Posted on 03/03/2006 10:45:42 AM PST by syriacus
Most terminal operators at U.S. ports are foreign companies and some are owned in part by foreign governments.
APL, which manages terminals in Oakland, Los Angeles, Seattle and Alaska, is owned by the NOL Group, which is majority owned by the Singapore government.
The Chinese government owns part of a company that operates a terminal at the Port of Long Beach.
That company, Cosco Container Lines, a division of China Cosco, caused a stir similar to the current one back in 1998.
Cosco ships had been calling on the Port of Long Beach for many years, using a public terminal. In the late 1990s, it wanted to build its own terminal at the former Long Beach Naval Station, says Howard Finkel, a senior vice president with Cosco.
The deal raised national-security concerns and Congress passed a bill that effectively scuttled it.
A few years later, other tenants at the port vacated space and Cosco was able to build its own terminal, says Art Wong, public information office for the Port of Long Beach.
That terminal is operated by a joint venture between Cosco and a U.S. company, Stevedoring Services of America. "Cosco is the majority lease holder with 51 percent, says Wong.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Also to be read: "Homeland Transparency", by Kenneth R. Timmerman in today's frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticles.asp?ID=21943.
The Real Threat To American Security Is China Not Dubai
imo
1) Mr. Wang's arms trading company received special permission to import 100,000 assault weapons, along with millions of bullets, into the United States despite the assault weapons ban.2) On March 18, 1996, Federal agents surreptitiously seized a Poly shipment of 2,000 AK-47 assault rifles in Oakland, California. These weapons had left China on February 18 aboard a vessel belonging to another state-owned company, the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company (`COSCO'). On May, Federal agents hastily shut down the operation when they learned that the Chinese had been tipped to its existence. The stories indicate that the Department is currently investigating to determine the source of the leak.
3) Smuggling the weapons into the United States has not harmed the fortunes of COSCO.
A) In April 1996, with the support of the Clinton Administration, COSCO signed a lease with the City of Long Beach, California to rent a now defunct navy base in Long Beach, California.The Administration has made all of these concessions since the coffee with Mr. Wang. That COSCO participated in the shipment of illegal arms does not appear to have dampened the Administration's enthusiasm in any of these matters.B)...the Clinton Administration has allowed COSCO's ships access to our most sensitive ports with one day's notice rather than the usual four
C) [the Clinton administration] has given COSCO a $138,000,000 loan guarantee to build ships in Alabama.
This is a really stupid argument.
We should not have the Chinese OR UAE running our terminals.
Getting tired of this insanity. Thank God that foreign interest have purchased terminals. I doubt that security could be any tighter because I just can't picture a foreign terminal owner bombing his own business. What stupidity. And I'm sure that the foreign interest that are using their own ships would not want to deep six their own vessels or vessels of another registry that use their terminal who have other interest in the US ports and businesses.
And lets take this a little further, any business doing business with the US would be careful that their containers are inspected and sealed before taking to the terminal for shipping. If one of these containers blew up, we have the source. If by chance a weapon was transfered by a container, that poses another problem that no matter what we try with the exception of inspection of each container of its contents would involve hundreds of thousands of port security officers and an almost impossible task.
I only meant to counteract the misinformation out there, that makes it sound like the UAE deal is something novel. It isn't novel at all.
It's good to know that you are more consistent than the Clintons or the grandstanding politicians who are running screaming that something new is happening.
There is an inherent difficulty in determining where to draw the line on foreign businesses, since international businesses have so many partnerships, parent corporations, daughter corporations, etc. Somebody has to make difficult decisions.
COSCO, which is the second largest shipping company in the world, not only is involved in running terminal(s?) in the US, it is busily strengthening its relationships with companies that are in the terminal business
Also, COSCO recently bought COSTACO, China's largest shipping tally company , which is a business involved in cargo measuring and weighing bulk cargo and supervising loading and unloading operations (in other words, it is in the terminal-managing business.
The other company (PSA) that was bidding on P&O was connected to the Singapore government and had close ties with COSCO.
I looks that way...
James Mulvenon, a China analyst with the RAND Corp., said that the Chinese Communist Party's military organ approved establishment of Cosco as an arm of the Chinese navy in 1985. .
At any rate, it seems COSCO ships were involved in gun-running to Cuba.
(Washington, D.C.): A front-page article in today's Washington Times identified the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) as a key player in the ongoing, surreptitious delivery of weapons from China to Cuba. Ironically, this report comes shortly after the COSCO's CEO paid a visit to the Times for the purpose of disavowing widely reported connections between his company and the Chinese military....
In a move that has, regrettably, become standard operating procedure for making certain Chinese SOE's [State Owned Enterprises?] more palatable to U.S. and overseas investors, COSCO created a wholly-owned subsidiary -- COSCO Pacific -- to establish a funding vehicle on the Hong Kong stock exchange. This and other so-called "Red Chips," however, generally remain largely under the influence of the parent company. The contention by some market observers that there is a genuine "firewall" between COSCO and COSCO Pacific is made still less plausible by the Times' identification of yet another COSCO subsidiary (COSCO Tianjin) as the transporter of sophisticated weaponry components to Pakistan in 1998....Mr. Suettinger said. "Cosco is the merchant marine arm of the PLA Navy," Mr. Timperlake said. "If the Chinese military ever mobilized troops for action against Taiwan, Cosco would be part of the operation."
Cosco ships would provide arms and logistics support for Chinese military operations, U.S. officials said.
We should not have the Chinese OR UAE running our terminals.
I doubt that security could be any tighter because I just can't picture a foreign terminal owner bombing his own business. What stupidity.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588559/posts?page=31#31
Bill Clinton and others arranged for perks for China Ocean Shipping Company (The Chinese Government's shipping company)
"ASSAULT WEAPONS" FOR U.S.
Was a federal probe into a massive Chinese arms smuggling operation [via a COSCO ship in March 1996] foiled by insiders who knew the investigation put Clinton's China connection at risk?
Despite the involvement of a COSCO ship in the smuggling...
Clinton Administration allowed COSCO's ships access to our most sensitive ports with one day's notice rather than the usual four,
In April 1996, with the support of the Clinton Administration, COSCO signed a lease with the City of Long Beach, California to rent a now defunct navy base in Long Beach, California.
Clinton gave COSCO a $138,000,000 loan guarantee to build ships in Alabama.
*The U.S. government agreed to exempt COSCO from laws discriminating against state-owned shipping companies.
Chen Hongsheng, Executive Vice President of COSCO Group must have smiled, when he said:
"COSCO is like a bridge across the ocean to link China with the United States...COSCO has also formed partnership with several US ports and terminal operators."
Sorry, I did not mean to send long post to you, right above.
Hillary Clinton had her own plans for Ron Brown, and those included China. While alive, Brown knew more about the Chinese than he wanted to. After their attempted seizure of the Long Beach Naval Station, says Hill, "He never stopped being afraid." And Long Beach was just one thing out of many that he knew he shouldn't have known.In time, U.S. intelligence sources would learn of Chinese plans to use the naval station as a base for espionage – no surprise there – and Congress would kill the deal. But Congress intervened only after Brown had died. Like the other minorities in the Cabinet, Brown was not just exploitable. He was expendable.
Congress did not kill the Clinton deal which arranged for loans for COSCO to have ships built in Mobile, Alabama.
Congress did not kill the Clinton deal which arranged for a loan for a nuclear reactor that powers a warship-building yard in China.
Congress did not kill the subsequent arrangement for COSCO to build and lease a terminal in the Port of Long Beach.
Congress did not interfere with COSCO getting an exemption from US laws which "discriminate" against state owned shipping companies.
I followed your suggestion and read the series. Thanks!
Let's ask Hillary what to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.