Anonymous ID: b7f9bd Aug. 31, 2018, 3 p.m. No.2822405   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2428

Feinstain China Port - 1997

 

Senators Ask for Inquiry on Leasing of California Base to Chinese

 

 

Both of California's Senators have asked the White House to investigate the leasing of a former Navy base in Long Beach to China's state-owned shipping company, which last year transported several thousand automatic weapons that Federal officials say were headed for Los Angeles street gangs.

 

The Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, asked President Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. Berger, if he felt that there were any security reasons not to lease the China Ocean Shipping Company, or Cosco, the entire 145-acre site in the middle of Long Beach. The Port of Long Beach receives about one-fourth of the Chinese goods shipped to the United States.

 

The Chinese Government signed a lease for the port last April, only three weeks after one of the company's ships, the Empress Phoenix, was raided by customs officials acting on a tip that Chinese-made arms were being smuggled into the United States. The seizure of arms on the ship, which the Customs Service said were intended for street gangs, led in May to the arrest of officials of another state-run Chinese company, although Cosco has not been charged in the case.

 

An Administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity said this evening that the White House was told by members of Congress last week that the lease merited investigation and that the issue had been referred to the Pentagon. But the official said, We are not aware of any reason for concern.

 

Last year's arms shipment has indirectly figured in the investigations into Mr. Clinton's coffees with large campaign donors and their friends. Shortly before the arrests in May, one of Mr. Clinton's Asian-American supporters escorted Wang Jun, the president of the Chinese company that apparently produced the weapons, Polytechnology, into one of the White House coffees, where he met with the President.

 

Mr. Clinton apparently did not know about Mr. Wang's connections to Polytechnology or that the company was the subject of a major investigation in California into arms smuggling at the time he met Mr. Wang. Later, Mr. Clinton said the meeting was inappropriate and an example of the failure of the White House to screen visitors rigorously.

 

Continue reading the main story

It is unclear whether today's letter requesting the investigation was related to the accusations, still unproven, that the Chinese Government tried to funnel money to Congressional races last year. Ms. Feinstein was one of the six Senators and Representatives warned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation last year to be alert for donations that might have originated from in the Chinese Government. But her office said today that the letter to the White House was prompted by concern that officials at the Port of Long Beach had not considered security worries about the state-owned company.

 

In Long Beach, a spokesman for the port said the Federal Government had no review over any lease that local officials sign with users of the port's facilities. In this case, the port is planning to build a $200 million dock for Cosco, which would lease it for $14.5 million a year. The project is being financed by local revenue bonds, not Federal money, said Yvonne Avila, the director of communications for the port.

 

Federal officials say Cosco ships are frequently the subject of surveillance, not only because of the weapons incident last year but also because of concerns that China is evading export quotas on textiles and that its ships have been used to bring what one law enforcement official today called all kinds of contraband into the country.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/13/us/senators-ask-for-inquiry-on-leasing-of-california-base-to-chinese.html

Anonymous ID: b7f9bd Aug. 31, 2018, 3:01 p.m. No.2822418   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2881 >>2956

Why Are Any U.S. Ports Owned or Operated by Foreign Corporations or Governments?

 

There are plenty of good, non-jingoist, reasons to oppose the sale of 6 US ports to a corporation controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. But the bigger question is: why are US ports and other strategic infrastructure being privatized, particularly to companies owned by foreign governments?

 

Before the UAE controversy erupted, most Americans probably did not know that many US ports are already owned or run by private corporations, some of which are owned by foreign governments. According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals.

 

According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska.

 

Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.

 

You don’t have to be an economic nationalist to think that certain strategic infrastructure should not be owned by foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments.

 

Ports certainly fit into that category. Other examples include airports, railroads, and nuclear power plants. If we’re going to sell off strategic facilities to foreign companies and governments, why not sell off the FAA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, or the New York City Police? (I’m sure some Saudi or Chinese security personnel know how to crack heads better than New York’s finest.)

 

Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure.

 

Corporation’s responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there’s a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.

 

In the end, the issue comes down to the Bush Administration’s ideology of privatizing everything from social security to port ownership.

 

The Democrats, if they’re not too timid, should expand congressional hearings on the UAE deal to include the larger issues of port security and the ownership and control of America’s strategic infrastructure. They should make clear that while Bush may sacrifice constitutional liberties in the name of national security, he will sacrifice national security to further the interests of the global business elite.

 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-are-any-us-ports-owne_b_16325.html

Anonymous ID: b7f9bd Aug. 31, 2018, 3:14 p.m. No.2822584   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2904

Q post about ports:

 

Why are CA & NY VITAL areas of control?

Think Ports.

 

 

WTF guys dig about it:

 

Bill Clinton - China Guns - US gangs

https://www.wnd.com/1999/05/7050/

 

Feinstein, Pelosi, McConnell, etx..

 

 

It is insane.

 

Chinese owns ports:

 

With Acquisition of California Port, China Broadens Influence on US Commerce

 

https://amac.us/with-acquisition-of-california-port-china-broadens-influence-on-us-commerce/

 

Noone digging this topic?