Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gets no-bid contract to scan for nuke

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:10 pm

Oh, my, how true the trite truism that says, "What goes around comes around". When I saw this in the news this morning, the name Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. rang a bell, seemed like I remembered it in relation to Richard Perle, who used to be chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. He resigned the chairmanship, but continued on as a member, and may still be there for all I know. Sure enough, a google showed Richard Perle, the Prince of Darkness, most dastardly of the neocons, had lobbied on behalf of Global Crossings to allow Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. to buy the telecommunications company. Anyway, you would think that after the Dubai mess that this administration would hesitate to try turning over port security as close as the Bahamas to the Chinese, for Pete's sake. Any highlights are mine. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/port_security_bahamas">news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060...ty_bahamas</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute, the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere. The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S. radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs agents present......<hr></blockquote> Here's where Perle connected in to this company: <a href="http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0141.html">www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0141.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Finally there’s Perle’s connection to Global Crossings, the bankrupt telecommunications company. Perle was hired by the Hong Kong-based company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd where he has a fat consulting deal, purportedly worth $750,000, to ‘smooth the way’ for its purchase. Global Crossings handles a lot of US military communications and Hutchison Whampoa is closely linked to the Chinese government and their military.<hr></blockquote> Here's where some early Bush administration history gets interesting: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_Whampoa">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchison_Whampoa</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> There have been charges made by conservative critics of China in the United States that Hutchison Whampoa provides a means by which the People's Liberation Army intends to gain control over the Panama Canal. However, many people see these charges are baseless. Some critics (including Howard Phillips, Chairman of the US Conservative Caucus, and Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch) contend that contracts putting large parts of the Panama Canal under Hutchison Whampoa control were handled in a corrupt manner. They also have suggested that in letting Hutchison Whampoa control the Panama Canal they may be putting it under control of the Chinese government, since Hutchison Whampoa has "strong links to the Chinese Communist Party". A previously declassified US intelligence report has stated “Hutchison Whampoa’s owner, Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing, has extensive business ties in Beijing and has compelling financial reasons to maintain a good relationship with China’s leadership.” Another report US intelligence report states, "“Li is directly connected to Beijing and is willing to use his business influence to further the aims of the Chinese Government. He has positioned his son, Victor Li, to replace him in certain Cheung Kong Holdings and Hutchison Whampoa operations such as HW’s Hong Kong International Terminals (HIT). ... Li’s interest in the Panama canal is not only strategic, but also as a means for outside financial opportunities for the Chinese government.” (Intelligence report source) Frank Gaffney, of the Center for Security Policy, has written that Whampoa "is currently hard at work acquiring a presence for China at other strategic 'choke points' around the world, including notably the Caribbean's Bahamas, the Mediterranean's Malta, and the Persian Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. At a moment inconvenient to the United States, such access could translate into physical or other obstacles to our use of such waterways." <hr></blockquote> Take note of that name, Frank Gaffney. Here's where the "goes around comes around": <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/EC25Ad04.html">www.atimes.com/atimes/Chi...5Ad04.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What is particularly remarkable - not to say mind-boggling - is that one of Perle's closest neo-conservatives proteges, soulmates and veteran collaborators, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), has been screaming about the dangers posed by the Hong Kong-based company to US national security ever since Panama awarded it a 25-year renewable contract to lease and operate the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal Zone in 1997. Gaffney began working for Perle way back in the 1970s when they were both on the staff of Washington state senator Henry M "Scoop" Jackson, the "Senator from Boeing", devoted to derailing detente with the Soviet Union. Their bureaucratic machinations with then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and another Perle protege, Paul Wolfowitz, to frustrate a new arms-control agreement negotiated with Moscow by secretary of state Henry Kissinger earned Perle his famous nickname, the Prince of Darkness. Under president Ronald Reagan, Perle became an assistant secretary of defense and named Gaffney as his deputy. In the 1990s, they worked hand-in-glove - Perle at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and Gaffney at CSP. Perle serves on CSP's board of advisors; they serve together on the boards of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and several other neo-conservative-dominated interest and lobby groups. Gaffney, who warned that the Panama leases would put Beijing in a position to cut off the canal to US warships, if not take control of the strategic waterway altogether, led a bizarre campaign backed by extreme right-wingers in Congress and former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger to force the Panamanians to cancel the deal before the canal reverted to Panamanian sovereignty on January 1, 2000. As recently as last August, Gaffney was insisting that Hutchison, which is owned by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, is simply a cat's paw for China to further its strategic designs against Washington. In addition to the Panama Canal leases, he wrote in the Washington Times, Hutchison "is currently hard at work acquiring a presence for China at other strategic 'choke points' around the world, including notably the Caribbean's Bahamas, the Mediterranean's Malta, and the Persian Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. At a moment inconvenient to the United States, such access could translate into physical or other obstacles to our use of such waterways." But while these geostrategic maneuvers were worrisome enough, the main point of Gaffney's article last October was precisely to point out the threat posed by Hutchison's purchase of a 61.5 percent majority interest in Global Crossing, the winner of a 10-year, $450 million contract to operate a high-speed classified research network for Pentagon scientists. Gaffney had a message for those who would support the deal going through. "Trade uber alles means, by definition, subordinating national-security considerations to the ambitions of those who seek profits through commerce. In a time of war like the present," he warned, "we simply cannot afford to pursue such a policy to its illogical, and potentially highly destructive conclusion." <hr></blockquote> It will be interesting to see if the administration will get by with it this time. Is the public's short attention span already past focusing on the issue of homeland security? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/24/06 10:35 am

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:43 pm

Also, why the hell was this a "no-bid" contract? Are they deliberately trying to fence out American businesses? Wasn't there some discussion here recently about a gentleman on a plane who worked for a company that makes scanners that can scan these containers in a matter of minutes, and the company he works for not even getting a chance at providing Homeland Security with their product? This is REALLY weird.

by **chiggerbit** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:54 pm

From Josh Marshall: <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">www.talkingpointsmemo.com/</a> (March 23, 2006 -- 08:27 PM EST // link) Back when I first arrived in Washington, almost eight years ago now, one of the big bugaboos on the right was the claim that key US ports and strategic facilities were being handed over to companies controlled by or linked to the People's Liberation Army, the armed forces of China. One example was COSCO (not the discount store) taking over management of the Port of Long Beach near Los Angeles, another was Hutchison Whampoa a mammoth port facilities operator taking over management of the facilities on either side of the Panama Canal. I remember, probably at some point in late 1999 going to a forum at CATO of all places where it was debated whether letting Hutchinson assume management of the Canal put the Chinese in a position to take over the key strategic strangle points in the Western Hemisphere in a possible military confrontation with the US. Trent Lott went so far as to call Hutchison "an arm of the People's Liberation Army." Ahh, the 1990s. In any case, now the AP is reporting that the Bush administration is subcontracting a key aspect of port security to Hutchison. And when I say 'key' I mean key. They're going to be the ones scanning in-bound cargo for signs of illicit nuclear materials. They're in charge of it -- no oversight or supervision by US Customs. I thought those fears on the right were demagogic and overstated at the time, though I think that a little less today, for a variety of reasons. So I'm not going to flip my position now. But there are some elements of security so deeply vital that I'm not sure I see the logic of subcontracting them to anyone, let alone a company closely tied to what is arguably a potentially hostile foreign power. In any case, I'd say this is probably a more genuine security concern than the Dubai Ports deal. So it should get some attention. -- Josh Marshall

by **chiggerbit** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:24 am

Joseph E. Schmirtz??? Or is that Joseph E. Schmitz, brother of Mary Kay Latourneau? <a href="http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0141.html">www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0141.html</a> The New York Times also covered the story but essentially gutted it by focusing on the fact that Perle was found ‘not guilty’ (by virtue of a technicality). Headed "Report Finds No Violations at Pentagon by Adviser", "The inspector general's conclusions were in a heavily excised report dated Nov. 10 that was released on Friday by Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who requested the inquiry after reports about Mr. Perle's business dealings. Those reports led Mr. Perle to step down last March as chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. … "We have completed our inquiry regarding the conduct of Mr. Perle and did not substantiate allegations of misconduct," Joseph E. Schmirtz, the inspector general, wrote in a letter to Mr. Conyers that accompanied the report. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 3/24/06 10:26 pm

Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gets no-bid contract to scan for nuke

Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gets no-bid contract to scan for nuke

Re: Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gets no-bid contract to scan for

Re: Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gets no-bid contract to scan for

Re: Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gets no-bid contract to scan for

Who is online