Ensuring port security

When Dubai Port World (a state-owned undertaking) bought the British firm P&O, which operates facilities at six ports in the US, there was a hue and cry in the US over security. Similarly, India has tried to block Chinese investment in Indian ports, Chinese firms supplying telecom equipment, and so on. This includes blocking bids by Hutchison for building container terminals in Mumbai and Chennai. Now, two Chinese companies seeking to build a container terminal at Vizhinjam, in Left Front-ruled Kerala, face the same problem. However, the CPI(M), which normally opposes foreign investment in industries as varied as insurance and retailing, all of which have no security issues, is opportunistic enough to support foreign investment in Kerala's ports. Perhaps the fact that it is Chinese and not American companies that are involved may be a factor.

This presents an opportunity to address security concerns rationally, without getting tied up in undiplomatic knots about desirable and undesirable countries. The security agencies should be urged to devise procedures that are nationality-blind, so that India can welcome whatever foreign elements it wants, whether it is firms, money or just CEOs. Security concerns in areas like ports and airports, especially, need to be addressed and not dismissed. The answer when it comes to shipping and ports might lie in the US-sponsored Container Security Initiative, or CSI.

At the heart of the issue is the humble container, which has revolutionised global shipping by reducing both time and cost""and thus made globalisation possible. Each container carries roughly 55 cubic metres of cargo, and can be transported in a month between any two places in the world. Container traffic became mainstream only in the 1960s, and led to a dramatic drop in the cost of shipping goods. Now the overwhelming bulk of shipping is done using containers. The defining moment for any company that plugs into globalisation, is when it is getting and sending containers.

There are two catches in this happy story. The first is the lack of access to container ports, which afflicts most locations. The second is the threat of terrorists using container networks. A nuclear bomb, a terrorist, or a refrigerated lab carrying bio-warfare materials, can slip into the Jawaharlal Nehru Port inside a container. The focus of a container port is speedy processing of cargo. Careful security inspections would drive up cost and increase delays. In both ways, the terrorist increases friction involved in of moving goods, and thus achieves the core purpose of derailing globalisation.

The US has built the CSI system in response to this problem. The CSI involves four elements: identification of high-risk containers, pre-screening of containers early in the supply chain, use of high technology to do rapid screening, and tamper-proof containers. Containers from a CSI-enabled port get rapid processing at other CSI-enabled ports around the world. As of March this year, 16 ports in Asia were participating in the CSI. None of these were in India. This is a mistake from two points of view. Indian ports need to be in CSI to speed up the processing of the containers that go out. And equally, India faces security risks from bands like the Al Qaeda; the CSI can be harnessed to increase the country's safety. After that, which company manages a terminal at a port will become less of an issue.