Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : HONG KONG -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2737)	3/16/1999 11:30:00 PM
From: Tom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2951

OT, Steve. Moorer clearly states that HWI is "a commercial front" for the Chinese military. I confused the issue, perhaps. It was I rather than Adm. Moorer that suggested Hutchinson. All Moorer indicated were "commercial fronts." I indicated, what appears to me, a good probability in the H-W subsidiary. It also explicitly suggests that the HWI bid was rejected for security reasons, on the basis of information privately supplied to ex-President Ramos. This, as I pointed out earlier, is simply incorrect. Yes, and unless I misunderstood, you point-out that "ICTI claimed that priority should be given to domestic firms and convinced a substantial number of legislators to agree." I don't doubt what you say. But was it legislative or executive action that canceled the deal? I had thought it an executive action. And, in that case, who other than Ramos can truly say what was the overriding consideration that forced him not once, as I understand, but twice to exercise his veto-power? Moorer's comment about our "abandonment" of Subic may not be as innocuous as you suggest. It implies that he believes there are steps the US could and should have taken to prevent these events from occurring. The only step that could have achieved this end would have been a US-sponsored coup d'etat, replacing the government with a more tractable one. I disagree, though my support for disagreement could be considered just as conjectural. My memory of the circumstances, which so agitated those who opposed our leaving, includes only legitimate alternatives which were not pursued. It was for lack of even an attempt at certain options that infuriated them. I know that there were highly placed individuals in the US military who advocated precisely this, and I have to wonder if Moorer was one of them. Needless to say, if that step had been taken it would have been an absolute catastrophe for the Philippines and for US-Philippine relations. It is entirely possible that it would have led to a communist takeover and a full-fledged communist military presence at Subic. Oh, I don't doubt that. Nor do I have any doubts as to the outcome of such a folly. ----- The complicity appears to stem from Hutchinson's relationship w/ China Resources, which has an equity position in one of the H-W subsidiaries -- a ports operator. Port operators, if I recall correctly, are a routine provider of harbor pilots. I, therefor, don't know that it requires much in the way of an imagination to see how an agent of Beijing might find his way to the conning bridge of an American warship. How so? I hesitate to underscore the obvious, but by the time an HWI presence in Subic became an issue the US Navy's presence in Subic was over and done. US warships no longer call at Subic; how could HWI's Subic operation insert an agent onto one? Not to mention that the US Navy would hardly need to rely on an HWI pilot to move in and out of a harbor they virtually owned for most of the century. The concern would arise from being guested by Subic, as opposed to being supported by a U.S. depot of some permanence. True, the approach to Subic is not a difficult one; but there are many circumstances, incidental as well as intentional, that present constant hazards to shipping. Hazards as simple as those that evolve naturally within a deep-water port. Add weather, dredging, shift an anchorage,.... There's much to consider that places the need for a trustworthy pilot beyond the realm of what some may see as merely a proceedural requirement. My point was that the only comments Moorer made that I am qualified to evaluate are the ones regarding Subic. In my judgement, these points have been wildly and deliberately distorted - as specified above - in a manner calculated to induce paranoia. I have to wonder if some of the same methods have crept into the other comments as well. I understand, Steve.