Archives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Wood
Articles:

Global Cities for Global Corporations

 

More
Wood
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

GLOBALIZATION: THE FINAL DEMISE OF NATIONAL SECURITY
PART 1 of 3

 

 

 

Patrick Wood
March 11, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

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 explores 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 Hutchinson 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. For part 2 click below.

Click here for part -----> 2, 3,

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

Addendum:

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

Additional resources:

© 2006 Patrick Wood - All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Patrick M. Wood is editor of The August Review, which builds on his original research with the late Dr. Antony C. Sutton, who was formerly a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford University. Their 1977-1982 newsletter, Trilateral Observer, was the original authoritative critique on the New International Economic Order spearheaded by members of the Trilateral Commission.

Their highly regarded two-volume book, Trilaterals Over Washington, became a standard reference on global elitism. Wood's ongoing work is to build a knowledge center that provides a comprehensive and scholarly source of information on globalism in all its related forms: political, economic and religious.

E-Mail: pwood@augustreview.com

Web Site: www.AugustReview.com


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The notion of total national security is now a myth. Total security and total defense in the age of globalization are not attainable. ...