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: Tom who wrote (2739)	3/17/1999 4:24:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2951

Tom, ON Topic! I was curious enough to search out Moorer's remarks on Panama. Oddly, the company involved is Hutchison-Whampoa, a subsidiary of which is under contract to operate portions of the canal. Moorer seems to have quite an obsession with HWI, and refers to the company as if it were practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the mainland military. The only justification he cites is alleged and unspecified "close ties" between the HWI CEO and mainland political and military figures. The same, of course, could be said of practically major HK firm. It seems that Moorer is suggesting that any participation by HWI in any strategic area is a security threat to the US. Given HWI's business, that has obvious ramifications: are we supposed to prevent them from doing business anywhere outside HK? Given HWI's reputation (already mentioned by a previous poster), I find the whole thing a bit difficult to swallow. was it legislative or executive action that canceled the deal? My memory of it is executive action under strong legislative pressure, though I would have to check the archives to be sure of that. 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. Specifics? I know that the possibility of a vastly increased compensation package was floated, but I'm not sure it was ever meant to be taken seriously. If a Filipino asks an outrageous price for something, chances are he doesn't want to sell it. The concern would arise from being guested by Subic, as opposed to being supported by a U.S. depot of some permanence. If being a guest in Subic was judged a security hazard, they could simply guest in Manila, or elsewhere. With the Navy facilities removed, the only reason to come in here would be nostalgia for the bar scene, which no longer exists in any event. Even without HWI, no Navy ship has called here in years. It should be noted that HWI was only bidding to operate the container terminal, not the entire port. And the notion that having HWI pesent in any port where US warships call constitutes a security risk is a bit much.