globeAsia Times Online
  December 19, 2001 atimes.com  

Search button Letters button Editorials button Media/IT button Asian Crisis button Global Economy button Business Briefs button Oceania button Central Asia/Russia button India/Pakistan button Koreas button Japan button Southeast Asia button China button Front button















Front



US to cast security net over the seas
By Tim Shorrock

WASHINGTON - As part of its global war against terrorism, the United States is proposing an unprecedented expansion of its powers to investigate and search foreign ports, merchant ships and cargo.

Security laws being considered in Congress and security proposals to international bodies from the US Coast Guard and other government agencies would expand the US territorial limit from three to 12 miles, grant new powers to US authorities to crack down on foreign ports and vessels with inadequate security systems, and place armed sea marshals on foreign vessels arriving in US ports.

In addition, the US government recently persuaded the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the global body for seafaring nations recognized by the United Nations, to convene an extraordinary session in February 2002 to discuss ways to improve maritime security throughout the world. Many of the proposals are incorporated into a port security bill the Senate is scheduled to vote on this week.

The measures are designed to protect the public from attacks like the ones that occurred on September 11. They sparked deep concern in maritime circles and the US government that terrorist groups such as Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network could take over a ship carrying explosive materials, such as liquid natural gas (LNG), and blow it up near a large urban center such as Boston, where LNG is a major cargo.

US officials also see a dangerous threat from the 45,000 shipping containers that move through US ports every day but are inspected at only a 2 percent rate by the US Customs Service. A terrorist group could use those containers to "create societal and economic disruption" in the United States, explained Stephen Flynn, a US Coast Guard commander and former National Security Council official, at a press briefing on Friday. The greatest danger is from the new version of container ships that carry 5,000-7,000 containers on voyages from Asia and Europe, he said.

"The ease with which a terrorist could smuggle chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons in a container, without detection, is, in a word, hair-raising," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat, at a Senate hearing on December 5.

The danger is compounded, explained Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, because arriving containers are whisked on to trucks and railroads and dispatched immediately to inland destinations around the country. "A cargo container arriving at a US seaport today can be virtually anywhere in the heartland of America via truck and/or rail tomorrow," he told the Senate hearing.

The problem from the US standpoint, Mineta said, is that "we take the word of the original packers of the ship. But after September 11, we began wondering: How could a shoulder-held missile get into the United States undetected? Only in a container. So we've got to detect what's in those containers."

Under the US proposals, the Coast Guard, Customs and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration would gain enhanced powers to determine what cargo is coming into the country and detailed information about the seafarers working on arriving vessels.

The legislation, to be discussed this week, was drafted by Senator Ernest Hollings, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts. It will fund a massive effort, led by the Coast Guard, to protect seaports.

For foreign countries, a key provision in the bill creates a Department of Transportation (DOT) program to place sea marshals on all foreign vessels entering US ports whose registration is insufficient or which "do not exercise adequate control over safety and security concerns".

The Hollings bill significanly expands the DOT's international jurisdiction, requiring the agency to study security at foreign seaports and identify, through public notices and the media, ports that don't meet the IMO criteria for port security.

If a negative assessment is made of a certain port, the DOT, in consultation with the State Department and the president, would have the power to prohibit shipping between the United States and a problematic foreign port. In addition, the DOT is required to provide to Congress an annual report listing all foreign-flag ships entering US waters.

Mineta has also proposed granting the Coast Guard authority to board foreign-flag ships up to 12 miles from US shores, a move that would quadruple the current US territorial limit of three miles. Since September 11, the Coast Guard has been allowed to use the 12-mile limit in certain ports, such as Newport News in Virginia, which is close to the largest naval base in the world. Mineta's proposal would make the 12-mile limit a permanent feature.

At the IMO meeting in February, the US delegation will propose several steps, including international standards for inspecting containers and new, more detailed manifests for cargo and crew. The United States also wants other countries to institute background criminal checks on all mariners, a proposal that will be in force in the United States after the Hollings bill becomes law.

Ironically, the United States is asking the IMO to follow its lead on port and maritime security at a time when it is objecting to proposals from Norway and other countries to discuss ways that commercial ships could decrease the emission of greenhouse gases. Norway has also proposed that IMO members conduct an inventory of their emissions in the maritime industry.

The US delegation to the IMO was required to object by the Bush administration, which refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases. Joe Angelo, the Coast Guard's director of standards, told a maritime-industry conference in Washington last week, "The US side objected, but we will discuss the pros and cons" of the proposal at the IMO. "Basically, buying some time is what we did."

(Inter Press Service)




banner



Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania

Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive


back to the top

©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.


Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand