Posted:
April 16, 2012
AMO National President Tom Bethel sent the following comments to the Washington Post in response to the newspaper's recent editorial questioning reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The editorial was critical of the U.S.-flag cargo preference requirement that applies to products generated through Ex-Im Bank.
Your recommendation that Congressional "reform" of the Export-Import Bank of the United States begin with repeal of the requirement that Ex-Im cargoes be delivered exclusively in U.S.-flagged merchant ships overlooked the legitimate and lasting national security rationale for this cargo preference mandate ("Impasse over the Ex-Im," April 9).
Like Ex-Im itself, this specific U.S.-flag shipping requirement has been in place since 1934, and it has served our nation well by helping to sustain the privately owned and operated U.S. merchant fleet as the traditional first source of suitable ships and qualified, dependable U.S. citizen seafarers for strategic sealift and other military support services in defense emergencies. Many of your readers would likely be surprised to learn that civilian-crewed U.S. merchant ships - including vessels that carry Ex-Im cargoes - delivered 90 percent of the tanks, vehicles, heavy equipment, ammunition and supplies used by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.
Like Ex-Im, which by your own acknowledgment returned "$1.9 billion in fees and interest to the Treasury in the past five years," U.S.-flag cargo preference requirements across the board provide significant economic advantage - the Department of Defense would have to spend at least $13 billion in 2006 dollars to build or buy the sealift capacity represented by the active U.S. merchant fleet in international trade and another $52 billion to match the worldwide intermodal and logistics support systems made available routinely to DOD by U.S. merchant ship operating companies.
For an accurate, more appropriate example of "protectionist" maritime policy, look no further than China's recent announcement that it will provide $20 billion in new financing to help its state-owned shipping companies compete even more aggressively for commercial cargoes on the high seas - including U.S. imports and exports financed privately. The possibility that the U.S. will "disarm unilaterally" on export financing is disturbing enough, but the prospects of diminished U.S. sealift capability and even greater control of the world's sea lanes by China are downright frightening.
Bethel responds to Washington Post on Ex-Im Bank cargo preference
AMO National President Tom Bethel sent the following comments to the Washington Post in response to the newspaper's recent editorial questioning reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The editorial was critical of the U.S.-flag cargo preference requirement that applies to products generated through Ex-Im Bank.
Your recommendation that Congressional "reform" of the Export-Import Bank of the United States begin with repeal of the requirement that Ex-Im cargoes be delivered exclusively in U.S.-flagged merchant ships overlooked the legitimate and lasting national security rationale for this cargo preference mandate ("Impasse over the Ex-Im," April 9).
Like Ex-Im itself, this specific U.S.-flag shipping requirement has been in place since 1934, and it has served our nation well by helping to sustain the privately owned and operated U.S. merchant fleet as the traditional first source of suitable ships and qualified, dependable U.S. citizen seafarers for strategic sealift and other military support services in defense emergencies. Many of your readers would likely be surprised to learn that civilian-crewed U.S. merchant ships - including vessels that carry Ex-Im cargoes - delivered 90 percent of the tanks, vehicles, heavy equipment, ammunition and supplies used by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.
Like Ex-Im, which by your own acknowledgment returned "$1.9 billion in fees and interest to the Treasury in the past five years," U.S.-flag cargo preference requirements across the board provide significant economic advantage - the Department of Defense would have to spend at least $13 billion in 2006 dollars to build or buy the sealift capacity represented by the active U.S. merchant fleet in international trade and another $52 billion to match the worldwide intermodal and logistics support systems made available routinely to DOD by U.S. merchant ship operating companies.
For an accurate, more appropriate example of "protectionist" maritime policy, look no further than China's recent announcement that it will provide $20 billion in new financing to help its state-owned shipping companies compete even more aggressively for commercial cargoes on the high seas - including U.S. imports and exports financed privately. The possibility that the U.S. will "disarm unilaterally" on export financing is disturbing enough, but the prospects of diminished U.S. sealift capability and even greater control of the world's sea lanes by China are downright frightening.