|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Experts Warn of Serious Threats to Ports
U.S. port security experts said a United Arab Emirates company taking control of six East Coast seaports poses a small risk to U.S. entryways compared to other threats, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Feb. 23). For examples, the president of maritime security firm SeaSecure said he saw a 5 1/2-foot-tall fence in West Africa that was meant to keep terrorists from sneaking bombs into containers destined for the United States. Kim Petersen said the United States should focus its concern on situation like the one he found in West Africa. “There are many, many problems that we face in maritime security — and they're not the United Arab Emirates,” he said. Also at issue is the role the companies that run the ports play in protecting against terrorism. Bush administration officials in recent days have argued that the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection handle security. Port operators largely move containers off ships to trains or trucks. However, a former congressional aide said this overstates the role of federal agencies in protecting ports. “They've been saying that customs and the Coast Guard are in charge of security; yes, they're in charge, but they're not usually present,” said Carl Bentzel, who helped write a 2002 bill on port security. Terminal operators are responsible for guarding the port areas, although the Coast Guard must review security plans, the Post reported. The port operators are responsible for using X-rays on containers to see if the contents and manifest match, but customs agents handle any actual opening and examination of cargo. Several companies said local security firms provide guards for ports. Petersen and other security experts said not enough money is being spent on port security. “We've spent barely $700 million in federal grants to U.S. ports for security, compared with almost $20 billion for aviation security,” Petersen said. “And most important, we are doing an abysmal job in assisting ports in the developing world in improving security to even minimal acceptable standards.” Washington since 2001 has placed customs officials in 42 different ports around the world, giving them authority to inspect containers headed for the United States. However, these officials only cover 80 percent of the cargo that is delivered to U.S. soil. “If you're an al-Qaeda operative, you're going to send a bomb from a developing country where you know those safeguards don't exist. That's the key flaw. We should be investing now in the countries that pose a real threat to our national security, with more security grants. But many of these ports don't even have adequate fencing or lighting,” Petersen said (Blustein/Pincus, Washington Post, Feb. 24). Meanwhile, Dubai Ports said yesterday that while it planned to finalize the operations deal next week, it would “not exercise control” over the ports while the White House tries to alleviate congressional fears over the deal, the New York Times reported. “The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world,” said Ted Bilkey, Dubai Ports chief operating officer. “We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everyone's business.” The delay comes after Senator John Warner (R-Va.) told Dubai Ports that lawmakers needed more time to review the sale to avert a congressional block of the deal, according to the Times (Cloud/Sanger, New York Times, Feb. 24).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
