Craig has an excellent post on the ILA, but what’s missing is a deep dive into the organization they’re negotiating with: USMX
If the ILA is “bad”, USMX is possibly worse
Who are they and why?
USMX (United States Maritime Alliance) represents shipping companies, port operators, and other maritime players along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts. Their role? To negotiate labor contracts and operational policies with dockworker unions like the ILA, ensuring smooth port operations.
But here’s where it gets tricky: despite its American identity, USMX is heavily influenced by foreign interests, including massive overseas corporations like the China-controlled COSCO Shipping.
Although USMX is supposed to represent U.S. interests, foreign-controlled companies within the alliance have significant sway over key decisions. Why? These large companies, with deeper pockets and bigger fleets, control more resources, giving them outsized influence in decision-making. Here’s how they wield their power:
1.Board Representation: Foreign shipping giants often hold significant seats on USMX’s board, shaping agendas and steering decisions.
2.Economic Clout: The financial contributions of the largest foreign ship owners give them more say in how resources are allocated within the alliance, often to suit their own interests.
3.Committees and Expertise: Employees from these companies often lead technical committees, giving them control over critical policy recommendations.
4.Strategic Coalitions: These companies form alliances with other members to drive consensus on issues that benefit them, amplifying their collective influence.
5.Information Access: With access to greater data and resources, they can craft well-founded proposals that steer USMX’s strategy.
So, while USMX negotiates with American dockworkers, foreign ship owners shape these labor negotiation policies.
When USMX prioritizes keeping trade flowing by catering to foreign interests, the U.S. risks losing control over its own critical shipping infrastructure, raising concerns for national security and long-term economic stability. /1
If the ILA is “bad”, USMX is possibly worse
Who are they and why?
USMX (United States Maritime Alliance) represents shipping companies, port operators, and other maritime players along the U.S. East and Gulf coasts. Their role? To negotiate labor contracts and operational policies with dockworker unions like the ILA, ensuring smooth port operations.
But here’s where it gets tricky: despite its American identity, USMX is heavily influenced by foreign interests, including massive overseas corporations like the China-controlled COSCO Shipping.
Although USMX is supposed to represent U.S. interests, foreign-controlled companies within the alliance have significant sway over key decisions. Why? These large companies, with deeper pockets and bigger fleets, control more resources, giving them outsized influence in decision-making. Here’s how they wield their power:
1.Board Representation: Foreign shipping giants often hold significant seats on USMX’s board, shaping agendas and steering decisions.
2.Economic Clout: The financial contributions of the largest foreign ship owners give them more say in how resources are allocated within the alliance, often to suit their own interests.
3.Committees and Expertise: Employees from these companies often lead technical committees, giving them control over critical policy recommendations.
4.Strategic Coalitions: These companies form alliances with other members to drive consensus on issues that benefit them, amplifying their collective influence.
5.Information Access: With access to greater data and resources, they can craft well-founded proposals that steer USMX’s strategy.
So, while USMX negotiates with American dockworkers, foreign ship owners shape these labor negotiation policies.
When USMX prioritizes keeping trade flowing by catering to foreign interests, the U.S. risks losing control over its own critical shipping infrastructure, raising concerns for national security and long-term economic stability. /1
That maybe ok when we are talking about a NATO ally like the Danish company @Maersk or the French @cmacgm
But China’s CCP controlled @COSCOSHIPPING has a board seat too?
How Could China Exert Influence on USMX Decisions?
1.Economic Leverage: China, as a major global trading partner, wields substantial influence by controlling the flow of goods. By offering increased cargo traffic or threatening to divert shipping routes to other countries, they can pressure USMX into making decisions that favor their interests. A promise of more business can entice USMX to align with China’s trade preferences, while the threat of reduced cargo could financially strain U.S. ports.
2.Influence Operations: Behind-the-scenes lobbying is another tactic. China can engage intermediaries or businesspeople with connections to both Chinese interests and USMX, subtly encouraging policies that align with Chinese objectives. These indirect methods create the appearance of a fair negotiation, while steering decisions toward outcomes beneficial to China’s shipping dominance.
Chain Dependence: Many U.S. industries rely heavily on Chinese manufacturing. China could highlight this dependency, reminding USMX that disruptions in their trade relationship could severely impact the supply chain. This indirect pressure encourages USMX to adopt policies that prioritize maintaining smooth trade with China, even if it compromises broader U.S. interests.
4.Leveraging International Regulations: China also works through international bodies like the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to shape global shipping standards. By pushing for regulations that align with its own shipping practices, China can exert influence on USMX to adopt similar policies. These standards may be presented as neutral but are often designed to favor Chinese shipping interests, creating further leverage in global trade negotiations.
While these tactics are subtle, they exemplify the complex web of economic and political influence in international trade, demonstrating how a foreign power like China can quietly shape U.S. maritime policies through economic and regulatory pressure.
/33.Supply
But China’s CCP controlled @COSCOSHIPPING has a board seat too?
How Could China Exert Influence on USMX Decisions?
1.Economic Leverage: China, as a major global trading partner, wields substantial influence by controlling the flow of goods. By offering increased cargo traffic or threatening to divert shipping routes to other countries, they can pressure USMX into making decisions that favor their interests. A promise of more business can entice USMX to align with China’s trade preferences, while the threat of reduced cargo could financially strain U.S. ports.
2.Influence Operations: Behind-the-scenes lobbying is another tactic. China can engage intermediaries or businesspeople with connections to both Chinese interests and USMX, subtly encouraging policies that align with Chinese objectives. These indirect methods create the appearance of a fair negotiation, while steering decisions toward outcomes beneficial to China’s shipping dominance.
Chain Dependence: Many U.S. industries rely heavily on Chinese manufacturing. China could highlight this dependency, reminding USMX that disruptions in their trade relationship could severely impact the supply chain. This indirect pressure encourages USMX to adopt policies that prioritize maintaining smooth trade with China, even if it compromises broader U.S. interests.
4.Leveraging International Regulations: China also works through international bodies like the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to shape global shipping standards. By pushing for regulations that align with its own shipping practices, China can exert influence on USMX to adopt similar policies. These standards may be presented as neutral but are often designed to favor Chinese shipping interests, creating further leverage in global trade negotiations.
While these tactics are subtle, they exemplify the complex web of economic and political influence in international trade, demonstrating how a foreign power like China can quietly shape U.S. maritime policies through economic and regulatory pressure.
/33.Supply
How China Influence could hypothetically Impact USMX’s Broader Role in U.S. National Security:
1. Strategic Supply Chain Control: By shaping USMX decisions, China can indirectly influence the U.S.’s broader supply chain infrastructure. This extends beyond port operations to critical sectors like technology and defense, where the U.S. is reliant on components manufactured in or routed through China. If USMX aligns too closely with foreign interests, this could create vulnerabilities in supply chains crucial for national security.
2. Erosion of U.S. Port Independence: Foreign influence, especially from China, can gradually undermine U.S. port autonomy. If foreign-owned companies and their allies within USMX push for policies that favor their interests, U.S. ports might become increasingly reliant on foreign directives for trade decisions. This compromises U.S. control over its own shipping networks, potentially jeopardizing both economic and strategic independence.
3. Global Geopolitical Leverage: U.S. ports are integral to the country’s global trade power. However, by subtly influencing USMX, China can limit the U.S.’s ability to exert its geopolitical influence via trade. This could extend to controlling key shipping routes or encouraging trade agreements that sideline U.S. interests in favor of Chinese dominance in the Pacific and beyond. This creates long-term strategic risks for the U.S. in maintaining its global maritime leadership.
4. Leverage over terminals and dockworkers could become a real-time throttle on the economy
By allowing foreign entities like China to indirectly shape policy within USMX, the U.S. risks losing not just economic control over its ports, but also strategic positioning in the ever-competitive global maritime landscape. /4
1. Strategic Supply Chain Control: By shaping USMX decisions, China can indirectly influence the U.S.’s broader supply chain infrastructure. This extends beyond port operations to critical sectors like technology and defense, where the U.S. is reliant on components manufactured in or routed through China. If USMX aligns too closely with foreign interests, this could create vulnerabilities in supply chains crucial for national security.
2. Erosion of U.S. Port Independence: Foreign influence, especially from China, can gradually undermine U.S. port autonomy. If foreign-owned companies and their allies within USMX push for policies that favor their interests, U.S. ports might become increasingly reliant on foreign directives for trade decisions. This compromises U.S. control over its own shipping networks, potentially jeopardizing both economic and strategic independence.
3. Global Geopolitical Leverage: U.S. ports are integral to the country’s global trade power. However, by subtly influencing USMX, China can limit the U.S.’s ability to exert its geopolitical influence via trade. This could extend to controlling key shipping routes or encouraging trade agreements that sideline U.S. interests in favor of Chinese dominance in the Pacific and beyond. This creates long-term strategic risks for the U.S. in maintaining its global maritime leadership.
4. Leverage over terminals and dockworkers could become a real-time throttle on the economy
By allowing foreign entities like China to indirectly shape policy within USMX, the U.S. risks losing not just economic control over its ports, but also strategic positioning in the ever-competitive global maritime landscape. /4
While China only directly controls one board seat in USMX through COSCO, its influence can extend beyond this single position, particularly over other major shipping companies like Maersk, CMACGM and MSC, which also hold significant sway within the alliance.
1. Global Trade Dependencies: major ship owners like Maersk and MSC rely heavily on Chinese trade, as China is one of the world’s largest exporters. The volume of goods transported from Chinese ports makes China an essential partner for these companies. As such, they may be inclined to support policies or negotiations that ensure continued smooth relations with China to safeguard their trade flows. China’s ability to impact global shipping routes or logistics hubs can create subtle pressures on these companies to align with policies that benefit Chinese interests.
2. Shared Business Interests: Maersk, MSC, and COSCO often collaborate through membership in shipping alliances and maritime NGOs. These alliances are formed to maximize shipping efficiency by sharing vessels and logistics infrastructure. Given these partnerships, there may be a level of cooperation or mutual interest that extends into USMX, where these companies might feel incentivized to support policies that benefit the broader interests of their alliance members, including COSCO.
3. Competitive Market Pressure: China’s vast shipping capacity through state-owned companies like COSCO creates intense competition in the global shipping market. For companies like Maersk and MSC, aligning with COSCO’s interests within USMX could help maintain competitive parity in the global market. If COSCO pushes for certain policies that benefit China within USMX, Maersk and MSC may feel indirect pressure to support or not oppose those policies to avoid losing competitive ground in China-dominated trade lanes.
4. Port Ownership: China, through state-owned enterprises like COSCO, owns or controls stakes in over 100 ports globally, including key hubs such as the Port of Piraeus in Greece and terminals in Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Antwerp. This extensive network gives China considerable leverage over global shipping traffic. If China were to throttle access or slow operations at these ports, it could significantly disrupt Maersk and MSC’s global shipping schedules and profitability, pressuring them to align more closely with policies that favor China within USMX.
5. Strategic Chokepoints: Control over such a vast network of ports also means China could influence critical chokepoints in global trade routes. Maersk, and MSC, both heavily dependent on the smooth functioning of these international ports, might find themselves advocating for USMX decisions that ensure continued access to these routes and ports, even if it means aligning with policies beneficial to China.
In this way, China’s potential ability to control cargo and global shipping infrastructure allows it to exert subtle pressure on other USMX board members who may prioritize maintaining smooth international operations, even at the cost of yielding influence to Chinese interests. This indirect influence shapes the decision-making within USMX, as members seek to avoid disruptions that could harm their global competitiveness.
1. Global Trade Dependencies: major ship owners like Maersk and MSC rely heavily on Chinese trade, as China is one of the world’s largest exporters. The volume of goods transported from Chinese ports makes China an essential partner for these companies. As such, they may be inclined to support policies or negotiations that ensure continued smooth relations with China to safeguard their trade flows. China’s ability to impact global shipping routes or logistics hubs can create subtle pressures on these companies to align with policies that benefit Chinese interests.
2. Shared Business Interests: Maersk, MSC, and COSCO often collaborate through membership in shipping alliances and maritime NGOs. These alliances are formed to maximize shipping efficiency by sharing vessels and logistics infrastructure. Given these partnerships, there may be a level of cooperation or mutual interest that extends into USMX, where these companies might feel incentivized to support policies that benefit the broader interests of their alliance members, including COSCO.
3. Competitive Market Pressure: China’s vast shipping capacity through state-owned companies like COSCO creates intense competition in the global shipping market. For companies like Maersk and MSC, aligning with COSCO’s interests within USMX could help maintain competitive parity in the global market. If COSCO pushes for certain policies that benefit China within USMX, Maersk and MSC may feel indirect pressure to support or not oppose those policies to avoid losing competitive ground in China-dominated trade lanes.
4. Port Ownership: China, through state-owned enterprises like COSCO, owns or controls stakes in over 100 ports globally, including key hubs such as the Port of Piraeus in Greece and terminals in Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Antwerp. This extensive network gives China considerable leverage over global shipping traffic. If China were to throttle access or slow operations at these ports, it could significantly disrupt Maersk and MSC’s global shipping schedules and profitability, pressuring them to align more closely with policies that favor China within USMX.
5. Strategic Chokepoints: Control over such a vast network of ports also means China could influence critical chokepoints in global trade routes. Maersk, and MSC, both heavily dependent on the smooth functioning of these international ports, might find themselves advocating for USMX decisions that ensure continued access to these routes and ports, even if it means aligning with policies beneficial to China.
In this way, China’s potential ability to control cargo and global shipping infrastructure allows it to exert subtle pressure on other USMX board members who may prioritize maintaining smooth international operations, even at the cost of yielding influence to Chinese interests. This indirect influence shapes the decision-making within USMX, as members seek to avoid disruptions that could harm their global competitiveness.
Another vector of possible influence over USMX extends through its development of LOGINK, a state-run digital logistics platform designed to track and manage global shipping data. LOGINK is part of China’s strategy to control the flow of global trade data, and its widespread adoption could provide China with unprecedented visibility into supply chain movements, impacting companies like Maersk and MSC.
1. Data Access and Control: If Maersk, MSC, or other shipping giants are compelled to adopt or integrate LOGINK into their operations, China would gain access to critical shipping data, allowing it to monitor and potentially influence global trade flows. This visibility could allow China to identify vulnerabilities in supply chains and apply pressure on these companies to align with its interests within USMX, knowing the extent of their dependency on certain routes or cargo volumes.
2. Traffic Prioritization: LOGINK gives China the ability to manage the prioritization of shipments at ports using the system. If China were to prioritize COSCO’s cargo over that of Maersk or MSC in key global ports, it could disrupt the schedules and profitability of these companies, pushing them to support policies within USMX that favor smoother relations with China. The threat of shipping delays at critical junctures could make Maersk and MSC more amenable to aligning with Chinese-backed policies.
By leveraging LOGINK’s control over shipping data and traffic management, China could possibly indirectly influence the decisions of other USMX members, using the digital logistics infrastructure to exert pressure on companies to align with its broader economic and strategic goals.
1. Data Access and Control: If Maersk, MSC, or other shipping giants are compelled to adopt or integrate LOGINK into their operations, China would gain access to critical shipping data, allowing it to monitor and potentially influence global trade flows. This visibility could allow China to identify vulnerabilities in supply chains and apply pressure on these companies to align with its interests within USMX, knowing the extent of their dependency on certain routes or cargo volumes.
2. Traffic Prioritization: LOGINK gives China the ability to manage the prioritization of shipments at ports using the system. If China were to prioritize COSCO’s cargo over that of Maersk or MSC in key global ports, it could disrupt the schedules and profitability of these companies, pushing them to support policies within USMX that favor smoother relations with China. The threat of shipping delays at critical junctures could make Maersk and MSC more amenable to aligning with Chinese-backed policies.
By leveraging LOGINK’s control over shipping data and traffic management, China could possibly indirectly influence the decisions of other USMX members, using the digital logistics infrastructure to exert pressure on companies to align with its broader economic and strategic goals.
But does China have the will and desire to direct control and influence US port operations?
Yes, they already have!
China has already demonstrated both the capability and willingness to exert influence over global trade systems, including port productivity, throughput, and security.
1. Past Actions: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its control over significant port infrastructure worldwide show a consistent effort to influence global shipping and trade. With ownership stakes in ports from Greece to Latin America, China has already exercised considerable power in determining how goods flow through critical hubs. For example, the Chinese-controlled Port of Piraeus in Greece has become a strategic gateway for Chinese goods entering Europe, with reports showing how COSCO has prioritized Chinese cargo over others.
2. Direct Influence on U.S. Port Security: Port Crane Control Boards: Another critical factor is the increasing use of digital control systems in port cranes. Many of these cranes, crucial for the loading and unloading of container ships, are manufactured by Chinese companies like ZPMC, which dominates the global market for port cranes. These cranes have already been equipped with sophisticated digital control boards that manage every aspect of crane operations, from cargo handling to maintenance schedules. There are concerns that China could leverage these systems for surveillance or to disrupt operations in the event of geopolitical tensions, potentially slowing down port throughput or affecting national security.
gcaptain.com/house-committe…
Yes, they already have!
China has already demonstrated both the capability and willingness to exert influence over global trade systems, including port productivity, throughput, and security.
1. Past Actions: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its control over significant port infrastructure worldwide show a consistent effort to influence global shipping and trade. With ownership stakes in ports from Greece to Latin America, China has already exercised considerable power in determining how goods flow through critical hubs. For example, the Chinese-controlled Port of Piraeus in Greece has become a strategic gateway for Chinese goods entering Europe, with reports showing how COSCO has prioritized Chinese cargo over others.
2. Direct Influence on U.S. Port Security: Port Crane Control Boards: Another critical factor is the increasing use of digital control systems in port cranes. Many of these cranes, crucial for the loading and unloading of container ships, are manufactured by Chinese companies like ZPMC, which dominates the global market for port cranes. These cranes have already been equipped with sophisticated digital control boards that manage every aspect of crane operations, from cargo handling to maintenance schedules. There are concerns that China could leverage these systems for surveillance or to disrupt operations in the event of geopolitical tensions, potentially slowing down port throughput or affecting national security.
gcaptain.com/house-committe…
Now does China want to slow down port productivity - a tax on every American - by supporting the ILA’s “no-automation” clause.
Or does it want full automation it could hack into?
It’s impossible for me to say what China’s intentions could be BUT..
Or does it want full automation it could hack into?
It’s impossible for me to say what China’s intentions could be BUT..
There could become potentially, hypothetically, a MUCH larger influence operation put in play.
What if this strike starts moving poll numbers?
Extending the strike would give Trump incredible talking points as the economy slows right before the election…
What if this strike starts moving poll numbers?
Extending the strike would give Trump incredible talking points as the economy slows right before the election…
Conversely they could potentially, hypothetically, coerce USMX to take a bad deal helping ILA union members snd giving Kamala a big win.
I don’t have definitive evidence of which candidate China supports, but I strongly suspect it’s not the one with the toughest stance on tariffs and trade restrictions.
All hypothetically of course 😉
All hypothetically of course 😉
Mafia-connected union bosses, Chinese influence operations, election meddling, shipping magnates & the big money behind them… yep, I said too much!
Pretty sure @MikeBenzCyber is next in line, but if you don’t hear from me soon, please start a GoFundMe for my kids.
Pretty sure @MikeBenzCyber is next in line, but if you don’t hear from me soon, please start a GoFundMe for my kids.
@MikeBenzCyber @threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
