It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: COSCO, a Military Chinese Company Operating in a U.S. Pier.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Update.

I have already recieved a response from Mr. Moseley, and he asked me not to post anything, he would rather post the details himself.

I will soon send a response back to Mr. Moseley, as soon as i recieve an update from the moderators and admin as to how they want this done.

We will know soon enough if he accepts the invitation, but, unless he changes his mind, he seemed to be very interested in responding in the public forums.

This will be an interesting development.

Stay tuned.


[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I found this little tidbit, just for those of us who's criticism extends to both parties....

It's clinton, back in 2000...

----------------------------------------------------

"I am pleased to receive the report of the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. In April 1999, I directed the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Transportation to establish the Commission to undertake a comprehensive study of the nature and extent of crime in our seaports and the state of security in those seaports. I also direct the Commission to review the ways in which Federal, state and local governments are responding to the problem, and develop recommendations for improving law enforcement and crime prevention."

usinfo.org...

-----------------------------------------------------

I imagine this is after he gave china control of the seaport on the western coast?? ya, fine time to start worrying about their security...



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I have already sent the response to Mr. Moseley, with a link to this thread. He can give a lot more information than what we already have on this topic, once he is able to respond in here.

Stay tuned.




[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I have dealt with cosco in the past, they are very sneaky and dishonest.
they also own sea-trade international which is located in canada.



Edit: Censor circumvention. C'mon man, this is the News Network.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
For some reason, Mr. Moseley is still unable to post on the board. Being the non-geek that I am, I have no idea what to do about that. Still, not to be daunted, Mr. Moseley sent this to me via email, and I now submit it here:

The log in is still not working, even
after I add ATS to "trusted sites"

Attached is my post, if you can post it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Thanks to Muaddib for letting me know about this discussion.

Although most of America woke up to the security of seaports
only after the Dubai Ports World controversy, a political
nonprofit group the U.S. Public Policy Council (among others
of course) has been opposing COSCO's 115 acre base at Pier J
in Long Beach since 1998. Someone commented about COSCO
taking advantage of recent events. Actually, the truth is
that the media and official Washington have been largely
ignoring the Pier J issue for around 8 years, with a few
exceptions, so most people are now hearing about this AFTER
the Dubai Ports World fiasco, even though the problem was
out there BEFOREHAND.

Last year, I took over as Executive Director of USPPC's
project U.S. Seaports Commission, from John Stoos. While
I did not do the original research, I have been preparing
a report to Congress and a small book and reviewing these
issues.

We view COSCO's 115 acre base at Pier J as "unfinished
business" after the Dubai Ports World controversy. So we
are pushing it on the heels of DPW, which illustrates why
something needs to be done, but the problem predates DPW.
(Note: Purists will quibble. The Port of Los Angeles
is in San Pedro, at one end of Los Angeles Harbor, and
Long Beach is about 5 miles away across the harbor.
Pier J is in Long Beach, but very close to Los Angeles.)

We agree that the issue with DPW is not to pick on Middle
Easterners, but instead to ask the question why are ANY
of our port facilities under the control of non-U.S.
interests, especially foreign governments. We agree that
we should not single out the UAE and pick only on them.

I put it like this: International commerce is great. But
business means selling products FROM your store, NOT
selling your STORE. International companies can buy and
sell products from/to the U.S. without controlling any
part of our ports of entry. We should trade in products,
not U.S. port facilities. It is bad business in my mind
(and I have a Finance degree) to sell our infrastructure,
rather than using our infrastructure to sell products.

The purchase of 2 submarines by COSCO -- a supposedly
civilian cargo fleet -- was translated from an
announcement by COSCO in China, in Chinese, and reported
by the American Foreign Policy Council, which is operated
by a former senior (and long-time) aide to Congressman
Duncan Hunter, Al Santoli.

See, for example: www.afpc.org

www.afpc.org...


Since I did not do the original research, I cannot
comment on the designation of these submarines as
"Tsunami" class, but I will check on the source for
that citation.

We believe that the primary issue here is that COSCO has
NO INNOCENT REASON to own or operate submarines. On its
face, a freight/cargo fleet having submarines strikes me
as absurd. I personally asked a former Admiral of the
U.S. submarine fleet for his analysis, and the Admiral
answered that there is no innocent reason for COSCO to
operate submarines, because submarines are an incredibly
expensive way to move cargo. Because it would be
prohibitively expensive to move freight or cargo by
submarine, the only remaining explanation is some
operation requiring stealth and deceit. I wondered
if there could be some other use I wasn't aware of,
but the submarine Admiral could not imagine one. (I
haven't asked his permission to be quoted, nor has
he said not to quote him. I just haven't asked.)

Therefore, we have to conclude that the most likely
reason for COSCO to acquire submarines is for a
military purpose or for espionage for the Chinese
government. COSCO is owned 100% by the Chinese
government, and is placed (under several different layers)
under the People's Liberation Army, the military of the
People's Republic of China. It is owned 100% by the
Chinese government -- similar to Dubai Ports World.

One of the posters commented that a Chinese MILITARY
warship could not enter a U.S. port without a naval
escort of U.S. naval ships.

We believe that this is one reason why China is having
COSCO -- supposedly a private CIVILIAN company --
purchase these 2 submarines. Officially, they are
designated as CIVILIAN ships, part of a cargo fleet.

So, officially, these submarines are NOT military craft
or warships, but are part of a CIVILIAN cargo fleet.
That oddity strikes us as a deliberate attempt to
deceive and conceal the reality of what is going on.

However, we also doubt that if China ever wanted a
sub to enter the U.S., they would tell anyone about
it. The fear is that COSCO's submarines could enter
Los Angeles harbor, under the cover of COSCO's
continuous traffic of dozens of ships a week docking
at Pier J in Long Beach, 5 miles from the Port of
Los Angeles. These could smuggle dangerous items in,
and U.S. military and industrial technology OUT
of the United States.


Although American submarines have always been far
superior, one should recognize that these are newer
generations of submarines, copied from European
designs,and are not as bad as Russian submarines
were in the 1980's. They are quieter and better
today. Perfect? Nothing is ever perfect.

However, a submarine sailing very near to or under
a huge COSCO cargo ship might be "masked" by the
larger COSCO ship and harder to detect. That is
why I am worried about the COMBINATION of the
continuous stream of COSCO traffic into Pier J,
COSCO's control of 115 acres at Long Beach Pier J,
with these other developments. You have to look
at all of the pieces together.

The Washington Times has reported on COSCO ships
being used to ship military arms and equipment to
various countries, and being used for electronic
surveillance and espionage. In one naval exercise by
China to intimidate Taiwan in the 90s, COSCO "cargo"
ships were used as part of these naval operations.
Experts say that China integrates civilian craft into
naval operations, including as missile and and anti-
aircraft platforms.

We cannot know what COSCO will do with these submarines
(they are obviously not going to tell us), except that
there is absolutely NO known legitimate reason for a
CARGO fleet to have submarines.

We have no information that any submarines will actually
REMAIN "at" Pier J in Long Beach, 5 miles from the Port
of Los Angeles. Because the value of a submarine is
stealth, it would be more likely that a submarine would
NOT stay in one place, and would not stay at Pier J for
any length of time. If a submarine stays in one place,
especially near land, it is more likely to be seen. So
I don't think COSCO would keep submarines docked at Pier J.


The Chinese military operates the largest submarine fleet
in the world, and is rapidly upgrading its quality and
modernizing its submarine fleet, according to experts,
including reports by the American Foreign Policy Council.

Therefore, we are worried that if the submarines are used
for some improper purpose (and we can't think of any
proper purpose), it would be easy for COSCO to use Pier
J in Long Beach as part of such plans. It could also be
that the submarines will facilitate smuggling by meeting
up at sea with COSCO cargo ships. For example, a COSCO
freight ship could carry dangerous cargo to perhaps 100
miles off the California coast, then meet up with a COSCO
submarine, and transfer the smuggled cargo to the
submarine. Then the submarine could deliver the
smuggled cargo onto U.S. soil by meeting up with a
small boat at night or using the sub's rafts.

I wrote about a similar situation
in my spy novel COLD PEACE, which you can
see at: www.ColdPeace.com...

COSCO also has other facilities around the United States,
and a similar Chinese company has terminals at both
ends of the Panama Canal and in the Bahamas.


Also, someone raised a question about how COSCO is
designated as a threat to national security.

Originally, the Clinton Administration planned to give
COSCO the Long Beach Naval Air Station. The public
protested, and Congress intervened. The use by COSCO
of the Naval Air Station was blocked by Congress
designating COSCO's as a threat to national security
because it is owned by the Chinese government.

However, AFTER that defeat over the naval air station,
the plan switched over to Pier J, and the State of
California and the City of Long Beach signed a long-term
lease for Pier J instead.

Because the U.S. Seaports Commission has very limited
funds, about all we can afford is to ask supporters to
send petitions to Congress. I've gone down to Capitol
Hill myself. And we have participated in conferences
and seminars and radio talk shows.

Therefore, many of our supporters are sending petitions
to various members of Congress about this.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Guys Mr. Moseley took time to come to our forums and tell us exactly what is going on. On my part, I would like to thank Mr. Moseley for giving us his time and all this information. No matter what plans COSCO has for buying two submarines, and whatever use COSCO might have to get submarines in U.S. soil, it cannot be good.

If you can see the gravity of this situation, you must act now, you must write to your Representatives, Congress, and even the president, and tell them that COSCO represents a danger to the security of the United States.

Don't believe those people that tell you that your vote doesn't count, it does count, and if Congress sees that a large portion of Americans reject COSCO being the owner of a Pier in U.S. soil, they will change their votes and they will do as the American public asks.

Once again, Thank you Mr. Moseley for your time, and for the information. Please keep us informed if anything develops.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I'm hoping this post survives the chief..

In regards a chinese sub parked at a US port, why could not the following scenario occur.. a nuke warhead from a ballistic missile on board is spirited off and carried across country to end up in Washington DC so that it can be used in a blackmail of the entire US by the Chinese. Is this possible? I think it is.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   
There are many possible scenarios, and all of them are bad. COSCO is trying to hide behind the "civilian marine merchant company" log,o to do the dirty work for the CCP, whatever that dirty work is.

As Mr. Moseley has said, there is nothing good that COSCO wants to do with two submarines. The Port of Long Beach CA is one of the largest in the world, it is the largest on the west coast of the United States, and the CCP (COSCO) owns 115 acres of it.

www.polb.com...

The CCP also own both sides of the Panama canal, which makes it even easier to smuggle anything into the U.S.

COSCO has been found in the past to have smuggled Chinese weapons, and other companies also owned by the CCP have smuggled other military equipment including anti-aircraft missiles into the United States. It is time for this to stop, and American citizens are the only ones who can stop it.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Hello everyone. My name is Sean Jester and I work with Jon Moseley for the U.S. Seaport Commission and he alerted me to this discussion. I read Jon’s response which was posted here on the forums and I agree with everything he said.

I think the heart of the matter is as follows:

1. COSCO is owned by the Chinese Military.

2. COSCO controls Pier J in the Port of Long Beach.

3. Controlling Pier J gives COSCO a better chance of smuggling weapons, aliens, etc... across our borders -- and they have been caught doing so in the past. You may remember hearing about the 2,000 AK-47’s they tried to smuggle into America. They were intended for Los Angeles street gangs.

4. It has been documented that COSCO is or has been…

- re-fitting their merchant ships for war, this includes -- installing multi-barrel rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, anti-ship mines, and electronic-deception devices.
- has purchased multiple 18,000-ton submarines for their “Special Purpose” fleet. (This isn’t to say that these submarines will dock at Pier J, but why would a merchant shipping company need a submarine?)
- and they have plotted to expand Pier J by 115 acres. These plans were shut down when environmentalist groups in Long Beach stopped them out of fear that expansion would cause damage to the eco-system in the harbor.

5. Since China is ramping up their economical and military actions, it's a threat to our National Security to have COSCO -- a Chinese Military owned company -- running Pier J.

If you have any further questions please contact me at sean@stuartgrey.com



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Thank you Sean for those comments, and also for taking your time to inform us, and for backing up these facts.

Please, if you find any new developments let us know.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   


re-fitting their merchant ships for war, this includes -- installing multi-barrel rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns, anti-ship mines, and electronic-deception devices.
- has purchased multiple 18,000-ton submarines for their “Special Purpose” fleet. (This isn’t to say that these submarines will dock at Pier J, but why would a merchant shipping company need a submarine?)


Where have either of these allegations been documented?

This is the first I have heard of either.

And as a person with a keen interest in things naval, I have never even heard a rumour unitil now that China is building any 18,000 ton submarines, let alone any substantiated claim. The largest PLAN sub class is the 9,000 ton Type 94, and it's not in service yet.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
concerning submarines:




www.afpc.org...

China's China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] has contracted the building of two 18,000 ton submarines for the formation of the COSCO Guangzhou "special purpose" fleet, reports the COSCO Web site News Center.

The designs of the two submersible vessels were copied from the works of European companies.

An advanced electronic propelling system was included in the design. COSCO adds, this is the first order that China's domestic shipyards have ever received for the building of such vessels.



concering COSCO refitting ships for war:




www.afpc.org...


The Hong Kong Ming Pao newspaper reports the Chinese Navy is stepping up its refitting of Chinese COSCO merchant ships for use in war. COSCO container ships can be used for both sea and ground operations, ferrying troops and armored vehicles to launch attacks or land on beachheads.

Chinese military officers told Ming Pao that some merchant ships can also be fitted with large caliber artillery and multi-barrel rocket launchers, medium and small-caliber anti-aircraft guns and guided missiles.

The ships can also be used for laying anti-ship mines and for anti-submarine warfare and to install electronic-deception devices. In addition, the ships could play an important role in a naval blockade of Taiwan, serve as platform for attack helicopters or jump-jets and unmanned aero vehicles.



concerning 2,000 AK-47's:




www.newsmax.com...

On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents discovered 2000 AK-47's in a container smuggled aboard the Empress Phoenix, a ship owned by the China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] docked at the Port of Oakland.

The guns were manufactured by another state-run company, Poly Technologies, the international outlet for Chinese weapons sales.

According to Vanity Fair magazine, which covered the episode in detail, the Empress Phoenix's gun cargo was earmarked for sale to deadly Los Angeles street gangs.


[edit to format external sources]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Muaddib, thanks for originating this thread. Mr. Mosely and Sean Jester, welcome to ATS and your input on this topic amazes me, that our government would even consider allowing this to happen perplexes me. A petition is in order. Subs are easily masked beneath ships. What a threat this would bring upon us!



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Yes those links were posted in the other thread.

It still seems unlikely to me that China is building two 18,000 ton subs without anyone else reporting it. Certainly the rabid Chinese nationalists on some of the defense message boards would be bragging about it already...

The claim made in the other thread was that Chinese "Tsunami Class" missile subs were going to be docking at US ports. Somehow without the US Navy or US Coast Guard noticing.

No offense but it seems there is less to it than that.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The U.S. Seaport Commission only mentions these submarines in relation to the threat that COSCO poses to America's National Security. We've never drawn a connection between the submarines and Pier J.

However, while these submarines making it to Pier J is a long shot, one would always have to consider the possibility.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Except I have yet to find ANYTHING on a "Tsunami" class submarine, for ANY country. There's the Xia class, which there is one of, and the Type 94, which will enter service next year, and neither of them is even close to the size you are saying. China has no need for a sub that size, since most of their operating areas are shallower water. A sub that large would have trouble operating in shallow waters.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Muaddib - you just got a Way Above from me
. Outstanding "exceeds" on the effort you are putting into this. It's a fascinating thread to follow.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except I have yet to find ANYTHING on a "Tsunami" class submarine, for ANY country. There's the Xia class, which there is one of, and the Type 94, which will enter service next year, and neither of them is even close to the size you are saying. China has no need for a sub that size, since most of their operating areas are shallower water. A sub that large would have trouble operating in shallow waters.


The Xia is equipted with the Julang 1 (Giant wave or Tsunami)


The Xia underwent a modernization refit beginning in 1995. It has never sailed beyond China's regional waters and is believed incapable of deployment to distant areas. The submarine is armed with the Julang-1 (Giant Wave, or Tsunami) two-stage solid fuel missile, which was first test fired 30 April 1982. The Julang-1 was adapted to land service as the DF-21 (CSS-5). There will very probably be no more submarines of this class.


Excerpted from.
nuclearweaponarchive.org...

So when they are talking about the Tsunami class, is actually a reference to the Julang-1 which is armed in the Xia.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except I have yet to find ANYTHING on a "Tsunami" class submarine, for ANY country. There's the Xia class, which there is one of, and the Type 94, which will enter service next year, and neither of them is even close to the size you are saying. China has no need for a sub that size, since most of their operating areas are shallower water. A sub that large would have trouble operating in shallow waters.


I also went over the numbers of Xia in existance.

The chinese government made unsubstatiated reports that one of their Xia class submarine was lost to them in an accident in 1985. But there are no corroboration of this accident ever to have happened.

You can find this info in the earlier pages of this thread.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Except that to say "class" refers to the TYPE of ship. There is no "Tsunami class" of submarine. If they're referring to the missile, then it should be "Xia class sub ARMED with....." If we're going to make decisions on this let's at least get our information right here.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join