In the wake of media attention on the sale of the "largest independent stevedore and terminal operator on the US East and Gulf coasts, with operations in most ports from Maine to Texas," the Seattle PI reminds us that the budget President Bush released earlier this month "seeks to eliminate federal grants to improve cargo security at Seattle and other vulnerable ports."
The op-ed goes on: "In a perfect world, members of Congress might well want to look closely at whether Dubai Port World should control terminals at six Eastern and Gulf Coast ports." Unfortunately, "Congress has done little to advance agreement on better security plans for ports, decide how to reopen ports if an attack occurs or spend more than a fraction of what's needed to reduce threats from conventional, biological or nuclear attacks using cargo." (tip)
In November, Sen. Pat Murray (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) [current co-sponsors include Norm Coleman (R-MN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)] introduced the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act (S 2008), a bill to improve cargo security. Among its provisions: it sets minimum standards for securing containers in transit to an importer in the United States, including international standards for the security of containers moving through the international supply chain, and requires all containers entering the United States to be examined for radiation.
In an official statement, Murray said: "An attack launched on, or through, America's seaports could result in significant loss of life and the crippling of our economy. Consequently, since 9/11, experts have been calling for an upgraded security system for shipping containers. The Murray-Collins bill builds on the lessons from the 9/11 Commission, GAO investigations, and other reports to protect against the human and economic costs of a terrorist attack through our ports."
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
Would it be churlish of me to point out that the links between Dubai/UAE and taliban, al Queda and 9/11 are much stronger than the links between Iraq and Taliban, etc., ever were?
2 - Dave Nalle
One has to ask if the millions spent requiring airplane passengers to remove their shoes for "security" might have been better spent looking at how global commerce makes its way to the local Wal-Mart.
One doesn't have to ask that question if one is halfway sensible. How about we not go nutso over airline security and also don't waste time, money and resources with unnecessary interference in free trade.
Dave
3 - Kathy
Define "Free Trade" --
Since I use the definition/characteristics outlined in perfectly competitive markets, I know that it doesn't exist, as a general statement.
Global trade, for sure, is not "free" trade but is "highly managed."
I also do not see what "free trade' - even as a basically meaningless but feel-good slogan - has to do with port security.
Kathy