Playing The Muslim Card: U.S. Port Terminal Facts

Ever heard of COSCO?

It’s China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company, and it’s the national flag carrier of the People’s Republic of China. That would be Communist China.

That would be the same People’s Republic of China that is totalitarian in governance and which supports a client state known as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. That would be North Korea.

For those of you with short memories, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea has been accused of large-scale, systematic human rights abuses as well as engaging in the support of terrorist organizations worldwide through covert (and illegal) arms sales.

Much like the United Arab Emirates, in that it has been accused of being totalitarian and terrorist supporting...

And for those with very short memories, just a few days ago Senators Schumer, Clinton, Santorum and Frist were shocked, shocked to discover that a non-democratic country that has been accused of harboring and financing terrorists will be allowed access to a number of port terminals within the United States.

Here are the United States port terminals presently under control of the totalitarian government of the People’s Republic of China... The patron state of North Korea:

The Port Newark/Elizabeth Marine Complex in Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The SeaGirt Marine Terminal in Baltimore, Maryland.
The Columbus Street Terminal in Charleston, South Carolina.
The Glaveston Container Terminal in Houston, Texas.
The Pacific Container Terminal in Long Beach, California.
The Port of Miami Lummus Island Container Terminal in Miami, Florida.
The France Road Container Terminal in New Orleans, Louisiana.
The Norfolk International Terminal in Norfolk, Virginia.
The Charles P. Howard Terminal in Oakland, California.
The Georgia Ports Authority in Garden City (Savannah), Georgia.
The SSA Port of Seattle, Terminal 18 in Seattle, Washington.

It’s not particularly strange when you think about it, but you might notice that this fact set is not available at the web sites of Senators Schumer, Clinton or Frist, or at Michelle Malkin’s web site, or that of Markos Moulitsas, or that of Josh Marshall, or that of Charles Johnson, or that of...

Comments

[Steve Ely]

This is fascinating. Where'd you get the info?

[Bane]

Actually, Dennis, I'm with you on this one. Just the fact that Bush is pushing so hard to make the deal should make the Mad Mullahs of Iran tremble. They have attacked UAE before, and Iran's time is coming very soon.

The next missing college student will move this off the news cycle soon enough. I cannot see how this is not a done deal. Bush gets another staging area (to attack Iran from), and he gets the Dems whooping like Howler Monkeys. Bonus.

[elemental]

Listening to Randi Rhodes continue to paint the Emirates as the worst human rights abusers since Saddam Hussein seems slanderous or libelous - not that DPW would bother wasting their time with her, but you have to wonder how people can make accusations that not even Amnesty International cares about.

[DennisThePeasant]

Steve-

COSCO's web site.

www.cosco-usa.com

[yamaarashi]

I wonder when these deals were made? What Schumer and the rest said about them? Etc...Etc....Someone with a few moments to search the internet. Search. Search. If I were to guess, sometime between the massacre at Tenanmen and 9.11.

Understatement of the week (Dennis you are being so reserved lately!):

"For those of you with short memories, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea has been accused of large-scale, systematic human rights abuses as well as engaging in the support of terrorist organizations worldwide through covert (and illegal) arms sales."

The concentration camps are filled. Millions dead and a few hundred thousand more on their way. Never again has happened again. Is happening now. Those fleeing are sent back by China to certain death. South Korea too is aiding evil, wholeheartedly. Its gov't, run by a President who was a "human rights" lawyer, clamps down on any speech calling into question the regime in the North and doesn't allow the publishing of facts with regards to the slaughter in the North, this for fear of offending Dear Leader. And with N.K., let us not forget it is a proxy of China and nothing more. Connections by a few out of many are one thing, controlling the whole ball and wax quite a different thing. Does anyone argue that the Taliban existed under the control of the UAE? Been to the UAE. Lovely place. A place we need to engage. Am always in China. It too potentially a lovely place. A place we need to speak too clearly. Sadly our window of opportunity was in the nineties....

But it is never too late. My position: approve the Dubai deal. Rescind the Chinese one. And support a Japanese economic boycott of North Korea. They are waiting for our green light.

Next time I'm around a computer I'll dig into the archives and enjoy fully your new theme Dennis. Off to board the slow boat to China leaving port presently. My colleagues will continue reading you for practice in snark. Our little group has improved immeasurably because of your tutelage.

p.s. I second Bane's strategic wisdom. Bahrain, the UAE, Kurdistan, Jordan. Kuwait, Afghanistan. Lebanon. Slowly but surely the noose tightens.

[Steve Ely]

Dennis,

I just stumbled upon this blog post, which you may find interesting.

[gil]

you know, I wonder when people are going to start calling Tiger Woods a terrorist sympathizer for playing in the Dubai Desert Classic every year...

[Guest]

I seem to remember an incident from that port where some dock workers called the cops about a suspicious cargo. The cops managed to stop the last truck out, had a bunch of Chinese military assault rifles - not the faux civilian versions either. Anyone else hear about that?

[Pete]

Dennis,

I looked at the COSCO site and did some more research. It foes not appear that COSCO controls these port terminals. They have unloading rights at those terminals - a big difference.

[chuck]

No, Pete, no difference. That's what port operations are. Don't tell me you didn't know that.

[Larry Bernard]

COSCO's port situation was opposed but not as strongly when they started their expansion on the west coast

so that dog don't hunt either.

[DennisThePeasant]

Pete-

Having 'unloading rights' is another way of stating you have the lease to operate the terminal in question.

[Michael Robinson]

Dennis: "That would be the same People’s Republic of China that is totalitarian in governance and which supports a client state known as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. That would be North Korea."

The PRC is not totalitarian in governance, nor is the DPRK a client state.

You would have a stronger argument in this case by pointing out that this is the same PRC that held USAF personnel hostage until the US apologized, and who had a PLA general threaten to nuke Los Angeles if the U.S. intervened militarily in a conflict with Taiwan.

Whereas the UAE is a (relatively) staunch and reliable US ally.

[Pete]

I am no expert, but I thought that many companies/countries used ports, but only one company would actually manage the port operations?

[anon]

I'm not sure what your point is. Never mind that the Port of Newark is massive -the PA's own site says that, combined with the Port of Elizabeth, it forms the largest port on the East Coast. The other five that they control, e.g., the Red Hook Port, are absolutely puny by comparison. Operating 17.8% of the Port of Newark's berthing is still quite a bit.

But what exactly do you think people are concerned about being smuggled in? An entire army? If that were the case, then yes, 17.8% of the port would represent quite a bottle neck. The real threat, however, comes in the form of things that can be smuggled in a single container -a WMD, like a dirty bomb, or even more conventional weaponry like SAMs, or perhaps a person or two. Hell, 1.78% of the Red Hook port would be enough to smuggle something in on a single container.

You also state all the federal and local agencies that would be providing the real security for the ports. Well, this would be great if they were already doing a great job, but you must know that since 9/11, security concerns have been raised repeatedly about our ports. If security has been so bad prior to the UAE deal, why should we assume it would magically get better afterward? From the Atlantic Journal-Constitution, May 26, 2005:

"Government Faults Port Security; GAO Reports Few Containers Checked

U.S. efforts to prevent global shipping cargo from becoming a tool of terrorists are falling far short of their goals, congressional investigators said in reports made public Wednesday.

The 20-month review looked at America's defenses against the possibility that one of the roughly 10 million shipping containers that arrive at U.S. seaports each year might contain a weapon of mass destruction.

Among the conclusions:

* A highly touted U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency program set up to increase security by examining cargo while it is still in foreign ports actually inspects a mere 0.34 percent of the containers before they arrive in American ports.

* Only 17.5 percent of the shipping containers that are rated as "high risk" by U.S. officials were inspected before being put on ships bound for America. U.S. officials said 93 percent of these questionable shipments were inspected at U.S. ports.

* Radiation detection equipment used in foreign ports to test U.S.-bound cargo is of unknown reliability.

* Hundreds of companies in a private sector-government partnership program have been exempted from numerous inspections without having their operations thoroughly examined."

[D]

"The PRC is not totalitarian in governance, nor is the DPRK a client state."

White is not white and black is not black.

Meet at the Brooklyn Bridge at 3:00 p.m.. Bidding starts at half past the hour.

[Charles Stewart]

The excellent collounsbury comments on this story at Ports & Soft Bigotry: A Commentary I Wish I Had Written.

[Michael Robinson]

D: "White is not white and black is not black."

And ignorance is bliss.

China is a one-party state, and the Communist Party has no sense of humor on that point, but within that framework, the governance of China fails any credible definition of "totalitarian". Chinese citizens are free to come and go as they please, free to choose their own occupation and employer, free to negotiate their salary, free to start their own business, free to send their kids to any private school they can afford, or any public school that will admit them, and free to work within the system for change. They are not free to challenge the legitimacy or the authority of the ruling party. In many ways, it's a Republican fantasy world.

As for North Korea, it's probably China's least favorite neighbor (with the possible exception of Vietnam). However, the North Korean regime is able to extort cooperation from China (in much the way it is able to extort cooperation from the rest of its neighbors) by threatening regional instability. China provides aid to North Korea. Japan provides aid to North Korea. South Korea provides aid to North Korea. The United States provides aid to North Korea. It's an extortion racket, and China would like to see a peaceful end to it every bit as much as every other payer.