Maritime Trade, Global Economies, and the Megaports Initiative

Maritime Trade, planetary Economies, and the Mega ports go-ahead The purpose of this posting is ii-fold. phonation one is to describe the importance of marine wiliness to globose economies, and part two is to illustrate the importance of the Megaports Initiative to outside(a) swop. expose One Obviously, orbiculate occupation involves moving finished goods and heavy commodities oer long distances. From both a tonnage duty perspective and value perspective, an overwhelming piece of ground of inter-hemispheric and trans-oceanic cunning involves the practice of nautical (as oppose to aviation) transportation.Therefore, as I composed this response, I considered global quite a little and international alternate nearly synonymous with maritime trade. sort of than simply describe the importance of maritime global trade, I sh all(prenominal) actually accent its importance so that you, the reader, know refine away that I am a staunch and firm proponent of necessitous t rade. Free, unfettered, and unregulated global trade (with roughly nonable exceptions below) is hugely beneficial to the entireness welf be of the sphere at large.The fit of global trade over the croak 5 decades has lifted entire segments of populations throughout China, India, Vietnam, Brazil, and nearly ALL of Korea out of scantness and into a new working and changeless middle class. Ancillary benefits include straightforward improvements in literacy, life expectancy, and gains in in-person freedom and self determination, with China existence a frustrating exception. Critics of global trade (a wily bunch ranging from thoughtful academics to bear on unions to undisciplined and uninformed anarchists) concur all sorts of counter communication channels against a global deliverance.Their protestations are far likewise numerous to talking to at length in this forum, solitary(prenominal) if a quick review of rough of the fallacious and unfounded concerns would inclu de global trade suppresses the locally grown causal agent it enriches the wealthy at the expense of the worlds unforesightful it increases global output of carbon dioxide, and so on These fringe concerns are fallacious because world trade allows the almost efficient manufacturer access to all markets. Efficiency, by definition, representation the producer who uses the LEAST amount of ggregate new material (be it feed-stocks, acreage, labor, energy per unit produced, hardly components, etc) volition be rewarded with global business. A more valid concern, generally mod by American unions, might be the loss of manufacturing and textile jobs in the fall in States. A aggravatorful reality of global trade is that the benefits are NOT pareto best they are not distri simplyed evenly, and thither forget be both winners and losers. In this context, trade unions and isolationists in the U. S. ave felt the economic pain as cost conscious manufacturers countenance moved production overseas. In near industries (automobiles, in particular) overseas competitors simply surpass long dominant American producers at their own game. In response, American unions squander sometimes confused protectionism with patriotism. There is zip patriotic about preserving an uncompetitive and underperforming industry. On the contrary, protectionism denies the American consumer choices and it stifles American innovation.Global trade, which is agnise by a robust maritime trade, encourages all producers to be innovative, and it elevates the real get personnel of the world consumer. As promised, there are some brief caveats, however, to the disputation I advanced above. Free, unfettered, and unregulated trade should strive to resemble fair trade to the maximum extent possible. The world economy should not benefit from the producer who achieves a competitive edge through the use of child labor, slave labor, indentured servitude, or a total disregard for the environmental effect s of his production.The mechanisms to establish those standards (much less put through them) is a topic for another paper, precisely it should be mentioned in light of the argument I have advanced above. Part Two The exact statement we are being asked to consider is the following illustrate the importance of the Mega Ports to International Trade. Heres my contrarian assessment The Megaports gap is a SECURITY measure, NOT a trade measure.So I would manage that it has little importance to international trade, but very significant importance with honour to national security. The Megaports initiative is a U. S. lead, internationally coordinated effort to scan containerized pack for radiation hazards and threats. Thus, Megaports WILL become an definitive concern to international trade only if it manages to DISRUPT it which it might, depending upon the capabilities of the screen equipment used and the rigidness of DHS/DOEs ambitious close of screening 50% of containerized cargo by 2015.I have some reservations about the ability of the federal official government to reach its stated goal of 50% screening, and I also am skeptical about the efficacy claims of the equipment that is to be deployed. The manufacturers of expensive, high tech screening equipment that put up to DHS have a pretty solid record of over-promising (or, at least exaggerating) the abilities of their wares. radiological detectors can produce some telling diagnostic results, but they are too slow to handle large volumes of cargo. beat spectrum scans can take several proceeding for a 56 foot intermodal ITU (International imparting Unit). The larger U. S. ports handle upwards of 2000 import containers per daylight. In laymans terms, there is simply not enough time in the day to screen 1000 TEUs per day with breathing technology. Im also concerned that the deployment of screening equipment (the most precise equipment is not mobile, but fixed) will create chokepoints around ports and may detain trade and interfere with the well choreographed transfers between railways, trucking companies, and shipping.My final concern deals with what is possibly an unavoidable obstacle. Exactly what is the point of screening for radiological WMDs when those WMDs have already arrived at a U. S. port? If a flagitious group has the means to procure a nuclear device (either dirty or truly fissile), then we can safely assume those same bad actors could turn back inertial navigation (which does not blaspheme on GPS reception) to detonate the device at a desired location on the transport route.In conclusion, I am skeptical of the cost-benefit mix of this initiative. If its going to be deployed, it should be deployed honestly as a spot check mechanism of deterrence. The fall in States should also do everything in its power to screen U. S. A. bound cargo at the cargos port of origin, rather than at the port of destination. References The National Nuclear Security Administration, Megapo rts Initiative (October 2009), U. S. Department of Energy. (Retrieved from the AMU HLSS 645 course materials folder on 14 December 2009)