The arms industry is a truly global phenomenon. Guns, ammunition and other larger weaponry mean big business all over the world, and where there’s money to be made there will always be a corrupt or criminal element looking to capitalize on the market. The following men were or are masters at the gun game — shady figures who have traveled far and wide trafficking and distributing arms for cold hard cash while attempting to stay one step ahead of the authorities and their business rivals. What follows are the ten most notorious arms dealers in modern history.

10. Adnan Khashoggi

Adnan Khashoggi is an extremely successful Saudi Arabian businessman. He also happens to have been a hugely prominent arms dealer. Regarded as the richest man in the world during the 1980s, the American-educated Khashoggi, now 76, began his arms trading career in the 1960s, brokering deals between US companies and the Saudi government. Amongst Khashoggi’s most famous clients were Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin), who during the early 1970s paid him $106 million in commissions. He concealed his financial dealings by setting up front companies in tax havens such as Switzerland. Caught up (along with Imelda Marcos, the widow of exiled Philippine president, Ferdinand) in the Iran-Contra affair, Khashoggi was arrested in 1988 but was acquitted two years later. He currently resides in Monaco, where his services as a facilitator are apparently still occasionally called upon — most recently in 2003, when he allegedly met with American political advisor Richard Perle right before the invasion of Iraq.

9. Dale Stoffel

Dale Stoffel was an arms dealer who was heavily involved with the reconstruction efforts established in the wake of the Iraq War. Known for chomping a cigar and routinely having a machine-gun slung across his back — the popular image of a mercenary — Stoffel was killed while on his way to Baghdad in 2004. In 2003, his company, Wye Oak Technology, was awarded one of the first contracts from the newly established Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and in the end the value of his contracts with the nascent Iraqi government totaled over $40 million. During the year leading up to his death, the goatee-bearded Stoffel became an outspoken critic of irregularities in the Iraqis’ methods of payment for his efforts, and those of others like him, with allegations that corruption was rampant. Shortly before his death Stoffel was owed $24.7 million. His widow Barbara sued the Iraqi government for $25 million in 2009.

8. Dr. Moosa Bin Shamsher

Dr. Moosa Bin Shamsher is a Bangladeshi business tycoon known for being a major player in international arms trading during the 1970s and 1980s (as well as for many other business ventures). Affectionately dubbed “Prince Moosa” by the South Asian press, this high-profile figure is, notwithstanding, known for dealings with other shady big name arms dealers on this list such as Adnan Khashoggi and Sarkis Soghanalian. It is also alleged that Shamsher has had Swiss bank accounts worth $7 million frozen because of “irregular” transactions. Formed in 1974, Shamsher’s business, DATCO, deals in global weaponry, including tanks, fighter planes and ballistic missiles. Almost as renowned as Shamsher’s arms dealings is his love of excess: he owns a fleet of a hundred private cars that includes Rolls-Royce models and limousines and wears diamond-encrusted shoes valued at $3 million.

7. Samuel Cummings

Samuel Cummings was an American arms dealer and founder of the International Armament Corporation — a company that grew to all but monopolize the global market in private arms sales. Cummings died in 1998 at the age of 71 following a series of strokes but has been called (by The New York Times) the “undisputed philosopher-king of the arms trade.” Recruited as a weapons expert by the CIA in 1950, he spent the rest of the early 50s traveling Europe buying up large amounts of excess WWII weaponry. This led Cummings to start up the arms dealing business Interarmco, which would come to dominate the small arms market of 1950s and ’60s America. He also dealt with many famous international leaders, including Fidel Castro, to whom he sold a consignment of AR-10 rifles — much to the ire of General Rafael Trujillo, leader of the Dominican Republic, where Cummings was later doing business.

6. Fares Mana’a

Said to be Yemen’s most infamous arms dealer, the official occupation of Sheikh Fares Mohammed Mana’a is Governor of Sa’dah, a city in north-western Yemen. Despite such standing, Mana’a's more illicit activities have been noted by the United Nations Security Council, who added his name to a list of people accused of dealing arms to the Somali insurgents known as Harakat al-Shabaab Mujahedeen — a notorious group suspected of having links to Al-Qaeda. Mana’a has also been accused of spying for the late Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi in return for millions in funds. In March 2011, Mana’a was installed as the new governor of Sa’dah following a battle between pro-government tribesmen and the Mana’a-supported Houthi rebels, to whom he is also accused of supplying arms.

 5. Sarkis Soghanalian

When Florida-based private arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian died recently, on October 5, 2011, an extraordinary life ended. Born in 1929, Soghanalian— nicknamed the “Merchant of Death” — established himself during the Cold War, becoming the leading arms merchant during that time of political conflict. He was also infamous for being the foremost seller of weapons to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. With the full knowledge and backing of the CIA, Soghanalian sold arms to Iraq in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War. He also sold weaponry to militia groups during the Lebanese Civil War, as well as to Ecuador and Nicaragua, and to Argentina during the Falklands War. Following the first Gulf war with Iraq, Soghanalian was jailed for six years for possession of arms and the intent to sell to Iraq. His sentence was reduced to two years, however, after he supplied the US with intelligence.

4. Monzer al-Kassar

Syrian-born Monzer al-Kassar — also known by the glamorous title, the “Prince of Marbella” — is an international arms dealer of some notoriety. Currently incarcerated, al-Kassar began his career in trading weapons in the early 1970s when, by his own account, the Yemeni government requested that he buy arms for them from Poland. He lived in London from from around 1972 until 1984, at which point he was thrown out of the country by the British government for arms and drug trafficking. From London al-Kassar moved to Marbella, where he gained his extravagant nickname. Further allegations of arms dealing followed — including that he sold arms to and helped the hijackers of cruise ship the Achille Lauro. He also pocketed millions making sales to Croatia, Bosnia and Somalia when there was a UN arms embargo with the three countries. Al-Kassar was caught and convicted thanks to an elaborate DEA sting that began in 2006 and proceeded to his arrest in Madrid in 2007 and extradition to the US a year later.

3. Jean-Bernard Lasnaud

When the French-born Jean-Bernard Lasnaud was arrested in 2002 in Switzerland, it ended almost three years of arrest requests from Argentinian courts and Interpol. Despite this, together with accusations from European courts on counts of arms smuggling and fraud, amazingly Lasnaud was allowed to live peacefully in South Florida for more than ten years before his past finally caught up with him. Lasnaud was in the business of selling arms from his luxurious gated community to anyone interested, with China and Somalia just two of the suspected client countries. According to his own estimates, Lasnaud’s Caribbean Group of Companies sold between $1 and $2.5 million in weapons every year. Accused of brokering thousands of tons worth of Argentinian weaponry to Croatia and Ecuador between 1992 and 1995, Lasnaud even boasted his own website to aid with his transactions. He is caught up in a complex web of corruption and scandals the true extent of which may never be known.

2. Leonid Minin

Leonid Minin, a Ukrainian by birth, is a notorious international arms dealer. Born in 1947, he moved to Israel in the 1970s. He  was arrested by the German authorities later in the same decade for using false identification as well as under suspicion of art theft. His customers in the arms trade have allegedly included the Liberian dictator Charles Taylor as well as the Revolutionary United Front group which operated in Sierra Leone. The weapons that Minin dealt in are held to have had their origins in the Russian arms company Aviatrend, a group also involved in money laundering connected with toppled Yugoslav president Slobodan Milošević. Arrested by Italian authorities in 2000 for illegal arms dealings, Minin was sentenced to two years. Nicolas Cage’s character in the 2005 movie Lord of War is partly based on Minin, as well as Sarkis Soghanalian and our number one, Viktor Bout.

1. Viktor Bout

Viktor Anatolyevich Bout, the most notorious arms smuggler on this list, currently faces seeing out the rest of his life behind bars. Extradited from Thailand to America in 2010 following a five-year operation by the DEA, the Russian national stands accused of illegally arming the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in their operations against US forces. The jury found him guilty and he will receive sentencing in early 2012, when he could stand to receive a life sentence. Bout is reported to have made substantial amounts of money shipping goods in Africa and the Middle East in the 1990s and 2000s, and the former military translator for the Soviet Union may well have fed the flames of various African civil wars by supplying vast quantities of arms during the Nineties. He has also been dubbed a “sanctions buster” because of allegations that he violated UN arms embargoes in trading with Angola, Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Congo during the same decade. In 2001 Bout was furthermore implicated in the movement of gold and cash out of Afghanistan. The charges against him make Bout’s future prospects fairly grim indeed.

How does the US measure up in terms of immigrants? Pretty well, according to MIPEX:

* The US received a “slightly favorable” overall score.

* It’s easier for immigrants here to naturalize than in most EU countries (this includes having a baby in the US).

* We have more policies to ensure equal treatment of immigrants than most EU countries.

* The survey shows that the US and most of Europe gives decent worker rights to immigrant workers (I assume they’re talking about legal immigrants).

* Long-term residence permits are much harder to get than in Canada and some of the EU.

* It is hard for immigrants to participate politically in the US–but it’s even harder in Canada.

* Education opportunities for immigrants in the US are not that good, especially compared to Scandinavia and Canada.

The relatively positive results remind me of this Reason infographic (click image for larger version). Apparently, if you can make it through the red-tape hamster wheel below, your situation is okay:

The World Bank issued a little over $100 billion in loans between the middle of 2008-2010, according to research done by the Financial Times. The China Export Import Bank and China Development Bank, on the other hand, loaned at least $110 billion to developing countries during the same period. From the BBC:

The Chinese lenders are so-called policy banks – they have a mandate to further whatever Beijing sees as its national interest. One of China Development Bank’s specific tasks is to try to alleviate and, where possible, eliminate bottlenecks in supplies of raw materials or land for China’s economy. It also tries to open up foreign markets for Chinese companies.

Chinese banks were offering loans to producers of raw materials at a time when it was hard for them to attract financing from elsewhere. That helped secure long-term energy deals, including oil supplies from Russia, Venezuela and Brazil.

The BBC report doesn’t include International Monetary Fund lending, which is at least $50 billion. The point is not that China is lending more than the West–it’s not–but that China is a major lender, and it is using lending to gain strategic advantages and global power. It is, for lack of better words, one of China’s primary global ascension strategies.

Lending also keeps the economy stable. From Forbes’ Shaun Rein:

One reason China’s economy remained robust during the Great Recession is because Bank of China and ICBC loaned money under central government direction to get liquidity into the system. That was undoubtedly good for the economy, but it wasn’t great for investors who will have to deal with years of rising non-performing loans.

Speaking of investment, Rein also mentioned that many big Chinese companies have serious transparency issues, and investing in them directly is a very risky proposition. And the BBC article noted that Chinese companies are still reluctant, or flat-out not allowed, to take part in much foreign direct investment.

This tells me that China, while pursuing a global economic strategy similar to the one that helped the West gain political power, is still hamstrung when it comes to being fully open for international business. It’s premature to call China the global power for this reason. Rather, it is on a tempered, politically-moderated ascent.

Move over, Shanghai. China’s economic future lies in its center–the 20 biggest cities in inland China, to be exact. The Economist, in a new report, has dubbed this trend CHAMPS (named after some of the leading cities in its inland Top 20 list: Chongqing, Hefei, Anshan, Maanshan, Pingdingshan and Shenyang). These cities, located in rural areas, will lead Chinese urbanization and economic growth in coming years. (See an infographic from the report here.)

Indeed, since 2007, they have already been outpacing their coastal rivals in terms of growth. For example, “Zhengzhou, the capital of Henan province, will in 2020 have a bigger economy than Sweden, Hong Kong or Israel,” writes the Economist. “China’s megacities will attract a relatively high proportion of upper-income earners and their sizes will offer economies of scale and scope that will drive productivity growth in the service sectors.”

Here’s more from The Economist Intelligence Unit’s CHAMPS report, which we received a preview of:

–Just as the emergence of China’s coastal cities was one of the world’s greatest opportunities
in the past three decades, the rise of inland Chinese cities brings with it a fresh source of rapid
growth. With the CHAMPS, businesses have a chance to gain a foothold in cities where the
population will increase by nearly one-third and incomes will grow by over threefold in the short
space of a decade.

–The rise of the CHAMPS reflects China’s transition to a consumption-driven economy, with growth moving away from the export-led eastern seaboard.

–Over the next decade to 2020, the population of the top 20 emerging cities will grow by 27% to 85m, making central China a global hotspot for business opportunity. By contrast, the population of China’s richest 20 cities will only grow by 19% to 100m. The richest cities will still be important but they are already crowded markets.

–In 2009 average incomes in China’s richest 20 cities were 42% higher than in the top 20
emerging cities. By 2020 that gap will have fallen to 15%. Thus the best growth opportunities for products targeted at high-income earners will in most cases be in the inland cities.

–Market uptake of numerous types of consumer goods is still rapidly increasing in the CHAMPS, even though such consumer markets in wealthier cities are approaching saturation. Mobile phones, air conditioners and personal computers are expected to perform exceptionally well in the CHAMPS.

Healthy? No wonder America’s at #10. Here are this years Prosperity Index Top 10, from Time:

1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Sweden
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. United States

Things have changed. After consolidating and paring down organizational fat, Ford management launched globally unified strategy called One Ford. To date, the 107-year-old company has reported five straight quarters of profit.

One of the key players in the company’s turnaround was Mark Fields, President of the Americas and executive vice president at Ford. I interviewed Fields while he was at the Paris Auto Show, where the company unveiled its 2012 Ford Focus ST. Here’s what he shared about Ford’s strategy, culture, cars, and future plans.

(Shout out to Kurt and Mike at RideLust: Thank you for your valuable technical input.)

BP: Congratulations on the 2012 Ford Focus ST. It looks like a sweet car. Is this one of the first world cars built under your One Ford plan?

Yeah. Just to put it in perspective, our Fiesta that we launched in the marketplace here about a month or two ago, that’s built up off a global platform, and it shares about 60 to 65% commonality with the other Fiestas sold around the world. It actually launched in Europe, first then it launched in Asia Pacific, mainly China, and then launched here.

We as a North America team participated in the development of that about halfway through its development cycle. So, that was our first foray into global products.

If you switch to the Focus, which is what we’re showing at the Paris show, it’s the first fully fledged global program where from the get go all of the major regions around the world for Ford came together to develop that product together. About 80% of the parts around the world will be shared globally. The other 20%, there’s some regulatory differences between the markets around the world, for example the headlight regulations in Europe are different from the US, those kind of things drive the differences.

BP: When I was reading a bit about Ford’s history, it sounds like Ford has tried to take the world car approach a couple times, but it hasn’t succeeded. What are you guys doing differently this time to make it work?

That’s a great question. Back in the early ’80s we did the Escort. I remember we had a badge on the Escort on the side, and it had the name of the vehicle, and a lot of flags from around the world around the badge to denote that it was a global product. I think at the end of the day it was probably in the single digits, the parts that we shared around the world.

I think there are three fundamental differences this time. First, what we’re seeing today is a lot more convergence of customer requirements around the world than in the past. Things like fuel efficiency. Let’s face it, in the early ’80s it wasn’t high on the list of customers in the US. Now, it’s near on the top of the list. That’s consistent with the rest of the world.

Requirements around safety, quality, around smart technology, there’s a lot more commonality around the world than there used to be. Because in the past when you tried to do global programs, one market would say, “I need these things,” and another would say, “I need these things, by the way half of them are different than what they need.” Then we’d get into horse trading between the markets of what features should we include in the product. Sometimes it was almost like building a camel by committee. And you end up with a camel instead of an integrated product. I think that’s the first fundamental thing. From the customer look in, their requirements are becoming more common around the world.

The second thing is our product development factory is now organized globally. We are really tapping into our engineering resources around the world. For example, on the Focus, we have some great power train engineers in Europe that really know how to engineer small, fuel-efficient power trains. We really tapped into that for the global development for the power trains that are going into the Focus. For lack of a better term, we put in the plumbing around the world to make a global car happen, as opposed to making it real difficult.

It’s almost like going back to the heritage of the company, back the Model T. Henry Ford’s vision was to have the same product, same parts, same manufacturing process around the world. We are going back to the roots of that with these programs. That’s the second thing, we’ve put in the plumbing to allow that.

The third thing is in the industry these days it’s all about scale. With a global program, you get lots of efficiencies in engineering costs. You get lots of savings and investments in your plant. An example is that with all of our plants, we order body shops and dyes where we stamp the fenders and things of that nature. Now what we do is we come up with one design for a dye, and we go to a supplier and say “here’s a design, and I’d like two. Or maybe three. One for U.S., one for Europe, and one for Asia Pacific.”

Before, we would’ve had unique designs where we would go to a supplier and say, “I’ll have one of these.” Europe was doing the same, and Asia was doing something else. So the business requirements to make the business profitable is really driving us. Really, I think it’s those three things that are fundamentally different than the early ’80s.

Image: New Focus, Ford Motor Company/Flickr

BP: What about brand equity? My understanding is that Ford has more brand equity in Europe than it does here. How are you going to build up that brand equity here in the States?

Well, I think we’ve really worked hard to build up our image here in the U.S. We measure it. Are you familiar with the purchase funnel?

BP: I’m not.

Basically, it starts at the top. At the top is awareness and familiarity. Then it works its way to favorable opinion, then down to consideration, then purchase intent.

On awareness, obviously everyone is aware of Ford. Whenever we do the studies, there’s only 2-3% of the population that’s not aware of Ford.

The second favorable opinion, we have made tremendous strides over the past two years in approving our favorable opinion in a big way. The results of that in the marketplace is that our market shares are up the 22 out of the last 23 months.

On the transaction prices that people are willing to pay, we are seeing more value in our product and brand, and those two are very important. The third factor is the resale value of your products. Our resale value has improved the most of any manufacturer over the past 2 or 3 years in the marketplace.

We’re going to continue to work with it. We know how precious it is to improve brand equity, we know how quickly you can lose it. That’s why we are keeping focused.

BP: Just talking to people on the street now, it seems like there’s a lot of respect for the new management team. But there’s still a question about the quality of cars. You remember the old Fix Or Repair Daily, right? That whole thing? I’m wondering what is it that you’re doing to build that reputation back up.

(Laughs) There were worse ones than that. I think the first thing we have to do is deliver the goods in terms of quality. We have our own internal quality indicators and they have shown for the past five years that we have improved every year, and we are now statistically tied with the best in the business.

But our own internal metrics aside, external parties, let’s use JD Power for example, we’ve improved 5 years in a row. Every year they do an initial survey, called the initial quality survey that they come out with in June. They basically measure like 50,000 customers of all different brands and they ask, “In your first three months of ownership, how many problems have you had?” And the Ford brand was number 5 in the industry this year. We were the first value brand to crack the top five ever. The only four in front of us were smaller luxury makes.

The important thing is not that we cracked the top five, but it’s also this five years of continuous improvement. It’s that consistency of purpose that every year when customers buy our products, they don’t have to bring it back to the dealerships to get fixed.

That word of mouth builds over time, and you can track our market share growth over the last two years, and it correlates really well with our quality growth. So consumer reports and other third parties are getting their opinions out there on us, and the word of mouth on consumers is so important. I think that’s one of the reasons empowering our market share growth.

The only other thing is, you have to start at the top of the company. And every meeting we have we talk about customer, and we talk about quality. That sets the tone for the rest of the organization.

(Image above: Ford Motor Company/Flickr)

BP: Is this a global thing across the world in regards to meetings?

It always starts with the customer, yes. But if we are in a technical engine architectural meeting, the customer may not creep in much. But most of our meeting are about customers. First, what does this mean to the customer, and secondly, how does this relate back to our strategy for our company, and how does it deliver profitable growth for all? That’s customers and dealers and all.

BP: I would imagine there’s quite a bit of alignment involved in having a company culture like that. Can you tell me about the management structure in Ford, and how you accomplish that unified goal setting?

You’re right, there’s alignment in the management team, especially in a company like ours, and you end up acting very regionally. Then you really just minimize your capability of competing effectively around the world.

Bottom line is we are now organized with clear business unit leaders. In my case, we head up North and South America. So I’m the lead for them. We have a lead for Europe. And we have a lead for Asia-Pacific.

Then, if you think about it, think of those folks as the verticals. Then, going horizontal is all of what we call our skill team leaders. So, manufacturing, purchasing, finance, marketing and sales, HR, you name it. They are horizontal, and what the skill teams do, they help us deliver, as a business unit, successful and growing businesses.

By having that structure, and by meeting every week, and we meet every week as an entire leadership team, which is about 20 or 25 of us around a table every week, we review the status of our business. So in that environment, there’s full transparency.

If I need help in manufacturing, I can make sure that our manufacturing lead can understand that, and he can make sure the folks embedded in my organization are doing what they need to. It’s also a great forum to help each other around the world. It’s really a wonderful structure to not only drive the business effectively, but to your point, get that alignment and reinforce that alignment every week.

Image of Ford volunteers by Ford Motor Co./Flickr

BP: How do incentives play into that alignment?

Well, basically, all the skill team leaders and the business unit leaders, our incentives really are globally how the company performs. There is some element in the business unit leaders, as you can expect, some element of the business unit performance.

But in my case, for example, part of it is business unit performance, but also a good bit of it is corporate performance. So, that’s a wonderful way of reinforcing to folks that as we run the business, we want to make the right corporate decisions, and not just maximize an individual region’s performance because that may be good for that region, but it may not be good for that total company.

Changing that compensation structure reinforces the behaviors around gaining alignment, gaining enforcement, gaining transparency, and driving the business towards the best results for the total company.

BP: Zooming out a little bit, back to the One Ford plan in general, what has been the hardest part of implementing that plan?

Well, the biggest opportunity that we’ve had on implementing One Ford is just getting everybody to realize the power of working together. I’ve had the good fortune of working in all of the four business units around the world. The way we used to operate was very regionally to be honest. We were a global company, but Europe was wanting to maximize the European business, and if they needed help from the other units they would ask for it. But we were acting very regionally.

Getting everybody to see the power of working together globally has been the biggest eye-opener and opportunity for us and we’ve seen it in our results. And I think on a working level one of the biggest challenges when you’re global is late night or early morning phone calls or webcasts.

BP: Not to mention different business cultures. I can imagine working with your people in China has different requirements than working with people in the U.K. and things like that.

You’re right. You have different country cultures, but the key thing is having one company culture. I think that helps us to work more effectively to understand it. But there will always be different country culture differences.

BP: I’m curious about your strategy regarding EV’s or Hybrids. It seems like you guys are holding back until it’s convenient. The infrastructure is set up for those kinds of alternative cars. Do you think that’s a risky strategy?

I actually don’t think we’re holding back. When you look at our product plan and sustainability, it’s pretty straightforward. We want to make sure we continue to improve the fuel efficiency of internal combustion engines, and that’s why you’re seeing things like EcoBoost from us. Which is basically downsizing the engine and using turbocharging to improve the fuel economy.

We are continuing to invest heavily in hybrids. Obviously we have a couple of hybrids on the marketplace today, and electrified vehicles.

To put it in perspective, by 2012 we’ll have five new hybrid or electric vehicles in the marketplace. Our first one is Transit Connect Electric Vehicle, which comes into the marketplace by the end of this year. The end of next year we’ll have our fully battery electric Focus, then in 2012 we’re going to have two next generation hybrid vehicles.

So I think what we’re trying to do is make sure we provide lots of different solutions for customers in any flavor of ice cream. In terms of fuel economy, our stated goal is to make sure every new vehicle that we introduce into the marketplace in its segment, our aim is to be the leader in fuel efficiency in that segment. A perfect example is our Fiesta that we just introduced and that gets 40 miles per a gallon.

(Image above is from Ford Motor Co.’s Flickr stream)

BP: So it sounds like you won’t have much trouble meeting the US CAFE standards in 2016.

We plan on fully meeting the CAFE requirements. A lot of work goes into that. But we are absolutely committed to make sure we meet that.

BP: What about the Ford Ranger? Why won’t we see a new Ranger in the US?

That’s a really good question. If you think about the Ranger segment, this compact pickup segment, fifteen years ago it represented about 8% of the total industry, and it was a big segment. Let me give you an example, in the month of August, it only represented 2% of the industry. So it has shrunk considerably.

What we have focused on for those customers is really improving the fuel efficiency and performance of our F-Series product. What we’re doing is early next year is we’re introducing all new power trains on our F-Series, including a new V6 engine to really satisfy those Ranger customers. The bottom line is, Ranger in other parts of the world is an appropriate vehicle. We’re focusing on a Ranger for the rest of the world that is actually bigger on the Ranger we have here in the US. In the US, we’re actually focusing on our F-Series.

Image: 2011 F-150 XLT, Ford Motor Company/Flickr

BP: I can attest that you guys pretty much own the state of Wyoming with your F-Series.

We love trucks. We’ve also worked really hard to diversify our portfolio of cars, trucks, and utilities. But we are going to continue to invest very strongly in trucks to maintain our leadership and not take that leadership for granted.

BP: What about the Ford Mustang? With more stringent fuel economy requirements coming, how is the Mustang going to change to meet those requirements?

I think if you look at our Mustang in the marketplace today, about six months ago we introduced new power trains into the Mustang. To give you an example, our V6 engine, we have two engines a V6 and a V8. The V6 engine gets 31mpg and 305 horsepower. And the V8 gets 412 horsepower and gets 25mpg. So our engineers can do wonderful things with power trains these days.

And even as we go forward meeting the new CAFE requirements, Mustang is going to continue to have a place at the table because it’s such an economic product for us, and we’ll continue to deliver what customers want in that segment. Which is fuel economy and performance. So we’re going to deliver both.

BP: I’ve heard rumors that Ford will resurrect a halo car like the Ford GT. Can you comment on that?

Not really. At this point, we’ve not announced any plans for a halo car. Our product strategy really revolves around having a full product lineup and small, medium, and large cars, trucks and utilities, and delivering it with the best fuel economy, safety, quality, and smart technology. But, at this point, no news to make around any kind of halo car.

Image: Conner395/Flickr

BP: You also make a fleet for police agencies. Have you been successful in selling the Taurus to those agencies?

On police, we actually command 70% of the police cruiser market with our Crown Victoria. And everybody knows the Crown Victoria because when you’re driving down the road and you see a white Crown Victoria coming the other way people slow down. Right?

BP: Oh yeah.

We introduced, a couple of months ago, our new Police Interceptor vehicle. It is based off the Taurus chassis, but it is a purpose-built Police Interceptor, and that’s going to come in the marketplace late next year. We are still selling the Crown Vic.

So far, we’ve had a lot of good response to the new Police Interceptor and will begin selling it later next year. Also, on top of it, we introduced a new police utility vehicle, so now we’re going to have the most choice in the police market for the police agencies.

BP: Are you concerned about the redesigned Dodge Charger and Chevy Caprice?

Well, it’s always important to take a look at what’s going on in the competition. I think our product is going to speak for itself because we have worked–not only do we have over 50 years of experience in the police market with the products that we have already introduced, but even in the development of the new Police Interceptor, we have something called the police advisory board, which is made up of police captains and fleet administrators from the state, local, and federal levels. We have listened really closely to their input. And combined with our experience in the marketplace over the last 50 years, we really feel we have a superior product that’s really going to meet the needs of the police agencies.

BP: My final question is that diesel and turbo-diesel are pretty common in the E.U. Do you ever see them making it into the US? Or would you design a turbo-diesel motor for the US?

Our strategy has been to focus diesel on our trucks, like in the case of Super Duty. But in the case of diesel in vehicles here, we have decided for the time being to focus on our EcoBoost engines.

The reason for that is a couple of things. One is when you look at the regulatory environment, in Europe for example, the European governments shape their tax machines to really favor diesels. And therefore diesels are a big deal in Europe. They are really good and have come a long way technology-wise in the last 20 years.

Here in the US, it’s a little bit tougher for the American consumer to put that on the kitchen table when diesel prices are more expensive, and in some cases a lot more expensive than a gallon of gas.

So when you look at that, and you look at the costs for diesels and what we call the after treatment equipment that goes on the vehicle, it’s a pretty high premium for customers to purchase diesels.

That being said, if at any point we see diesels really starting to take off in cars, the beauty of our One Ford strategy and using common platforms around the world like the Focus I mentioned, we’ve already developed and designed those diesels and turbo-diesels for Europe. So we could quickly put them in vehicles here for the US. But right now, there are no plans to do so.

Mark Fields is executive vice president, Ford Motor Company, and president, The Americas, a position he assumed in October 2005. In this role, Fields is responsible for all operations involved in the development, manufacturing, marketing and sales of Ford, Mercury and Lincoln vehicles in the United States, Canada, Mexico and South America.

Potash Corporation, the Canadian fertilizer company that is the world’s biggest producer of potash, wants to block Australian mega-miner BHP Billiton from a $40 billion hostile takeover. MiningWeekly has more:

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan has filed a complaint in a US district court, in an attempt to block BHP Billiton’s hostile $40-billion offer for the company. The offer was “built upon false and misleading statements and omissions”, Potash Corp said in a document filed with the SEC on Wednesday. BHP has tried to buy Potash Corp “on the cheap by making its offer in an unusually coercive form”, the company said. “Shareholders lack clear and accurate information about BHP’s intentions and the true value” of Potash Corp shares, it added.

“Each of these is a critical consideration for PCS shareholders threatened with the prospect of becoming minority shareholders in a BHP-controlled entity because BHP can complete the tender offer by acquiring just over 50% of the shares.”

There’s a vulture waiting in the wings of this deal, and that’s Chinese trading giant Sinochem. From Reuters:

China’s Sinochem Corp has hired investment banks to look at toppling BHP Billiton’s $39 billion bid for Potash Corp, sources said, as the miner warned it would not be caught in an expensive bidding war for the world’s largest fertilizer group.

State-owned chemicals group Sinochem has hired Deutsche Bank and Citigroup to evaluate measures to foil BHP’s bid for Potash, sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

To add some political hues to the deal, a BHP buy could break up the Canadian potash cartel (yes, your heard right) called Canpotex. Again from Reuters:

(BHP Chief Executive Marius) Kloppers…said BHP was sticking with its plan to drop out of the Canpotex potash marketing cartel — effectively triggering its demise — if BHP’s bid succeeds….Canpotex…accounts for a third of global potash exports and has helped buoy prices for years. Potash Corp is one of three Canpotex members.

Breaking up the cartel could negatively affect miners working in Potash Corp’s home province of Saskatchewan.

Last Tuesday, a Chinese fishing boat collided with Japanese coast guard boats near the tiny Diaoyutai Islands (as they’re known to Taiwan. China calls them the Diaoyu. Japan calls them the Senkaku. All three countries claim them as their own.)

Japan took the captain and crew of the fishing boat hostage. It released the crew today, but the captain and boat remain in custody, pending a Japanese investigation. The arrests underline an ongoing power struggle between the two Asian superpowers, with China increasingly on the offensive. But, according to the Global Post’s Jonathan Adams, China and Japan are too economically interdependent to risk a full-scale conflict:

Nearby natural gas resources (Ed.: and potential oil reserves) make the islets’ location strategic…Japan has had greatest effective control…But China’s strong reaction to the latest incident reflects a newfound swagger, as the rising Asian power seeks to enforce a range of territorial claims, said Asia security expert and longtime China-watcher Willy Lam.

All of which suggests that Japan has a strong interest in resolving the current spat quickly, and, to the extent possible, to Beijing’s satisfaction.

Adams also suggests that “China’s emergence as a fishing superpower” played a part in the country’s strong reaction to Japan’s arrests. Chinese fishing boats catch 17 million tons of fish a year, according to Adams, far more than the US or Japan. China’s roughly 300,000 motorized boats “have been involved in disputes with the U.S. Navy, the Indonesian coast guard and now Japan,” writes Adams.

The increased chest-thumping reflects China’s growing role as an East Asian hegemon, in case we needed more proof of that. Read the rest of the Global Post article here.

Investment firm 3G Capital bought Burger King today for $3.26 billion. 3G Capital is backed by Brazilian tycoon Jorge Paulo Lemann, known in Brazil for founding the prestigious investment firm Banco Garantia and owning Brazilian brewing giant AmBev, which eventually merged with Belgium’s Interbrew to become InBev.

Burger King isn’t 3G’s first US fast food investment. The firm invested in Wendy’s in the past, according to the New York Times, which has more of the story:

3G views Burger King as a turnaround opportunity…Burger King has struggled lately. Last week it forecast weak demand in its new fiscal year amid high unemployment in the United States and economic weakness in Europe. It also cautioned that uncertainty regarding the costs of wheat and beef could affect its results.

3G expects to begin its tender offer no later than Sept. 17 and to close the deal in the fourth quarter this year. Burger King has the right to solicit higher offers through Oct. 12 under what is known as a “go-shop” period.

The Wall St. Journal has some analyst commentary on the situation:

BK, America’s second-biggest burger chain after McDonald’s, has been down this road before, having gone public in 2006, which is why some franchisees and investors are grumbling about the idea of going private again. As the WSJ’s Julie Jargon notes, some figure BK’s problem is its intense focus on die-hard Whopper munchers and a lack of menu creativity — not the ownership.

Finally, $4 billion seems to be a pretty good price, according to Telsey Advisory Group analyst Tom Forte, who notes that BK’s shares were just $16.45 — near a 52-week low — before the buyout chatter heated up.