Globalization: The Final Demise of National Security

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone


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:Maritime Security

“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 NationÂ’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 Emi­rates 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 Emi­rates 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 14,000Gatun Locks 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. Military

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 Clinton & Zemina 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 ClintonÂ’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 Cosco containershan­dled 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 aCosco Intermodaln 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.


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…

  • founder, chairman and CEO of Hills & Com­pany, an inter­na­tional con­sul­tancy spe­cial­izing in global trade
  • former U.S. Sec­re­tary of Housing and Urban Development
  • co-founder of the Forum for Inter­na­tional Policy
  • member of the boards of Time Warner and Amer­ican Inter­na­tional Group
  • vice-chair of the National Com­mittee on U.S.-China Relations
  • vice-chair of the U.S.-China Busi­ness Council
  • trustee (and member) of the Council on For­eign Relations
  • trustee of the Insti­tute of Inter­na­tional Economics
  • member of the Board of the Asia Society
  • 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 inter­modal 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 NASCOwill 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. P&O Ports

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…

  • pro­vided cit­i­zen­ship to two of the hijackers in the 9 – 11 attack on America
  • has been a key transfer point for ship­ments of nuclear com­po­nents sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya
  • was one of only three nations that had rec­og­nized the Tal­iban as Afghanistan’s legit­i­mate government
  • 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 “Exxon-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:

  • John W. Snow, Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury, Chairman
  • John Mar­burger, Director of the Office of Sci­ence and Tech­nology Policy
  • Stephen Hadley, Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent for National Secu­rity Affairs
  • Stephen Friedman, Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent for Eco­nomic Policy (TC)
  • Michael Chertoff, Depart­ment of Home­land Security
  • Con­doleezza Rice, Sec­re­tary of State
  • Donald Rums­feld, Sec­re­tary of Defense (CFR)
  • Carlos M. Gutierrez, Sec­re­tary of Commerce
  • Alberto Gon­zales, U.S. Attorney General
  • Joshua Bolten, Director of the Office of Man­age­ment and Budget
  • Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative
  • 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 Dubainews 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 StanleyÂ’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 Dick 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.


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:

  • Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion self-serving poli­cies of greed have tri­umphed over national security
  • The com­mu­nist Chi­nese are in com­plete con­trol of the immensely strategic Panama Canal
  • 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)
  • The Islamic United Arab Emi­rates may soon con­trol 21 major U.S. East Coast ship­ping ports
  • 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]


  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.


Cur­rent Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion “players” in and around the Bush administration:

  • Dick Cheney, Vice Pres­i­dent of the United States
  • Lynne V. Cheney, Chairman of the National Endow­ment for the Human­i­ties, wife of Dick Cheney
  • Robert Zoel­lick, U.S. Deputy Sec­re­tary of State
  • Paul Wol­fowitz, Pres­i­dent of the World Bank
  • Paula J. Dobri­ansky, U.S. Under Sec­re­tary of State for Global Affairs
  • William J. McDo­nough, Chairman of the Public Com­pany Accounting Over­sight Board; former chairman of the New York Fed­eral Reserve
  • William H. Web­ster, vice-chairman of Home­land Secu­rity Advi­sory Council
  • Richard N. Perle, for­eign policy advisor to Pres­i­dent George Bush
  • George H.W. Bush, Pres­i­dent George Bush’s father
  • Catherine Bertini, Under-Secretary-General for Man­age­ment, United Nations, New York, NY
  • Paul Volker, Chairman of the Oil-for-Food inves­ti­ga­tion at the United Nations
  • Carla A. Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative

Addi­tional resources: 

NOTE: Carl Teichrib, Senior Fellow at World Research Library, con­tributed to this report

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.

Powered by Patriot's Web