Posted on 06/13/2003 8:24:27 PM PDT by AnimalLover
PORT OF L.A.: Pact between China Shipping and Yang Ming compels closer scrutiny in enforcing settlement
China Shipping and the shipping company Yang Ming have agreed to jointly run a terminal at the Port of Los Angeles, forcing port officials to come up with ways of ensuring that a recently approved court settlement is still enforced.
Three months after a landmark settlement of an environmental lawsuit allowed the port to complete a terminal at Berth 100, China Shipping still has not moved into the space.
Harbor officials said they are still in talks with both China Shipping and Yang Ming to make sure that ships used by the two companies at the terminal are powered with electricity starting March 2004 — one of the settlement’s requirements.
China Shipping already plans to build two ships capable of being run by electricity, said port Executive Director Larry Keller.
“We believe we’ll have those two China Shipping vessels ready to go before (the 2004 deadline),” he said.
Whether Yang Ming will do the same is still unknown, however. And the delayed arrival of China Shipping has sparked rumors in the Harbor Area that the company might not move into the terminal after all.
Even if China Shipping decides not to occupy the terminal, the port will still be required to comply with the provisions of the China Shipping legal settlement, said Gail Feuer, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“We knew that this was a possibility so we intended for the agreement to be bulletproof,” she said.
Environmentalists and homeowner groups sued the port in 2001 over the China Shipping terminal, successfully shutting down work on the project for several months. The lawsuit was settled in March, resulting in a precedent-setting agreement that required the port to provide $50 million worth of environmental projects to San Pedro and Wilmington.
The settlement also called for the China Shipping terminal to use low-emission vehicles and low-profile cranes. And it required the terminal to become the first to require “cold ironing,” using electricity to power ships that are at port.
Mayor James Hahn said Thursday that he expects all of the settlement’s provisions to be followed, no matter who occupies the terminal.
“I believe that we’re going to be implementing that settlement agreement,” he said. “That’s what our goal is — to change the way the port works and how it relates to the community.”
Officials with China Shipping could not be reached for comment on Thursday. But both Hahn and Keller said they expect China Shipping will still occupy its terminal near the western entrance of the Vincent Thomas Bridge.
While China Shipping’s terminal is completed, vessels used by the company have been calling at the nearby Yang Ming terminal. Since the two terminals are next to each other, a joint use agreement is not surprising, harbor officials said.
Still, Keller conceded one of the more complicated provisions of the settlement agreement is one that calls for cold ironing. Some ships used by China Shipping and Yang Ming arrive in Los Angeles as infrequently as once a year, making a retrofit for electric power financially prohibitive.
The port has already released the first $10 million for environmental improvements in the Harbor Area. Keller said the port remains committed to paying for the remainder of the projects included in the settlement — and working with China Shipping.
“We’re scrupulously following our agreement, and it’s working out well,” he said. “They’re a very agreeable partner.”
Would someone please answer the following questions for me? Then maybe I can put this to bed.
1. Since China Shipping and Yang Ming have ships that visit maybe once a year and the rest - maybe once a week (I check the Maritime comings and goings in the newspaper), why is it necessary to build this 150 - 175 acre terminal? Why can't they just continue to use the Yang Ming Terminal right next door?
2.When they do move in, how many U.S. citizens will they employ? Will they be bringing in workers from China? My concern is that China Shipping is partially owned by the People's Liberation Army and what a great spot to locate what with all the defense contractors so close by.
It is my understanding that the Clinton's were behind them getting this location after the Navy vetoed the old Navy Shipyard because of Security reasons. This was about the time that they were having all those coffees and picture sessions with President Clinton and Chinese business men. Remember all the secrets that were shipped when supervision of foreign shipments moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department. (Didn't Ron Brown head that department up until he died?)
I have contacted my States Representatives - two never answered and one said that the Office of Homeland Security would keep an eye on things. Calls to the FBI office to voice my concerns were more or less pooh-poohed.
If you think I am off base, please let me know and I'll forget the whole thing!
No. You are correct.
This is a strategic beach-head in Communist China's plan of total warfare against the U.S. Another component is their already successful seizing of the Panama Canal and control of the Carribean.
Weep for the Republic.
???
Oh. They mean, they don't want the ships to be dependent on their on-board generators while in port. I guess running the diesels upsets the eco-nuts.
Or I hope this is what it means.
Imagine a deep-water freighter powered by nothing but batteries and solar cells!
--Boris
Norinco is China's third-largest manufacturer, and the sanctions could cost the company up to $100 million in lost business in the United States, through such retailers as Wal-Mart and Kmart. Norinco makes some 4,000 products ranging from toys to short-range ballistic missiles, according to U.S. officials. Since it was formed in 1980, Norinco has had about $25 billion of import and export business.
-----
PLA-Affiliated Companies
One of the primary challenges in identifying "bad actors" in China is navigating successfully the intricate web of affiliates, subsidiaries and financial flows that are integral to the Chinese economy. (See Appendix 1.) For example, despite a well-advertised campaign by the Chinese government calling for the divestment of businesses owned and operated by the country's military apparatus in 1998, it is still believed that the PRC possesses an impressive network of companies with military connections that merit additional scrutiny before being taken into U.S. investor portfolios.97 According to a 1997 AFL-CIO report,
"While the true extent of military commercialization in the PRC - including PLA-non-military enterprises as well as defense industry operations - is difficult to discern, estimates suggest that China's commercial-military complex has some 50,000 companies employing as many as two million people. In 1993, these companies are thought to have earned more than $5 billion. Taken as a whole, the combined earnings of these activities would place China's s commercial-military operations among the ranks of the top 100 corporations of the Fortune 500...
Basically the PLA has a whole big network of businesses (which they call "private"). A few years back the PLA came out in some big tadoo about 'getting out of business' in response to serious criticism about corruption etc.
Essentially though these companies are in a huge network and many of them are partnered with foreign corporations. They make anything from toys to TVs to missiles and guns. In Chinese definitions though 50% govt owned means "private".
You have more confidence in the CIA than most, but even if they were very competant indeed, sabatage would still be difficult to prevent entirely. I'd prefer roving patrols of Marines or Army Light fighters, which would at least keep anyone from moving anything very large into proximity to the locks and other hard to replace and catostrophic if damaged, facilities.
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.