Comments on: The urgent need to protect the global supply chain Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: BennieB Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:43:09 +0000 Global Supply Chain Security sounds very promising but it takes time to develop and implement. I think there should be something private sector can do to help government now. Security is traditionally the integral part of supply chain risk management. In order to enhance the level of security of global supply chain, private sector should know how to identify each type of risk.

According to this paper actical-supply-chain-risk-management.htm l there are some types of risks that have direct impact on global security. Human Resource risk is the first example. We should conduct HR audit at overseas facilities to ensure that suppliers and their employees don’t have any link with terrorist groups. Distribution risk should be monitored to ensure that cargoes will be transported through proper route with sound security measure. Most manufacturing companies transmit a lot of data to trading partners overseas so IT risk should be monitored to make sure that terrorist groups can’t intercept valuable data.

By: goatdancer Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:58:22 +0000 I have just returned from China where I saw stores selling garments manufactured in Morocco, Bulgaria and Italy for the Spanish retailer Zara; I saw mineral water imported from France on sale in Carrefour´s Chinese supermarkets and Indian curry sauces produced in England, as well as a huge variety of other western foods, on sale. This trade is not simply a result of globalisation, but a consequence of the shipping containers returning empty from Europe and the U.S such that shipping costs to Asia are negligible.

Clearly this trade is unsustainable in the long run. When surplus shipping capacity is eliminated, by bankruptcy or merger, and transport costs revert to the mean this business will cease to be profitable and jobs in the west will evaporate overnight. What will be the reaction of the DHS to this threat to U.S. Economic prosperity? Its commitment to defend what is transitory makes conflict inevitable.

By: Bezukhov Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:24:16 +0000 All your world are belong to us

Ha Ha ha…

By: WannaBeGeekster Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:34:55 +0000 If China went to war with the United State then the people in China would revolt. Their factories would cease to function. Yes, China supplies most of the world with goods, but a large majority of those goods come to the United States. There is so much involved in the delicate balance of the global economic politics stage to worry about war. If there is a war then it will be mostly staged and trade will still continue with China in my opinion.

Just look at what Newt said at one of the debates. He firmly believes that some attacks should be allowed to happen to remind people in the US of how important security is to them. What a farce. So the taxpayers need to pay for all this bureaucratic nightmare, and attacks need to be let through so we can be reminded of why we are paying all this tax money for these out of control agencies.

By: SecManSys Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:26:39 +0000 The world needs secure supply chains. Counterfeiting, smuggling, theft, corruption, contamination and terrorism all present very real risks to the stability of global trade and, in turn, the well-being of the wider communities that we all live and work in.

Many customs departments are heavily focused on the prevention of terrorism, which in today’s society warrants attention, but it is very rare for commercial and business issues to be brought into this equation. Admittedly, the 9/11, London, Madrid and other global terrorism focus did not specifically target the average ‘supply chain’ operator but businesses where still affected in some way or other. The fact that in the past customs barely discuss the security issues that affect the international trading community shows the gulf between the supply chain security objectives of governments and the actual everyday commercial needs of businesses.

The prescriptive manner in which DHS specifies a list of requirements, irrespective of the nature or scale of the “business” is a narrow minded approach to a very broad topic.

Businesses that correctly and accurately apply security risk management to their business operations by default are contributing to their responsibilities for supply chain security. The security of the business operations may or may not include some of the DHS security criteria, but when is a secure business not a secure trader.
CBP obviously do not trust businesses to secure their own business operations, otherwise they would not be utilising a checklist approach to security.

The logical approach is security risk management, but when it comes to the application of risk management to security, the US government is lagging behind the rest of the world in their understanding and application of “risk”, hence the precriptive checklist used in C-TPAT.

By: 99percentme Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:05:23 +0000 This is just another bailout for large U.S. Multi-nationals who, for the past 30 years have abandoned America in favor of foreign countries where they enjoy lower labor costs, and pay little or nothing in U.S. taxes. It is not enough that we taxpayers are paying for 1000 military bases around the world to protect these companies. Now Ms. Napolitano is spearheading an effort to spend more taxpayer money on still more extraordinary efforts to protect the profits of those large corporations which have abandoned America – except when they want a handout from the government.

I say let them fend for themselves in protecting THEIR supply chain. There is no longer any benefit which accrues to the average taxpayer from having large multinationals domiciled here. In fact, many, like Transocean have packed their bags and reside in Switzerland. They give us few jobs, pay little in taxes, get subsidies from their cronies in the government, and send us overpriced products produced in foreign lands (e.g. Apple) and now we are going to protect THEIR supply chain. Things get more bizarre in the U.S. by the month.

Large companies are posting record profits from all these machinations; they can afford to protect themselves. Apple sits on $100 Billion dollars in cash, and now taxpayers will help them out by placing Homeland Security on flights from China to protect all those I-Phones that are so vital to our National Interests. And if the terror alerts increase, the military will even likely protect these IPhone shipments via war plane escorts, as well as drones flying over the factories in China.

The people who come up with these ideas have too much time and money on hand. The fact is, that most of these interruptions have been due to Floods, Earthquakes, Nuclear meltdowns and the like. It is typical of government to whip up a frenzy over terrorism, when the real problem is natural disasters from global warming, fracking, etc. This shapes up as another boondoggle like invading Iraq, after a bunch of Saudi’s took down the World Trade Center. In any case, I am going to watch with interest as Ms. Napolitano and her colleagues take on Wind, Fire, and Flood in order to protect our Christmas shopping next year, from disasters which even the Almighty has failed to banish from this earth.

By: nose2066 Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:45:01 +0000 I guess if the U.S. goes to war with China, then the government will have to figure out how to re-fill all the empty shelves at the local Walmart (and just about every other store).

By: paintcan Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:00:52 +0000 Ten years ago I first heard of such a thing as the “Homeland” that must be secure at all costs. It took the next decade to hear of the “global supply chain”.

It’s sickening. This woman has no integrity at all and neither have the last two administrations.

By: OlliGo Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:48:24 +0000 Now that just pisses me off thinking ‘one-world’ is our solution. Because so far its been the cause of the largest economic meltdown in human history. We need more imports to fill our department stores?… because 80% ‘Made in China hasn’t a problem to America’s labor?

We hear protectionism doesn’t work…and refuse to tweak or fix it (how about THAT approach with Wall Street or the banks, eh?).

Protectionism means jobs and since India’s strong protectionism and social policies left it largely unscathed in the meltdown…. where really is the lady coming from! One role of government is protection… and national identity. Of course one-world seeks to eliminate and scoff all profits and power.

Corporate imperialism is what capitalism unhindered morphs into… and I’m thinking socialism is so much a better option for democrats in this climate… its ust more democratic…cuz… really how much democratic voice is there when corporates own media, government and then takes OUR money, hides theirs and claims their government handouts and tax deductions while sending OUR jobs overseas!!!

Yeah, WE need to protect those processes. WE pay tax dollars for a military might to protect corporates… weren’t we already brainwashed to get government ‘out of the way’. Oh, you wait, that was only OUR government protection (food, safety regulations, social programs), not seriously meaning the big guys, they still want to get free rides to bulging profits off a humble and compliant government doing its bidding, including clearing the world’s opposition to its right to trade. Really, this is too much. You can have back my cheap, disposable imports clogging dump site.

By: Gordon2352 Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:50:04 +0000 Your analysis is naive and simplistic at best.

Ignoring the realities of global trade, in which we are NOT “one big happy family” all seeking the same goal is what what is into this mess in the first place, and an impassioned plea for global cooperation at this point isn’t going to protect the US — which should really be (but obviously isn’t) the only country that matters to us — from those who would do us harm.

The ugly truth is we are wide open to any group or nation that cares to injure us in any way they want, at any time they want, and it is our own fault due to our greed and stupidity.