has been so much noise about this and the deal is done.

Nothing else we read makes any difference.

Just as the Indian nuclear deal was done last Summer, and only "announced" this past week, the Port deal is a done deal. There are all kinds of ways around Exon-Florio. Think "Executive Order" in the name of Homeland Security. Congress has been de-fanged and is powerless on this.

James A Baker III and Vin Weber- all you need to know.

[autorank]

3. Very nice and highly inforationve. Recommended n/t