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:
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
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
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
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-
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.