Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2 firms to jointly run terminal (China Ocean Shipping Co and Yang Ming)
Daily Breeze ^ | June 13, 2003 | By David Zahniser

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.”


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: china; employment; portoflosangeles; terrorism
I hate to sound like a broken record on this topic but, I really have a bad "gut" feeling about this. Since retiring from an aerospace company, I have had a lot of time to research concerns especially since I got my computer and went on-line.

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!

1 posted on 06/13/2003 8:24:28 PM PDT by AnimalLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
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.

2 posted on 06/13/2003 8:33:23 PM PDT by DakotaGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
bump
3 posted on 06/13/2003 8:36:38 PM PDT by malia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: malia; shaggy eel
Shaggy, I think I recall seeing many COSCO containers in port on the south island. My friends in Blenheim don't really seem to know much about them other than Chinese. Do you have any impressions or opinions on their presence there? Wasn't it Chinese that took over operation of Panama Canal?
4 posted on 06/14/2003 6:05:37 AM PDT by AMNZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
Q: 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.

A: They will employ anybody they can find. The whole goal is to control our cash flow and politics.

See: Katrina Leung
5 posted on 06/14/2003 8:37:51 AM PDT by bonesmccoy (Defeat the terrorists... Vaccinate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaGator
I wouldn't weep just yet. Although I believe we should have maintained ownership of the Panama Canal since we built it, don't think for a moment the ChiComs control access to it. You can bet the CIA is down there to prevent sabotage, and our military would simply commandeer it if became neccessary.
6 posted on 06/14/2003 11:17:01 AM PDT by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
"China Shipping already plans to build two ships capable of being run by electricity, said port Executive Director Larry Keller."

???

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

7 posted on 06/14/2003 4:17:36 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/890948/posts

Thanks for the reference. This along with a couple of
other threads make very interesting reading. Like I
always say, "We live and learn"!
8 posted on 06/14/2003 7:28:44 PM PDT by AnimalLover (I'm mad as he- - and I am not going to take it anymore!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
I wonder when the PRC will become truly democratic.

Then, you'd see a decrease in spying for governmental reasons, and an increase in spying for economic/business intel.

9 posted on 06/14/2003 8:17:44 PM PDT by bonesmccoy (Defeat the terrorists... Vaccinate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AMNZ; Travis McGee; maui_hawaii
,,, how are AMNZ? COSCO is to some extent - who knows what?, an arm of the Chinese military. Hutchison Wampoa is another company to keep an eye on. They're setting up major port operations in Bermuda. Travis and Maui will probably be able to shed a bit more light on their operations.
10 posted on 06/15/2003 1:38:55 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shaggy eel
Here is a brief description of NORINCO, which was recently sanctioned by the US. COSCO has a similar set up albeit still different. (just to get the picture)

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".

11 posted on 06/15/2003 3:13:11 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
,,, thanx.
12 posted on 06/15/2003 3:31:18 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
"and our military would simply commandeer it if became neccessary."

And most importantly, china has BUPKES (yiddish word meaning nothing or none) for heavy lift capability.
13 posted on 06/16/2003 6:32:29 PM PDT by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina; Jeff Head; ntrulock; Alamo-Girl; Paul Ross; Orion78; DarkWaters; Noswad
FYI
14 posted on 06/17/2003 2:28:15 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Un-PC even to "Conservatives!" - Right makes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
Thanks for the heads up!
15 posted on 06/17/2003 2:41:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
Here's Homeland Security website's contact URL:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/contactus

They list different ways to contact them.

At the very least, maybe someone can get an explanation from them as to why this is being allowed.

"One if by land, two if by sea" - get your lanterns ready.
16 posted on 06/17/2003 2:43:15 PM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover; DakotaGator; shaggy eel
More lead up to something akin to ...

DRAGON'S FURY

17 posted on 06/17/2003 9:05:51 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
BUMP
18 posted on 06/17/2003 9:15:43 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
You can bet the CIA is down there to prevent sabotage

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.

19 posted on 06/17/2003 10:28:48 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DakotaGator
You can add their ability to control Suez through their presence in the Sudan and their ability to control the Malaccan Straits through their co-operative relationships with pirates.
20 posted on 06/17/2003 10:36:43 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
And most importantly, china has BUPKES (yiddish word meaning nothing or none) for heavy lift capability.

How much stuff you suppose you can get onto one, or several, of those containerships? Take a look here> for a list and pictures of 97 of China Shippings' ships. Granted they'd be Red meat for our Aircraft and Submarines once any shooting started. Unless they have containerised SAM and ASW systems.

21 posted on 06/17/2003 10:42:42 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LibertyAndJusticeForAll
Thanks for the URL site for Homeland Security. I have
written them with my concerns and will let you know if
I ever receive an answer.
22 posted on 06/18/2003 12:42:32 AM PDT by AnimalLover (I'm mad as he- - and I am not going to take it anymore!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
I know someone who works down at those docks. I've asked about container inspection. You can bet that a lot of those containers will never be inspected. Ask yourself how the Chinese smuggled AK-47s to the street gangs in L.A.?
23 posted on 06/18/2003 12:52:05 AM PDT by The Westerner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Westerner
Ask yourself how the Chinese smuggled AK-47s to the street gangs in L.A.?

They have contacts here. My neighbor is a criminal
attorney who practices in Long Beach. My neighbor has
been in many discussions with the Asst. District Attorney
concerning some clients and how they got ahold of AK-47's.
24 posted on 06/18/2003 1:44:33 AM PDT by AnimalLover (I'm mad as he- - and I am not going to take it anymore!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AnimalLover
Now wouldn't it be interesting, for example, if your neighbor's contacts at the DA were to have a chat with Kevin Ryan, US Atty up here in SF, regarding not only this, but also, Chinese espionage in the US high tech industry, something which Kevin's already got cases into the docket on.....

Just a thought...

Mark

25 posted on 06/18/2003 8:23:08 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Un-PC even to "Conservatives!" - Right makes right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson