China Eyes U.S. Ports (Hutchison Whampoa alert!)

The Smart and Secure Tradelanes (SST) system, driven by shipping, port services and communications companies with the support of Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), is supposed to improve supply-chain and transportation-container security. More than 80 percent of U.S. imports arrive daily in 17,000 shipping containers at 361 Atlantic and Pacific seaports, many of which are near major population centers. SST, a corporate statement says, "aims to enhance the safety, security and efficiency of cargo containers and their contents moving through the global supply chain into U.S. ports." It is a security system designed to "demonstrate the principles of the U.S. Customs Container Security Initiative (CSI), Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and the U.S. Department of Transportation Security Agency's (TSA) maritime security initiatives, such as Operation Safe Commerce."

According to the security manufacturer Savi Technology of Sunnyvale, Calif., SST is designed to deploy hardware and software for automated tracking, inspection, detection, security and auditing of shipping containers from foreign freight terminals to U.S. ports. Port operators can monitor the security of each container, verify that it was loaded in a secure facility and decrease the possibility of tampering with the container and its contents.

The system is patterned on the Pentagon's Total Asset Visibility (TAV) network deployed worldwide. TAV tracks all U.S. military land and sea shipments, ranging from food to weapons, from the factory to the war zone. Retired Army Gen. John Coburn, who led implementation of the TAV network for the Pentagon, now is with the new commercial SST venture. "We're all motivated by a desire to make sure world commerce remains secure and free of threats," Coburn says. "The ports and shippers are demanding realistic solutions that can be tested today and adapted and built upon in the future. This is the one solution that's been proven to work and will provide a real-life model that both government and industry can leverage and learn from in order to rapidly build an international system for cargo security."

Savi Technology, a wireless automatic ID pioneer, developed the system with federal support through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and private investments. According to the Wall Street Journal, one-half of Savi's $40 million in revenue this year is expected to come from the Pentagon.

"This is a model for how our nation can improve port security," said Sen. Murray at the little-noticed July news conference unveiling SST. As chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, responsible for writing the budget of the Coast Guard and the new TSA, Murray claims she has been "the leading voice in Congress to improve port security." She inserted a $28 million earmark in the appropriations bill to test the system.

The funds are for "a pilot project to push the American border back, so Customs [Service] officials would be in a foreign port taking a manifest of what goes into those containers, then securely locking them down and tracking them as they went into a U.S. port," Murray spokesman Todd Webster tells Insight.

So far, so good. But alarm bells are sounding about the involvement in SST of Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa. Advocates say that Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest seaport owner and administrator, with a history beginning in the 19th century when the firm was founded by the British. With partners PSA and P&O Ports, Hutchison Whampoa handles 70 percent of the world's container traffic. In a statement to Insight, the company says it is a purely commercial enterprise and rejects allegations that it might be influenced by the Chinese government.

But those familiar with Hutchison Whampoa's ties to the Chinese military are concerned. "This is a conflict of interest for a non-U.S. company," says Al Santoli, a congressional national-security consultant and director of the Asia Pacific Initiative of the American Foreign Policy Council. Santoli is troubled that Tacoma, Wash., is an initial U.S. port for the program testing.

"The Chinese have been working hard to get into the ports near Seattle. They are among our most vital commercial ports and are home to key U.S. military bases." Those bases are the home port of the USS Carl Vinson aircraft-carrier battle group at Bremerton and a strategic ballistic-missile submarine base in Bangor. "It's a major site for espionage for our rivals and adversaries," he says. "It's absolutely mind-boggling that our national-security leaders would even consider a contract with a company that would at the very least have a questionable national-security status as Hutchison Whampoa."

Sen. Murray defends Hutchison Whampoa's involvement in the pilot program. "They are one of the largest port operators in the world," says Webster. "To ignore Hutchison Whampoa is to ignore some of the largest port facilities in the world that send millions of containers to the United States every year." The company, he says, is not receiving U.S. tax dollars earmarked for the project.

Insight first reported about Hutchison Whampoa's control of ports at both ends of the Panama Canal following the U.S. military pullout from Panama in 1999 [see "China's Beachhead at Panama Canal," Aug. 16, 1999]. The report raised concerns about Hutchison Whampoa's reported connections to the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the Chinese Communist Party leadership, and how its control of Panamanian ports could threaten U.S. interests.

Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart dismissed the Insight story and the surrounding controversy as "silly stuff."

However, the year before, in 1998, a secret U.S. Army intelligence report raised concerns about how the Chinese government was anticipating the American pullout from Panama and the role Hutchison Whampoa could play in Beijing's strategy to have a presence in the world's major shipping choke points. A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) information report stated that "Li Ka-shing, the owner of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. (HW) and Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (CK), is planning to take control of Panama Canal operations when the U.S. transfers it to Panama in Dec. '99."

The report, obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), stated: "Li is directly connected to Beijing and is willing to use his business influence to further the aims of his own son, Victor Li, to replace him in certain CK and HW operations such as HW's Hong Kong International Terminals (HIT)."

According to a DIA analysis, "Li's interest in the canal is not only strategic, but also a means for outside financial opportunities for the Chinese government. China, the canal's third-largest user, consequently has a significant amount of influence. If China were to assume control of the canal operations, it would have to abide by the neutrality requirements of the Torrijos-Carter treaties."

Critics of Hutchison Whampoa's involvement in Panama focused on Beijing's ability in time of crisis to sabotage or control traffic in the Panama Canal. But critics had other worries, too, including the Chinese government's reported massive smuggling operations worldwide. There also were concerns about how private companies influenced or controlled by Beijing, to say nothing of the state-owned China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), which is a major containerized shipping and trucking firm with reach into the heartland of the United States, could be used to subversive effect.

Referring to the Panama Canal controversy that Insight's reports sparked in August and September 1999, a secret DIA memo dated Oct. 26 of that year cautioned, "Hutchison's containerized shipping facilities in the Panama Canal, as well as the Bahamas, could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC [People's Republic of China], or to facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas."

Hutchison Whampoa does not stand accused of knowingly handling illegal technology or arms shipments, and industry officials say the company has a solid professional record. However, Insight correctly has described Chief Executive Officer Li Ka-shing as "an important cog in the economic machinery of the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA. Li is a board member of the Chinese government's main investment arm, the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (CITIC), run by official PLA arms marketer and smuggler Wang Jun."

Some China watchers are worried that the Chinese government, or elements therein, could exploit the assets of the firm and even apply leverage to utilize the port company as an intelligence-collection or operations asset. Insight spoke to British and American employees of Hutchison Whampoa, who call the idea preposterous.

Western policymakers and business leaders have little or no idea of China's grand strategy and how Beijing's leaders want to situate their country for the next century. When, in 1999, Sen.Trent Lott (R-Miss.) sent Insight's report, "China's Beachhead at Panama Canal," to then defense secretary William Cohen, he called for a full national-security appraisal of the problem. Lott told Cohen, "U.S. naval ships will be at the mercy of Chinese-controlled pilots and could even be denied passage. It appears we have given away the farm."

At Lott's request, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in which four Clinton-administration witnesses testified that Hutchison Whampoa posed no security challenges to the United States [see "PC Answers on Panama Canal," Nov. 22, 1999]. But not one of the witnesses could answer the fundamental question, posed by Sen. Robert Smith (R-N.H.): "Do you believe the People's Republic of China uses commercial enterprises to advance their military interests?"

Bill Clinton's assistant secretary of defense, Brian E. Sheridan, who had issued a defense of Hutchison Whampoa, confessed, "I don't know." Alberto Aleman Zubieta, whom Clinton had appointed to run the Panama Canal until 2005, didn't answer either. Neither did Joseph W. Cornelison, the deputy administrator of the Panama Canal Commission, nor Lino Gutierrez, then principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs. All had contradicted their testimony. Only Marine Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, then chief of the U.S. Southern Command, answered affirmatively to whether Beijing uses commercial enterprises to advance its military interests, saying only: "I think so."

That was it. And apparently the government has learned little since. "Many of those who are engaged in China policy or who invest there remain blithely ignorant of Chinese goals to replace the United States as the reigning world power," says Thomas Woodrow, a former senior China analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency, who authored a recent Jamestown Foundation article arguing that China's future energy needs likely mean its development of a blue-water navy capable of projecting power around the world.

To advocates, the involvement of a Chinese company may be a necessary evil. "The administration, in the war on terrorism, is cooperating with a number of countries who might not be the best people on the planet, but their cooperation is necessary to ensure American security and the safety of the American people," says Sen. Murray's spokesman Webster. "I think the administration has been willing to make that trade off."

According to Woodrow, "China has already adjusted its foreign policy and energy strategy to accommodate its need for a larger share of the world's oil reserves. It has forged major oil deals with Sudan, Venezuela, Iraq and Kazakhstan. With these deals have come important military and security agreements. For instance, thousands of Chinese oil workers ... maintain security at facilities in Sudan. During Chinese leader Jiang Zemin's spring 2001 visit to Venezuela, he was greeted by that oil-producing nation's leader, Hugo Chavez, with the declaration that the Chinese Maoist revolution was the source of his own social revolution. ... The Kazakh deals involve the construction of a massive pipeline across China from the huge Kazakh oil fields. China hopes to become a land bridge for future oil deliveries to Japan and South Korea, giving Beijing important leverage in its strategic goal to replace the United States as the major power in the Eastern Asian basin."

All this means big headaches for the United States and its allies, say Asia specialists, and adds to the concerns of some in the security community about Hutchison Whampoa's control of port facilities and shipping services along the world's sea lines of communication, or SLOCs.

But the company also is a leader in the SLOC's electronic equivalents in the cyberworld. Hutchison Whampoa has invested heavily in telecom companies around the world since the late 1980s, and has arranged satellite deals between the Hughes Corp. and a Chinese firm tied to the PLA. Hutchison Whampoa's recent purchase of a 61 percent stake in the troubled fiber-optic giant Global Crossing also has raised national-security concerns, as the company operates much of the hardware on which U.S. telecommunications, including military and intelligence channels, operate. That deal, at least, is under review.

"Santoli is troubled that Tacoma, Wash., is an initial U.S. port for the program testing.

HHMMMMM....We live right above this port (I can hear the cranes moving those COSCO containers right now.) I have mixed feelings about this....you would think a US company could find some way to make this happen, without involving the Chinese.....AND, I would like to know there is a more secure way of knowing what is in all those containers....

H-W already owns 1/3 of Husky oil (Canadas largest oil company) and I understand they have some interest in Gulf Coast (probably New Orleans) shipping. They may have a dock down there in another name.

Of course, they have port shipping facilities all over the Carribean. Not to mention the hotel facilities all over the world.

H-W is a big conglomerate.

All that Wal Mart money sure adds up. Now all the big stores including the upscale ones like Macys carry almost all made in China merchandise. Not cheap stuff either. At the price some of this sells for I find it hard to believe that it could not be made here at a nice profit. America is like a once proud estate that has been looted of all it's things of value awaiting only the auctioneer to sell off what remains. We have squandered our legacy for short term gain. I am sure our children and grand kids will appreciate what we have done for them.

Hutchison Whampoa's recent purchase of a 61 percent stake in the troubled fiber-optic giant Global Crossing also has raised national-security concerns, as the company operates much of the hardware on which U.S. telecommunications, including military and intelligence channels, operate. That deal, at least, is under review.

Global Crossing paid a record sum of $2,000,000 to Anne Bingaman for six month's lobbying the FCC on its behalf. Bingaman was fresh from her Gates jihad at anti-trust and is wife to Jeff Bingaman whose commission to Beijing seated Charlie Trie as payoff for illegal Clinton donations. Trie of course was Jiang's mouthpiece to traitorrapist42 with his "Dear President" letter.

Terry McAuliffe made $18,000,000 providing this wiretap to the PLA.

Rub-a-dub-dub, hang them all, let God sort them out.

Mirastar oil is the only oil company in CONUS that uses domestic (read Alaska) or Canadian crude exclusively. What oil they do buy on the open market is from Australia and is used in Hawaii. Unfortunately, Mirastar is only in the west.

Try to stay away from computer electronics made in PRC. It is difficult because so many components are PRC made. Try to keep to the Korean or Japanese brands if it isn't made in U.S.. Even the U.S. brands use chips produced in PRC.

The "Made in USA" brand label doesn't mean anything. Some clothing is SEWN in USA, but the fabric comes from PRC.

Do I have the answer, NO!!!! But I try. Wal Mart food is fairly priced and almost all domestic. Even Sears is drifting toward the far east.

The Global Crossing deal really is worrying. GC, as you said, has contracts in many U.S. Defense areas.

On the plus side (and I'm not defending them), the more they get into our economy, the more they become dependent on us. Any conflict between the PRC and us would have devastating economic impacts on their economy.

HW was also after port facilities in San Diego--another Naval base. It's not a coincidence that they like places where we keep nuke subs. Easy to pick up military intelligence by just standing around listening to GI's chatter.

I'm still waiting for an opportunity to use my .30-06 on a few of those COSCO rail/truck trailers.

Are you kidding? Their ECONOMY? The labor is provided at the point of a gun. People who lose $2.00/week are not exactly losing a great deal. The dictators and their families will not lose---all their assets are in Swiss banks.

THEY are tanking the US ECONOMY. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing left and right to China. For crying out loud, they're now angling for all the tool/die/stamping business floating around the Upper Midwest (what remains of it..)

PJBuchanan was not crazy. The Chinamen are winning the war and they have not had to fire a shot, yet. They bought and paid for Clinton and his FIRST SecDef., and the fruits are now being harvested.

From the CIA fact book ( http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html ):

"In 2001, with its 1.27 billion people but a GDP of just $4,300 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US (measured on a purchasing power parity basis)."

$4,300 is $82 a week, not $2.50. Since most of the people in PRC are agricultial workers, we can assume that the workers in factories make more.

Now, perhaps you misunderstood me. Without our infusion of greenbacks into China, their economy would be tanked very quickly. At the very least, they would have less to spend on military toys. I maintain that we should "BUY AMERICAN" in order to at least keep the Greenbacks out of their hand.

Besides all of that, it isn't JUST the Chinese that are buying America.

Mercedes (Germany) owns Chrysler. Burger King is owned by Grand met (GB). The list goes on and on. All steel now is made overseas. Pop the top on your computer, look at the chips. That is scary.

Japan is buying all the agricultural land in the U.S. that comes open.

Yes, the Clinton administration sold out our country, and now we, the people need to reclaim it.

We need to become more aware of what we are buying. That is why I try to research where I spend my money.

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.