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 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 GiveawayÂ
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:
- 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
- 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 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 SecurityÂ
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…
- 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 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…
- 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:
- there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
- 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 WorldÂ
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 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.” Â 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.Â (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]
- Brzezinski, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership (Basic Books, 2004) p. 17
- Maritime Security and Beyond, Carroll Ward, Mariners Weather Log, April 2005
- Mission Statement, MARAD Web site
- Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era (Penguin Books , 1971)
- Banking Interests in Panama, Robert K. Dornan, Congressional Record (Sept. 15, 1977)
- Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington Vol. I (August, 1980) p. 64
- Admirals Sound the Alarm, The New American interview, Mar. 29, 1999
- Seeking Reciprocity in Maritime Trade with China, Wortzel (Heritage Foundation, March 19, 2001)
- Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of Treasury
- Acquisition of CSX World Terminals, DP World web site
- DIFC Anniversary 2005 Notes of Success, DISC web site
- Morgan Stanley Joins DIFC, Trade Arabia, March 5, 2006
- Bill Clinton helped Dubai on ports deal, Financial Times, March 1, 2006
- Bill’s ties to Dubai ‘surprise’ Hillary Clinton, Financial Times, March 4, 2006
- Dubai & Dubya in dash for lifeboat, New York Daily Times, March 4, 2006
- U.S. Announces Intent to Negotiate FTAs with UAE and Oman, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, November 11, 2004)
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
- Special pictures of UAE
- Map of UAE and Persian Gulf
- Images of Abu Dhabi, largest city in UAE
- Images of Dubai, home of DP World
NOTE: Carl Teichrib, Senior Fellow at World Research Library, contributed to this report