PhotoDude.com

Mon. Jun 09, 2003

Ignoring the Containers

Ignoring the Containers – In an editorial titled, “Protect the ports, no matter the cost,” the AJC says “...a war game exercise last fall sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security showed that an attack on one of the nation’s ports would cause a 500-point drop in the stock market and a $58 billion hit to the economy.”

Last fall while on honeymoon in Charleston, I spent about 45 minutes idling about at the edge of the harbor, waiting for a ferry to Fort Sumter. Workers were busily unloading this ship, and I might have seen 50 truck-sized cargo containers placed on the docks while I was there. I remembered reading how standard port security has always meant that less than two percent of those containers got any scrutiny at all that wasn’t simply related to moving their heft from Point A to Point B. As I watched, I realized that maybe one of the containers I’d seen unloaded would get any kind of security check at all. It was about the only unpleasant moment that intruded on my honeymoon. At that time, nearly 14 months had passed since September 11. Another 7 months have passed since then. And the resources provided for port inspection are largely unchanged from September 10, 2001.

Congress had appropriated nearly $60 million for a container screening program, but the Bush administration “says it wants to divert that money into aviation security measures that have had cost overruns.”

“Last year, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which requires extensive security improvements at ports. But no money appeared in either the 2002 or the 2003 budget to fund the mandates.”

Who proposes the federal budget, and thus, its priorities? The Office of the President.

Given the tactics of September 11, spending money on aviation security is a no brainer, if only as a political necessity. But realistically, as we’ve seen multiple times, any attempt at hijacking an aircraft will be met by dozens of passengers willing to give their lives, if need be, to keep that from happening. All over the world, people received the new Rules of Engagement when it comes to hijackers, and they no longer will sit quietly waiting for negotiations to free them. Aviation security has a nearly infinite army of volunteers. They are at the airport today.

Who is watching the ports? Last fall, a strike that closed down West Coast ports had a trickle down effect that caused major disruption. Even though it only lasted ten days, and everyone saw it coming and prepared for it. Some estimates said it caused a $1 Billion a day hit on the economy.

Now, imagine the effect one half hearted and poorly executed “dirty bomb” could have. Even if it killed no one and only contaminated a 300 yard radius in one harbor, the effect would be huge, geographically and monetarily. First off, the 300 yard radius it contaminated might be small, but it would be a critical area … a major cargo import point, of which we have few of great size. And it would be closed for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, every US cargo port would be closed, without the warning for preparation companies had during the strike, and without the option of using East Coast ports when the West went on strike. Ships en route would be turned away, cargo would pile up in Asian and European ports (who would certainly be tightening security as well), and cargo already in port … hundreds of thousands of containers … would be quarantined awaiting inspection.

And it would last a lot longer than ten days. It could bring a slowly recovering US economy to its knees.

Yet such a threat has been given no budgetary priority, in fact, no appropriations at all. Instead of admittedly costly security measures, we get big tax cuts. These are the issues I want to see discussed in the coming Presidential campaign.

Not after a container explodes in a US port.