The notion of comprador is important in unraveling the web of global capitalism. For those who have read Billmon's suggested books, the belief in the inevitability of capitalist domination--a belief shared in different ways by both John Gray and Emmanuael Todd--denies the existence of a comprador class. On the other hand, Here's what David Harvey says in his recenht book A Brief History of Neoliberalism:

There is, however, one further conundrum to be considered in ': this process of radical reconfiguration of class relations. The question arises, and has been much debated, as to whether this new class configuration should be considered as transnational or whether it can be still understood as something based exclusively within the parameters of the nation-state. 12 My own position is this. The case that the ruling class anywhere has ever confined its operations and defined its loyalties to any one nation-state has historically been much overstated. It never did make much sense to speak of a distinctively US versus British or French or German or Korean capitalist class. The international links were always important, particularly through colonial and neocolonial activities, but also through transnational connections that go back to the nineteenth century if not before. But there has undoubtedly been a deepening as well as a widening of these transnational connections during the phase of neoliberal globalization, and it is vital that these connectivities be acknowledged. This does not mean, however, that the leading individuals within this class do not attach themselves to specific state apparatuses for both the advantages and the protections that this affords them. Where they specifically attach themselves is important, but is no more stable than the capitalist activity they pursue. Rupert Murdoch may begin in Australia then concentrate on Britain before finally taking up citizenship (doubtless on an accelerated schedule) in the US. He is not above or outside particular state powers, but by the same token he wields considerable influence via his media interests in politics in Britain, the US, and Australia. All of the supposedly independent editors of his newspapers worldwide supported the US invasion of Iraq. As a form of shorthand, however, it still makes sense to speak about US or British or Korean capitalist class interests because corporate interests like Murdoch's or those of Carlos Slim or the Salim group both feedoff and nurture specific state apparatuses. Each can and typically does, however, exert class power in more than one state simultaneously.

While this disparate group of individuals embedded in the corporate, financial, trading, and developer worlds do not necessarily conspire as a class, and while there may be frequent tensions between them, they nevertheless possess a certain accordance of interests that generally recognizes the advantages (and now some of the dangers) to be derived from neoliberalization. They also possess, through organizations like the World Economic Forum at Davos, means of exchanging ideas and of consorting and consulting with political leaders. They exercise immense influence over global affairs.

Harvey's thesis is neoliberalism and neoconservatism respectively combine in the practice and ideological justification of the restoration of class power on a global scale--compradors all of them.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2006 2:21 utc | 101

If it's about 21 ports why is it only cropping up now that the Arabs (sic) have them not when the chinese or brits had them. Why is the discourse that the dems are putting out and is being so eagerly defended in here only about Arab ownership and the potential for terrorism?

Don't bother to answer if you want to keep splitting hairs.

If it is OK to promulgate racism and fear because "the other team does it anyhow" I'm interested in how alleged caring people justify it. Maybe I need to learn to do the same and turn my life into one big bland compromise where it's the winning that counts.

Oh that's right according to some demopublican fanboy I'm losing it because I point out the only issue the demopublicans are brave enough to all take the crooked piggy featured BushCo regime on about is "Arabs are buying our heritage" Not BushCo are selling our heritage because "Jeez we might need to sell it ourselves later on, so we'll just promise not to sell it to those slimy bombing Arabs".

Unbelievable

Posted by: Debs is dead | Feb 25 2006 2:36 utc | 102

Thanks slothrop. Always the apposite quotation or excerpt. You must have an encyclopaedic memory :-)

BTW, for the record I would like to say I am not on "the opposite side" to DebsID. I don't think it's an either/or scenario. Racism can play a big part in getting people angry, even if they are angry about something they have a right to be angry about. I think race does play a big part both in the "China, the Yellow Peril" meme being revived here and there, and the "Swarthy, Sinister A-rabs Must Not Control Our Precious Ports" meme.

My point is that the ruling class puts aside its racism when it's a matter of business. A fabulously wealthy emir is an honorary whitefella to BushCo. They might in private, en famille, make fun of him; they might have to remember not to tell Arab jokes or Muslim jokes when he's visiting, but even their own racism doesn't stand in the way of expediency and profits. They exploit the racism of the proles to the max -- divide et impera, never failed yet. But it's very selective; just like Gays are Bad unless it's someone's (whose) little playmate Gannon/Guckert getting special WH access; and Family Values are all-important except when Murdoch expands his media empire into profitable porn channels or the Republican Convention needs extra hookers on hand for its attendees. And military service is noble and fulfilling, but not for our kids.

My other point, which others were making for me but I'll make again for myself, is that racism is imho part of the sound and fury over the UAE port deal, just as it was (imho) in the sound and fury defending "freedom of speech" in the Toon Wars. And racism (anti-semitism) is genuinely present in the anti-Jewish cartoons in the Muslim press, which function as anti-Israeli and anti-imperialist statements with one face while simultaneously pandering to the race-hatred meme; "the anti-imperialism of fools," a friend of mine quips.

Things are just not either/or... motives aren't pure, even motives for something richly deserved and overdue like a public roasting for BushCo. Too burnt out from work day to say much more, but how about trying "both" on for size?

Also let us not forget the historical role of the "Court Jew," the frontman (often a financier or intellectual or both) allowed access to power, wealth, and prestige at a European Court in order that public rage at elite policies of kleptocracy and immiseration can be directed at "that Jew" or at "those Jews" instead of at the ruling class in general. Is the UAE the Bush Royal Family's Court Jew? waved at us to take the blame for the neoconderthal economic and globalisation policies that constitute the kleptocrat agenda of our time?

Posted by: DeAnander | Feb 25 2006 2:47 utc | 103

Debs:

You have ranted here until it is getting obnoxious. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is either a racist or a "Demopublican Frat Boy".

Why don't you do something productive for the rest of the evening.

Contemplate your navel; piss up a rope; whatever.

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 25 2006 2:54 utc | 104

slothrop

i still think it is applicable to use lin piao's theory of the city & the countryside in relation to transnational capital

that is to say confluence of interest meet their convergence at specific sites, that is to say countries, which use their own appareils in a sometimes contradictory fashion (either out of desire to deceive, or simply out of stupidy, or lack of vision - which has become the most dominant trait of late capitalism)

u s capital has always been saved by the nascent capitlaism of others - in this period they are confronted for the first time with competitors who can demolish them

it is then reasonable to assume if those who consider a real alternative to the world we are currently living in are obliged to attack capital in the cities & in the countryside, as piao suggested

we have livedcomfortaby for many decades with the allout assault on the 'countryside' even within the 'city', itself & the primary beneficiaries of this assault are in large part concentrated in the anglosaxon world.

their attack on the 'countryside' has been complemented with a wholly correspondent absence of civic activity in the 'city' - the attack on welfare participants to the detention, deportation, torture & murder of the 'other'

& in this moment international capital speaks with the voice of a bush, a blair or a howard - these fools have deliberately destroyed at some cost to their political legitimacy - all the humanist reforms that have been created in the last fifty years

the comprador class have become like the dirk bogarde character in joseph losey's film adaption of harold pinter's 'the servant'

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 25 2006 3:22 utc | 105

@Groucho

Now who's being an obnoxious little shit.

Why now try answering the question:- Why is the discourse that the dems are putting out and is being so eagerly defended in here only about Arab ownership and the potential for terrorism?

Posted by: DM | Feb 25 2006 3:29 utc | 106

Don't bother to answer if you want to keep splitting hairs.

!!!!!

you're a hard nut to crack debs!

Why is the discourse that the dems are putting out and is being so eagerly defended in here only about Arab ownership and the potential for terrorism?

it's not. maybe you aren't listening or i'm not competent enough to explain it to you.

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2006 3:42 utc | 107

i spent so much time pondering and rewriting and erasing my last post i missed all those comments!

i will try to answer that DM. in minute

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2006 3:46 utc | 108

deals have been made. secrets have been kept. someone has been caught. someone has been promoted. something has blown up. someone wants more power, we are at war. not with the chinese or the brits. the elites created it , they made it happen, without complicity with at least some of the powerful elites in the middle east this could not transpire. people are paranoid.

elite bushites+(some)elite arabs=dangerous cocktail

is that so hard to understand.

i'm signing off for the night.
slothrop, thanks for info
no hard feelings

Posted by: annie | Feb 25 2006 3:56 utc | 109

elite bushites+(some)elite arabs=dangerous cocktail

is that so hard to understand.

For me at least it is. Something wrong with the algebra here.

Posted by: DM | Feb 25 2006 4:00 utc | 110

I apologize to the readership that I lost my temper, but many of us are tired-utterly-of being called racists, whatever because we disagree with an alleged meme that has apparently been agreed to by a majority vote here.(I must have been caucasing with Halle Berry)

Some people here, not too many thank God, prescribe political solutions for us,viable 3rd parties on the national level that are unworkable in the short term(20 years) if ever. We are dismissed as dolts, political party tools, etc., when we say it won't work here. And then the port hubbub.

While many here have some knowledge of the US, the knowledge is in many ways superfical and often faulty.

I have no knowledge of the politics of most countries of the world, and would never presume to suggest how Australians or New Zealanders should run their show.
(I bash Blair occasionally, but he deserves it).

"Now who's being an obnoxious little shit.

Why now try answering the question:- Why is the discourse that the dems are putting out and is being so eagerly defended in here only about Arab ownership and the potential for terrorism?"

Some aspire, I guess, to being an obnoxius little shit, and some have it forced upon them.

on the question, I don't think the 911 conspiracy originated in London, Paris, Berlin,Moscow, or Peking, did it now?

Posted by: Groucho | Feb 25 2006 4:11 utc | 111

rgiap

I think you are right about the problem of legitimation. It will be interesting how long neoliberl/neoconsevative/globalism in toto can survive the massive contradictions of this "comprador" class. Harvey has a list:

1. On the one hand the neoliberal state is expected to take a back seat and simply set the stage for market functions, but on the other it is supposed to be activist in creating a good business climate and to behave as a competitive entity in global politics. In its latter role it has to work as a collective corporation, and this poses the problem of how to ensure citizen loyalty. Nationalism is an obvious answer, but this is profoundly antagonistic to the neoliberal agenda. This was Margaret Thatcher's dilemma, for it was only through playing the nationalism card in the Falklands/Malvinas war and, even more significantly, in the campaign against economic integration with Europe, that she could win re-election and promote further neoliberal reforms internally. Again and again, be it within the European Union, in Mercosur (where Brazilian and Argentine nationalisms inhibit integration), in NAFTA, or in ASEAN, the nationalism required for the state to function effectively as a corporate and competitive entity in the world market gets in the way of market freedoms more generally.

2. Authoritarianism in market enforcement sits uneasily with ideals of individual freedoms. The more neoliberalism veers towards the former, the harder it becomes to maintain its legitimacy with respect to the latter and the more it has to reveal its anti-democratic colours. This contradiction is paralleled by a growing lack of symmetry in the power relation between corporations and individuals such as you and me. If `corporate power steals your personal freedom' then the promise of neoliberalism comes to nothing." This applies to individuals in the workplace as well as in the living space. It is one thing to maintain, for example, that my health-care status is my personal choice and responsibility, but quite another when the only way I can satisfy my needs in the market is through paying exorbitant [79] premiums to inefficient, gargantuan, highly bureaucratized but also highly profitable insurance companies. When these companies even have the power to define new categories of illness to match new drugs coming on the market then something is clearly wrong." Under such circumstances, maintaining legitimacy and consent, as we saw in Chapter 2, becomes an even more difficult balancing act that can easily topple over when things start to go wrong.

3. While it may be crucial to preserve the integrity of the financial system, the irresponsible and self-aggrandizing individualism of operators within it produces speculative volatility, financial scandals, and chronic instability. The Wall Street and accounting scandals of recent years have undermined confidence and posed regulatory authorities with serious problems of how and when to intervene, internationally as well as nationally. International free trade requires some global rules of the game, and that calls forth the need for some kind of global governance (for example by the WTO). Deregulation of the financial system facilitates behaviours that call for re-regulation if crisis is to be avoided."

4. While the virtues of competition are placed up front, the reality is the increasing consolidation of oligopolistic, monopoly, and transnational power within a few centralized multinational corporations: the world of soft-drinks competition is reduced to Coca Cola versus Pepsi, the energy industry is reduced to five huge transnational corporations, and a few media magnates control most of the flow of news, much of which then becomes pure propaganda.

5. At the popular level, the drive towards market freedoms and the commodification of everything can all too easily run amok and produce social incoherence. The destruction of forms of social solidarity and even, as Thatcher suggested, of the very idea of society itself, leaves a gaping hole in the social order. It then becomes peculiarly difficult to combat anomie and control the resultant anti-social behaviours such as criminality, pornography, or the virtual enslavement of others. The reduction of `freedom' to `freedom of enterprise' unleashes all those 'negative freedoms' that Polanyi saw as inextricably tied in with the [80] positive freedoms. The inevitable response is to reconstruct social solidarities, albeit along different lines-hence the revival of interest in religion and morality, in new forms of associationism (around questions of rights and citizenship, for example) and even the revival of older political forms (fascism, nationalism, localism, and the like). Neoliberalism in its pure form has always threatened to conjure up its own nemesis in varieties of authoritarian populism and nationalism. As Schwab and Smadja, organizers of the once purely celebratory neoliberal annual jamboree at Davos, warned as early as 1996:

Economic globalization has entered a new phase. A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries. The mood in these democracies is one of helplessness and anxiety, which helps explain the rise of a new brand of populist politicians. This can easily turn into revolt."

I somewhat disagree with your assessment of the potential to confront such power. Older methods of revolutionary confrontation are useless against the mobility of capital. As you'll no doubt agree, electoral transformation of this power is naive.

I have no fucking clue, even in the wake of massive deligitimation of neoliberal fraud, how people can reverse these new forms of comprador accumulation.

crazy days.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2006 4:14 utc | 112

I think the notion of "comprador" is a good way to describe how global capital acts in the interests of a class whose national and ideological interests are tendentious and fungible.

That is, "comprador" is a way to understand class conflict in late capitalism.

We've had a few arguments about this, I know.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 25 2006 4:27 utc | 113

to slothrop: it works for me.

the excerpts from Harvey are excellent and tie in with a bunch of other ideas I'm mulling over lately. chewy stuff. thanks.

Posted by: DeAnander | Feb 25 2006 5:36 utc | 114

one means of reversing these forms of comprador accumulation is by focusing on taking down the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank. we've already seen what effects the anti-economic globalization movement has had in seattle & cancun & elsewhere in shutting down trade talks. by continuing to undermine their legitimacy, it slows down the ability of the comprador's to maintain their momentum. limiting their accumulation, however temporarily, has it's positives. is there even any other viable option than to continue wearing away their powers of legitimation. they've got the finance & force market cornered. the remainder is numbers & determination.

Posted by: b real | Feb 25 2006 6:30 utc | 115

If you read world history, now is exactly like 1939, when everyone started 'freaking out' about Hitler's lebensraum putsch. Like, oh, where did that come from? Oh, we didn't know! Oh, give him Bavaria, and maybe this unpleasantness will end. !Und pass der lieberwurst!

Go to any Arab embassy website, Saudi, UAE, Qatar, and drill down to "Conducting Business in the Emirates". Every single Persian Gulf country requires a local in-country partner with a 51% stake of your venture. Not a 51% buy-in, mind you, they want 51% of the action and controlling vote on your board. Your money, your labor, their profit.

Same for China, as long as we're talking free trade. 51% in-country, plus a massive amount of "key money", if you know what I mean there.

But the US? Oh, no problem, just donate $100,000 to re-elect Bush,
and you can control 21 ports, a Defense shipping contract, a stream of crude deliveries, even a nuclear waste shipment contract or three.

Hell, you can buy US citizenship for that amount, and even buy a LOTTO TICKET for US citizenship, complete with airfare, all paid.
Just drill down on the Commerce or INS website, it's all in there.
Trying swimming or tunneling over the US border. Sorry, no dinero.
Trying become a citizen of UAE (or Israel). Sorry, different mother.

Just imagine if instead of attacking Poland, Hitler had simply sold all of Germany's Autobahns and industries to the British. He'd still be living in Buenos Aires, feted by Ken Lay sychophants and apostles,
with his own private British secret service contingent. Hail George!

Bush has cracked the Da Vinci Code, and broken the Republic's back. He will be remembered as long as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
"History? We'll all be dead by then." A premonition, möglicherweise?

Posted by: Gerald Forde | Feb 25 2006 7:26 utc | 116

In Iraq we are fighting to spread democracy and put a lot of international effor into promoting free-market capitalism. At the same time, we are selling parts of our own strategic infrasturcture to a state-run company in a feudal monarchy.

Makes sense to me, but then again, I support saving whales and killing babies at the same time...

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 25 2006 8:52 utc | 117

Hey, good thread, b. provoked a few comments.

I do believe that any monopoly-like infrastructure, roads, harbors, water and electricity networks etc., should always be owned and controlled by the state. To have these, even partially, controlled or managed by some private entity is renting out the right to collect taxes. We did away with that a long time ago for very sound reasons.

All this infrastructure that you are talking about. This is exactly where private capital has been going for a long time now. This is government-corporate (or state-corporate) capitalism.

In Sydney some years ago, they changed the Freeway designations (F1, F2 etc.) to M1, M2. This was long before they started introducing tollways (well, you can’t charge on something called a “free”way).

One example is that the state government here built most of the infrastructure (tunnels, bridges etc for the M5) – then they let a private consortium build the few kilometers of roadway (the cheap bit) to link up the “motorway”. Cost $3.30 per car and a couple of executive jobs for retiring politicians.

Electricity – privatized. Water – working on it.

“Utilities” is where capital wants to go. Guaranteed returns. No risk (government bailouts available if required).

No competition monopolies for private money. This is the future whether we like it or not.

(Groucho)
… I don't think the 911 conspiracy originated in London, Paris, Berlin,Moscow, or Peking, did it now?

No. But, but do you still believe that it was organized in some cave if Afghanistan?

(Ralphieboy)
In Iraq we are fighting to spread democracy and put a lot of international effort into promoting free-market capitalism.

Good grief!

Posted by: DM | Feb 25 2006 9:43 utc | 118

Just getting it together in my mind after reading almost all the posts...

The “against selling the Ports” stance is a great political opportunity for Bush opponents of every stripe.

It combines: dislike of Arabs:

-- based on ‘racism’ (Arabs as slime, Arabs as anti-Israel);

-- based Arab power (they have oil and dollars and can buy up America, what about our economy..); In fine, loss of territory - ports are physical things and commercial hubs. I mean, heh, Arabia was supposed to be British, right, with France taking Syria-Lebanon as a buffer between Russia and Britain, with Palestine under an international coalition. Kitchener wanted Alexandretta as a port...but others preferred Haifa!

Then the US stepped in and took over European influence...And here are the Arabs, buying up strategic bits of...America! Ports!

-- based on fear of terrorism. Bush co. have hyped this so strongly to control Americans it is bothersome when it bites them in the ass, the sheeples get riled up. It has been very troublesome dealing with all the court cases etc. The US implicated the UAE heavily (read the Moussaoui indictement.) Of course, all the major actors know all this is pure fakery - but they still have to balance and calculate their attitudes for the people. BushCo have to pretend to control security, the ‘Arabs’ (here, UAE, previously Saudi, US allies really, which is why the blame has stuck, even been mythologised, as in Michael Moore’s lousy opus, rather than becoming unglued as for Iraq) have to pretend to be insulted and outraged, etc.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it gets Americans concentrated on a question which is not of the highest importance, the pols can bluster, everyone can take sides, etc. etc.

Posted by: Noisette | Feb 25 2006 10:16 utc | 119

Obscure US intelligence agency assessed ports deal

WASHINGTON: A deal that allows an Arab-owned company in Dubai to manage six [er, 21] major US ports was scrutinized for security risks by an obscure intelligence agency that has existed for only four months, American officials said yesterday.

UAE port deal vetted by the office of John Negroponte? Well, that's a queer turn of events...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 25 2006 13:17 utc | 120

As with Harvey's assessment it is spot on. But, the answer is to tax global transactions on a massive scale and redistribute wealth. This must be done. The only way this will happen is public finance of campaign and electing progressives that can force at least a 50% tax on capital transfers. This will stop capital from leaving countries. But, all countries must do this.

I also am tired of this racism charge. It is about sticking it to Bushie and his war on terra bullshit. I cannot believe the people on this site who agree with Rush Limblowhard and Bush. It's a sad time.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 25 2006 15:34 utc | 121

i haven't been able to get the port deal out of my mind because A. i know they had a strategic reason for pushing it thru fast and w/secrecy. B. bush is getting something out of the deal he wants very badly. this morning i read this on a comment thread by someone named oracle...

"UAE port deal (and Oman Free Trade deal) and their importance to impending IRAN WAR......and why Bush must threaten to veto anything an interfering Congress might pass to stop the UAE port deal.

March 2006 Timeline:

3/6/06: U.N. debate over Iran begins.
3/1-3/7/06: UAE/U.S. port deal initially planned to take effect (but may now be delayed).
3/15/06: The Ides of March (Beware!!)---Around this date is when I believe Bush will push for Iran War Resolution in the U.S. Congress.
3/20/06: The date that Iran plans on changing from petro-dollars to petro-euros as their medium of exchange for the sale of their oil on the world oil markets, thus breaking U.S./U.K. petro-dollar monopoly.
3/20-3/31/06: First bombs dropped on Iran. Khuzestan province invaded. All hell breaks loose.
Now, how does the UAE port deal fit into this scenario? Is it a quid pro quo deal, in which the UAE's monetary gain from the port deal is offset by something the Bush administration wants from the UAE? Is it something about the strategic location of the UAE at the southeast end of the Persian Gulf, next to the Strait of Hormuz, that the Bush administration values above even our nation's security?

Two countries are located across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran: Oman and the UAE. In October 2005, the Bush administration began two initiatives that may be related to the impending Iran War.

Oct. 17, 2005: the Bush administration notifies Congress that in 90 days Bush would sign a Free Trade Agreement with the Sultanate of Oman. (Effective January 17th, 2006)

Around this same time (October), the Bush administration establishes a secret review group that is to study the UAE port deal, which it approves on January 17th, 2006.

Coincidence? Both coming to fruition in the first months of 2006? And on the same date? I doubt it.

If the Bush administration is to keep open the oil shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz after starting war with Iran, then it needs a strategic footprint on the southside of the Strait of Hormuz. From this critical point, both the U.S. and the British will be able to launch a D-Day-like operation, in which a beachhead will be created on the northern, Iranian side of the Strait of Hormuz...a long beachhead stretching as many miles to either side of the Strait of Hormuz as necessary and extending however many miles inland into Iran that are required.

At the same time this beachhead is being established, U.S. forces will also be trying to seize Iran's Khuzestan province, located at the northwest end of the Persian Gulf. This one Iranian province generates close to 90 percent of Iran's oil revenue. Anyone capturing this one province, therefore, can bring Iran to it's economic knees. (Tactical neutron bombs, anyone?).

In other words, the U.S. controls the Iraq oil fields at present, so why wouldn't they go after Iran's singular oil-producing province as well, especially since we're already in Iraq, and this province sits just on the other side of the southern Iraq/Iran border and has oil shipping facilities on the Persian Gulf like Iraq's Basra?

Therefore, once I learned recently about the unique nature of this one Iranian province and about the "free trade" deals with both Oman and the UAE , it wasn't hard to put two and two together."

bingo

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2006 17:11 utc | 122

The peninsula of Musandam which has a strategic location on the Strait of Hormuz, is separated from the rest of Oman by the United Arab Emirates and is thus an exclave although not an enclave.

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2006 17:44 utc | 123

thanks annie - interesting perspective

Posted by: b | Feb 26 2006 19:14 utc | 124

"The">http://www.rwintl.com/jebel/"> Jebel Ali Free Zone is an outstanding example of the entrepreneurial spirit of the free trading city of Dubai. Taxation is non-existent. Restrictions are minimal. There is no obligation to take on a local partner. Staff may be recruited from anywhere. Excellent port facilities, warehouses, office space, and even factories are already built and ready for lease. The strategic location of Dubai allows easy access to the 1.5 billion consumers in the countries surrounding the Gulf and Red Sea.

Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem
Chairman & Managing Director of the Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority
and the Dubai Ports Authority "

" Indeed, Dubai's own Jebel Ali port is the largest man-made port in the world and the largest in the Middle East. The enormous duty-free zone surrounding the port is the operational hub for more than 3,800 companies from 100 countries including ABB , Black & Decker , Colgate-Palmolive , H.J. Heinz ,Unilever, BP , Shell Petroleum , Honda Motor , Nissan Motor, Mitsubishi , Bridgestone, Toshiba , Sony , Nokia and DaimlerChrysler ."

he's using his office to do business. we're all just tools. next new orleans will turn in to our own little tax free zone.

Posted by: annie | Feb 26 2006 19:15 utc | 125

re annie's post above:

I'm afraid to ask: what would be the local effect of tactical neutron bombing in oil rich Khuzestan?

So they're shoring up the straight of hormuz for their war on Iran with this UAE port deal. Reminds me of Suez Canal predictions; I wonder what they are doing behind the scenes to shore that up.

re March 20th and "the petro-euro oil bourse is the real reason for war" meme: why isn't Iran screaming this in the news headlines instead of playing along with BushCo's 'nuclear weapons vs nuclear energy' and anti-Israel memes?

Posted by: gylangirl | Feb 26 2006 22:09 utc | 126

wow annie, good hunting...
keep on it!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 27 2006 16:37 utc | 127

WoW! I missed this entire thread. Great stuff slothrup, deander, r'giap and others.

The Harvey stuff is interesting. I have never read him, but I have been thinking about this problem for a long time now.

I think in defining the interests and allegiances of the elite, one needs to take into account the scale of the enterprise. There are still strong regional interests in mining, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. around the world, and nation-state politicians have to take these interests into consideration. The various trade orgs are designed to circumvent this.

When those are not working, the elite strategy in dealing with 'recalcitrant' entrenched local elites is to first bring in the hit-men and make them an offer they can't refuse, and second, to engineer a capital 'crisis' like the one in southeast asia, which then allowed the elite to pick up local industries for a song.

It is clear that the direction the elite are driving the world is to ever greater consolidation, until only a few colluding offerings exist in any given segment of capital-intensive industry.

I suppose the more international the scope of the business, the less allegiance to the nation-state, but that is essentially a trivial insight.

I agree that the anti-globalization movement is where all the energy has gathered in counteracting these trends.

I guess that is about it for now.

Posted by: Malooga | Feb 28 2006 2:26 utc | 128

here's a pr watch summary of a feb 24 pr industry article:
DPW Seeks Many PR Ports in a Political Storm

Even as the United Arab Emirates-owned company Dubai Ports World (DPW) requested a 45-day "further review of its deal to buy management rights to terminals at major U.S. ports," it's building a massive public relations team in support of the $6.8 billion deal. To "tamp down Congressional criticism," DPW recently hired the firm Clark & Weinstock. The firm's Vin Weber, a former Republican Congressman, will head the DPW account. DPW has also retained the Albright Group, which is headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; Alston & Bird, which counts former Senator Bob Dole among its lobbyists; and the Downey McGrath Group, which is headed by former Congressmen Tom Downey and Ray McGrath. Downey "is a good friend of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who has been spearheading opposition" to the ports deal, notes O'Dwyer's. DPW's lead PR firm is the Britain-based Bell Pottinger.

Posted by: b real | Feb 28 2006 15:41 utc | 129

hmm, i realized i was taking all this too seriously for my own good and letting it effect my work(not a good time for such distractions) and as a result probably my pov. i vowed to turn off my computer a not go near it for the rest of the day/night yesterday. who knows who the ecomonic hitmen have in their sights . there really is no difference whether they are here, SA,ME,asia,africa its all the same. the port deal is no different than any other deal to consolidate the powers in a region, the only difference is that more blood is flowing in the ME at the present and will continue to flow until every last drop of oil is consumed.

so, i went out drinking. there's really nothing i can do about it.
my hope is that the deal does not contain some agreements for further base expansions or iran invasion complicities. the dems will use the issue as a big running tool and be slogged thru the airwaves till after 06 for all the wrong reasons. the great war has begun, we will never leave our playground in the region, this is just part of the payoff.

maybe i'm wrong and paranoid, i sure hope so.

Posted by: annie | Feb 28 2006 16:06 utc | 130

Good work, annie. (can't wait to see what else you've been doing)

Posted by: beq | Feb 28 2006 18:11 utc | 131

beq, if you send me you email i can send you some photos, actually, your art inspired me to continue and expand one segment of my art.

Posted by: annie | Feb 28 2006 18:33 utc | 132

Done.

Posted by: beq | Feb 28 2006 19:24 utc | 133

watching what passes for democratic politics in congress re the ports - where the bosses of business & the bosses of security making it clear to one & all that it is a done deal. that all this is window dressing - with a stevedore & barbara boxer speaking truth within a whirlwind of lies

this is a comedy to obscene to even cry over

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 28 2006 22:28 utc | 134

on cnn's freepipeline for a day

why anyone would pay for such bullshit is beyond me

simpler to just read the briefings from the reichschancellory

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 28 2006 22:30 utc | 135

Wackenhut, now foreign owned, is guarding DHS, sort of.

The humorists in D.C. have given the punchline for this thread.

Posted by: citizen | Mar 15 2006 5:16 utc | 136