To: Dayuhan who wrote (2743 ) 3/17/1999 1:09:00 PM From: Tom Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Re: 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. France Presse and the Shanghai Express on the news-side of yesterday's Inside China Today . ...was it legislative or executive action that canceled the deal? 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. The concern would arise from being guested by Subic, as opposed to being supported by a U.S. depot of some permanence. 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 present in any port where US warships call constitutes a security risk is a bit much.
