• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Trump ejects China from key American port

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,775
Likes
68,843
Location
Rocky Mountains
#1
Trump ejects China from key American port
Administration cites 'security' in forcing sale of critical trade facilities

By WND Staff
Published October 9, 2019 at 9:05pm



There long have been concerns about foreigners, especially governments, owning controlling interests in American trade and transportation facilities such as airports and container ports.

The Obama administration, nevertheless, announced with fanfare in 2012 its 40-year agreement with the Orient Overseas Container Line, a division of the COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. of China, to run the port of Long Beach.

At the time, Philip Chow, chairman of the board of OOCL, promised "many benefits that this project will bring to the city." And Chris Lytle of the Port of Long Beach said he could not ask for a "better partner."

"This is a really a big deal," Susan Wise, president of the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners, said back then.

However, government watchdog Judicial Watch said Wednesday the Trump adminstration reversing the deal with little notice.

Judicial Watch found only one local newspaper report of the Trump administration stepping in and requiring COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

The news was buried at the bottom of the article, Judicial Watch said.

In its "Corruption Chronicles," Judicial Watch said the Obama administration "proudly" handed over control to the Chinese interests in 2012.

It is the second-largest container port in the U.S. behind the Port of Los Angeles.

"One of the Trump administration's first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach," Judicial Watch said. "After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners.

"That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration."

Judicial Watch said the deal "never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it."

"The Southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually," Judicial Watch said.

"It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers, 62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than 8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history."​

Judicial Watch said that removing Chinese communists "from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security."

"You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists."​

What could have happened had the Chinese continued to control the port?

"In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region," Judicial Watch said.

"One troubling analysis points out that 'COSCO's commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing — leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues."

WND columnist Curtis Ellis wrote last year of China's "plan to build a vertical monopoly covering every stage of the Asia-to-U.S. export business."

But it was then that the Trump administration was becoming alarmed over the threats to national security from China's "supposedly 'commercial' investments."

"The Trump administration's National Security Strategy has made stopping China's appropriation of U.S. private-sector technology and technical knowledge a priority," Ellis found.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,429
#3
agreed, as I was against the sale of any us infrastructure to any ferner,

I state the same about our interstates, etc.

for the simple reason that our friends ebb and flow depending on current politics,

this is but another example of that
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
3,241
Likes
2,717
#4
I was against this deal and I'm happy with renegging....
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,225
Likes
20,566
Location
Wakanda
#5
Other ports are operated by foreigners too. A lot more needs to be done.
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
3,241
Likes
2,717
#8
How can this be? You're happy with something Trump did? No way!!!
He pisses me off about half the time...about as much as the Demonrats do. That is why I distrust both sides.
 

spinalcracker

On a mail train.
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,228
Likes
9,129
Location
On a mail train.
#9
Turning over a strategic port to a foreign enemy?

Wouldn’t that qualify as a high crime or felony misdemeanor? ..

It makes one wonder how much of the illegal drug trade funneled through that port? ...

Money money money just bled and sucked right out of our fecking pockets and into the coffers of our masters and the purses of our enemies...

Meanwhile Americans are going to Mexico for affordable dental and health care...

Now that is a high crime ..
 

Buck

Old Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,559
Likes
7,207
#10
Money money money just bled and sucked right out of our fecking pockets and into the coffers of our masters and the purses of our enemies...
and we all know, there are some dirty cops on our side of the ocean...what has come into our country is unknown, but, up to this point, nothing has really happened, it's all been stopped, to a degree

Fine Testament right there but, giving the Chinese portion to an Australian Company...really?
Warren Buffet won't fund this? Why not? Bill Gates? Why Not? fkrs, it's not a part of their charity work i'll suppose...

anyway, why not a US Company?
 

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,939
Likes
4,659
Location
Coal Country
#11
Don't forget what this traitor did.

Some of the country’s busiest ports — New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and three others — are about to become the property of the United Arab Emirates. Do we really want our major ports in the hands of an Arab country where al Qaeda recruits, travels and wires money?
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment, a Treasury Department-dominated group which reviews foreign investments, allows such purchases. The committee approved a $6.8 billion transaction between the ports’ current British owners and Dubai Ports World, a government-owned United Arab Emirates firm. The United Arab Emirates was home to Marwan al-Shehhi, a September 11 hijacker; the country is a transit point for al Qaeda, including several other September 11 hijackers; al Qaeda’s financing activities have involved the UAE; al Qaeda finds sympathizers there with ease, as it does in other Arab countries.
The Bush administration calls the United Arab Emirates an ally in the war on terror. But the UAE plays the same game Saudi Arabia does of quelching terrorists at home and turning a blind eye everywhere else.
It would be easy to caricature this sale: The purchase doesn’t entail young Arab firebrands replacing longshoremen, nor would it displace American ownership. The storied British firm that currently owns them, the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., probably isn’t much better equipped against terrorist infiltration than Dubai Ports World. But then, the poor state of port security is precisely the point.
We should be improving port security in an age of terrorism, not outsourcing decisions to the highest bidder. The ports are thought to be the country’s weakest homeland-security link, with good reason. Only a fraction of the nation’s maritime cargoes are inspected.
This deal appears to be all about money. Dubai Ports World is “a business and its money is the same color as everyone else’s, only it’s got more of it,” one banker told the Baltimore Sun. Where does the money come from? As a private company, Dubai Ports World’s claim of 20 percent annual growth since 2001 is all but unverifiable, and its inner workings opaque. For all we know, Dubai Ports World is an undeclared arm of a foreign government.
The root question is this: Why should the United States have to gamble its port security on whether a subsidiary of the government of the United Arab Emirates happens to remain an antiterrorism ally?
The Committee on Foreign Investment is the wrong place for this decision to be made; it appears to be little more than a rubber stamp.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, among others, is asking tough questions about this deal. For once, we agree with him: President Bush should overrule the committee to reject this deal. If that doesn’t happen, Congress should take action. The country’s ports should not be owned by foreign governments; much less governments whose territories are favored by al Qaeda.