Human smugglers attempt to elude port security
April 11, 2006 by SwizStick
Filed under Uncategorized
The Christian Science Monitor reports on the case in Seattle last week where 22 Chinese nationals were caught after leaving a container:
There was no indication that the 18 men and four women had terrorist ties, officials say. But they had made it to a major downtown area at a time of rising concern about port vulnerability. Some wonder just how easy it would have been to load that 40-foot metal box aboard the MV Rotterdam, a vessel of China Shipping Line, with a weapon of mass destruction.
The episode highlights two things: growing and in some ways uncontrolled emigration to the United States from China; and the post-9/11 effort by officials and lawmakers to tighten security at American ports.
I told myself I was going to stay quiet about the whole DP World/Port Security fiasco, but I feel the need to speak up, especially listening to the ignorant drivel being spouted by politicians and the media regarding port security. The good news is that America is finally talking about port and cargo security, which most people have not taken seriously, even after 9/11. Our transportation infrastructure is still frightfully vulnerable and much more needs to be done to improve security, so it is refreshing to see the problem taking center stage.
Unfortunately, the immediate response of most people has been paranoia and ignorance. Recently, Ted Prince in the Journal of Commerce set the record straight for any of those in Congress or the media who are still woefully ignorant of the issues involved. I would link directly to the article, but it is paid subscription only and does not allow the option to even link to the article unless you are a paid subscriber. As briefly as possible, Ted Prince explained:
1) Terminals are not Ports: Port authorities are government entities that provide pier infrastructure. Terminal operators actually operate the facilities and support cargo loading and discharging. DP World was never taking over a port; simply operating a terminal at the port.
2) Terminal operators do NOT load containers: Duh. Shippers and third party logistics providers load the containers. Terminal operators handle only unitized loads, i.e. full and sealed containers. The security threat is greatest at the point of loading, not at the terminal where the already loaded and sealed container has been delivered by the shipper or their third party logistics provider.
3) This deal is NOT about outsourcing security: Terminals provide physical security such as fencing, driver checkpoints, etc. However, the source of port security is the U.S. Coast Guard, NOT the terminal. The U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection is in charge of overseeing cargo security, NOT the terminal.
4) Globalization: Lowering trade and political barriers has changed the way we do business worldwide. The U.S. terminal business has followed the trend of globalization with the business headed oversees .You should not be surprised to discover that multiple terminals around the U.S. are operated by global companies headquartered in countries such as Denmark and China.
5) Why object to this deal? Less than 2 years ago, DP World purchased CSX World Terminals with no resistance. None of these terminals are located in the U.S. yet many serve as loading sites for U.S. bound shipments. Last year PWC Logistics of Kuwait purchased GeoLogistics, a U.S. based 3PL with no resistance either.
6) Is Dubai our friend? As Ted Prince mentions in his article, “…we can only wish the rest of the Middle East behaved like the UAE…”. The UAE was one of the first participants of the U.S. Container Security Initiative and has taken numerous measures to screen cargo and improve security. The UAE is a modern, moderate Arab nation and an ally in the war against terror. Dubai is a modern, western style metropolis where western expats and tourists mingle freely with the locals. But don’t just take my word for it:
The United Arab Emirates are an ally of ours. I was in both Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and the governments there are exceedingly friendly to the United States. The U.A.E. helped when the USS Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by Iranian mines in 1988, and was the target of an attempted Iranian attack during Operation Praying Mantis. The ship was patched up at the U.A.E., before they took her back home to Newport.
Also, they are a moderate government, and occupy a strategic position at the Straits of Hormuz.
And, yes, I see the logic in being distrustful of this nation….it is rational to be mistrustful of nations whose banks helped fund the 9-11 attack and Wahabbism. I cannot argue against that point. However, we need to make allies in the region…that is probably part of the point of the Administration wants to make….we can’t exclude moderate Arab nations economically. To do so would invite the same problems that face other Arab nations (underemployment, lack of socio-economic mobility, etc.)….we need to stay engaged economically and politically with them. We need to maintain the ‘trust’ factor with the allied governments, and especially the more moderate ones, such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE.
The UAE have no WMD’s. They are not an aggressor nation, and they sit in the middle of the Iranian/Saudi region. If they have proven to be a valuable ally in the past, and if they passed what I am sure had to be a rigorous vetting (especially since they are an Arab nation, and this is post-9-11), then I think this is being overblown.
Remember, WE are doing all the security checks, and we are forcing them, as part of the deal, to implement the security protocols that WE demand.
————————————————————————————
Why is it a non-issue? Because the company that will be operating the ports (3plwire editor’s note: terminals people, terminals. NOT ports) will have nothing to do with the security protocols! That job is the duty of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard.
Via John Cross at drumwaster, read the whole thing.
And here is a quote from an e-mail received by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:
STILL MORE: Former InstaPundit Afghanistan Correspondent John Tammes emails:
I managed some cooperative efforts with the UAE Special Forces troops stationed at Bagram. They did some patrols in the area I was responsible for, and more importantly, they did some humanitarian assistance missions. The Afghans absolutely loved the UAE troops. They were thrilled to have SOMEBODY from the Arab world (besides our excellent Egyptian hospital) come out and HELP, rather than hinder.
We had a lot of supplies come from UAE based concerns too – if they were good enough to serve along side us in the field, and good enough to supply bottled water, food and the like to our troops..well, that sure sounds like a friendly nation to me.
Get the picture? Terminals are not ports. Terminal operators are not responsible for cargo/container security – the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are. Although it is wise to be wary, and certainly they are not perfect, the UAE is not our enemy.
‘Nuff said. The information in the above points was taken liberally from Ted Prince’s article in the March 13, 2006 issue of the Journal of Commerce, as I could not link directly to his article, I hope he doesn’t mind me using it to create this post. I fully admit the source of the info in points 1-6 is Ted Prince, including some of the wordage.
Comments
Subscribe to our free monthly newsletter to have the latest 3PLwire articles delivered directly to your inbox. Just enter your email below:Tell us what you're thinking...