Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, April 15, 2002

Now the respected Economist magazine is warning that container ships could be the next terrorist vehicle.

Each year, more than 7,500 commercial vessels make approximately 51,000 port calls, off-loading 6 million loaded marine containers in U.S. ports. Current growth predictions indicate the container cargo will quadruple in the next 20 years.

One serious worry is that terrorists might use one of these ships to transport and then explode a nuclear device in a major U.S. port – perhaps crippling the U.S. economy as the nation's stream of commerce stops in a self-imposed protective embargo.

And the experts agree there is no silver bullet to prevent such a catastrophe.

Already, the U.S. Coast Guard is employing highly sensitive equipment to check ships for radioactive material. But such checks are not foolproof, nor can the Coast Guard scan all ships for the potentially lethal material.

Another concern is that the terrorists may use an oil tanker as a way to collapse the U.S. economy.

Noted journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, in a special "Off-the-Record" briefing to NewsMax readers, warns that terrorists have already bragged about being able to explode a fully loaded oil tanker as it passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Such a disaster, de Borchgrave says, would close the narrow straits and send the world economy into a tailspin. For more on de Borchgrave’s revelations, click here.

But just how likely are such attacks?

Ominously, an al-Qaeda manual discovered in the United Kingdom said seaport workers could make good recruits.

Furthermore, bin Laden is said to own a fleet of freighters, already used to smuggle explosives into Africa for the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.

Other unhappy factoids: The Philippines, home to more than one militant group, is the world's biggest crew supplier. And Indonesia, headquarters for many radical Muslim groups, comes in second at supplying crews for the nettlesome container ships.

But the worst news is that the vulnerability of the critical supply line has already been illustrated – in spades. Italian authorities recently found a suspected al-Qaeda member inside a sealed container headed for Canada.

Only 2 Percent Inspected

With the stowaway were mobile phones, false credit cards, plane tickets and certifications identifying the man as an airplane mechanic.

Presently only about 2 percent of containers arriving in the U.S. are inspected. And according to recent Hill testimony, even if that level reached 100 percent, the danger would not be neutralized, because if the infiltrated cargo even arrives at the U.S. port it may be too late.

One possible scenario: an electronic data system that would allow U.S. authorities to know in advance the origin, contents and shipper of each container – before it is ever loaded at the point of shipment.

This would allow U.S. authorities to target the most vulnerable or suspicious shipments, possibly rerouting and inspecting them before they arrive in the U.S.

One important fault in this plan is apparent, however, say the experts. Digitized or not, the maritime industry's present documentation is unreliable.

In one instance, U.S. Customs audited 181 ships and found 96 had more or fewer containers on board than identified. What’s more, bills of lading describing the containers’ contents also were incomplete or falsified.

And erroneous or not, the volume of paperwork is mountainous. The movement of each container is part of a transaction that can involve a score or more different parties: buyers, sellers, inland freighters and shipping lines, middlemen, financiers and governments.

A single transaction can crank out 30-40 documents, and each container can carry cargo for several customers, further multiplying the plethora of documents.

Expensive Gadgets

In the meantime, good intelligence and a handful of expensive gadgets are serving on the front lines of port security. The current mainstay: a $1.2 million per copy gamma-ray machine.

Loaded on trucks, the machine's long white arm makes the device resemble an electric company's cherry picker. Dubbed "VACIS,” the acronym for Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System, the machine sprays containers with gamma rays, producing a blurry X-ray-like image of what's inside. It takes skilled and experienced operators to make sense of the images.

But even with VACIS, the logistics of expanding the token inspections are daunting. According to the Charleston, S.C., customs office, its two dozen inspectors can’t possibly keep up with the crushing volume of cargo pouring through the southern port’s terminals.

"There are days when we have 10 ships coming in, and they might be spread across several terminals,” explained one customs official.

The same hectic scene is duplicated at all the nation’s ports, where staff levels have actually decreased over the years despite the fact that container volume has doubled since 1993.

So, what can be done to help make ports safe?

Part of the answer may rest with new technologies. Ancore Corp. of Santa Clara, Calif., for example, is making new machines that use laser-like beams of neutrons that can identify trace amounts of drugs or explosive residues.

Also being considered is having the U.S. push its borders out and pre-screen containers in specially created security zones before they are loaded onto ships in foreign ports. Done with the cooperation of the foreign authorities, American inspectors would be on hand to assist local officials.

Robert Bonner, the head of the U.S. Customs Service, wants to kick off such a plan by focusing on the top 10 container ports that trade with the U.S. and funneling as many containers as possible through approved gateways. The top 10 would include Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Shanghai.

Ideas From Private Sector

Private enterprise has its own ideas. In recent congressional testimony, Wayne Gibson, senior vice president of Global Logistics for Home Depot, suggested that "a well-controlled supply chain can serve as a foundation upon which security measures can be built.

"While we source from over 40 countries and 268 vendors and 555 factories, 80 percent of that comes from five countries and 40 vendors. We had over 50,000 POs inspected in 2001. And 100 percent of our shipments were inspected.”

And the Coast Guard is hard at work figuring out a solution. Captain Anthony Regalbutto, chief of port security for the United States Coast Guard, recently told Congress, "We're trying to establish two centers – one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast.

"In those fusion centers will be representatives from various government agencies, including Customs and INS and Office of Naval Intelligence and others, that will be able, then, to look at the information that's coming in and then pre-screen the information.”

Regalbutto is also for the first time looking at or prototyping a canine program for the Coast Guard. "That's something that we want to prototype and we think that, again, with our marine safety and security teams as they go on board ships, particularly if we have intel information that we suspect on a ship, hopefully the dogs will be able to help us in that sensing ability."

Who's in Charge

One Hill witness, however, voiced concern that the salient issue must be a hammering out of just who is in charge. Christopher Koch, president and chief executive officer, World Shipping Council, has said:

"Customs is presently modernizing and adjusting its information systems, which will cost over $1 billion and is planning on using their systems as part of the Container Security Initiative. Are the Customs systems what the government will use?

"The government should establish one system, not competing information systems. If the advanced cargo information system used for security screening is not Customs' job, the White House or the Congress should make that clear immediately, because Customs thinks that it is and is acting accordingly."

And, finally, who’s going to pay the tab?

Basil Maher, president and chief operating officer of Maher Terminals Inc., Jersey City, N.J., suggested to Congress that legislation must not assess fees or tax terminal operators or carriers for costs properly borne by the federal government.

"If any additional federal revenue needs to be raised for cargo transportation security purposes, it should come from existing federal revenue streams relating to cargo, which uses this system of ships, terminals, rails and trucks," Maher said.

One thing all agree on: Security procedures must be implemented in a manner that does not disrupt terminal operations and the $400 billion in commerce it supports.

Sign up for NewsMax's "Off-the-Record" Club now.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
FREE – 4 Months to NewsMax.com`s Magazine. Check It Out – Get four FREE