http://www.augustreview.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=printpub&tid=4&pid=12
Globalization: The Final Demise of National Security
By Patrick Wood on March 24, 2006
Volume 6, Issue 3
Introduction
Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the global elitist Trilateral
Commission in 1973 and the principal architect of modern globalization,
recently wrote in 2004,
"The notion of total national security is now a myth. Total security
and total defense in the age of globalization are not attainable. The real
issue is: with how much insecurity can America live while promoting its
interests in an increasingly interactive, interdependent world?"1
The original Trilateral Commission policy of national insecurity has
now come full circle.
The U.S. Department of Commerce white paper, Maritime Security and
Beyond, tells us what is at stake in our maritime security policies:
"America's coasts, rivers, bridges, tunnels, ports, ships, military
bases, and waterside industries may be the terrorists' next targets. The
overall risk associated with the vulnerability of the U.S. maritime assets,
both as a potential target for terrorist activity and more importantly as a
transportation platform for the introduction of a "Trojan Horse," in which a
potential weapon of mass destruction (WMD), terrorist, contraband or illegal
aliens, enters the U.S. through its seaports, has been made very clear in
the last several years. A catastrophic event at a seaport facility would not
only affect the global transport infrastructure, but could also result in
global economic devastation for a long period of time." [emphasis added]2
The issue of national security is of huge importance to all Americans.
There are only three ways to enter the U.S. -- by land, sea or air. While
globalist politicians have done little, if anything, to secure land borders
with Canada and Mexico, it is now apparent that they will do little or
nothing to improve our maritime security as well. In fact, they seem to be
intent on dismantling what little security remains.
Maritime security in the U.S. is run by the Maritime Administration
(MARAD), which sits directly under the Secretary of Transportation, Norman
Mineta.
The mission statement of MARAD is
To strengthen the U.S. maritime transportation system - including
infrastructure, industry and labor - to meet the economic and security needs
of the Nation. MARAD programs promote the development and maintenance of an
adequate, well-balanced United States merchant marine, sufficient to carry
the Nation's domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its
waterborne foreign commerce, and capable of service as a naval and military
auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD also seeks to ensure
that the United States maintains adequate shipbuilding and repair services,
efficient ports, effective intermodal water and land transportation systems,
and reserve shipping capacity for use in time of national emergency.3
Whether they know it or not, Americans rely on MARAD to protect its
shores from any kind of maritime-related security risk. Yet, on January 24,
2006, President George W. Bush appointed Dave Sanborn to head MARAD.
Who is Dave Sanborn? He was most recently a senior executive for Dubai
Ports World (DP World, Director of Operations for Europe and Latin America),
the same United Arab Emarites company that caused a firestorm in American
politics just a few weeks later when the U.S. public found out about the
Arab takeover of 6 U.S. ports.
What kind of disturbing pattern is emerging that would allow a former
employee of DP World to be picked to head MARAD... at virtually the same
time that DP World seeks to take control over the majority of east coast
shipping facilities?
This issue will explore globalization as it relates to national
security, or the lack thereof, with a focus on maritime security. It will be
shown that the modern degradation of national maritime security started with
President James Earl Carter (an original member of the Trilateral Commission
and hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Zbigniew Brzezinski) with the
1977 giveaway of the Panama Canal, which was the most strategic maritime
asset that America ever owned. Further, it will be shown that the same
global elite are riding the money-go-round with several Arab states,
including the United Arab Emarites who are members of the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) that was founded by Saudi Arabia in 1981.
It was the same Zbigniew Brzezinski who wrote in 1972 that the
"nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has
ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and
multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in
advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." [emphasis added] 4
The more things change, the more they remain the same!
The Panama Canal Giveaway
Since its official opening on August 15, 1914, the Panama Canal
connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by traversing the isthmus of Panama
in Central America. The Canal was built exclusively by the United States
after acquiring the land with the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty of 1903.
Each year, some 14,000 ships (military and commercial) transport well
over 250 million tons of cargo. The distance from San Francisco to New York
via the Canal is one-half the distance using the Cape Horn route at the tip
of South America. To say the least, the Panama Canal has long been
recognized by every trade and military authority in the world as an
incredibly important and strategic waterway.
The Panama Canal was summarily given away to a communist dictator by
President James Earl Carter.
It must be remembered that the Carter presidency was the first to be
dominated by members of the Trilateral Commission. Not only had Carter
himself been hand-picked by Zbigniew Brzezinski to be groomed for the
presidency, but when elected, he brought almost one-third of the U.S.
membership into high-level positions in his Administration.
Beginning in 1974, it had become apparent to certain international
banks that well over $2 billion in loans previously made to Panama were in
jeopardy of defaulting. There was no economic solution, so focus changed to
the political arena. A plan was devised to turn over the Panama Canal to
Panama, thus allowing Panama to pocket the income stream generated from
passage fees, and hence to service its debt payments to the international
banks. Never mind that the Panama Canal was sovereign U.S. property and the
most strategic military and economic asset held by the U.S. in the
hemisphere. Never mind that Omar Torrijos was a Marxist dictator who
ascended to power not by democratic election but by military coup.
Because sovereign U.S. property cannot be ceded to any foreign power
without a 2/3 full vote of the Senate and the House, a scheme was hatched to
transfer the property by treaty negotiated by the Executive Branch. The
treaty ultimately became known as the Carter-Torrijos Treaty. (Note: Space
limits discussion of the Carter Administration's flagrant disregard for the
U.S. Constitution in this matter.)
Congressman Robert Dornan (R-CA) saw through this scheme and testified
bluntly before Congress:
The Torrijos dictatorship is up to its ears in debt to banks. The
debt of the Torrijos regime has not reached such proportions that 39 percent
of the Panama GNP -- repeat, 39 percent -- goes to debt servicing alone.
This might not cause the extreme consternation in the banking circles that
it does if it were a debt owed by a stable government. But the Torrijos
regime is far from stable.
The dictator was nearly ousted a few years ago by an abortive coup
and there are few wagers on his staying in power long if the treaties are
rejected by the Senate. And if he is not in power, the banks do not have
much chance of getting their money.
"Some members of Congress and Americans are aware of the conflict of
interests involved in some of the bank's support of the Panamanian treaties.
They are aware of the Marine Midland connection through negotiator Sol
Linowitz. But there are many other banks whose endorsement of the giveaway
of the canal may be motivated by monetary interests. Unlike Marine Midland,
they have been able to keep a lower profile. They are not generally known to
be a part of the banking group with a lucrative stake in the ratification of
the treaties.5
Dornan published a list of banks participating in the Torrijos debt.
This writer, along with Antony C. Sutton, examined the list of banks
(thirty-one for one loan and fourteen for another loan), and traced the
Trilateral Commission links to these participating banks. The results were
astounding.
Given that there were only a total of three hundred members of the
Trilateral Commission worldwide with less than 100 from North America,
consider the following:
1.. No fewer than thirty-two Trilaterals were on the boards of the
thirty-one banks participating in the Panamanian $115 million 10-year
Eurodollar loan issued in 1972
2.. Fifteen Trilaterals were on the boards of fourteen banks
participating in the $20 million floating rate promissory note issued in
1972.6
Carter chose a fellow Trilateral Commission member, Sol Linowitz, to
negotiate the Carter-Torrijos treaty. In order to avoid the normal Senate
confirmation process (which would have certainly failed) Linowitz was
appointed as a "temporary Ambassador."
The Linowitz conflict of interest was astounding. Linowitz was a
director of Marine Midland Bank that stood to lose a bundle if Panama
defaulted on its loans. Marine Midland was also the sole agent of the
Panamanian government for its own banking relations with the U.S. Not
surprisingly, because Linowitz was also a director of Time Magazine,
editorial articles appeared in favor of the giveaway.
Despite the fact that 76 percent of Americans opposed the giveaway of
the Panama Canal, the U.S. Senate narrowly ratified the Carter-Torrijos
Treaty on April 18, 1978, which promised complete turnover of the Canal on
December 31, 1999.
Twenty-one years later in 1999, President William Jefferson Clinton,
also a member of the Trilateral Commission, oversaw the completion of the
treaty by presiding over the actual transfer of title to Panama. While
Panama had originally promised to protect America's security and strategic
interest in the Canal, it proceeded in the exact opposite direction by
signing long-term port management contracts with a Chinese company,
Hutchinson Whampoa of Hong Kong. As a result, both ends of the Panama Canal
are now controlled by a company closely aligned with, and partially owned
by, the communist Chinese government.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a great American patriot and former chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974, had strongly protested
President Carter's Panama policy in 1977. In 1999, Admiral Moorer again
spoke out with perfect clarity:
"In 1996, while China was illegally pouring millions of dollars into
Clinton's re-election effort, it was also funneling huge amounts of cash to
Panamanian politicians to ensure that one of its front companies, Hutchinson
Whampoa of Hong Kong, could move in when we vacate. In 1997, Panama secretly
turned over the American-built port facility at Balboa, which controls
shipping on the Pacific side, and at Cristobal, which controls shipping on
the Atlantic side, to Hutchinson. Over the next several months we are
scheduled to turn over Rodman Naval Station, Howard Air Force Base, and
other important military facilities to Panama, which has given Hutchison an
option on these bases.
"This means that very soon we could see Communist China in control
of one of the world's most strategic waterways in our own backyard.
President Clinton may say that they are our friends and allies, but the
Chinese military and Communist Party literature refer to the United States
as "the main enemy." And despite what President Clinton, Henry Kissinger,
and the media may tell you about "reform" in China, it is still run by a
brutal, totalitarian, Communist regime that will do us harm if and when it
thinks it can get the better of us." 7
[Editor's note: One may better understand Clinton's "Chinagate"
political contribution scandal, when one understands that the object of that
illegal lobby effort may well have been to allow Communist China to take
full control of the Panama Canal.]
Despite the protests, the treaty was completed as planned on December
31, 1999, and control over the canal was handed over to the Panama Canal
Authority, which in turn handed over operational control to Hutchison
Whampoa.
The end of the matter is that a sovereign asset of the United States
was subverted for private gain; national security was of no concern
whatsoever.
West Coast Maritime Security
There are two Chinese shipping companies operating in the United
States: China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) and China Shipping Group (CSG).
China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) is the largest container shipping
company in the world, operating more than 540 ships and accounting for
four-fifths of China's international fleet. Prior to its first public
offering of stock in 2005, COSCO was completely owned by the Peoples
Republic of China, where it continues even now as the PRC's merchant marine.
In the U.S., Seattle-based SSA Marine and COSCO have had an exclusive
25-year business relationship: SSA Marine has handled every COSCO container
in every port on the West Coast, totaling some 7.7 million containers.
SSA Marine (previously known as Stevedoring Services of America) is a
subsidiary of Carrix Corporation, with 2005 revenues easily in excess of
$1.2 billion. Carrix is a privately owned multinational corporation whose
business revenue is growing at a rate of about 18 percent per year. Carrix
also owns Tideworks Technology and Rail Management Service (RMS), the
world's largest rail yard operator with 45 facilities in 23 states.
SSA Marine obviously has a preferential relationship with China. In
addition to its exclusive relationship with COSCO, it is currently investing
$350 million to double the size of its terminal facility at the eastern end
of the Panama Canal (operated by Hutchinson Whampoa), serving as a
transshipment center for cargo between ships moving up the coast and those
moving through the canal.
In 1996, COSCO attempted to lease a huge 130 acre terminal which had
been converted from the abandoned Long Beach Naval Station. According to the
Heritage Foundation,
"Long Beach is located in the heart California's military-industrial
complex, and the port itself is a prime location where the Chinese military
could intercept communications, which would allow them to track military
exercises and deployment. COSCO, which is owned in part by the Chinese
People's Liberation Army, is a less than ideal candidate for the port's
lease. In March 1996, U.S. customs agents seized 2,000 AK47 assault rifles,
bound for U.S. street gangs, that were on board a COSCO ship. With this in
mind, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 1998 (P.L.
105-85), effectively banning COSCO from renting any portion of the former
Long Beach Naval Station." 8
This did not hinder COSCO from expanding its facilities in Los Angeles
and Oakland.
COSCO also operates an intermodal network (see map) in North America
through a subsidiary and with the help of Carrix Corporation. The network
facilitates "door-to-door" delivery of goods arriving from China.
The second Chinese shipping company mentioned above is the China
Shipping Group (CSG). This company was formed in 1997 and is also owned by
the Chinese government. It currently has routes spanning the globe, serviced
by 118 modern container vessels. CSG maintains offices in Long Beach,
Seattle, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Seacaucus, Savannah and
Jacksonville, which roughly parallels the COSCO network described above.
Although COSCO and CSG make ample use of U.S. facilities to further
their own goals here, it would be completely unthinkable in China for the
U.S. to attempt similar operations on Chinese soil.
Under normal trade operations, the global elite argue that there is no
security risk to the United States in allowing Chinese government-owned
businesses to maintain and operate shipping and intermodal facilities in the
U.S. Such an argument is ludicrous when one considers that China is still a
sworn enemy of the United States, and has a long and sordid history of
espionage. In the event of an eventual conflict with China, it could
immediately bring the U.S. to its knees by closing the Panama Canal and
invoking a trade embargo with its vast network of ships. If that were not
enough, they will have had ample time to directly deliver any amount of
clandestine material (weapons, explosives, nuclear devices) to locations
throughout the country.
NAFTA and NASCO
Thanks to the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the
United States is being drawn into a hemispheric perimeter that includes
Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.
NAFTA is a purely Trilateral Commission invention. On December 17,
1992, President George H.W. Bush and his U.S. Trade Representative Carla A.
Hills, initialed the NAFTA documents in a ceremony that included Mexican
President Salinas Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney. Both Bush and Hills are
members of the Trilateral Commission.
In fact, Carla Hills is widely credited as being the primary architect
and negotiator of NAFTA. Who is Carla Hills? Among other things, she is...
a.. founder, chairman and CEO of Hills & Company, an international
consultantcy specializing in global trade
b.. former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
c.. co-founder of the Forum for International Policy
d.. member of the boards of Time Warner and American International
Group
e.. vice-chair of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
f.. vice-chair of the U.S.-China Business Council
g.. trustee (and member) of the Council on Foreign Relations
h.. trustee of the Institute of International Economics
i.. member of the Board of the Asia Society
j.. member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission.
Not surprisingly, in 2000 Hills was awarded the Aztec Eagle by Mexico,
the highest honor given by the Mexican government to a non-citizen.
In short, Carla A. Hills is at the white-hot core of the global elite,
and one of its key operatives in globalizing the world.
Having said this, one can understand how the North American
SuperCorridor Coalition, Inc. (NASCO) subsequently sprung up and declared
itself to be "NAFTA's trade supercorridor" from Mexico to Canada. Note in
the accompanying map from NASCO's web site that the supercorridor begins in
Mexico and ends in Canada, with a U.S. route starting at Laredo, Texas and
proceeding to Kansas City, MO. According to NASCO's web site,
"The NASCO Corridor encompasses Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94,
and the significant connectors to those highways in the United States,
Canada and Mexico. The Corridor directly impacts the continental trade flow
of North America. Membership includes public and private sector entities
along the Corridor in Canada, the United States and Mexico."
The corridor concept is to offload intemodal container freight in
Manzanillo, Mexico. Manzanillo is one of the largest deep-water ports on the
western side of North America, rivaling Long Beach and Los Angeles.
Containers will then be loaded on trains and trucks, given a special
electronic clearance, and then transported directly to Kansas City (an
"inland port" in this scheme of things) where the freight will go through a
customs procedure prior to being redistributed to other destinations. This
freight traffic will bypass Mexican and U.S. customs check areas at Laredo.
Ultimately, container traffic will bypass border check points in all
directions. Canadian containers can proceed from Canada directly to the
Manzanillo port for shipping, thus skirting U.S. or Mexican border
requirements.
Building the supercorridor has already begun in earnest, with major
expansion of Interstate 35 in the U.S. and major new truck and rail
facilities in Kansas City and points in between. Untold billions of dollars
are being poured into building up this infrastructure so that tens of
thousands of containers can freely flow from ship to shore and back again.
There are assurances from everyone involved, as with the DP World
takeover of 21 east coast ports, that security is of prime importance, and
that sophisticated new technology will be implemented to prevent unwanted
terrorist activities. What they apparently don't want to understand is that
people with evil intent don't play by their rules.
Although NAFTA and NASCO have a North American context, the real
moneylust lies in trade with Asia, and in particular, with China. It has
already been noted that China (via COSCO and CSG) have attempted to gain a
major foothold in container port facilities on the west coast of the U.S.
Also noted is that Hutchinson Whampoa controls the eastern and western ports
of the Panama Canal. All three of these companies share major ownership with
the People's Republic of China, a communist dictatorship who is a sworn
enemy of the United States.
The main observation here is that Hutchison Whampoa, as in Panama, is
also the principal port operator at Manzanillo, Mexico, and is currently
pouring billions into its further development. By allowing Hutchinson
Whampoa to take over the Manzanillo port, Mexico has clearly aligned itself
with the global elite, and against national security interests of the United
States.
The bottom line is that tens of thousands of shipping containers will
be expressed through Mexico into the heartland of the United States with no
more that 2-5% being checked to determine if declared cargo is the actual
cargo. Once again, trade triumphs over national security.
There is much more that will be said about NAFTA, NACSO, regionalism,
etc., in future articles. Our purpose here is to discuss national security
and to demonstrate that the dismantling of U.S. national security is a
decisive policy set in motion by members of the Trilateral Commission.
East Coast Maritime Security
On February 11, 2006, a U.S. Treasury department committee issued its
approval for a United Arab Emirates (UAE) company, Dubai Ports World (DP
World), to take over the operational management of six major American
commercial ports and two U.S. military ports. After minimal investigation,
it was later determined that the total count for takeover was 21 ports,
split between eastern and gulf cost states. The ports in question were
formerly managed by the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company ("P&O"), which had just been acquired by DP World.
President George Bush and his cabinet members vehemently endorsed and
defended the takeover. Most Americans and many of their respective elected
officials wondered if the Executive Branch had completely lost its marbles.
The compelling negative aspects of this potential security collapse
being reported are that the UAE...
a.. provided citizenship to two of the hijackers in the 9-11 attack
on America
b.. has been a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear
components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya
c.. was one of only three nations that had recognized the Taliban as
Afghanistan's legitimate government
d.. is an Islamic state closely aligned with Saudi Arabia, the
center of the radical Wahabi school of Islam that has fomented terrorism
world-wide.
When threatened with legislation to block the takeover by DP World,
President Bush pledged to veto any such legislation because the security
implications of the deal were "rigorously reviewed" (in a secret,
closed-door Treasury Department committee meeting) and that the decision
"was final." According to Reuters, Bush told reporters during a Cabinet
meeting, "This wouldn't be going forward if we were not certain that our
ports would be secure."
How does this reconcile with Bush's post-9-11 "War on Terror"
declaration? Is this some Machiavellian dialectic that pits opposite and
mutually exclusive concepts against each other?
The August Review's credo is to "Follow the money, follow the power."
With that in mind, the mystery is more easily unraveled.
The proposed DP World management of U.S. ports was approved by CFIUS
(Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States), which is organized
under the Department of the Treasury. CFIUS administers Section 5021 of the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the "Exon-Florio" provision)
which gives the President power to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S.
corporation if he finds:
1.. there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising
control might take action that threatens national security, and
2.. the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to
protect the national security.9
The CFIUS committee membership is hardly made up of second-rate
government staffers. Its twelve members include:
a.. John W. Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman
b.. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy
c.. Stephen Hadley, Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs
d.. Stephen Friedman, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
(TC)
e.. Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security
f.. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
g.. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (CFR)
h.. Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce
i.. Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General
j.. Joshua Bolten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget
k.. Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative
l.. N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
John W. Snow was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by President Bush
on January 13, 2003. It is not insignificant that he was previously CEO of
CSX Corporation, a global shipping and intermodal company.
On December 9, 2004, DP World issued a press release stating that it
acquired CSX World Terminals (a major subsidiary of CSX Corporation) and
other related interests for $1.15 billion.10
David Sanborn, appointed to head the Maritime Administration, worked
for John Snow while at CSX. Sanborn became a DP World employee as a result
of its acquisition of CSX World Terminals.
Snow claimed he had no knowledge of the CSX sale, and that he heard
about it in the newspapers like everybody else. Bush claims he had no
knowledge of the DP World takeover of P&O, even though over half of his
Cabinet sit on the committee that approved it. In light of the complicated
tryst between Treasury, DP World, CSX, and David Sanborn, it is not too
likely that anyone was in the dark about the pending DP World takeover of 21
U.S. ports.
United Arab Emirates: Home of Dubai Ports World
One place in the world where it can be said "the buck stops here" is
in the UAE. Put another way, if the world was a money funnel into which the
global elite pour their billions of quarterly profits, then the bottom of
that funnel empties out on the UAE and a few other countries who are members
of the powerful Gulf Cooperation Council.
The GCC was founded by Saudi Arabia in 1981. Other members of the GCC
include Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar.
Most Americans cannot fathom the economic prosperity in the GCC
countries in the mid-east because of the constant barrage of news on
war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent years, the massive infusion of
fresh capital from all over the world is funding the building of cities out
of the desert sand. Huge construction cranes are seen in every direction,
each one building the next latest and greatest skyscraper. [Note: See
Additional Resources below for more images of the UAE and Dubai.]
The corporate interests of virtually every global elite are heavily
represented throughout the GCC. Huge deals are sealed in closed meetings.
Secrecy is a standard business practice. Regulations of any kind are
minimal. Restraint is unnecessary.
These cities are being built with the latest technology and materials.
They are "wired" with the latest Internet and computer technology. It's
becoming a destination of choice for regional corporate headquarters.
If you are an "anybody" in the global corporate world, you lust to
have your own suite of offices and supporting condominiums. This is a place
where money meets ambition, greed and avarice.
For instance, consider the Dubai International Financial Centre
(DIFC): :
"The DIFC is an onshore capital market designated as a financial
free zone designed to create a unique financial services cluster economy for
wealth creation initiatives. It is established as part of the larger vision
of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and
Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, and the Government of Dubai to
create an environment for growth, progress and economic development in the
UAE and the wider region. Integrity, transparency and efficiency are the
guiding principles of the DIFC.
"There are six primary sectors of focus within the DIFC: Banking
Services (Investment Banking, Corporate Banking & Private Banking); Capital
Markets (Equity, Debt Instruments, Derivatives & Commodity Trading); Asset
Management & Fund Registration (Fund Registration, Fund Administration &
Fund Management); Reinsurance; Islamic Finance and Back Office Operations.
"Licence applications are being considered from financial
institutions in the above sectors. Each of these units will offer benefits
such as zero tax rate on income and profits, 100 per cent foreign ownership,
no restrictions on foreign exchange or capital/profit repatriation,
operational support and business continuity facilities. [Emphasis added]11
It's no surprise that Morgan Stanley applied for and received a
license from the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) to operate within
the DIFC. According to Dr. Georges Makhoul, Morgan Stanley's regional head
for the Middle East and North Africa,
"We are operational in the DIFC now and look forward to the official
opening of this important regional office later next month. "The DFSA's
effective regulatory framework, combined with the DIFC's robust
infrastructure, provides us with an excellent environment in which to expand
our offering to clients." 12
The director-general of the DIFC Authority, Dr. Omar Bin Sulaiman,
welcomed Morgan Stanley by stating,
"This is a testimony to our status as an international financial
centre of repute. Morgan Stanley is a highly reputed organisation and to
have them here at the DIFC is a vindication of our strategy to create a
world-class financial hub for the region. The opportunity available within
the region, along with the state-of-the-art infrastructure and the
international regulatory framework of the DIFC, provides the ideal platform
for institutions such as Morgan Stanley to grow their business." [Emphasis
added]13
Ideal platform, indeed. Who couldn't grow their business with zero
income tax, unlimited foreign ownership and no foreign exchange regulations?
Cities like Dubai are reminiscent of the rebuilding of Japan and
Germany after WWII. Since their economic infrastructure was destroyed, they
were rebuilt from the ground up with the latest industrial technology,
leaving America behind and less competitive in world markets.
On the other hand, both Japan and Germany were a conquered people
after WWII. They gave up and "rolled over." The Islamic residents of Dubai
(and other GCC countries), by contrast, have not been conquered and most
continue to view the U.S. as the "great Satan" that must be eliminated from
the face of the earth, along with Israel.
DP World, who will shortly take over operation of 21 U.S. port
terminal facilities, is wholly owned by the royal family that constitutes
the government of the UAE. This form of government, where a family owns and
runs the government, is unknown in the western world. It is the pinnacle of
fascism and dictatorship combined.
Most assume that the royal family's riches came from royalties paid on
oil production, and this is certainly true. But even that kind of wealth
cannot account for the rapid rise of DP World as a top player in shipping
and port operation throughout the world.
Records show, for instance, that DP World purchased P&O for $6.8
billion. Only $300 million (5 percent) actually came from DP World -- the
rest, $6.5 billion, was provided by Barclays Capital and Deutsche Bank AG.
In short, it is the global banking community that enables the
corporate expansion of powerful companies owned by close-knit Islamic
families in the GCC countries. Without global bank support, there would be
no DP World to take over American shipping ports.
Trilateral Support for DP World Takeover
On March 1, 2006, The Financial Times was first to report the story
that former U.S. president Bill Clinton (member of the Trilateral
Commission) had advised the UAE on damage control when confronted with stiff
political resistance over the DP World takeover of American ports. Although
it was intimated that Clinton acted in an informal capacity, the article
also noted that his overall relationship with the UAE and Dubai is far from
casual:
"Mr. Clinton's contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the
relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving
office. In 2002, he was paid $300,000 to address a summit in Dubai."14
Three days later on March 4, when reporting on Hillary Clinton's claim
that she knew nothing of her husband's involvement with Dubai, the Financial
Times revealed yet more details about Clinton's relationship to the UAE...
"Mrs. Clinton's financial disclosure forms reveal that her husband
earned $450,000 giving speeches in Dubai in 2002. Officials from the UAE
also reportedly donated between $500,000 and $1m to fund Mr. Clinton's
presidential library in Arkansas - part of an effort by the emirates to
forge a close relationship with the former US president."15
In another instance, the New York Daily News released an article
suggesting the White House seeks to defuse resistance to the DP World port
takeover by finding a U.S. partner to add to the deal.
"A lot of people are talking about this, a subsidiary or a deal like
that," a congressional source confirmed.
One snag to such a deal may be that sources say the U.S. company
best equipped to partner with DP World is Halliburton, once headed by Vice
President Cheney.
After undergoing so much scrutiny for its no-bid Iraq contract and
the handling of some of its duties there, Halliburton may not be able to
help DP World land the deal, a source admitted."16
Both ***** Cheney and his wife, Lynne, are members of the Trilateral
Commission.
It is likely that this article is only a trial balloon to test public
resistance to Halliburton, but even the suggestion that Cheney's ex-employer
might be involved identifies Trilateral influence.
Robert Zoellick, also a member of the Trilateral Commission and
currently Deputy Secretary of State, was formerly the U.S. Trade
Representative. On November 11, 2004, Zoellick announced that the
Administration intended to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with the UAE and
Oman. In his letter to congressional leaders, he wrote,
"A free trade agreement with the UAE and Oman will promote the
President's initiative to advance economic reforms and openness in the
Middle East and the Persian Gulf, moving us closer to the creation of a
Middle East Free Trade Area," 17
Note that Zoellick positions the FTA as the President's initiative,
rather than an outright Trilateral Commission policy initiative. In his next
sentence, he credits the policy due to recommendations from the 9/11
Commission Report:
Furthermore, our free trade agreements in the Middle East complement
The 9/11 Commission Report recommendation urging the United States to expand
trade with the Middle East as a way to 'encourage development, more open
societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their
families.'" [Emphasis added] 18
Who did President Bush originally appoint to head the 9/11 Commission?
None other than original Trilateral Commission member, Henry Kissinger.
Kissinger accepted the appointment but resigned a month later amid
accusations of "conflict of interest." Bush replaced Kissinger with Thomas
Kean, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a director of the oil
giant Amerada Hess, and who had business ties to Saudi Arabia and the GCC.
The U.S./UAE Free Trade Agreement started by Zoellick in 2004 is due
to be completed in March or April, 2006. This lucrative FTA is in jeopardy
if the DP World takeover of U.S. ports does not proceed as planned. This may
adequately explain the President's immediate and vehement support of the DP
World deal -- to reject the UAE could easily kill the FTA and thus cost
billions to global corporations.
Conclusion
As usual, it's about money and not national security. There is clear
and abundant evidence that since 1973, U.S. maritime national security has
been literally wrecked by the self-serving interests of members of the
Trilateral Commission and other global elitists. In every instance mentioned
in this report, there was no public disclosure until someone else made it
public. In every instance, there was fierce resistance from the U.S. public.
If the Constitution, statutes, courts, Congress or the public stood in their
way, then other ways were found to get around them.
From this discussion of maritime national security, we can sadly
conclude:
a.. Trilateral Commission self-serving policies of greed have
triumphed over national security
b.. The communist Chinese are in complete control of the immensely
strategic Panama Canal
c.. The communist Chinese operate massive door-to-door shipping
networks on the North American pacific coast and throughout the U.S. (via
COSTO, CSG, NASCO, NAFTA)
d.. The Islamic United Arab Emirates may soon control 21 major U.S.
East Coast shipping ports
e.. The U.S. is wide open for economic and military defeat if
conflict breaks out
When Brzezinski asks, "with how much insecurity can America live while
promoting its interests in an increasingly interactive, interdependent
world?", one must remember that it was Brzezinski's own policies that
brought him to the place of needing to ask the question. Perhaps he is
really wondering how much we can take before we break altogether.
[This article was updated on March 23, 2006]
Footnotes:
1.. Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership (Basic
Books, 2004) p. 17
2.. Maritime Security and Beyond, Carroll Ward, Mariners Weather Log,
April 2005
3.. Mission Statement, MARAD Web site
4.. Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era (Penguin Books ,
1971)
5.. Banking Interests in Panama, Robert K. Dornan, Congressional Record
(Sept. 15, 1977)
6.. Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington Vol. I (August, 1980) p. 64
7.. Admirals Sound the Alarm, The New American interview, Mar. 29, 1999
8.. Seeking Reciprocity in Maritime Trade with China, Wortzel (Heritage
Foundation, March 19, 2001)
9.. Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Treasury
10.. Acquisition of CSX World Terminals, DP World web site
11.. DIFC Anniversary 2005 Notes of Success, DISC web site
12.. Morgan Stanley Joins DIFC, Trade Arabia, March 5, 2006
13.. ibid.
14.. Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal, Financial Times, March 1,
2006
15.. Bill's ties to Dubai 'surprise' Hillary Clinton, Financial Times,
March 4, 2006
16.. Dubai & Dubya in dash for lifeboat, New York Daily Times, March 4,
2006
17.. U.S. Announces Intent to Negotiate FTAs with UAE and Oman, Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative, November 11, 2004)
18.. ibid.
Addendum:
Current Trilateral Commission "players" in and around the Bush
administration:
a.. ***** Cheney, Vice President of the United States
b.. Lynne V. Cheney, Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities, wife of ***** Cheney
c.. Robert Zoellick, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
d.. Paul Wolfowitz, President of the World Bank
e.. Paula J. Dobriansky, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
f.. William J. McDonough, Chairman of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board; former chairman of the New York Federal Reserve
g.. William H. Webster, vice-chairman of Homeland Security Advisory
Council
h.. Richard N. Perle, foreign policy advisor to President George Bush
i.. George H.W. Bush, President George Bush's father
j.. Catherine Bertini, Under-Secretary-General for Management, United
Nations, New York, NY
k.. Paul Volker, Chairman of the Oil-for-Food investigation at the United
Nations
l.. Carla A. Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative
Additional resources:
a.. Special pictures of UAE
b.. Map of UAE and Persian Gulf
c.. Images of Abu Dhabi, largest city in UAE
d.. Images of Dubai, home of DP World
NOTE: Carl Teichrib, Senior Fellow at World Research Library, contributed to
this report
.
|
