70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Source

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

NATO is a military and political alliance, a security community that unites the largest number of States on both sides of the North Atlantic. During its existence, NATO has expanded 2.5 times. It accounts for 70% of global military spending. It is rightfully considered the most powerful military association of States in the entire history of mankind in terms of combined armed power and political influence. The fact that this year NATO turned 70 years old, which is more than the independent existence of some of its member States, proves an incredible success of this project. However, while the Alliance has successfully resisted external enemies in its history, today it is experiencing significant internal divisions that threaten its existence more than ever.

The founding date of NATO is April 4, 1949, the day 12 countries signed the Washington Treaty. NATO became a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on issues that affect the vital interests of participating countries. The organization’s primary goal was to deter any form of aggression against the territory of any member state, as well as to protect against these threats. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in article 5 of the Washington Treaty, implies that if one NATO member state is the victim of an armed attack, all other member States of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack on all NATO countries and will take actions that the organization deems necessary. At the end of the 20th century, the real threat to the West was the Soviet Union.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arose about the existence of NATO, as an Alliance created to protect against the Soviet threat. The disappearance of the external threat has led to a process of transformation that has been going on for 30 years. Each stage of transformation is directly related to the adaptation of the Alliance to certain changes taking place in the international arena and affecting the stability of the security system in the Euro-Atlantic and the world as a whole. In addition to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the key events that affected the development of the Alliance was the terrorist attack of 11.09.2001, which actually allowed the Alliance to be preserved, since then there was a common external threat to the member countries.

Traditionally, NATO’s transformations are considered in the following three areas: geographical changes, political transformations, and processes in the military-technical sphere.

Important political transformations are manifested in adapting to changes in the international arena, which are represented primarily by the disappearance of block opposition. The Alliance remains committed to the principle of collective defense, as set out in article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The main command structures also remain the same. The main transformations are expressed in the form of declarations of new NATO functions: maintaining peace and stability not only on the territory of the member States, but also outside the area of responsibility of the Alliance. The operations carried out in these territories are aimed at maintaining local and regional stability, eliminating ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining respect for human rights and various national minorities, and, most importantly, fighting international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The “new NATO” is being transformed from a regional organization into a guarantor of global stability, taking responsibility for stability in regions outside its own territories and in situations not covered by article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Assuming global responsibility, NATO is forced to maintain the necessary level of military power, participate in collective planning for the organization of nuclear forces and their deployment on its own territories. New threats encourage NATO to expand geographically.

The expansion of NATO, which implies the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact And the full-scale advance of military infrastructure to the East, represents a change in geography.

Changes in the military-technical sphere imply a General reduction of the Alliance’s collective military forces, their relocation, etc. The main form of transformation of the armed forces was the transition from ” heavy ” military associations to more flexible and maneuverable groups in order to increase their effectiveness in the fight against new threats. The beginning of the economic crisis in autumn 2008 revealed the urgent need for reforms. Member States were forced to reduce their military budgets, which meant abandoning programs involving the development and purchase of precision weapons. In 2010 the plan of the NATO Secretary-General A. Rasmussen’s plan to optimize the budget, and in 2012, the Chicago summit adopted the “smart defense package”, which implies a parallel reduction of funds and increased efficiency.

However, despite all the reforms carried out within the Alliance, today the new missions do not have the same clarity as during the cold war. Options for the purpose of NATO’s existence after the collapse of the USSR vary: the fight against terrorism, assistance in the spread of democracy, nation-building, “world police”, the fight against “soft threats”, the fight against a resurgent Russia. But the main problem of the Organization is that none of the options is universal for all member countries. None of the considered “enemies” unites NATO.

After various stages of transformation, NATO turned out that the condition for its perfect functioning was precisely the situation of structured confrontation. The current unstructured confrontation, which implies that all member countries have different primary threats, makes it meaningless to have a cumbersome and generally rather inert organization.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Illustrative Image

In 2014, NATO had another opportunity to create a common external enemy, the role of which was approached by Russia. The summit held in Wales in 2014 radically changed the agenda of the entire Alliance. The main topic of discussion was the Ukrainian crisis, which led to the conclusion about the need to contain Russia. The final Declaration of the summit notes that ” Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally called into question the vision of a whole, free and peaceful Europe”. “The illegal self-proclaimed annexation of Crimea and Russia’s aggressive actions in other regions of Ukraine” were highlighted as special threats among the spread of violence and extremist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.

The appearance of a ” dangerous external enemy ” entailed not only political transformations. There have also been reforms in the military sphere of NATO. Among the new security challenges were “hybrid wars”, that is, military actions involving an expanded range of military and civilian measures of an open or hidden nature. The adopted Action Plan, which includes the concept of “hybrid war”, was primarily aimed at countering the tactics of warfare used by Russia. Thus, a number of measures included in the Declaration were directed against Russia.

NATO was forced to return to the role of a guarantor against severe security threats, which significantly increased costs for the organization. At the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit, it was decided to further deploy 4 battalion tactical groups to existing military bases in Poland and the Baltic States. In addition, more than 550 tanks and an armored unit of the United States have been transferred to the region. These units are deployed on a rotational basis, which does not contradict the NATO-Russia Founding act of 1997. In the Declaration of the 2018 Brussels NATO summit it is recorded that the “enhanced presence in the forward area” of tactical groups includes a total of 4,500 military personnel, which is approximately equal to one brigade.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP

At the same time, it is clear that Russia does not pose a real threat to NATO. Real foreign policy practice proves that Russia will not threaten Western countries in the next 50 years. The only point of instability today is the Ukrainian conflict, which had no preconditions until 2014, and was in turn artificially created by the American establishment in partnership with Brussels. Russia, for its part, even in this conflict does not seek to expand its influence, and also observes the Minsk agreements that are unfavorable to It.

“The main reason why the United States has assumed the role of arbiter of the fate of Ukraine and its citizens is the allegedly increasing threat from Russia not only to Kiev, but also to Europe and the rest of the world. And this is despite the fact that it was with the help of the United States that mass protests were organized and the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in 2013-2014, which led to the war that has now unfolded in the heart of Eastern Europe,” writes geopolitical columnist Tony Kartaluchi in the new Eastern Outlook.

In 2016, the RAND organization conducted a study that showed that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Russian troops can be on the approaches to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours. The study showed that NATO forces are not sufficient to repel the Russian attack. In an interview, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that the main goal of deploying additional forces in Eastern Europe and Poland is to demonstrate the unity of the Alliance, and to maintain its members ‘ commitment to article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus, NATO adheres to the policy of declarative deterrence of Russia, in fact, its forces are not enough to respond to a potential attack from Russia. The NATO administration is well aware that the likelihood of a military conflict with Russia is minimal, but it continues to maintain the image of Russia as an aggressor in order to unite the member countries.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, leave at the end of a joint press conference in Warsaw, Poland, in June 2017. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Moreover, maintaining the image of a dangerous enemy gives the United States the opportunity to promote its own interests in Europe and manipulate its “partners”.

On June 25, Donald Trump finally confirmed that part of the American military contingent in Germany would be transferred to Poland. In the end, the American contingent in Germany will be reduced from 52 thousand people to 25 thousand. According to official data, in Germany there are about 35 thousand US military personnel, 10 thousand civil servants of the Pentagon and about 2 thousand contract workers. Some of the US military will return to America, some will go to Poland to strengthen the deterrence of the “Russian threat”. In addition, according to media reports, Polish President Andrzej Duda and Donald Trump discussed the possibility of transferring 30 f-16 fighters.

“They [Germany] spend billions of dollars to buy Russian energy resources, and then we are supposed to protect them from Russia. It doesn’t work that way. I think this is very bad, ” said Donald trump, accusing Berlin of supporting the Nord Stream 2 project.

When asked whether the US administration is trying to send a signal to Russia, Donald Trump stressed that Moscow was receiving a “very clear signal”, but Washington still expected to normalize their relations. This only underscores the fact that the US is taking advantage of the perceived Russian threat to NATO.

The American leader, by undermining cooperation between Moscow and Berlin in the energy sphere, not only prevents Russia, as one of their enemies in the international arena, from developing a profitable project. The US is also interested in weakening the leading European industries, primarily Germany. The United States does not tolerate strong enemies, but it also does not accept strong allies. It is in the interests of the Americans to prevent the redevelopment of Europe as a self-sufficient and independent center of power in the international arena.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
Defense spendings in relation to GDP of NATO member countries

Therefore, Donald Trump is strongly calling on Germany to reimburse the billions of dollars it owes the White House. Trump is dissatisfied with the fact that Berlin does not comply with the promise made by all NATO members to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. At the same time, Germany has already followed this path, increasing funding to 1.38%. In its turn, the US spends 3.4% of the state budget on the needs of the Alliance.

The problem of NATO funding is very often the main criticism of Berlin. However, in addition to this issue, new problems are emerging in US-German relations.

Washington is very dissatisfied with Berlin’s interaction with Beijing. The White House, which has strengthened the anti-Chinese vector of its policy, blaming the PRC for the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and accusing the Chinese side of “controlling” the World Health Organization (WHO), did not receive sufficient support in Europe, and Germany criticized.

Moreover, Berlin does not support Washington’s sanctions policy on Chinese Hong Kong, which Beijing allegedly takes away its independence from.

The US is particularly dissatisfied with the EU’s desire for a major investment agreement with China. Germany is the main ideologue of this process and seeks to close the deal during its six-month presidency of the EU Council.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
“One Belt, One Road” Initiative

China today, of course, is the main competitor of the United States in the struggle for world hegemony. China also raises considerable concerns among European countries, which is primarily due to economic expansion and the successful development of the large-scale Chinese initiative “One belt, one road”. European leaders are also competing with China for resources in third world countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are ideological differences between the two world regions. However, China does not currently pose a military threat to Europe, which does not allow the use of NATO forces against it.

While Western countries see Russia and China as the main threats, strategically they are primarily concerned about Iran and North Korea. These countries are also a threat primarily to the United States, but their European partners are not ready to conduct active military actions against them at the moment.

The only real dangerous factor that unites almost all NATO member countries remains international terrorism, in the fight against which Western countries act as a united front.70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

The current military and political course of the European Union is determined by the clear desire of its leadership to transform the military and political organization into one of the world’s leading centers of power. The aggravation of political and economic differences with the United States is the main incentive for the implementation of this goal. Thus, the EU’s focus on increasing independence in crisis management in the area of common European interests has had a decisive influence on the development of the common security and defense policy. In order to reduce dependence on the United States and NATO for conducting operations and missions within the framework of “force projection”, the leadership of the Association has stepped up activities to develop its own military component.

France and Germany are the main engines of this process, and are promoting the initiative to create the so-called European Defense Union. However, despite active efforts to expand military and military-technical cooperation within the EU, the declared goals of creating a “European army” with collective defense functions that duplicate the status and activities of NATO seem difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. This situation is due to the reluctance of the majority of EU member States to transfer control over their armed forces to the supranational level. Moreover, the US opposition to the process of forming the European Defense Union and the limited resources available due to the absorption by NATO structures of the major part of the defense potential of European countries, most of which are simultaneously involved in two organizations, do not allow the full implementation of EU political decisions on military construction. In this regard, it is only possible to talk about giving a new impetus to military cooperation in order to increase the collective capacity to protect the territory and citizens of the States of the region.

Given the lack of forces and resources for conducting operations and missions, Brussels is interested in the practice of involving military formations of third countries in its anti-crisis actions on the basis of bilateral framework agreements. Currently, such agreements have been reached with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and a number of other States.

Currently, the European Union conducts 16 military and mixed operations and missions in various regions of the world, involving about 4,500 people. The greatest attention is paid to the “zones of instability” in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?
NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg

Thus, NATO today has to do everything possible to support the unity and coherence of actions of all its member countries, which are more than ever under threat. The main European leaders are no longer ready to support US policy and continue to sacrifice their own national interests. If in the case of Germany, this is manifested primarily in support of the Nord stream 2 project, despite the threats of the United States. France today supports its own interests in Libya, which contradict the interests of other countries-members of the Alliance: Turkey and Italy. Certainly, Turkey and Italy have different positions and aspirations in Libya. Italy was previously a traditional ally of France and does not actively intervene in the military conflict. However, now, given the current predominance of Turkey in Libya, Italy is trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand, Italy, while supporting Tripoli, does not actively help them. On the other hand, in political terms, it clearly stands on the side of Tripoli and Turkey, thereby trying to ensure its share of participation in the next division of Libyan natural resources after the supposed victory of the Turkish-Tripolitan Alliance.

Summing up, today the imaginary Russian threat no longer allows US to unite the Alliance members, but only serves as a method of implementing US interests. The White House, which has always played a leading role in NATO and retains it thanks to the largest percentage of investment in the Alliance, allows itself to more openly abuse its leading position and promote its own national interests and the interests of its elites through the North Atlantic Alliance to the detriment of the interests of partner countries. Thus, article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which implies decision-making by consensus and is the basis of NATO itself, is of less and less importance in practice. The United States cannot renounce its membership in NATO and is interested in preserving it, because it is the Western Alliance that allows the US to give at least a small share of legitimacy to its military actions. A kind of neo-colonial policy, that the United States is used to employ in relation to European countries, and the current significant shift in the political paradigm within the US itself do not allow us to hope that the American leadership will be able to strengthen its position in Europe in the coming years.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Source

July 06, 2020

Kazakhstan may hold the secret for Greater Eurasia

Submitted by Pepe Escobar – source Asia Times

The no holds barred US-China strategic competition may be leading us to the complete fragmentation of the current “world-system” – as Wallerstein defined it.

Yet compared to the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Straits, India-China’s Himalayan border, and selected latitudes of the Greater Middle East, Central Asia shines as a portrait of stability.

That’s quite intriguing, when we consider that the chessboard reveals the interests of top global players intersecting right in the heart of Eurasia.

And that brings us to a key question: How could Kazakhstan, the 9th largest country in the world, manage to remain neutral in the current, incandescent geopolitical juncture? What are the lineaments of what could be described as the Kazakh paradox?

These questions were somewhat answered by the office of First President Nursultan Nazarbayev. I had discussed some of them with analysts when I was in Kazakhstan late last year. Nazarbayev could not answer them directly because he has just recently recovered from Covid-19 and is currently in self-isolation.

It all harks back to what was Kazakhstan really like when the USSR dissolved in 1991. The Kazakhs inherited a quite complex ethno-demographic structure, with the Russian-speaking population concentrated in the north; unresolved territorial issues with China; and geographical proximity to extremely unstable Afghanistan, then in a lull before the all-out warlord conflagration of the early 1990s which created the conditions for the emergence of the Taliban.

To make it even harder, Kazakhstan was landlocked.

All of the above might have led to Kazakhstan either dispatched to political limbo or mired in a perpetual Balkan scenario.

Have soft power, will travel

Enter Nazarbayev as a fine political strategist. From the beginning, he saw Kazakhstan as a key player, not a pawn, in the Grand Chessboard in Eurasia.

A good example was setting up the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building measures in Asia (CICA) in 1992, based on the principle of “indivisibility of Asian security”, later proposed to the whole of Eurasia.

Nazarbayev also made the crucial decision to abandon what was at the time the fourth nuclear missile potential on the planet – and a major trump card in international relations. Every major player in the arc from the Middle East to Central Asia knew that selected Islamic nations were extremely interested in Kazakhstan’s nuclear arsenal.

Nazarbayev bet on soft power instead of nuclear power. Unlike the DPRK, for instance, he privileged Kazakhstan’s integration in the global economy in favorable terms instead of relying on nuclear power to establish national security. He was certainly paving the way for Kazakhstan to be regarded as a trustworthy, get down to business neutral player and a mediator in international relations.

The trust and goodwill towards Kazakhstan is something I have seen for myself in my pan-Eurasia travels and in conversations with analysts from Turkey and Lebanon to Russia and India.

The best current example is Astana, currently Nur-sultan, becoming the HQ of that complex work in progress: the Syrian peace process, coordinated by Iran, Turkey and Russia – following the crucial, successful Kazakh mediation to solve the Moscow-Ankara standoff after the downing of a Sukhoi Su-24M near the Syria-Turkish border in November 2015.

And on the turbulent matter of Ukraine post-Maidan in 2014, Kazakhstan simultaneously kept good relations with Kiev and the West and its strategic partnership with Russia.

As I discussed late last year, Nur-sultan is now actively taking the role of the new Geneva: the capital of diplomacy for the 21st century.

The secret of this Kazakh paradox is the capacity of delicately balancing relations with the three main players – Russia, China and the US – as well as leading regional powers. Nazarbayev’s office boldly argues that can be even translated to Nur-sultan placed as the ideal venue for US-China negotiations: “We are tightly embedded in the US-China-Russia triangle and have built trusting relationships with each of them.”

In the heart of Eurasia

And that brings us to why Kazakhstan – and Nazarbayev personally – are so much involved in promoting their special concept of Greater Eurasia – which overlaps with the Russian vision, discussed in extensive detail at the Valdai Club.

Nazarbayev managed to set a paradigm in which none of the big players feel compelled to exercize a monopoly on Kazak maneuvering. That inevitably led Kazakhstan to expand its foreign policy reach.

Strategically, Kazakhstan is smack in the geographical heart of Eurasia, with huge borders with Russia and China, as well as Iran in the Caspian Sea. Its territory is no less than a top strategic bridge uniting the whole of Eurasia.

The Kazakh approach goes way beyond connectivity (trade and transport), two key planks of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to get closer to the converging vision of BRI and the Russian-led Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU): a single, integrated Eurasian space.

Nazarbayev sees the integration of the Central Asian “stans” with Russia and with Turkic-speaking countries, including of course Turkey, as the foundation for his concept of Greater Eurasia.

The inevitable corollary is that the Atlanticist order – as well as the Anglo-American predominance in international relations – is waning, and certainly does not suit Asia and Eurasia. A consensus is forming across many key latitudes that the driving force for the reboot of the global economy post-Covid-19 – and even a new paradigm – will come from Asia.

In parallel, Nazarbayev’s office make a crucial point: “A purely Asian or Eastern answer is unlikely to suit the collective West, which is also in search of optimal models of the world’s structure. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative clearly showed that Western countries are not psychologically ready to see China as a leader.”

Nur-sultan nonetheless remains convinced that the only possible solution would be exactly a new paradigm in international relations. Nazarbayev argues that the keys to solve the current turmoil are not located in Moscow, Beijing or Washington, but in a strategic transit node, like Kazakhstan, where the interests of all global players intersect.

Thus the push for Kazakhstan – one of the key crossroads between Europe and Asia, alongside Turkey and Iran – to become the optimal mediator allowing Greater Eurasia to flourish in practice. That is the uplifting option: otherwise, we seem condemned to live through another Cold War.

Central Downtown Nur-Sultan: in center Bayterek tower

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 3

Source

July 01, 2020

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 3

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

This will be presented in 3 parts and in 3 different blog posts

Part 1

Part 2


PART – 3

2008 ONWARDS – PREPARATION FOR FINAL ACT

The financial crisis that started in USA in 2007 became global by 2008 which impacted countries and societies across the world. The year 2008 has already been identified as watershed moment for world economy. However, I would like to put forward a hypothesis stretching the arguments further on why 2008 will be remembered as historic moment that started new preparations:

a) Since 1990s, the latest version of capitalism – Financial capitalism – has been developing strong operations in Anglo countries USA-UK-Canada-Australia and west Europe on the back of Financial services-Insurance-Real estate (termed by economists as FIRE) sectors. That was in line with the political economy of ‘capitalism’ – capital, by definition, needs continuous expansion, the capitalists were/are always in search of new horizons which would provide them more profit that would continue the ‘endless accumulation of capital’.

Before the chapter on financial capitalism got initiated, the businessmen in USA and other Anglo countries carried out two rounds of well-planned outsourcing (by definition, outsourcing brings down the product cost on one hand, and on the other hand outsourcing relieves company management from mundane tasks to devote more time on core competences) of non-MIC non-Energy manufacturing activities: (i) in stage 1 during 1950s and 1960s, they outsourced such economic activities to Japan-South Korea-Taiwan in order to create an economic vassalage through which the living standards of the so-called east Asian tiger economies will be pulled upwards to show ‘miracles’ (happened due to western liberal capitalist democracy), (ii) in stage 2 during 1980s and 190s, they outsourced even larger part of such economic activities to China that in turn would provide massive employment opportunity in China (happened due to western liberal capitalism and technological superiority), which would entice the Chinese government to join the Zionist Capitalist camp.

During 2007 and 2008, all the financial engineering that designed and implemented the FIRE sectors came crashing down. Apparently, ‘financial capitalism’ wasn’t that fault-proof in the face of infinite greed of capitalists. The situation was salvaged through ‘socialising the losses’ suffered by the ‘too-big-to-fail’ banks and financial services companies in USA, and other Anglo countries – the government released trillions of USD to support the crisis-creators. But a much more significant incident was that, the Zionist Capitalist Deep State clique started introspection on how long they can depend on ‘financial capitalism’ to continue accumulation of capital, and as a natural corollary, it appeared to them that ‘industrial capitalism’ was a more secure version of capitalism that was sent abroad with much fanfare. Both the beneficiaries of outsourcing i.e. China and Japan-South Korea-Taiwan block were very well established in the nuances of complete business cycle of ‘industrial capitalism’. The Deep State headquarters (in USA) also remembered that most of the Zionist Capitalist elites of non-Anglo west Europeans were never very serious about outsourcing – as a result, even in late 2000s, Germany-France-Italy-Netherlands-Sweden could maintain a base of ‘industrial capitalism’ (though not a vibrant one under the competitive stress generated by east Asian industrialists)!

The fact that, the Chinese government steadfastly refused to carry out political reforms and to privatize state-owned enterprises came as addition of salt to injury for the Zionist Capitalist Deep State. There was unanimous consent – Chinese manufacturing ‘juggernaut’ would have to be rolled back, and along with that, the unfinished WW II task of destroying CPC would have to be completed.

b) If the Deep State elites were trying in vain, to create environment for Chinese top leadership to switch over to liberal capitalism, the same Deep State elites were dreaming about Russia being colonised by the London-based Zionist Capitalist businessmen and bankers. By the time when they woke up in 2008, Russia developed on all fronts including exports (USD 468 billion primarily from petroleum and natural gas) and Russian government was working all-out to improve the living conditions of the society. After 1991, the Russian capitalist-swindlers were in self-congratulatory mode about how they grabbed the resource extracting sector like petroleum, natural gas, aluminium etc. – with huge mineral and hydrocarbon reserves, using the Anglo-American technologies, the Russian capitalist-swindlers were confident to generate huge revenue and profit year after year. However, post-1991 ‘reformed political environment’ brought such a top leadership who would slowly but surely entrust the custody of most of the natural resources to the state-owned enterprises. Even more interesting event was that, Russian scientists and technologists were again engaged on research and development of military equipment. The military-industrial-complex of Soviet Union was decimated after 1991 mainly because no single successor country of Soviet Union had the entire production chain (it was distributed among different provinces like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus etc.). Russian leadership intuitively developed the entire supply and production chain in their territory – as a result, very soon Russia became a potent force in arms export. It is not the total amount of export that mattered – the advancements in technology was far ahead in complexity and quality of armaments compared to the armaments owned by military forces of USA-5 Eyes-NATO, particularly in electronic warfare, missiles, and fifth generation military aircraft.

The writing on the wall was clear for the Zionist Capitalist Deep State – the resurgent Russia would utilise the energy export revenue to restructure its own military forces with such magnificent military machines, and Russia will curve-out a share of world-wide military arms export market. This entire cycle would create unwanted competition from technically strong Russia in energy sector and MIC sector, the only sectors of ‘industrial capitalism’ for which the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy still maintained their business portfolio. Again, there was unanimous consent – Russian energy export would have to be rolled back, and along with that, the Russian Federation would have to be dealt a decapitating blow to eliminate current leadership.

c) While all partners of the Deep State cabal were in agreement on the above mentioned points (a) and (b), there was complete lack of convergence on the long-term strategy and plan of action to achieve these objectives.

Such lack of strategic planning and coordination was evident after 2008. For the first time in five centuries the Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal thought that, they need to include more ethnic groups – Barack Husain Obama (representing Afro-Americans) was selected as the President of USA for two terms from 2009 to 2016. It is doubtful, if that action really increased the strength of the cabal. The Zionist Capitalist cabal made a half-hearted initiative to create political-economic supranational blocks (through signing of TPP, TTIP, and TISA) that will impair all-round security of China-Russia and few other countries where governments were being run by anti-imperialist political parties. Such exclusive trade blocks, if materialised, would have (i) impinged on ‘state’ sovereignty of all member states where MNC business entities took priority over state, (ii) created ‘captive market’ for goods and services produced by MNC business entities owned by Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarchy plus Japanese and Korean oligarchy, and (iii) maintained US fiat Dollar as global exchange currency.

[ Link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-would-abolish-europes-sovereignty-the-eu-would-become-a-us-colony/5417382 ]

If such trade blocks would have been superimposed with EU and NATO, the world would have seen the birth of largest directly controlled empire in history spanning across east and south-east Asia, Europe, North America, most of South America. It is doubtful, if the Deep State elites ever pondered over the absurdity of such planning.

Donal Trump burst into the centre-stage in 2016 end without getting selected by the Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal. But he was quick to get accustomed with the Deep State objectives and strategy – after all, the role of President of USA have been the façade of the Deep State since 1945 (replacing Prime Minister of UK who used to shoulder that ‘responsibility’ for previous couple of centuries). At the first place, Trump’s election as the President of USA itself showed the lack of coordination among the factions of Zionist Capitalist cabal. After Trump settled in, the policy appeared as ‘bring back the manufacturing industry from China any how’ without any arrangement for upstream and downstream supply chain. Any planning of this type of infantile disorder is bound to fail. On the other hand, Trump thinks that Russia would be immature enough to get mollycoddled by his words on how Russia is important in current world economy while maintaining the economic sanctions (which have been hitting Russian economy hard for past 6 years). Again, Trump alienated most of the west European partners through his repeated calls for increasing military budgets by west European NATO partners. Needless to say that, none of Trump’s action plans are backed by thorough study. Similar to immature strategic plans vis-à-vis China, the Deep State have been showing lack of ingenuity vis-à-vis Russia.

Across the world, the serious fact-based researchers and reporters are divided in their opinion – the larger group is of the opinion that the Deep State cabal is in deep crisis that have been brewing for decades (due to factors like ‘intrinsic crisis’ of capitalism, and ‘limitations’ of fiat US Dollar printing or QE, ‘limitations’ of imperial outreach etc.), while relatively smaller group feels that irrespective of such limitations, Deep State will continue to maintain its hegemonic hold over the world order through new tricks. I tend to side with the logic of the smaller group. Notwithstanding the obvious weaknesses of the Deep State cabal, they have wealth cumulatively built up for past five centuries and they have corrupted the educated group of people in all countries since the end of WW I – hence they would look to perpetuate their hegemonic world order in the foreseeable future.

d) Nevertheless the Zionist Capitalist cabal has made an impressive array of arrangements, even if that won’t be coherent enough to defeat either China or Russia:

i. USA Military forces through its regional commands across the world, along with the 5-Eyes military forces maintain high degree of military alertness and preparedness aimed at fighting at least two wars simultaneously at two different ‘theatres’. They have developed and deployed a ubiquitous comprehensive C4ISTAR system and standard operating procedure that will support ‘first strike’ to decapitate the adversary (with Hypersonic strike vehicles, Russia and China are the only countries that defy this). Among significant military assets, very strong naval force with 11 Carrier Strike Groups (CSG), largest fleet of nuclear submarines, largest fleet of ‘stealth’ multi-role military aircrafts, outdated Ballistic Missile Defence system (BMD) to strike down incoming (up to supersonic) projectiles through launching or midcourse or terminal stage, second largest stockpile of Nuclear warheads that can be delivered from land, air, and sea.

ii.  Apart from above mentioned weaponry (common across the world), USA possess highly sophisticated space based weapons like kinetic kill vehicle, and directed energy weapon which, apparently, can be launched by robotic orbital vehicle (X 37B); monitoring and surveillance of satellites sent by other countries to the high earth orbit (HEO) and low earth orbit (LEO) using four satellites of Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP); special armaments researched by DARPA like robotic combat force, microsatellite-cum-drone, microbiological weapons, weather control techniques (HAARP etc.)

iii. USA (along with forces from Rest of 5Eyes, NATO, Israel, Japan) Deep State has been meticulously carrying out military encirclement of Russia and China around their geographical boundary for past two decades. Nuclear warheads in NATO bases in Turkey, Italy and other European countries, BMD system installation in at Poland, Romania, Japan, and South Korea, CSG in all the oceans, more than 700 military bases in Europe-Asia-Africa-Pacific Ocean-Indian Ocean-Atlantic Ocean, and agreements with dozens of non-NATO but pro-Deep State countries for sharing military facilities and logistics facility

e) The Zionist Capitalist oligarchy has been looking beyond the ‘industrial capitalism’ and ‘financial capitalism’. A set of new possibilities have appeared on the horizon – these are not completely ‘new’ because during past two centuries all of these formed a small segment of all-encompassing ‘industrial capitalism’. In the new century, however, any of these or a combination of these can grow into ‘opportunity’ of a new ‘version’ of capitalism:

  1. Exotic materials like Cobalt, Lithium, and Uranium etc.
  2. Genetic engineering and artificial life
  3. Climate engineering
  4. Artificial intelligence
  5. Surveillance and mind control
  6. Healthcare and medicine
  7. Space travel and settlement

Current geopolitical control-points of Deep State:

1. In East Asia, South-East Asia, South Asia, Pacific Ocean zone, Indian Ocean zone the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of China’, ‘Military Partnership with India’ and ‘Creation of Indo-Pacific NATO’ through the programmes like:

  1. Installing Deep State followers as the ruling elites of Taiwan island who could declare formal independence from Chinese mainland
  2. Fomenting secessionist movements in Hong Kong, Xinjiang (East Turkestan), Xizang (Tibet) regions of China. The Deep State would utilize fault-lines of multi-ethnic and multi-religion society of China to tear apart the country into multiple vassal states
  3. Provoking trouble in South China Sea, East China Sea through mobilising the governments of littoral states like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan and nudging them towards confrontational behaviour with China
  4. Keeping the ‘Korean problem’ alive by manipulating successive South Korean governments to take aggressive stance towards North Korean government so that peace agreement (as logical settlement of Korean War armistice) never happens
  5. Keeping the ‘Kuril Islands problem’ alive by co-opting successive Japanese governments towards taking an illogical stand towards proposals of Russian government so that peace agreement (as logical end of WW II) never happens
  6. Keeping the land boundary dispute between India and China alive through co-opting the Indian ruling party leadership and nudging them towards confrontation
  7. Provoking Salafist Islamic terrorism in India, and then cozying up to the Indian government with offer for ‘generous support’, if India joins the USA-led multi-country military block mainly targeted against China
  8. Manipulating Indian leaders and bureaucrats to play a hegemonic role in the south Asian neighbourhood, which would seek to get elite followers of the Deep State camp elected as top leaders of countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives
  9. Forming an ‘informal’ naval alliance among India-Japan-Australia-South Korea which would keep navy of China and Russia under check, and if push comes to shove the ‘quad’ navy would block the Malacca strait to cripple Chinese trade
  10. Corrupting the political parties in Asia’s south-east and south region (countries like Vietnam, South Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc.) which had glorious anti-imperialist struggle for many decades to influence them against economic association with China and Russia
  11. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying infrastructure projects under Chinese government’s BRI initiative as ‘debt trap’ and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

2. In West Asia, North-East Africa, North Africa zone, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘Reorganize State boundaries’, ‘Turn the Region into Domain of Israel’, ‘All-round Containment of Russia and China’ through the programmes like:

  1. Destabilizing existing states through opposition political party (controlled by Deep State) who would manipulate the popular despair and anger against the autocratic rulers in North Africa, West Asia, North-East Africa;
  2. Creating multiple groups of Salafist terrorists by recruitment among the mostly unemployed and uneducated Arab youth from Sunni Islam communities living in the vast desert corridor stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan
  3. Portraying the army of Arab Salafist terrorists as army of ‘pan-Islamic Caliph’ through recruitment of non-Arab mercenary forces from Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia to create a ‘legitimacy’ among the mostly unemployed and uneducated Asian and African Muslim population who have been brainwashed by religious preachers for generations about glorious ‘Islamic Caliphate’
  4. Mobilising multiple Salafist terrorist groups to bring down existing rulers and simultaneously creating as many fiefdoms by dividing the existing state boundary – thus existing ‘state’ would be converted into ‘statelet’ managed by the terrorist groups
  5. Positioning Israel as the de-facto politico-military leader for all governments in West Asia, North-East Africa, North Africa regions; Israel would act as coordinator entity for providing economic and military assistance to the series of satellite statelet
  6. Manipulating the Kurdish liberation forces spread over Turkey, Syria, and Iraq to break away from their parent countries and create new state of ‘Kurdistan’ that would be a NATO asset in west Asia
  7. Creating multiple power-centres within the Sunni Arab sheikhdoms which would be crucial to control the ambitious Saudi clan

Keeping Iran as a ‘pariah’ state in global affairs through sanctions and limited military strikes until the internal political situation would be ripe enough to be manipulated to overthrow the government of Shia Iranian revolutionaries

  1. Maintaining a high level of USA naval readiness in Persian Gulf through which would keep navy of Iran and Russia under check
  2. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying Russian ruling party’s internal policies as corruption of ‘Putin faction’ to create negative image of Russian energy and defence industry

3) In Western Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa zones, the key strategic control themes have been ‘All-round Containment of China’, ‘Military Partnership with Nigeria’ and ‘Transform Military Foothold into Large Bases’ driven through programmes like:

  1. Destabilizing existing state apparatus by arming various tribal warlords who are divided among religious lines (Christian, Sunni Islam) in central and western regions of Africa; state like Rwanda and Burundi would remain hotbeds for ever
  2. Deploying military detachments by USA, France, Israel citing old Zionist Capitalist rhetoric of ‘maintaining human rights, democracy and governance’
  3. Corrupting the political parties in Africa’s southern region (countries like South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania etc.) where anti-imperialist struggle were in the global headlines for three decades (1950 to 1970) to influence them against economic association with China and Russia
  4. Building ‘client state’ in all regions of Africa where the entire spectrum of political leadership would follow the ideology and policies pushed by the deep State – countries like Malawi, Liberia, South Sudan etc.
  5. Keeping the ‘Katanga problem’ alive by manipulating the internal political parties, armed groups, neighbouring countries – either DR Congo would become satellite of the Deep State or Katanga would be curved out as ‘independent’ country
  6. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying Chinese ruling party’s internal debates as ‘factional fight’ to create factionalism within the ruling party, and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

4. In West Europe, and East Europe zones, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of Russia’, ‘Every state under supranational EU’, ‘Create African-Germanic-Slavic Hybrid Society’, ‘Ruin the Slavic Civilization’ through the programmes like:

  1. Bringing all countries under ‘EU’ banner either as a direct member or as associate thereby diminishing the sovereignty of European states through shifting all governance and policy matters to EU – it ensures single point of contact for hegemonic empire run by Deep State
  2. Expanding NATO to the borders of current Russia through creating Deep State loyalist governments in ex-Soviet bloc countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary and creating USA army bases with nuclear missile installations
  3. Manipulating Turkey, Saudi, Libya political and bureaucratic leadership to mobilize millions of Arab Sunni Muslim low-skilled people into different countries of Europe
  4. Manipulating EU member states to take those ‘forced refugee’ and settle them in Europe to create a multi-ethnic multi-religion hybrid society in Europe – they will form the ‘working class’ people as well as form the backbone of a future European army
  5. Infiltrating the leadership of European political parties which profess ‘socialist’ ideologies (hence, ‘anti-imperialist’ but not Marxist) so that all these parties become ‘controlled opposition’ – in case Deep State supported elitist party loses election, the new government still maintain the capitalist and imperialist policies
  6. Staging false flag terrorist attacks in countries like France, Germany, Italy whenever the ruling leadership in those countries appear to deviate from policies of Deep State, particularly if these leaders try to develop economic relationship with China and Russia
  7. Spreading false propaganda in European media and academic institutions identifying fascist Germany’s territorial expansion and genocides as equivalent to communist Soviet Union’s defensive manoeuvres and administrative overbearingness, and vilifying present Russian government as authoritarian
  8. Provoking secessionist movements (using any fault-line – religion, language, ethnicity) in all geographical regions that come under erstwhile Yugoslavia and Soviet Union so that both these regions are destroyed beyond repair – thus, if ex-Yugoslavia now comprises of (say) 5 statelet, the Deep State would strive to make 10 splinters, similarly if ex-Soviet Union now comprises of (say) 15 statelet, the Deep State would strive to make 30 splinters
  9. Manipulating the political leadership and bureaucracy in all ex-USSR states towards taking government policy decisions/actions which will actively hurt Russian interests
  10. Creating hindrances for Russian access to deep sea ports in Baltic Sea and black Sea to not only restrict their economic activities but also to check the naval forces

5. In South America, and Central America zones, the key strategic control revolves around objectives like ‘All-round Containment of Russia and China’, ‘Creation of Latin American NATO’, ‘Keep Latin America as USA Playground’ through the programmes like:

  1. Bringing all countries under ‘OAS’ banner through which the Deep State will directly interfere in the governance and policy matters – in fact, this organisation coordinates the appointments to legislature, executive, and judiciary in all South American and Central American countries so that only Zionist Capitalist elites get into the top positions of political parties and bureaucracy
  2. Expanding NATO in South America so that the main anti-zionist anti-capitalist government of Venezuela can be directly invaded – to that effect, the Deep State has enrolled Colombia, Peru and Brazil governments to become host of the USA military bases
  3. Infiltrating the leadership of European political parties which profess ‘socialist’ ideologies (hence, ‘anti-imperialist’ but not Marxist) so that all these parties become ‘controlled opposition’ – in case Deep State supported elitist party loses election, the new government still maintain the capitalist and imperialist policies
  4. In case, political parties with Marxist ideology comes to state power through democratic elections, the Deep State will organise trouble within common people and Defence establishment and instigate them to seize power by overthrowing the elected government (Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia etc.)
  5. Keeping Cuba under most severe economic sanction and blockade for over six decades – key objectives have been to wreck the Cuban economy and break the Marxist ruling party
  6. Creating a second ‘homeland’ for the Jewish elites and aristocrats, by acquiring very large tract of land and building townships in Patagonia region of Argentina – considering Israel, the first ‘homeland’ has been facing quite difficulty in accomplishing the target of direct control of the stretch of ‘Nile-to-Euphrates’ land, this move will ensure long-term control of Latin America
  7. Spreading concocted stories on global media identifying infrastructure projects under Chinese government’s BRI initiative as ‘debt trap’ and maligning Chinese manufacturing industry as ‘sweatshop’ to create a negative image

All dressed up, but nowhere to go!

As noted above, the Deep State has been making quite assiduous preparations for teaching China and Russia the final lessons on the consequences of violating the rules of “end of history” – the principles of capitalist market economy and electoral democracy. But nobody among the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy knows how such lessons will be taught – China and Russia together control the largest land area, together they house the largest population, together they store the largest reserve of natural resources, together they have most educated and most disciplined work force, together they process/ manufacture largest share of energy and manufactured goods, and together they deploy the largest and most sophisticated military forces. Considering only China, it has third largest land area, largest population, most educated and most disciplined work force, largest share of manufactured goods, and fourth largest military force.

The Deep State, within a span of 100 years forgot that, not only they became more sophisticated, but their biggest adversaries in ‘Eurasian Heartland’: Russia and China, also became more astute. This is not to conclude that Deep State would put to rest their final assault. They will, because ideology and political economy of the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy would compel them to do so. It is imperative that China (and Russia) plan and implement their strategy in the most opportune time.

8. ROAD AHEAD

Let me recall the first paragraph of the first section (INTRODUCTION) of this document. A question was put forward as “what would be the action plan of the global oligarchy who collectively own banking and industrial sectors and who maintain current unipolar world order through chosen members of the so-called Deep State”; most probable answer was “state policy and implementation of the same would be geared towards accumulation of capital in every country except the six countries”. If the global oligarchy remain busy in wealth accumulation, what would be the strategy and action plan of the local oligarchy (consists of industrialists, bankers, large landlords, leaders of main political parties, bureaucracy)? Answer to this question is complex – local oligarchy being directly integrated with the local society, they can’t act in a complete self-seeking manner like their global counterpart. Local oligarchy is bound to look after the arrangements for minimum subsistence of the citizens, and thereafter carry out wealth accumulation. Hence, there is a necessity of minimum economy and governance in every state in the world. With IMF, WBG, ADB banking institutions retreating into conservative procedures as well as USA, 5-Eyes, EU, Japan applying partial break on aids, at least 150 out of 194 UNO member countries would require loan, aid, other techno-economic help. China with largest GDP PPP, largest forex reserve, gigantic domestic market, and largest STEM pool of students would be in a position to fulfil this historic role, even if the leadership may not find it enviable.

Moreover, as noted in previous sections (CHINA IN DENG ERA, POST-DENG CHINA) China has been moving on a continuous journey initiated by Deng’s reforms and managed by successive leaders through tweaking some policy matters and effective coordination. Key statistical indicators during this entire period is given below:

[ Link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980 ]

Chinese government would have to reach a ‘logical destination’ in near future – CPC leaders have set their targets on what figure of common socio-economic indicators would be construed as ‘successes. Hence, China will stay on current course till 2028/ 2030 CE impacting global capitalist economy in fundamental way:

  1. Chinese companies will design and develop wide range of consumer products using Chinese patented technology and receive wide acceptance across the world;
  2. China will cease from being ‘factory of the world’ and develop relationship with Asian/African/ South American countries to spread the manufacturing activities there. A mix economy driven by domestic consumption plus exports in China will be healthy for the entire world
  3. Chinese government (along with Russian government) will develop an ecosystem across Europe and Asia in which Banking-Finance and Industry-Economy are intertwined
  4. The system of ‘capitalist market economy through state-owned and private-owned enterprises’ developed in China will evolve as a ‘model’ for many African and Asian countries
  5. Chinese government will continue with the BRI programme as a framework for investments in railways, roads, ports, electricity generation, communication network, mining, manufacturing factory projects in Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America
  6. While making investments in China or in any other country Chinese government will give due importance to environment and take necessary actions so that ecosystem is well-preserved
  7. Chinese government (along with Russian government) will establish an international monetary system to ensure that interests of the non-European and non-5 Eyes countries are maintained This should also include replacement of US Dollar as world’s reserve currency by a basket of currencies of world’s top ten economies (GDP in PPP terms) backed by gold/valuables

The quest for world-wide Zionist capitalist democratic empire (as noted in section GEOPOLITICS 1930 ONWARDS) will never end unless the oligarchy and aristocracy take such decision against their five century old collective psyche. So, it can be safely presumed that the Deep State will continue to look for destroying all sorts of resistance to their hegemony – it is simply immaterial whether the antagonist country profess liberal capitalist (Russia) or socialist (Cuba, China) or Shia Islamic (Iran) or nationalist (Venezuela) philosophy. For the Deep State, complete subjugation is the only way forward. Let’s go back to the first section (INTRODUCTION) again where I mentioned that, China (because of its large landmass and huge population) would be in ideal position to resist the unipolar world order and roll back the onward march of global capitalism in order to build a more equitable society (with crucial support from Russia). Current world order (even when Russia-China-Iran are putting up a brave resistance to the hegemonic Deep State) is anything but equitable. It is one thing to struggle against Zionist Capitalist world order to establish an order with cosmetic change, and it is entirely different thing to struggle to establish an ideal order that brings fundamental transformation. Whichever path Chinese leadership follow, there has to be a detail planning for the same. Let me play the role of a candid analyst.

Looking forward – Option 1:

Option 1 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel world order with cosmetic changes around 2030 CE, and there won’t be any change in ruling party in China during this journey when CPC top leadership maintains their current road – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ which will result in further evolution of the private capitalist businessmen class – share of capital asset owned by private enterprises will crawl upwards and share of output by private enterprises will rise faster in GDP. Government will control corruption-inflation-unemployment strictly, will implement new policies to control the capitalist class, and will provide welfare schemes to commoners in order to maintain legitimacy of CPC within the society.
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will continue to increase to such a level that the Deep State will find it completely embroiled without an easy exit – a ‘hot’ limited war will be fought between two sides: USA-Japan-South Korea and China-North Korea, which will end with effective departure of USA military from Asia region, and Chinese unification with Taiwan.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal would redefine their ‘territory’ by identifying core zone as Europe continent, North America continent, Australia-New Zealand-Japan (islands), and India-Israel (countries living with island mentality) – within these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be under sway of MNCs owned by the oligarchy clique.
  4. In Asia, Africa, South America continents, China will get accepted as the leader in economic and socio-cultural sphere, while Russia will evolve as the leader in military and energy sphere – within these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will have majority part of their business relationship with China and Russia; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade and finance relationship with Deep State dominated regions.
  5. Fundamentals of capitalistic economy will remain intact in the China-Russia dominated regions with both state-owned and private-owned enterprises ruling the roost – the cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital will continue, but under supervision of the state; also, general welfare and social security for all classes of citizens will be ensured by the state.
  6. 2050 CE onwards, the tussle between two ‘worlds’ will be reflected very badly in the realm of space and planetary exploration as well as environment of our planet – the Deep State-controlled ‘world’ will seek domination of space through advanced technology in the field of aerospace and defence, which may not become a priority for Chin-Russ civilizational combination.
  7. the Deep State-controlled ‘world’ will seek final revenge on the other ‘world’ by climate engineering during which weather manipulation in the form of substantial temperature rise, extreme cyclonic storm, long duration of drought, out of season rainfall etc. will be effected to destroy agriculture and urban society within a decade or so. Though the Deep State will attempt to become the uncontested hegemon the other world will continue to struggle independently as a block.

Looking forward – Option 2:

Option 2 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel world order with cosmetic changes around 2030 CE, and there will be unpredicted change in ruling party in China during which CPC will be replaced by a liberal capitalist political party supported by Deep State-led ‘democracy movement’ – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ which will result in further evolution of the private capitalist businessmen class – share of capital asset owned by private enterprises will increase substantially and share of output by private enterprises will rise exponentially in GDP. Government will not be effective to control corruption-inflation-unemployment. The capitalist class will create political party with so-called nationalist ideology supported by local academia and media. CPC will move in the direction of legitimising such political party, which will seize power after election (it will be immaterial whether CPC really win or lose election – either way, the opposition will seize power).
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will diminish after new political party form the government which will be completely under control of the Deep State. Without any ‘hot’ war mainland China and Taiwan will be unified – for USA Deep State this will be a revenge after a century. After all, Kuo Mintang was the favourite of Zionist Capitalist oligarchy from 1927 onwards when Chiang Kai-shek proved that he can fight against CPC ruthlessly. It has been USA’s economic and military support that kept Taiwan as viable ‘entity’ till now.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal will find the entire world (except Russia) as their ‘territory’– the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs, essentially everything under the Sun would be under sway of MNCs owned by the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy clique.
  4. Entire world (except Russia) will accept USA (along with Israel and 5-Eyes) as the leader in military, economic and socio-cultural spheres – everywhere, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will be directly appointed by the Deep State; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade relationship with Russia for energy import.
  5. Across the world capitalistic economy will remain intact through the cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital – however, due to mismanagement of resources and brutal exploitation of common people, there will be wide-spread hunger. Population in Africa and Asia will decline. This will conform to the Zionist ideology which portrays earth as a settlement for the ‘golden billion’ – one billion of Jewish and Anglo population and their flunkies. Automated robots will be utilised for industrial and agricultural production – they neither require food, shelter and healthcare nor do they demand justice and equality!
  6. 2050 CE onwards, the tussle between the ‘one world’ owned by the Deep State and Russia will turn into a serious ‘hot’ war. The Deep State will seek final revenge on Russia by complete obliteration using military technology that apparently will confine the radioactive ashes and dust within the destroyed land itself instead of moving upwards to cover the entire atmosphere of earth – thus the Deep State will attempt to become the uncontested hegemon and will succeed, albeit with major losses.

Looking forward – Option 3:

Option 3 of simulation considers that CPC wishes to struggle against existing Zionist Capitalist world order to establish a parallel but new world order based on basic Marxist philosophy around 2035 CE, and there won’t be any change in ruling party in China during this journey when CPC top leadership changes their current track – this road would lead the world into the following state of affairs:

  1. China will continue to grow in the path of ‘capitalist market economy’ with restrictions on further evolution of the private capitalist class – share of capital asset owned by state enterprises will increase substantially and share of GDP output by state enterprises will surpass the private enterprises by a multiplier of two. Government will control corruption-inflation-unemployment strictly, will chalk out policies on transformation of economy into a Marxist economy in which private-owned and state-owned enterprises will be transferred to community ownership by 2035. However, both private capitalists (local, foreigner) and state capitalists (central, provincial, local) will have marginal share in the enterprises earlier owned by them – such benefits will construe as long-term compensation against the asset transfer, apart from an immediate compensation paid to the erstwhile owners.
    1. By 2030, the technology-based modernisation of the forces of production in China will be complete which can be interpreted as ‘creation of material basis is done’. CPC can plan with earnestness for achieving their original objective of achieving a Marxism-based society through a SINGLE-STAGE TRANSFORMATION. As Stalin and Mao faced socio-economic reality, two stage transformation has immanent difficulties – with completion of stage 1 (during which Capitalist society with bourgeoisie democracy transforms into Socialist society with dictatorship of proletariat), increasingly detrimental geopolitical and economic factors imposed by the opposing forces of monopoly capitalism will not provide opportunity or time for further progress into stage 2 (Socialist society with dictatorship of proletariat transforms into classless Communist society). CPC may make a thorough plan of action for a single-stage transformation with as minimum shock as possible – a point to remember: people never plan to fail, they fail to plan.
    2. While the planning for a single-stage transformation is undertaken by CPC, they need to make the fundamental action – replacement of ‘private ownership’ by COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP. Neither any citizen nor State will own any means of production (land, natural resources, machinery, real estate and other infrastructure, financial capital etc.) apart from their living houses/flats/bungalows/vehicles. Military Industry will be required for production of military machinery which should be owned and managed by the state. Rest everything will be owned by community. Only when the entire world has decisively transformed into an ocean of humanity without any presence of ‘private ownership’ anywhere, the ‘State’ will relinquish its ownership of MIC, and ideally, there should not be any necessity of the same. The cycle of profit and endless accumulation of capital need to stop for the sake of humanity.
  2. Confrontation in South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korean border will continue to increase to such a level that the Deep State will find it completely embroiled without an easy escape – a ‘hot’ limited war will be fought between two sides: USA-Japan-South Korea and China-North Korea. With major losses on both sides, China will reap the benefit of being ‘son of the soil’ while USA will bite the dust by acting as an invader to east and south-east Asia. At the end of such conflict, two of the WW II ‘problems’ will get resolved in favour of socialist and workers parties of China and Korea. This will also initiate the complete retreat of the USA military from Asia continent, North Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean regions leaving Japan and India to reconcile itself with a new China.
  3. Zionist Capitalist Deep State cabal would redefine their ‘territory’ by identifying core zone as North America continent, west European region, Australia-New Zealand-Greenland (islands), and Brazil-Argentina-Chile-Paraguay. By then, Patagonia in Argentina would have become the second homeland of Jewish oligarchy and aristocracy – it will secede from Argentina to become an independent corporation (i.e. democratic capitalist country). Most interesting change will be in Europe – Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia et. al will be left in the lurch by the Deep State. That action of the Deep State will be intelligent indeed – such ethnic groups who could be easily lured into any geopolitical activities that will finally result in their downfall, can’t be true ally! Since past three centuries the leaders of these countries proved time and again that, they will wreck their own economy and society (by unnecessarily fighting with Russian Slavic land) in lieu of hundreds of millions of Dollars credited into their offshore bank accounts. Within the ‘Anglo and Jewish enlightened world’ the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be under sway of MNCs owned by the oligarchy clique. A significant number of south Asians, Koreans, east Europeans will be given permanent citizenship because of their extraordinary greed, and socio-cultural servitude to the Zionist Capitalist ideology and Anglo/Jewish ethnicity.
  4. Across the world (excluding the zones of ‘Anglo and Jewish elite world’) China will get accepted as the leader in economic and socio-cultural sphere, while Russia will evolve as the leader in military and energy sphere – in these regions, the governance, the economy, the military, and socio-cultural affairs would be more or less driven by the local political parties and local oligarchy who will have majority of their business relationship with China and Russia; however the local oligarchy will also maintain minor trade and finance relationship with Deep State dominated regions. In the long run, most of the countries will follow the Chinese system of community-ownership of means of production within their country.
  5. 2040 CE onwards, the world will be the most safe and peaceful compared to the past five millenniums (during which conflicts used to be the rule rather exception). China and Russia will lead the way for research and development related to sustainable economy and environment. There will be significant use of technology in making the individual life and social life better and comfortable than before. New frontiers of space research and planetary exploration will open up. Human civilisation would proceed further in understanding the ‘reality’ of ‘universe’ – we will know how ‘life’ got created and what the ‘mystery’ of creation is!
  6. the Deep State-controlled ‘Anglo and Jewish elite world’ will seek final revenge on the ‘other world’ by complete destruction using military technology that apparently will confine the radioactive ashes and dust within the destroyed land itself instead of moving upwards to cover the entire atmosphere of earth. However, as history repeats itself, such research and development by the Deep State would be known to the leaders of ‘other world’ much before fruition – left with a choice between complete surrender and complete destruction, the Deep State will chose the former ‘to live and let others live’.

Conclusion:

China and CPC are fortunate to get Xi Jinping as the paramount leader. I’m not saying this because of his achievements and successes in governance or economy or defence or any other sphere. My point is – a top leader who remembers the origin and mission of his party and his ideology, can do wonders. In 2017, while visiting Shanghai and Jiaxing building/site where 1st National Congress of CPC was held in 1921, Xi stated “only by remaining true to our original aspiration, keeping our mission firmly in mind, and keeping on striving, could the Party stay young and live”. Such ideological plain-speaking is a sign of very rare honesty and sincerity. Hope, CPC leaders and core group of members will provide required strength and support to Xi.

I wonder, if top CPSU leaders in post-Stalin era ever remembered original aspiration and goal of CPSU. The ideological decomposition initiated by Khrushchev was so effective, that it wiped out all lofty ideals steered by none other than Lenin. Shouldn’t the true patriots in the land of Lenin start their journey once again and join forces with their Chinese comrades in the final stage of the long march?

China Communist Party tells members to celebrate 'political ...

Short profile:

By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

What is China really doing with its digital Yuan?

Source

What is China really doing with its digital Yuan?

June 28, 2020

by Chris Faure for the Saker Blog

Reserve currency, backing of a currency and value of the financial systems that distribute a currency.

Its going to take years for the US dollar as reserve currency to fully reduce in importance and of course, the US should continue to use their currency as their own even when it changes into a normal currency. Yet there are financial technologies (FinTech) which may accelerate this process via leapfrogging and I would argue that from a Chinese perspective this is happening. (Leapfrogging is easiest understood by looking at an older example: slower developing countries without a well developed terrestrial telephone system, where these countries leapfrogged the building of a terrestrial system, and directly went to cellular telephone technological networks without loss of function.)

Let’s first take a look at some general concepts:

The fact of ownership of financial systems is very powerful. There is value in the currency that the financial system produces, and there is value in the system itself.

The value proposition is similar but differently done in cryptocurrencies and in digital currencies. The backing frequently lies in the system itself, and not as many think, in a hard asset such as gold. This is a large step to take in thinking for most people, as the idea generally still is that money has to be something that is tangible and real – like gold (or cowrie shells). But it is not such a big step to take if one considers that the act of money creation, production and distribution of currency itself is modernizing and is developing on the same trajectory that the rest of our technological and currently digital society is developing in.

As an example, compare the development of current money distribution systems and the new Financial Technologies (FinTech) with fully automated manufacturing plants for example, where the product coming off the production line is as a result of the technological system. Money is the same, it has to be manufactured, distributed or created or somehow brought into being and these systems are now modernizing, just the same as modern fully automated manufacturing.

The current financial systems belong to the west and banking systems technology is expensive, old, legacy, decrepit and not friendly to the ordinary person, not to mention very hard to maintain. Even the ubiquitous credit cards are now old technology and fast becoming deprecated technology and being replaced by wallets on cell phones that work like supermarket scanners.

It is often speculated that China will back their digital Yuan with gold. This is not an accurate speculation. The backing is the same as with other digital and cryptocurrencies, i.e., the work that the system provides to create the financial transactions in the financial ledger confirms that the transaction is secure and someone actually owns digital currency, they can pay for goods or sell goods and they can do it much easier and incredibly cheaper via a scan of a cell phone or other digital device.

The difference between China’s digital Yuan and common crytocurrencies is the ownership of the system. In modern independent cryptocurrencies the system (the technology) is owned by those that use the cryptocurrency – it is open source. Obviously for the digital Yuan ownership of the system lies with the Chinese State. The digital Yuan though retains the strength of other cryptocurrencies. It is secure transactions, tamper proof, immediate, inexpensive, easily distributed, can cross borders and all this by virtue of being a distributed blockchain system. The easiest to explain a blockchain is that it is self-policing because of technology of consensus algorithms that verify the efficacy of financial transactions. Blockchain very simply stated is blocks of financial transactions that are algorithmically created, are by definition encrypted, and chained together in such a way that nobody can meddle with any one of them.

To recap:

– The digital Yuan is not a cryptocurrency. It is a state issued digital electronic currency that happens to run on a blockchain (the FinTech).

– As the Chinese digital yuan is not and will not be backed by gold at least in our term (it is backed by the strength of the yuan as well as its system), we may well ask what the objective is of this currency.

Is it just a cute technological way of using money?

I would argue absolutely not.

Internationalization of the Yuan

Few realize the extent of the internationalization of the Yuan. As example, 20% of French trade with China is currently settled in Yuan and this is 55% of payments made between both countries. The Macron government is encouraging banks and companies to increase Yuan uptake.

I would argue that the digital yuan is a part of the 5th plank of the Belt and Road process of facilitating cross border investments and supply chain cooperation (perhaps not openly stated).  If one takes into consideration that belt and road is operating now in infrastructure development and investments in nearly 70 countries and international organizations – this is not such a difficult leap to make.

So how can that bold statement be supported? It may be hard for people in countries with old financial systems (the US would be one), to even imagine the new FinTech operating in many other countries. Where I live, I can go to the local corner store, and literally send cash money to someone on the other side of the country, and they will have it immediately. I don’t have to go to a bank, do a bank transfer, send a check, or interact with a bank or a type of Paypal at all. This is a service that the corner store offers at a very reasonable cost. I can also do this directly from my cell phone. We know that in China there is little use for hard currency, and most transactions take place on internal Chinese financial networks and cell phones for the average person, but business finance still flows through banks.

So, let’s start supporting that bold statement

  • The Chinese authorities added Crypto (cryptographic as well as cryptocurrency) to the School Curriculum – quite literally ‘educating the future’ in new FinTech.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/chinese-communist-party-adds-crypto-to-curriculum

  • In reality the distribution of the new Chinese Digital Yuan is proceeding apace. In size, the following is not a massive deal, but in construction of the agreement, this is probably the number one of the new Chinese Digital Yuan Deals and is pure modern FinTech.

China Baowu Group, the world’s largest iron and steel complex, completed a yuan-denominated, blockchain-technology-based transaction of more than 100 million yuan ($14 million) with Rio Tinto …, a move signaling the rising influence of Chinese currency in pricing major commodities.

Standard Chartered issued a blockchain-technology-powered letter of credit for the Baowu-Rio Tinto deal, which the bank said was the world’s first such certificate pegged with offshore yuan.

The use of blockchain technology – a digital public ledger of transactions that has seen increased usage in the global commodity trade – helped facilitate the trade and reduced costs for all parties involved in the transaction …”.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1188131.shtml

So, what can we learn from this transaction?

This is not only a further distribution of the Yuan, but is a further distribution of the digital Yuan. While we do not know how this deal is constructed in detail, the use of the words blockchain-technology-powered letter of credit says it all. It looks like this deal will run completely on a blockchain, in the form commonly known as a smart contract, where each step of the deal and its payment schedule in digital currency are transactions on a blockhain. (Now try and skim off that transaction where the rules are hardcoded at the outset with technical principles of consensus pre-programmed in the smart contract and agreements signed directly on contract existent on the blockchain– those that know project management, will know the value of a self-documenting project).

  • the “Moodies

In addition China has become the ranker of record for private cryptocurrency projects.

The health of financial systems or countries are ranked by three major ranking agencies. These are S&P Global Ratings (S&P), Moody’s, and Fitch Group. S&P and Moody’s are based in the US, while Fitch is dual-headquartered in New York City and London, and is controlled by Hearst. These organizations hold the collective global market share of who can be considered good, and who can be considered bad in the global financial system. Not too healthy in my opinion as this is a disproportionate western control over the financial well-being of other countries.

So, as the proverbial quote from Buckminster Fuller states: “You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.

The old banking and financial systems are indicative of the existing reality and are old, decrepit, ancient technology, needs a bunch of maintenance, and the worst is that they are of course owned by those that use them as weapons against others.

China is doing no less than building a new model in FinTech that will make the old model obsolete and in this way they are simply leapfrogging the current financial systems distributing the dollar with fast, lean and modern systems supporting the Financial Silk Road. They have made their own ranking system in new FinTech, i.e., cryptocurrencies. The June rankings are as follows:

Quite rightly the Asiatimes is asking .. Who is actually decoupling from Whom? And I can add, and using modern FinTech to do so with solutions appropriate contextually to our modern world.

My own expectation is that the notable private cryptocurrency systems (those that actually make it to the Chinese ranking system) will eventually be able to exchange smoothly and seamlessly with the Chinese Digital Yuan.

A quick look for the same trajectory, leapfrogging legacy systems, outside of FinTech

We see this creation of seamless new systems outside of hard FinTech as well. Here are three examples. The current hegemon in its common ‘break it’ style, made errors as it thinks if it breaks something, people will come back begging, to make a new plan. This is not happening any longer, and the world simply decouples and creates new systems, as we see from three seminal events and the hegemon further losing its power base.

– The US attacked the WTO on the basis of refusing to allow it to vote for and institute staff for the appeals body for trade disputes. Usually this would have taken many meetings to solve. This time, what happened is that China has joined 18 other members including the European Union, Canada, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong in launching a temporary system for trade disputes at the World Trade Organization, with the agency’s appeal body having ceased to function in December after the United States blocked appointments of new judges to the top trade court.

The needed functionality is now still there, the US having excluded itself (actually shot itself in the foot), while the rest of the world moved forward saying we need this body, and we will have this body, with or without hegemon. The Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) was developed in just over three months, after the members announced at the World Economic Forum in January that they would seek to form a new body to work around the demise of the regular WTO panel.

From a combined statement by the European Union: The new system is designed to preserve the principle enshrined in international trade law that governments have the right to appeal in any dispute.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3082748/china-eu-join-19-member-temporary-global-trade-dispute

– Most readers of this blog will know how the US is trying to carve out for itself some way back to the JPCOA, the Iran agreement, after simply breaking this agreement. It is proving to be not so easy to walk this one back and so far, they have lost their power base. Do-overs are not so easy in terms of diplomacy, after one has squandered the world’s goodwill and Iran is receiving widespread help to overcome the results of any further sanctions.

It is no wonder then that the EU policy chief made this statement: US century ceding to Asian one, says EU foreign policy chief. https://tass.com/world/1160031

– The third event is the US stunt at the recent Vienna arms control talks. The US stealthily placed Chinese flags, took photos and posted media – then accused China of being a no-show, knowing full well that China declined to attend these talks and refuses to be roped into an agreement that is not in the least appropriate for it. Clear petulance is the hegemon’s only response to a visible decoupling of the world with the US and western cronies. They have nothing more left than petulance and literal pictures of false flagging to offer.

So, it is clear that both inside and outside of hard FinTech which this writing is about, the trajectory of recreating systems and simply leaving the US out, is alive and well.

A small note on Iran and Venezuela as part of the empire resistance countries. Iran is mining cryptocurrency and Venezuela floated theirs, namely the Petro. Unfortunately (and this is not the focus of this writing), they did not do that cleverly but the newest news is that the Venezuelan government is now beginning to trade in cryptocurrencies, and for example, accepting current private chain cryptos for payment for passports. Bear in mind I said that some private chain cryptos will eventually be exchanged with the digital Yuan, so, very soon now, if a government takes payment in a crypto, they will have digital Yuan if they decide to exchange – and they do not need anyone’s permission (Like a Central Bank).

What is the Chinese View

With ‘the moodies’ rating system, cryptography education in China, a clear project based on the digital yuan and blockchain technology and more to follow, it becomes clear that the Yuan and the digital Yuan is being moved into the global financial sphere, de facto without years of negotiation and agreements and trade type negotiations. My expectation then is that certain cryptography and cryptocurrencies will eventually be seamlessly exchanged on China’s blockchain(s) – and you will have a digital yuan wallet on your phone, or on your computer or even a credit card supporting and in this way, you and I could be right on the Belt and Road. In other words, if I want to use a cryptocurrency to pay for something, and I have digital Yuan or another crypto, I can simply, within my electronic wallet exchange for the right currency that I need. This is how China is distributing their Digital Yuan de facto.

What is the Russian view

Russia is still a little behind this revolution in FinTech. but with one fell swoop they can get rid of their central bank if they so choose. The Russian Central bank is following Western ways on the renewal of currency through their central bank. https://cointelegraph.com/news/russias-central-bank-seeks-to-ban-crypto-issuance-and-circulation.

Yet, the decoupling continues. It is interesting to wait to see if the 5 UN security council countries will in fact gather for the summit that Mr. Putin invited them to. My expectation is that if they don’t, Putin will run out of patience and choose others, perhaps the G20 or something new. The decoupling will continue.

We now have clear precedence set on the decoupling part of FinTech and other organizations. It is no longer a big deal to decouple from empire.

What is the Western view?

Forbes stated recently that the launch of the Digital Yuan could create serious problems for the U.S. banking system—potentially forcing the U.S. to digitalize the dollar to compete. The Federal Reserve has warned that central bank digital currencies might one day replace commercial banks, creating “a deposit monopolist” and playing “havoc” with the banking system. (This seemed to me somewhat like gobbeldy-gook and is meaningless – yet, they know something is happening.)

The West is 20 years behind this technology, because China decided to leapfrog and not follow the accepted development trajectory and as such has reconfigured the potentials for the entire planet.

It is high time and in the words of Michael Hudson: “So the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern history — more evil than the IMF. That’s why it’s almost always been run by a Secretary of Defense. It has always been explicitly military. It’s the hard fist of American imperialism.”

The world is leapfrogging, and elegantly zig-zagging around current imperial financial systems, for a true birth of a new post capitalist post industrial order, without going to war for it.

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 2

Source

June 29, 2020

Bridging China’s past with humanity’s future – Part 2

by Straight-Bat for the Saker Blog

This will be presented in 3 parts and in 3 different blog posts

PART – 1 can be found here


PART – 2

5. POST-DENG CHINA

Post-Deng China witnessed three variants of socio-economic trajectories associated with three different Leaders. Even though the economic programme of reform initiated by Deng went on unhindered, there were significantly different style of implementation of the same. A brief recapitulation is noted below:

A.  Jiang Zemin (till 2003)

In 1997, after Deng’s departure Jiang Zemin became the paramount leader of China. Both – the economic reforms and the deep-rooted problems of economy – accentuated during Jiang’s stewardship. There was marked increase in political corruption, inter-regional imbalance and inter-class imbalance in growth, rural migration into urban areas, unemployment, inequality and wealth gap, and crime rates across China. During 1998 and 1999, many SOE were privatized with massive lay-offs and asset transfer to private businessmen, many others were restructured to make them profitable. The employee welfare and social welfare system which were embedded in SOE (since the Mao era) were completely dissolved – this also created a low-income urban working class. The government followed a policy of retaining the crucial sectors within state-owned enterprises while small and medium SOW were either privatised or closed down. Crucial sectors or ‘commanding heights’ were:

  • Nation-wide service networks like railways, aviation, telecommunication, electricity etc.
  • Mining and exploration coal, oil, and natural gas
  • Basic metal processing like steel, and aluminium
  • Basic hydrocarbon processing like refinery and petrochemicals
  • Heavy industrial machinery such as machine tools, power generation equipment, rolling stock
  • Infrastructure engineering and construction – roads, railways, ports, dams
  • Significant consumer durables like automobiles
  • Military machinery

Apart from reducing the number of SOE (from 262,000 units employing 113 million in 1995-1997 period to 110,000 units employing 64 million in 2007-2008) and restructuring bigger SOEs, the government reduced tariffs, trade barriers, regulations; reformed banking system. The average return on assets in SOEs soared from 0.2% in 1998 to 5% in 2007. In the same period, the SOEs’ profits rose from 0.3% to 6.6% of GDP. Funds continued to be poured into SEZ and export-oriented manufacturing industry. As per Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, Hong Kong-Taiwan-Japan-South Korea-Singapore contributed about 71% of the FDI that flowed into China between 1990 and 2004. To sum it up cogently, it can be said that government of China pursued neoliberal economic agenda along with consulting advice from USA bankers and capitalists. China joined World Trade Organization in December’2001. During the period 1990–2004, China’s economy grew at an average rate of 10% per year.

A very interesting observation can be made related to the foreign relations during Jiang era – all foreign trips by the leadership and communication with foreign media were consciously made to revolve around China’s (the then) economic growth model and the imperatives. Incidents like USA bombing of China embassy in Belgrade, and collision with USA aircraft near Hainan Island were played down after some exchange of documents. Apparently, the top leadership aimed only at maintaining the stability of the government and the economy.

Very significant transformation took place in the CPC itself – from being a party of predominantly peasants and workers, CPC converted itself to a party with large number of middle-class petty bourgeois. This class evolved during the industrial restructuring of 1990s, who came out as the main beneficiary due to their entrepreneurship and connection with the then local and central leadership of CPC, and more importantly this class acted as a robust base of CPC in the urban regions of China.

B. Hu Jintao (2003 to 2012)

Hu Jintao had to continuously swim against the tide of domino effect from the (capitalist) economic reform and opening which was primarily initiated by Deng in 1979. During October’2003 Third Plenum, amendments to the constitution were discussed – an overarching government economic policy would be introduced to reduce unemployment rate, to re-balance income distribution, and to protect the environment. Also private property rights would be protected. Due to widespread poverty, inequality, and discontent the Chinese Government was forced to seek a balanced society above all. Using the concept of “socialist harmonious society”, balanced wealth distribution, improved education, and improved healthcare were assigned high priority.

During 1995, exports from East Asian countries to China were not very significant percentage of their total exports (Japan exported 4.95%, South Korea exported 7.0%, Taiwan exported 0.3%, Singapore exported 2.3%). In 1995, Chinese total exports were worth about 149 billion USD. However, by 2013 there was an explosive growth in exports from East Asian countries to China as a percentage of their total exports – (Japan exported 18.1%, South Korea exported 26.1%, Taiwan exported 26.8%, Singapore exported 11.8%). And, in 2013, Chinese exports to the world were worth about 2210 billion USD (a little over 30% of the value were exported by wholly foreign-owned enterprises, and 12% of the value were exported by joint ventures between foreign-owned and China-owned enterprises). Apparently, during this period China evolved as ‘core’ and East Asia as ‘periphery’ in a new sub-system within the overall world-system (with USA and west Europe as ‘core’ and rest of the world as ‘periphery’).

China’s GDP grew 10.1%, in 2004, and 10.4% in 2005 in spite of attempts by the government to cool the economy. And, in 2006 trade crossed USD 1760 billion, making China third-largest trading nation in the world. Again, in 2007 China registered 13% growth in GDP (USD 3552 billion) becoming world’s third largest economy by GDP. According to UN estimates in 2007, around 130 million people in rural areas of the backward inland provinces still lived in poverty, on consumption of less than $1 a day, while about 35% of the Chinese population lived under $2 a day. Chinese government’s official Gini index peaked at 0.49 in 2008– 2009 and thereafter declined only marginally, to 0.47 in 2014. The Global Financial Crisis in 2008 revealed the innate weakness of Chinese economy – export-oriented economy depends upon economic conditions in foreign countries much more than internal consumption. Government of China took highly effective policy decisions about economic stimulus and implemented those effectively (however, it also increased the already high debt burden). The stimulus (about US$600 billion at the then-current exchange rate) involved state investments into physical infrastructure like railway network, roads, bridges and ports, urban housing complex, easing credit restrictions and lowering tax on real estate. As per National Bureau of Statistics of China, in 2010, GDP of China was Yuan 40850 billion, which can be broken down into following expenditure categories:

  1. Household Consumption Expenditure – Yuan 14146.55 billion (34.63% of GDP)
  2. Government Consumption Expenditure – Yuan 6011.59 billion (14.71% of GDP)
  3. Gross (Fixed) capital formation – Yuan 19186.69 billion (46.96% of GDP)
  4. Net Exports of Goods and Services – Yuan 1505.71 billion (3.68% of GDP)

Household consumption has not increased substantially with economic growth – may be one of the reasons were wages and salaries of working class didn’t move upwards with same pace. Even though the reforms helped to improve the socio-economic indicators, taking into consideration the difference between coastal region and inland regions as well as between urban and rural regions, China could hardly overcome the poverty and inequality predominantly in the inland and rural regions.

By 2011, there were less than 10 out of 40 major industrial sectors in which SOE accounted for more than 20 percent of output. Another significant statistics of 2012 on industrial enterprises (as per National Bureau of Statistics, China) shows:

State-owned EnterprisesPrivate-owned EnterprisesPrivate-owned FDI Enterprises
Total Asset (billion Yuan)31,20915,25517,232
Profit (billion Yuan)1,5182,0191,397

The above statistics might suggest at the first glance that, state-owned enterprises are laggard in profitability. However, such conclusion will be clearly wrong if it is noted that there exist wide difference of asset ownership across various sectors – in mining and extraction of coal, petroleum, natural gas etc. SOE commands 93% of sector-specific assets, while in textiles sector Private enterprises commands 90% of sector-specific assets. Different sectors of industry have different profit-capital asset employed ratio.

C. Xi Jinping (2013 onwards)

Since around 2010, Chinese government and CPC has been busy implementing economic policies that will pursue ‘economic growth based on domestic consumption’ while maintaining the decades old export-oriented economy. With Xi Jinping at the top chair, a long pending but top priority task was undertaken – war against corruption and nepotism. CPC took strong measures so that corrupt among ruling party cadres and government officials were identified and punished, Marxist principles were enforced as guideline for CPC so that the society and economy can be steered towards equality and justice. CPC has also became proactive in taking actions to enhance its geopolitical and geo-economic base throughout the world. Simultaneously, Chinese government has taken concrete measures to modernize all wings of military through research and development of 5th generation stealth military aircrafts, naval ships, nuclear submarines, hypersonic missiles, anti-satellite missiles, as well as procuring most lethal S400 air defence system and electronic warfare systems from Russia.

However, China has performed extremely well in reduction of poverty. In 2015, World Bank Group estimated that only 0.7% of Chinese citizens live below extreme poverty line of $1.9 (2011 PPP) per day, while 7.0% of Chinese population live below lower-middle poverty line of $3.2 (2011 PPP) per day. Such rapid poverty-reduction is an unparalleled achievement in the history of mankind.

As per National Bureau of Statistics of China, in 2019, GDP of China was Yuan 99492.74 billion (by expenditure approach), which can be broken down into following categories:

  1. Household Consumption Expenditure – Yuan 38589.56 billion (38.78% of GDP)
  2. Government Consumption Expenditure – Yuan 16559.90 billion (16.64% of GDP)
  3. Gross (Fixed) capital formation – Yuan 42862.78 billion (43.08% of GDP)
  4. Net Exports of Goods and Services – Yuan 1480.50 billion (1.49% of GDP)

Compared to 2010 statistics, in 2019 the household consumption has moved upwards at almost 39% of GDP. However, the 2019 figures of household consumption below 50% of GDP can’t be considered as healthy neither gross capital formation more than 30% of GDP can be termed as balanced growth. This is not to say that, the period of 1970-1975 was better because household consumption component was around 60 – 65% of GDP (GDP itself was very low).

The inequality between urban and rural remained too glaring even in 2019 – as we can note in the following data as per National Bureau of Statistics of China (2019 data),

  1. Per Capita Disposable Income Nationwide – Yuan 30,733
  2. Per Capita Disposable Income of Urban Households – Yuan 42,359
  3. Per Capita Disposable Income of Rural Households – Yuan 16,021
  4. Per Capita Expenditure Nationwide – Yuan 21,559
  5. Per Capita Expenditure of Urban Households – Yuan 28,063
  6. Per Capita Expenditure of Rural Households – Yuan 13,328

The growth model chosen by Deng and reinforced by Jiang has already run out of steam. It had its own utility to provide mass employment and to build the fixed capital for the national economy. Chinese government need to pivot economic growth on domestic consumption as soon as possible without damaging the export sector much. To boost consumption, ‘demand’ for goods and services will have to be enhanced – in China, ‘purchasing power’ is the key for boosting demand and hence, domestic consumption. Income of ordinary citizens should be increased through forced regulations whereby the surplus from industrial operation (that is pocketed by the capitalists for accumulation of capital) will be distributed to the working class. Similarly for the agricultural sector, government should provide much higher procurement prices for agricultural produces. Another key area that needs government intervention is social security and welfare system, whereby housing-education-healthcare for all rural and urban people living with daily expenditure below USD 10 will be arranged by the government (against a token amount of annual insurance premium). Most of such people will be confident enough to spend instead of saving money for rainy day. The well-entrenched capitalist elites will resist because such steps would restrict their continuous capital accumulation process – however, China being a socialist peoples’ democracy, it has to give priority to the common people.

BRI – Challenge to Current World-system?

Belt and Road Initiative (formerly One Belt One Road – OBOR programme) of China actually is a framework wherein investments amounting to anything between one to two trillion USD in different countries of Asia, Europe, Africa, South America will be done in primarily government-to-government projects. When successfully implemented, may be around 2035, BRI will completely transform the economy and comfort of peoples in more than 100 countries. Investments are mainly channelled into physical infrastructure, mining and exploration, power generation, industrial production hub, agricultural production hub, and communication network. BRI, instead of moving away from existing liberal capitalist economy, predicates on existing capitalist system with more inclusive agenda compared to Zionist Capitalist dominated financial system – thus BRI projects attempt to alleviate poverty and unemployment in participating states without bothering about the government ideology.

BRI benefits China in primarily four ways:

  1. Corridors like CPEC (through Pakistan) and CMEC (through Myanmar), when fully established, will provide alternate trade routes for China-based companies to import energy and raw materials as well as export finished goods through Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal respectively; the corridors will circumvent the ‘choke point’ of Malacca Strait
  2. China-Mongolia-Russia and China-Central Asia-West Asia corridors will be channel for further Chinese investments across Asia; in the long run exports and imports among these Eurasian states will experience quantum jump
  3. ‘State capitalism’ will get a boost with most of the BRI projects being G-to-G kind; most of the participant governments will control the new projects thereby reproducing the production relations of capitalist society with the ‘state’ playing the role of capitalist who will make ‘profit’ and accumulate ‘capital’
  4. Enhance Chinese ‘image’ through socio-cultural exchange
  5. Enhance Chinese ‘influence’ through government-to-government contacts

There are more BRI corridors as well as ‘Maritime Silk Road’ planned as part of BRI. I would not get into the details of such a mammoth programme (consisting of hundreds of gigantic projects) which itself is a separate subject. However, it will be very interesting to analyse if and how BRI will pose a challenge to the existing world-system coordinated by the Deep State.

BRI follows the traditional capitalist economic model of ‘profit’, but unlike the Zionist Capitalist propelled system, BRI system aim for nominal profit margins that will create a tremendous ‘pull factor’ among the developing countries to seek BRI projects. Another key difference is: BRI system is radically different from existing capitalist system by shunning hegemony and force BRI promotes harmonious global integration. In all probability, BRI will create a ‘benign core’ and ‘exultant periphery’ in a global scale which uncannily resembles the Confucian concepts of family and state governance. The existing hegemonic world order and the Deep State will find it very hard to digest such decline of their stature and the formation of a new core-periphery. However, by no means will this new development threaten to upend the existing Zionist Capitalist world order – the new core-periphery will form a significant non-imperial sub-system within the existing world-system. USA, 5-Eyes, and Israel will have to share the hegemony with China being the BRI core and Russia as the semi-periphery (with low population count and hence limited domestic market, Russia can’t play much bigger role).

In practice, post-WW II world order has seen the working of core-periphery system with USA (and NATO) enforcing their will on the weak countries on the ‘periphery’ whenever a threat to the primacy of ‘accumulation capital’ was perceived by the Deep State cabal. The Deep State capital, through control of the media and academia, ensure that such threat to capital gets portrayed as a threat to ‘democracy and human rights’ which in turn provides a moral high ground to the Hegemonic superpower to invade any country at will. In the BRI system such supremacy of capital is not expected simply because Chinese outlook on ‘world-system’ was built typically on Confucian praxis.

Significant observations on post-Deng China:

1. CPC central committee in a conference in 2015 formulated eight principles of ‘socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics’:

  1. Sustainability Led by Science and Technology
  2. Orienting Production to Improve the Livelihood of the People
  3. Public Ownership Precedence in National Property Rights
  4. The Primacy of Labour in the Distribution of Wealth
  5. The Market Principle Steered by the State
  6. Speedy Development with High Performance
  7. Balanced Development with Structural Coordination
  8. Economic Sovereignty and Openness

Undoubtedly the above eight principles (like Buddha’s ‘asta-marga’ teaching) are very sound principles – but these are not focussed to Marxist ideology in a sense that, any other liberal democratic capitalist political party can also follow such principles for an effective management of economy and society. CPC leadership should take into account the core ideology of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Mao to explore that, the owners of capital can never reconcile with the proletariat and petty-bourgeois (as petty-bourgeois, I’m meaning only the middle-income group of rural land-holding peasants and urban professionals and self-employed people who own very little capital to earn their livelihood) – the theory of historical materialism clearly and correctly predict that, in the long-run, the capitalists will continue to accumulate capital with endless exploitation of 90% of the population, eventually they will overrun the CPC setup (as insider like CPSU in Soviet Union, or as outsider like Solidarity Movement in Poland) and create a state which will be ‘liberal capitalist’ in letter and spirit. Mao and Deng differed only on strategy to achieve Marxist economy and classless society, they never differed in the end objective – successive CPC leaders shouldn’t forget to take note of that.

Questions will be raised, ‘why then Mao didn’t create a classless society since 1950 or why Mao also tried for accumulation of capital to begin with’ or for that matter, even before Mao, ‘why in 1921 Lenin was staking on new economic policy (NEP) to introduce free market and capitalism under state control’?

To seek the answer, let’s visit the greatest leader of transformation – Lenin. Lenin considered the NEP as a strategic retreat from principles of socialism – Bolshevik party leaders had to create the “material basis” of economic development in Soviet Union before they could initiate the first stage of socialism to be followed by the second stage. This was exactly the situation for Mao and Deng in China who wanted to first create the basic building block for Chinese economy for which the forces of production were either outdated or non-existent. Interestingly, both CPSU and CPC tried to create ‘communes’ as an ideal communist construct for the rural regions and agricultural sector – primarily due to mismanagement among the party members and lack of indoctrination among the rural population, both the experiments failed. More valid question however remains, ‘why both CPSU and CPC got lost in the quagmire of ‘initial capitalistic development’ and never returned to their end objectives’ even after there was basic level of ‘fixed capital formation’ in Soviet Union by 1960 and in China by 2010! May be because geopolitical events were unsurmountable. To best of my knowledge, this question remains unanswered till date.

2. Another issue related to very high exports and some trade surplus obscures two significant points:

(a) China (with a GDP of Yuan 99,492.74 billion i.e. USD 14,140 billion) in 2019 not only exported goods and services worth USD 2,486.69 billion, but the import was also huge at USD 2,135.74 billion (as per National Bureau of Statistics of China). Even if the overall export surplus is not substantial, when the values are grouped continent-wise, large imbalance due to export surplus can be noted for Oceanic and Pacific Islands (about USD 64 billion), Europe (about USD 95 billion), North America (about USD 330 billion), while marginal imbalance of USD 5 – 10 billion export/import surplus exists in case of Asia, Africa, Latin America. Moving deeper at a country-level, one would find more imbalances. The main reason is that, the sourcing requirements of China (energy, raw materials, manufacturing components, foodstuff, etc.) and sourcing countries are, most of the time different from the nature of exported item (manufactured finished goods), quantity and destination where export opportunity exist.

(b) More often than not, the economists forget to mention that the imports of China has multiple categories including import by foreign-owned export-oriented enterprises for value addition before exporting goods, import by Chinese-owned enterprises for value addition before dispatching for export as well as for domestic selling, import of plant and machinery etc. for capital formation, and import for direct household consumption. Contrary to that, export has almost single dimension – manufactured finished goods, primarily consumer goods with some industrial goods as well. There is overwhelming dependence on exports which jeopardise Chinese economy to the extent that, without continuous growth in demand from foreign countries, Chinese economy will encounter slow growth. In future, there can be scenarios where trade partner countries (other than USA) may reduce good imports from China in order to produce within their country (to reduce unemployment).

3. Trade surplus resulting from the exports and high internal savings empowered the east Asian countries like Japan and China to accumulate largest forex reserves (together they account for more than USD 6 trillion) which were used to purchase USA Treasury bonds. USA Treasury bonds are issued by USA government to cover fiscal deficit – thus China and Japan are largest creditors of USA. With this arrangement of deficit financing successive USA government has been reckless to cut taxes (of oligarchy) and increase direct government expenditure to keep voters happy. The prices of east Asian exports into USA were kept low to keep it attractive in the USA market. Finally, more demand of east Asian goods increased trade surplus and more trade surplus meant more purchase of Treasury bonds. A two-way mutual relation between USA and China-Japan thus helped USA engage in end-less wars as well as keep inflation within USA low, hence, even if USA leaders take anti-import posture that will be only to please the constituency of nationalist voters. However, China will not only be at the receiving end if and when exports get restricted suddenly, China should be prepared for the worst scenario when, in future, USA will simply refuse to pay for their debt.

China will have to take a serious initiative on how US Dollar can be removed from world’s reserve currency status. Along with Russia, China should look into the possibility of introducing a new international currency which will be backed by gold – this action will not lead to a socialist economy, but this action will certainly work towards curbing the USA government’s undue advantage of printing as much fiat Dollar as possible using the global reserve currency without gold-backing status.

4. Indisputably China achieved incredible feats in economic growth and socio-economic indicators during past few decades. But such achievements to a large extent depended also on credit policy (apart from FDI and export). As a result, China’s total debt burden including households, government (central, regional, local), non-financial industry sector (including real estate), and financial sector has been rising over the decades albeit slowly. Apparently, in 2019 beginning, Household debt rose to more than 50% of GDP, Government debt crossed 50% of GDP, Financial sector debt rose to more than 40%, non-financial Industry sector breached 150% of GDP. As a whole, Chinese government is in a precarious position to control such huge debt (total crossing 40 trillion USD) – with strict control economic growth will be at stake. Even though the government of China have been periodically trying to deleverage the economy with control measures, economic growth trounced all such attempts till date.

The problem of bad debt first hit the Jiang government in late 1990s. The non-performing loans (NPL) caught the leadership’s eyes back then. And to address the burning issue, in 1999 asset management company was created, which absorbed Yuan 2 trillion bad loans from state-owned banks leaving the banks normal and healthy. For Chinese government NPL issue will continue to be a thorn in the flesh.

5. Maritime border disputes in South China Sea and East China Sea have historical roots when Japan displaced European powers from these two sea regions. It is also true that, after WW II most of the littoral countries (except Vietnam and North Korea) were/are backed by the Deep State and were/are armed to the teeth. However, it will be a monumental milestone for Chinese diplomacy and indeed, image, if China can resolve the maritime border issues without conflict, and if required, sharing the under-sea resources with the littoral states.

On the land border disputes, China resolved all but the dispute with India. The land border was drawn by the British colonial power who ruled most of south Asia till 1947, but Chinese government never accepted the border. Chinese government should keep no stone unturned to bring India-Pakistan-China on the same discussion table with UNO as observer. It will be beneficial for all three countries if they settle the dispute once for all through mutual concessions using give-and-take policy. A border war for a land with little economic value (but high geopolitical strategic value) makes no sense.

6. During 1700 to 1840 China was world’s biggest economy and second largest land empire. However that position didn’t deter the European powers from rampaging at their will inside Chinese territory. Chinese empire lost the edge because of inability to keep track with global technological changes. For the European powers, advancements in few industrial and military technology proved decisive. Keeping such watershed moments in view, government of China should make extraordinary arrangements (like special task force etc.) to bridge manufacturing technology gaps which have been pointed out by McKinsey Global Institute in “China and the world” report published in July 2019, some of which are:

  1. Electronic Components
    1. Display
    2. Integrated circuits
  2. Pharmaceuticals
    1. Small-molecule drugs
    2. Biomolecule drugs
  3. Genomics
    1. Gene sequencing
    2. Gene editing

The above mentioned elements are not necessarily of military in nature – the backwardness in military technology are well-known which are being addressed by Chinese government since past two decades, jet engines with thrust-vectoring control technology among the most significant ones.

6. GEOPOLITICS 1930 ONWARDS

With the setting up of Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland in 1930, the disputes and tussle among the most prominent Jewish and Anglo banker families (like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Lazard, et al.) over type of business, geographical region of influence, and share of banking sector operations got resolved. The Zionist Capitalist elites were fully united in words and deeds notwithstanding the occasional rivalry and difference of opinion between followers of two camps: Rothschild and Rockefeller. The long-term objective of the Zionist Capitalist Deep State clique (representing primarily the Jewish, Anglo, Dutch, French, German oligarch and aristocrat families who had accumulated wealth and have been engaged in business in banking-land-industry-trading) after WW I has been to establish a hegemonic world order which would:

  1. own ‘political process and power’ in every society/country on the earth
  2. own ‘economic process and wealth’ in every landmass/country/ocean on the earth
  3. control ‘socio-cultural process and population’ in every region/country on the earth

I find it difficult to consider that, ‘winning’ political power anywhere in the world, has ever been an objective of the Deep State – they want to ‘own’ the process through which any political party may be made to ‘win’ or ‘loose’ power depending on short-term and long-term interest of the Deep State.

The Zionist Capitalist Deep State crystallized in its existing form when WW II started in 1936 (with signing of anti-communist pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan). Expectations of the Zionist Capitalist Deep State were destruction of powerful societies (non- Anglo/Jewish/Dutch/French) who had potential to develop advanced economy, and expansion of Zionist Capitalist empire:

  1. combatants Fascist Germany and Communist Soviet Union decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire Eurasia;
  2. combatants Fascist Japan and Nationalist China decimating each other’s (i) military forces, (ii) physical infrastructure, and (iii) population across entire East Asia;
  3. stages (a) and (b) would be followed by occupation of whole Europe and Asia by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American military who would claim that they have ‘liberated’ these ancient civilizations from the ‘authoritarian dictatorships’ of fascism and communism;
  4. stage (c) would be followed by establishment of ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire (as against ‘colonial extractive capitalism’ version) in whole Europe and Asia to continue plunder of wealth in maximum possible way;

Unfortunately half of the objectives remained unfulfilled in the WW II that was over by 1945 – because of two political parties: Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and Communist Party of China (CPC) whose top leadership mobilised their countrymen in collective patriotic spirit, Soviet Union and China didn’t capitulate but their direct adversaries (Germany and Japan) were trounced. Phase II became a necessity for the Deep State.

WW II – Phase II:

Phase II of WW II was initiated as soon as phase I was over. ‘Operation Unthinkable’ was planned by most ardent imperialist Churchill in order to launch a surprise attack on Soviet Union to achieve the original objectives that Hitler failed to achieve, but dropped. Realising that a military block consisting of all societies that join together as Zionist Capitalist Deep State would be more effective to demolish: (a) morally and militarily supreme power like Soviet Union which recuperated economically,

(b) new power like Communist China (where by January’1949, Peoples Liberation Army already won three major campaigns in last strongholds of Kuo Mintang party in east and south regions of China), NATO was formed in April’1949.

To achieve the long-term objective of hegemonic world order as well as the four WW II objectives, the Deep State displayed creativity in designing and deploying diplomatic, political, economic, cultural tools and methods that proved to be highly durable and extremely effective:

  1. UNO and its key sister organizations were established to control the international political incidents in all regions across the globe
  2. Through WBG, IMF, ADB global banking and financial companies spread its tentacles to every region of the world to control natural resources and economy
  3. US Dollar as the foreign currency exchange basis across the globe – not only the gold backing was withdrawn from Dollar in 1971 by USA government, but the hegemon also manipulated the Arab rulers to use Dollar as currency for most crucial commodity trading (of petroleum)
  4. Trade pacts like GATT, WTO, and similar other pacts driven by USA-West Europe-Japan were implemented so that the hegemonic power maintains their hold over global trade
  5. Promotion of ‘periodic election’ plus ‘market economy’ plus ‘private ownership’ masquerading as ‘Democracy’ across the globe
  6. Promotion of literature-cinema-fine arts that revolves around sex-drug-commercial duplicity in all major languages across the globe
  7. Promotion of mainstream media for broadcasting and publishing round-the-clock propaganda on the above mentioned tools (i) to (vi) in all major languages across the globe
  8. Promotion of academic institutions and intellectual for propagating curriculum on the above mentioned tools (i) to (vi) in all major languages across the globe
  9. Promotion of religious fundamentalist groups (male chauvinists with belief in illusory past glory from society which profess religious faiths like Sunni Islam, in Catholic Christianity, in Puritan Christianity, Brahminical Hinduism etc.) as well as ethnic fundamentalist groups (believing superiority of his/her ethnicity) in all regions across the globe
  10. Development of highly complex computerised system and other industrial technology to replace human labour in every sphere of productive work as much as possible

During the ensuing four and a half decades- from 1945 to 1990- major tasks accomplished by Deep State were:

  1. The Zionist Capitalist elites located primarily on either side of the Atlantic (who were driving force for aristocratic groups like Bilderberg Club, Club of Rome, Trilateral Commission as well as think-tanks like Council for Foreign Relations) were immensely successful in mobilising most of the academic institutions and media entities across world to spread propaganda among the people world-wide about ‘failure’ of socialism/ communism/ Marxist principles in Soviet Union and east European countries as well as China. While it was true that these countries which were devastated during WW II couldn’t provide the standard of living as west European imperialist/colonialist countries could offer to their citizens, these socialist countries provided all basic amenities of life to all its citizens.
  2. In most unfortunate turn of history, in the second half of 1950s CPSU led by Khrushchev (a closet Zionist) denounced Stalin’s leadership in Soviet Union that not only defeated the most cruel war machinery ever built on earth but became the second superpower of the world by 1945 (in 22 years after Stalin got the top leader’s position). This created an unbridgeable ideological gap between CPSU and CPC that divided the entire socialist/communist movement across the globe. After removal of Khrushchev from the position of top leader in Soviet Union political situation was salvaged internally, however, China became completely blind about the changing landscape of Soviet Union. The lack of trust of Chinese leadership in Soviet leadership was utilised by the Deep State elites in the 1980s to bleed Soviet Union in Afghanistan and Angola.
  3. By 1960 most of the Asian, and African countries got freedom from the west European imperialist/ colonialist powers like UK, France, and Belgium etc. Most of these countries were ruled by nationalist party who heavily mixed socialist ideological tenets with their nationalist creed. Most of these countries, backed by Soviet Union, had highly corrupt ruling party. Such leaders easily became prey for the global capitalist-imperialist elites, and simultaneously those semi-literate societies came under the spell of ‘Hollywood’-promoted illusion and ‘drug-sex-violence’ kind of culture. The significant block led by Soviet Union and relatively small islands of Chinese sphere came to a crossroads – they were falling behind in harnessing technological progress in economic growth, which resulted in relatively low standard of living of majority population while government officials and ruling party leaders led much better life.
  4. Deep State tried hard to manipulate the policy of government and bureaucracy as well as to co-opt the key political parties across all countries so that they can create pro-USA, pro-5 Eyes, pro-Israel policies as well as anti-Soviet Union anti-China policies. Simultaneously, oligarch-aristocrat families and elite individuals with servility towards Zionist Capitalist ideology (i.e. capitalist enterprises, private ownership, European ‘liberal imperialism’) were promoted in political leadership-bureaucracy-judiciary in those countries so that they can convert the policies into actions to advance interests of global oligarchy.
  5. In many large countries across the world, the Zionist Capitalist Deep State manipulated domestic politics to overthrow patriotic and incorruptible leaders who couldn’t be co-opted by them – Congo, Iran, Indonesia, Chile, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, etc. The Deep State mainly mobilised the country’s military forces to grab state power by killing the top leader(s) and by creating a repressive environment. Sometimes that would include mass murder of leaders and members of socialist party/communist party – in Indonesia, in the 2nd half of 1960s, between one to two million members of communist party were killed by military junta. In all the above mentioned cases, soon after coming to power the military junta would create economic policies that would favour the MNC from USA, 5 Eyes, west European countries, and simultaneously reduce contacts with Soviet Union and China.
  6. Developing conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, and other special weapons and building a military force based on land, marine, air, and space that will be able to dominate every other country in every region, and if necessary, the military force can take punitive actions against any country including carrying out ‘first strike’ against other nuclear powers like Soviet Union and China without any possibility of retaliatory strike. USA built over 700 military bases all over the world.

The Deep State operatives were very successful in their original plan of wrecking Soviet Union from within. In the beginning of 1980s two leaders got into powerful political positions in the Soviet block – Yuri Andropov became top leader of CPSU and Lech Walesa became top trade union leader in Poland, Such high-ranking anti-socialist leaders quickly made inroads into state structure and policies in Soviet Union and Poland. After Andropov handpicked Gorbachev to lead CPSU, it was only a matter of time for the Deep State to wrap-up the socialist experiment what was known as USSR. Gorbachev and his so-called reformist clique systematically incapacitated Soviet economy, and also actively promoted downfall of governments in every east European country which were led by socialist party aligned with CPSU. This clique was helped by professionals from USA and west Europe. They also pinned hope that CPC leader Zhao Ziyang will become the ‘Gorbachev of China’ to bring down the government ruled by CPC – however this was a complete failure as Zhao himself confided with Gorbachev that ‘Deng was the top leader’ in a meeting when Tiananmen Square protest was raging in Beijing in 1989. Without a single gun-shot being fired by the military wings of Zionist Capitalist cabal, the Soviet Union dissolved itself between 1990 to 1991 CE – the phase II of WW II came to an end. Instead of serious introspection and course correction among ruling party officials and government departments to design policies keeping pace with socio-economic changes and technological changes, all these ‘reformist’ leaders decided that the best way to (personal?) growth was to join hands with Zionist-Capitalist world order after bringing down the governments ruled by their own party communist/socialist party.

By 2020 whole Europe and half of Asia had been occupied by the ‘benevolent’ Anglo-American NATO military who claimed that they guarantee ‘independence’ of those ‘liberated countries’ from the clutch of ‘authoritarian’ communism, and they also ensure that ‘liberal democratic capitalism’ version of empire will suck the land and citizens dry. No wonder, Soviet WW II war memorials and monuments have been systematically destroyed in east Europe – how long the Deep State would tolerate anti-zionist anti-capitalist flag hoisted by Soviet Red Army in Europe with immense sacrifices and sufferings by Soviet leaders, soldiers and people?

Concomitant with the complete control of all political parties (across the wide spectrum of their professed ideology) on both sides of the Atlantic: North America, South America, Europe, the discerning Zionist Capitalist cabal maintains a complex cobweb connecting all key members and rotating them from one role to another. Thus a retired Director of intelligence department of USA will occupy the chair of Chairman of a big financial investment firm as well as the role of a university Professor! The cabal maintains a carefully constructed façade where professionals from different spheres of society jointly appear as a highly educated, experienced and intelligent wing – industrialists, bankers, politicians, bureaucrats, military officials, business managers, legal and media professionals, academicians, NGO managers, cinema directors and artists all walks of life are present.

[ Link: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-10/does-bilderberg-really-run-world-one-chart-help-you-decide ]

Interlude?

After Soviet Union was pulled down, the corrupt and treacherous Soviet leaders and their lackeys backed by the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy and elites ripped apart the socio-economic fabric of Russian society. The state exchequer was looted blatantly, the natural resources were divided among the Soviet elites-turned-businessmen, the industrial capital largely destroyed or privatised without any meaningful payment to state, workers were retrenched or pauperised without regular wages, and peasants were left without proper means of cultivation. Not only peoples tried to earn livelihood offering sex-drug-smuggling etc., but steep drop in birth rates across all splinter provinces of USSR made it to appear like entire Eurasian landmass will get depopulated within two generations. The Deep State also tried to split Russia (which, after the USSR dissolution, became largest state in Eurasia) into 4 – 5 regions through creating and aiding regional separatist movements with help of the 5th column elites and oligarchy within Russia. Without funding, military capabilities of Russia went into oblivion. Technological research and development as well as manufacturing of defence machinery came to a dead end. Demoralised troops and open corruption became symbolic of Russian military.

So, were the different factions of Zionist Capitalist cabal content with the successful closure of the WW II by 1991? What were they thinking about the glaring failure of destroying the CPC rule in China? Apparently, the Deep State was not only happy with their performance in destroying the CPSU and Soviet Union, they were also very confident about China becoming a ‘normal country’ with full-scale liberal democratic capitalist system of economy and periodic elections to elect governments that will be run by the Zionist Capitalist world order staying behind the curtain (as it happened for all countries in the world in 1992 except China-Vietnam-North Korea-Iran-Zimbabwe-Angola-Cuba). We need to ask ourselves, how the Deep State was so confident that China will be on board with them.

1978 onwards the drive towards industrial capitalism in China using the global finance owned by the Zionist Capitalist bankers and industrialists was initiated by Deng and followed up by Jiang Zemin in such earnestness that, the Deep State representatives like Kissinger and Financial Institutions like JP Morgan had to conclude that Chinese acumen for business and trade will transform the society into a capitalist society. Japan was anyway part of the world order triad i.e. USA-West Europe-Japan, and with China’s entry, the triad would have become USA-West Europe-East Asia. Chinese government went all-out to create a ‘happy hunting ground’ for global Zionist Capitalist interests which wanted more and more profits towards endless accumulation of capital, and hence were busy shifting their manufacturing base to China to harness low-cost labour and slack regulations. By 2008, i.e. after 30 years of reform, China became third largest economy in terms of GDP nominal (as per IMF estimates USD 4604 billion) and largest export base in the world (In 2007-2008, its Export-to-GDP ratio reached 32%, and its Exim-to-GDP ratio was 59%), but it also became a society where inequality was one of the highest in the world – China’s Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality – ‘0’ represents perfect equality, ‘1’ represents perfect inequality) rose from about 0.3 in early 1980s to 0.49 in 2008. The media, academia, multilateral institutions funded by the Deep State went all-out to woo the CPC leaders towards ushering a new era of ‘political reforms’ after such a brilliant success of ‘economic reforms’ – by ‘political reforms’ they meant introduction of multi-party election system and privatisation of the state-owned enterprises. After one and a half decades of persuasion, by middle of 2000s the Deep State cabal understood that, CPC never ever had any such plan of changing their ideology of political economy.

And about the same time in 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin as the leader of Russia, delivered his famous Munich speech. In no uncertain terms, Putin criticized USA’s hegemonic dominance and its “almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations“. That speech came as a shocker to the Zionist Capitalist clique – it was like waking up from a slumber. All these years they thought WW II was over with Soviet Union completely decimated – after 16 years they had the ignominy of attending a conference on European soil, where a Russian leader was chastising them about use of force in settling disputes!

Actually 2000 onwards, there had been relentless sole-searching among top leadership of Russia. It was about the overall decay of Russia within a span of just 10 years – between 1985 and 1995. As a result, the Russian government and a section of ruling party led by Putin has been pushing economic policies that created new consumer goods industry and improved agricultural production, enhanced the oil-gas extraction operation. Within few years’ time Russia got on its feet and created an economy based on ‘domestic consumption’ and pushed export of oil-gas to earn foreign exchange. However, the Zionist Capitalist oligarchy led by powerful faction of the ruling party was deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy, academia and media who supported (and benefited from) their illegal amassing of wealth. Corruption, nepotism, extortion among ruling party cadres and government officials, mostly went unpunished. Outward flow of capital and tax breaks for rich businessmen were also happening albeit at a slow pace. But noticing the overall upswing in Russian society the Deep State got alarmed – ‘filthy’ Russian bear is again cooking up some curry that may prove difficult to digest in long run!

Part 1

Part 3 – pending


By profession I’m an Engineer and Consultant, but my first love was and is History and Political Science. In retired life, I’m pursuing higher study in Economics.

I’m one of the few decade-old members of The Saker blog-site. Hope that this website will continue to focus on truth and justice in public life and will support the struggle of common people across the world.

An Indian by nationality, I believe in humanity.

China’s $12.5 billion plan to transform Lebanon’s infrastructure (Arab TV report)

Source

June 26, 2020

China’s $12.5 billion plan to transform Lebanon’s infrastructure (Arab TV report)

A recent Al Mayadeen TV presentation illustrating the major infrastructural projects that China is proposing to build in Lebanon.

Whether these projects actually reach fruition or not hinges upon a greater consensus within the Lebanese political establishment.

However, the deteriorating socio-economic situation in the country is reducing the credibility of pro-American parties who have long argued Lebanon’s prosperity is dependent upon the benevolence of Washington, Europe, and the Arab Gulf states.

Source: Al Mayadeen News

Date: June 18, 2020

A Pipelineistan fable for our times

June 08, 2020

A Pipelineistan fable for our times

By Pepe Escobar – posted with permission

Ukraine was supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany; it didn’t work out that way

Once upon a time in Pipelineistan, tales of woe were the norm. Shattered dreams littered the chessboard – from IPI vs. TAPI in the AfPak realm to the neck-twisting Nabucco opera in Europe.

In sharp contrast, whenever China entered the picture, successful completion prevailed. Beijing financed a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang, finished in 2009, and will profit from two spectacular Power of Siberia deals with Russia.

And then there’s Ukraine. Maidan was a project of the Barack Obama administration, featuring a sterling cast led by POTUS, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and last but not least, prime Kiev cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland.

Ukraine was also supposed to prevent Russia from deepening energy ties with Germany, as well as other European destinations.

Well, it did not exactly play like that. Nord Stream was already operational. South Stream was Gazprom’s project to southeast Europe. Relentless pressure by the Obama administration derailed it. Yet that only worked to enable a resurrection: the already completed TurkStream, with gas starting to flow in January 2020.

The battlefield then changed to Nord Stream 2. This time relentless Donald Trump administration pressure did not derail it. On the contrary: it will be completed by the end of 2020.

Richard Grennel, the US ambassador to Germany, branded a “superstar” by President Trump, was furious. True to script, he threatened Nordstream 2 partners – ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall – with “new sanctions.”

Worse: he stressed that Germany “must stop feeding the beast at a time when it does not pay enough to NATO.”

“Feeding the beast” is not exactly subtle code for energy trade with Russia.

Peter Altmaier, German minister of economic affairs and energy, was not impressed. Berlin does not recognize any legality in extra-territorial sanctions

Grennel, on top of it, is not exactly popular in Berlin. Diplomats popped the champagne when they knew he was going back home to become the head of US national intelligence.

Trump administration sanctions delayed Nordstream 2 for around one year, at best. What really matters is that in this interval Kiev had to sign a gas transit deal with Gazprom. What no one is talking about is that by 2025 no Russian gas will be transiting across Ukraine towards Europe.

So the whole Maidan project was in fact useless.

It’s a running joke in Brussels that the EU never had and will never have a unified energy policy towards Russia. The EU came up with a gas directive to force the ownership of Nord Stream 2 to be separated from the gas flowing through the pipeline. German courts applied their own “nein.”

Nord Stream 2 is a serious matter of national energy security for Germany. And that is enough to trump whatever Brussels may concoct.

And don’t forget Siberia 

The moral of this fable is that now two key Pipelineistan nodes – Turk Stream and Nord Stream 2 – are established as umbilical steel cords linking Russia with two NATO allies.

And true to proverbial win-win scripts, now it’s also time for China to look into solidifying its European relations.

Last week, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese premier Li Keqiang had a video conference to discuss Covid-19 and China-EU economic policy.

That was a day after Merkel and President Xi had spoken, when they agreed that the China-EU summit in Leipzig on September 14 would have to be postponed.

This summit should be the climax of the German presidency of the EU, which starts on July 1. That’s when Germany would be able to present a unified policy towards China, uniting in theory the 27 EU members and not only the 17+1 from Central Europe and the Balkans – including 11 EU members – that already have a privileged relationship with Beijing and are on board for the Belt and Road Initiative.

In contrast with the Trump administration, Merkel does privilege a clear, comprehensive trade partnership with China – way beyond a mere photo op summit. Berlin is way more geoeconomically sophisticated than the vague “engagement and exigence” Paris  approach.

Merkel as well as Xi are fully aware of the imminent fragmentation of the world economy post-Lockdown. Yet as much as Beijing is ready to abandon the global circulation strategy from which it has handsomely profited for the past two decades, the emphasis is also on refining very close trade relations with Europe.

Ray McGovern has concisely detailed the current state of US-Russia relations. The heart of the whole matter, from Moscow’s point of view, was summarized by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, an extremely able diplomat:

“We don’t believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever. So our own calculations and conclusions are less related to what America is doing …. We cherish our close and friendly relations with China. We do regard this as a comprehensive strategic partnership in different areas, and we intend to develop it further.”

It’s all here. Russia-China “comprehensive strategic partnership” steadily advancing. Including “Power of Siberia” Pipelineistan. Plus Pipelineistan linking two key NATO allies. Sanctions? What sanctions?

China, the World System and Brazilian dystopia

May 22, 2020

China, the World System and Brazilian dystopia

By Fábio Reis Vianna for the Saker Blog

When Admiral Cheng Ho ordered the retreat of his naval fleet around the year 1424, he left, in the words of the anthropologist Abu-Lughod, “a huge power vacuum”. The first great Chinese expansionist project, started during the Ming Dynasty, was prematurely interrupted there.

After impressive naval expeditions that reached territories as far away as the Indian Ocean and the coast of Africa, and in a decision not yet fully clarified by scholars of the subject, China would abruptly give up the first great expansionist project on a global scale.

It would take no more than 70 years for the Europeans to occupy the great void left by the Chinese and actually begin the adventure that gave rise to what we today call world system.

Six centuries later, China led by Xi Jinping finds itself in an unprecedented crisis in its recent successful history as the undisputed leader of the globalization process. The Covid-19 pandemic that abruptly hits the entire planet, for China in particular, was a hard blow that created an imbalance in its model of political and economic stability.

In the first three months of 2020, trade between China and the rest of the world fell by 6.4%, a figure unthinkable by Chinese standards. In particular, trade with the United States, the European Union and Japan declined 18.3%, 10.4% and 8.1% respectively.

Even with the strong decrease of contagion within Chinese territory, there is a great concern to accelerate the reopening of productive activities. The concern with increasing poverty and political destabilization are evident. In his recent visit to Shaanxi province, Xi Jinping made a point of underlining in his speech the importance of the fight against poverty.

In addition to incentives to businesses, investments in infrastructure and financial aid to the population, a series of structural reforms are planned to enable the country to overcome the terrible crisis triggered by Covid-19. An important annual session of the National People’s Congress is scheduled for May 22nd, and more details can be examined there.

Meanwhile, Brazil, one of the countries that in the recent past could be considered one of the most important allies of the Eurasian integration project outside Eurasia, is experiencing the greatest political-economic crisis in its entire history and is sinking deeper and deeper into an unprecedented internal war.

Something that is being discussed internally among the Chinese establishment is precisely the creation of mechanisms to contain the risk of instability that the social tensions arising from economic difficulties could trigger.

Brazil had already been experiencing cascading crises that had accumulated year after year since June 2013, when the country was the target of a destabilization process – or hybrid war – that triggered a series of other more or less orchestrated events (such as the lawfare against specific targets) that culminated in the weakening of institutions that had been strengthened since the enactment of the 1988 Constitution.

To make matters worse, and in contrast to the Chinese stance in seeking to contain internal instability, the country is astonished at the erratic attitudes of President Bolsonaro, under the consenting silence of his military orbits.

Having been chosen to occupy the highest position in the Republic, in all probability during the fateful visit of the then American secretary of defense, James Mattis “Mad Dog”, in August 2018 (two months before the presidential elections), when in a peculiar and closed meeting between the American and the High Command of the Armed Forces the password was given, and Bolsonaro was anointed to the mission to prevent the return of the left and realign Brazil to the satellite condition of the United States.

Everything leads us to believe that the crumbling of the Brazilian institutions has lit a warning signal within the Brazilian Armed Forces, which, in a mixture of sincere concern and sense of opportunity, took advantage of the power vacuum to move forward in the resumption of a protagonism that has been dormant for over 30 years.

Many forget, but the presence of the military – and especially the army – in the Brazilian political tradition dates back to the proclamation of the Republic in 1889, which opened the series of military coups that guided the entire Republican period to this day.

It is worth remembering that the occupation of strategic positions by the military became more visible when the current Minister of Defense, Fernando Azevedo e Silva, strangely, was appointed by the president of the Supreme Court, Dias Toffoli, to the position of special advisor.

Curiously, this has been happening in the month of September 2018 (between the visit of Secretary James Mattis and the election of Bolsonaro), where Dias Toffoli said he would have invited General Azevedo e Silva after requesting a nomination to the then commander of the army, General Eduardo Villas Bôas.

General Villas Bôas is the same man who, in April 2018, wrote on Twitter a veiled threat to the ministers of the Supreme Court if they found the habeas corpus request of former President Lula to be justified. The day after the constitutional remedy was judged, former President Lula would have his arrest ordered by then-judge Sergio Moro.

As a kind of Ayatollah, General Villas Bôas reproduces a classic character of Brazilian politics until the 1950s: the military chief.

At that time, personified by the figure of Brigadier Eduardo Gomes, the military chief was a kind of “guardian of morals and good customs” of the nation and justified the political action of the military as holders of an unwritten “moderating power”. In this way, the military attributed themselves to the exercise of the “veto power” of the Republic. In the context of the Cold War, the power of veto was invoked to curb the communist threat.

After more than 60 years, and when many thought that the Brazilian Armed Forces would be totally professionalized and away from politics, we find ourselves led by an Executive Power integrated by no less than 3 thousand military personnel; not to mention the eight ministries occupied by men in uniform.

As in a trench battle, the military had been advancing day after day in the control and tutelage of state organs and institutions of the Republic, but if there was a well articulated strategy of occupation of power, with the arrival of Covid-19 the pieces definitely shuffled.

Today Brazil is moving forward to become the world epicenter of Covid-19, and as the pandemic seems to get out of control, the more the military tries to control the internal systemic chaos.

Moreover, if before Covid-19 there was some cohesion in the Brazilian establishment around the neoliberal reforms carried out by the Ministry of Economy, with the bursting of the health crisis, it is every day more evident the split between business sectors, the big media, the National Congress and the Judiciary, which are now frontally positioned in opposition to the government.

The recent meetings between the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Rodrigo Maia, and the President of the Supreme Court, Dias Toffoli, with the Minister “eminence parda” of the Palácio do Planalto, General Braga Netto, were a subtle attempt at intimidation and framing of two of the most important civil authorities of the Republic by the Bolsonaro government.

At the same time that the basements of the government’s disinformation machine slanders adversaries and agitates the low ranks of the Armed Forces and the military police of the states (its faithful allies), the country sinks in what is certainly the greatest existential crisis in its history.

As if all this were not enough, the rest of the world coexists with the prospect of incurring a public debt only seen, according to the British magazine The Economist, “amid the rubble of 1945”.

Beyond the health crisis itself, the economic consequences of the post-Pandemic will be devastating from the fiscal point of view, because the compulsory closure of industry, offices and various segments of the service sector will certainly bring about a fall in government revenues.

As many analysts have already noted, the world is experiencing the exact moment of transition between what no longer exists and what is yet to be born.

Even before the pandemic, the acceleration of interstate competition is noticeable, which denotes the phenomenon of deconcentration of power that throughout the history of the world system always occurs in periods of decline in the long cycles of international politics.

Something that the Brazilian elites, especially the military elites – psychologically trapped in imaginary enemies such as Chinese communists and “cultural Marxists” – have not yet realized, is the dimension of Brazil’s importance in the geopolitical context of this new century that is beginning.

With the shattering of Bretton Woods institutions and the liberal order hegemonized by the United States, the world draws – and we are all characters – a systemic configuration that has not yet been defined. In process.

As it had happened between about 1550 and 1640, when the world, still dominated by the powerful Spain, saw the movements of contestation to the empire that had built its power in the newly discovered America flourish.

Trapped by the wealth of gold and the medieval system of government that no longer corresponded to reality, the Habsburgs – in their alliance with the papacy – fought so that their hegemony would not disintegrate amid the rise of the newest actors in the system, namely, France, Holland, Sweden and England.

At that time, Europe was swallowed up by an unprecedented escalation of wars stemming from those new realities of power whose new actors, emerging in the northwest of the old continent, were unwilling to submit to Spanish power.

The translation of that scenario was the deepening of the systemic chaos that would be pacified only with the advent of the Treaty of Westphalia. Any resemblance to the present world moment is no mere coincidence, at least for geopolitical scholars.

Going back to the year 2020, it is very likely that some aspects will prove to be clearer and bolder in the post-Pandemic. Technological competition, more visible around 5G, tends to radicalize in many other areas. And the search for natural/energy resources is already a reality and places not only Africa, but South America itself as the target of the new imperialist race that should also deepen.

For now, the Brazilian establishment is a mere spectator of the rapid changes that the world system will see in the coming years.

China, even though it has been severely hit by the Covid-19 meteor, is reinventing itself in its policy of global humanitarian aid to effectively combat the virus and is focusing its action on strengthening the Eurasian integration project; in particular the Belt and Road Initiative – BRI.

Demonstrating impressive resilience, despite the strong retraction in exports to central countries, the Chinese saw an increase of 3.2% with the New Silk Road countries. Although not comparable to previous years, it shows that BRI’s infrastructure projects have not been so strongly affected by the adverse effects of the health crisis.

Nothing more appropriate to the thought and conduct of Confucian cosmology, based beyond mere rambling, in a concrete act, an action.

Thus, the Chinese follow their journey towards the central helm of the world system, consciously absorbing the pillars of Western modernity, but without ever losing the essence of Confucian thought, the Tao-to that always seeks effectiveness beyond mere thought.

Next June marks seven years of uninterrupted political-institutional instability in Latin America’s largest country. May the history of the oldest peoples and the winds of change teach us to guide the helm of our own destiny.


Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws ( LL.B), writer and geopolitical analyst. He is currently a columnist in international politics for the printed version of the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.

من البحر الأسود إلى شرق المتوسط المواجهة الأميركيّة الصينيّة تشتعل في تل أبيب

محمد صادق الحسيني

السفير الصيني في «إسرائيل» نشر مقالاً قبل يومين يعلق فية على تصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركي، مايك بومبيو بشأن وصف الاستثمار الصيني في «إسرائيل» بأنة «خطر»…!.

ليتم العثور علية بعد وقت قصير، ميتاً بمنزله، في مدينة هرتسليا الساحلية شمالي تل أبيب…!

إن ظروف «موت» السفير الصيني (58 عاماً)، ما زالت غير واضحة ومبهمة ومريبة حتى الآن، رغم البيانات الإسرائيليّة الرسمية!

عُيّن دو واي سفيراً في الكيان في أوج جائحة كورونا، وكان عمل قبل ذلك سفيراً للصين في أوكرانيا.

الكيان الصهيوني ادّعى في بيان رسميّ لة بأنّ السفير مات في نومه…!

لا شك في أن البيان، الصادر عن الجهات الإسرائيلية المسؤولة عن التحقيق الجنائي، الذي فتح، لكشف ملابسات وفاة السفير الصيني، دو واي ( Du Wei )، الذي عثر علية متوفياً في شقتة في هرتسيليا، شمال تل ابيب، يثير الكثير من الشكوك وبيان سلطات تل ابيب زاد في ريبة الواقعة بدلاً من إلقاء الضوء على أسباب الوفاة الحقيقية، وذلك للأسباب التالية:

1

ـ إن المدة الزمنيّة التي أعقبت الوفاة غير كافية إطلاقاً لإجراء التحقيق المهني المتكامل وإجراء التحقيقات والفحوص الطبية اللازمة، بما في ذلك تشريح جثمان المغدور، للوقوف على أسباب الوفاة الحقيقيّة وليس للخروج ببيان باهت وبائس يدّعي أن سبب الوفاة هو السكتة القلبية.

2

ـ إن البيان صادر عن جهات حكومية إسرائيلية، من دون مشاركة أي جهة رسمية صيني، لا في التحقيقات ولا في فحوص الطب الشرعي، التي هي الوسيلة الوحيدة لتحديد أسباب وفاة أي إنسان بطريقة علميّة موثوقة ومُوَثَقَةً، وهذا لم يحصل.

وعليه فإن ما صدر عن السلطات الإسرائيلية حتى الآن لا يمكن التعامل معه سوى في اطار الاقاويل او التسريبات الصحافية، التي تمّت فبركتها من قبل جهات امنية، خدمةً لهدف واضح، الا وهو إخفاء السبب الحقيقي وراء وفاة المغدور.

3

ـ علماً أنّ هناك المزيد من عناصر الشك في الرواية الإسرائيلية والتي يعزّزها التاريخ الدبلوماسي للسفير المغدور ومواقفه المبدئيّة والمدافعة عن حقوق بلاده، جمهوريّة الصين الشعبيّة، في كل المجالات وتصدّيه الدائم لسياسات واشنطن المعادية للصين.

إذ إن تصدّيه، قبل أيام، وعبر تغريدة على تويتر، نشرت على موقع سفارة الصين في تل أبيب، ردّ فيها على تصريحات وزير الخارجية الأميركيّ الوقحة ضد سياسة الصين الاستثمارية في «إسرائيل»، حيث ادعى بومبيو ان الصين تقوم بشراء «إسرائيل» بشكل ممنهج، نقول إن تصدي السفير الصيني هذا، لسياسات واشنطن العدائية تجاه بكين، لم يكن موقفه الأول.

4

ـ فقد كان للسفير دو واي، الذي عمل سفيراً لبلاده في أوكرانيا من شهر 6/2016 وحتى نهاية عام 2019، نقل أنه كانت له نفس المواقف الدبلوماسية الدقيقة والثابتة والمعبرة عن مصالح بلاده، عندما انتقدت الإدارة الأميركية والعديد من المسؤولين الاميركيين، قيام شركةBeijing Skyrizon Aviation الصينية، في أواخر سنة 2017 بشراء حصة، بلغت 41 % من مصانع SICH الأوكرانية العملاقة، للصناعات الجوفضائية، وهي إحدى أهم مصانع محركات الطائرات العملاقة في العالم، مثل طائرات انطونوف / 124 / وشقيقتها الكبرى انطونوف / 225 / والتي تبلغ حمولتها 400 طن، الى جانب صناعة محركات الغاز العملاقة الخاصة بتشغيل محطات توليد الكهرباء.

5

ـ كان للسفير المغدور دور حساس وهام جداً في التصدي للحملة الاميركية، ضد الصين، وفي التصدي للضغوط والتهديدات الأميركية لحكومة كييف، التي خضعت في نهاية المطاف لتلك الضغوط وقامت بتجميد الصفقة، مع الشركة الصينية.

إلا أن الجهود الصينية، الدبلوماسية والتجارية التي قادها السفير المغدور، سنتي 2017 و 2018 قد تواصلت وأثمرت عن اتفاق بديل، صيني أوكراني، قامت بموجبه شركة Beijing Skyrizon Aviation الصينية باستثمار 250 مليون دولار في الشركة الأوكرانية، المذكورة اعلاه، لإقامة مركز تجميع وخدمات لمنتجات الشركة الأوكرانية، في مدينة شونغ كينك Chongqing في جنوب غرب الصين.

6

ـ وهذا يعني ان الدور، الذي لعبه السفير المغدور، في تحقيق هذه الصفقة التجارية التكنولوجية العالية الأهمية، كان دوراً مركزياً وغاية في الأهمية، وهو الأمر الذي جعل الإدارة الأميركية تطلق حملة من التهديد، قادها جون بولتون في حينه، بالعقوبات ضد كل من الصين واوكرانيا، الامر الذي جعل السفير الصيني يرد بما معناه ان العقوبات لن تجدي نفعاً في وقف تعاون مثمر بين بلدين ذوي سيادة.

وقد شاركه، في التصدي لهذه الحملة الجديدة، عضو البرلمان الاوكراني السابق، أوليه لايشكو Oleh Lyashko، عندما أصدر تصريحاً قال فيه: اذا كانت الولايات المتحدة لا تريدنا أن نبيع المحركات للصين فلتتفضل وتشتريها هي.

7

ـ وقد تأكد نجاح السفير المغدور، في إتمام تلك الصفقة، على الرغم من الضغوط والتهديدات الأميركية لأوكرانيا، وذلك على لسان رئيس شركة Motor Sich الاوكرانية، السيد فيياشيسلاف بوغوسلاييڤ Vyacheslav Boguslayev، الذي صرح لوكالة الانباء الوطنية الاوكرانية Ukrinform، بتاريخ 13/12/2019 ، وقال: لقد كانت لدينا مشكلة ووجدنا مستثمرين وبعنا أسهماً لهم (من اسهم الشركة الاوكرانية) وانا نفسي بعت أسهمي لهم.

8

ـ كما أن الرئيس التنفيذي لمجموعة شين واي التكنولوجية الصينية / Xinwei technology group، المملوكة للدولة الصينية ومقرها الأساسي في شنغهاي، السيد وانغ شينغ / Wang Jing / قد صرّح بان مجموعته قد اشترت 80 % من الشركة الاوكرانية منذ عام 2017 وبشكل قانوني تماماً، من خلال شراء حصص من قبل أفراد صينيّين، قيمة كل حصة أقل من 10% من قيمة أسهم الشركة الأوكرانية.

9 ـ من هنا فإن المناقصة التي دخلت اليها شركة CK Huchison Holdings الصينية، لبناء محطة تحلية مياه عملاقة في «إسرائيل» وإدارتها لمدة 25 عاماً، هي التي يجب التدقيق في الدور الذي لعبته في وفاة السفير الصيني المغدور وليس الجلطة القلبية. خاصة اذا ما أخذنا في عين الاعتبار ان هذا السفير قد تم تعيينه في تل أبيب اواسط شهر شباط 2020 وأنه كان مرشحاً أن يلعب دوراً مهماً في توسيع التعاون الاقتصادي والتكنولوجي بين الشركات الصينية والإسرائيلية، التي تتطلع الى (الشركات الإسرائيلية) للدخول مع الصين في تعاون يشمل الجيل الخامس من شبكات الاتصالات… إلى جانب أن كل ذلك يشكل خطوات هامة على طريق تحقيق المشروع الصيني العملاق طريق واحد وحزام واحد.

كل ذلك يؤكد لنا بأن ما جرى للسفير الصيني في تل أبيب ليست وفاة طبيعية حتى لو كانت، في الظاهر، ناتجة عن «مشاكل في القلب»…!.

لكن ثمة ما هو أهم كان قد حصل خلال زيارة بومبيو لتل ابيب قد يكشف حقيقة ما تعرّض له السفير الصيني في تل ابيب…!

فالمصادر المتابعة للزيارة تجزم بأن بومبيو هدد نتن ياهو بوقف التنسيق الأمني الأميركي مع «إسرائيل»، وان أجواء اللقاءات، التي عقدها وزير الخارجية الاميركية، مايك بومبيو، خلال زيارته قبل ايام للكيان الصهيوني، لم تكن هادئة أبداً وإن كانت سلطات تل ابيب قد أظهرتها على انها زاهية وأتقنت الإخراج، كما بدت الأجواء في مؤتمر بومبيو الصحافي، مع «صديقه» نتن ياهو، ومسؤولين إسرائيليين آخرين..!

اذ ان اجواء الاجتماعات الرسمية كما تؤكد تلك المصادر كانت اكثر بكثير من أجواء جدية، اذ سادها الكثير من التوتر والتهديد والوعيد لنتن ياهو، من قبل ضيفة «وصديقه» بومبيو.

ومواضيع البحث لم تكن، كما جرت العادة، مثل تفاصيل مؤامرة القرن، من ضم وقضم للاراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة، او تهنئة بنجاح نتن ياهو في تشكيل حكومة جديدة، يعتقد البعض أنها حكومة حرب، وانما تركزت الزيارة على موضوع أساسي واحد هو :

الحرب على الصين الشعبية..!

وهي صديق القضية الفلسطينية والشعب الفلسطيني، وخط الصد الأول، في مواجهة آخر محاولات الولايات المتحدة لاستعادة جزء من هيبتها التي يتسارع تآكلها بشكل كبير، وفي كل ميادين المواجهة على صعيد العالم كله…

لذا فإن البحث قد تركز، في لقاءات بومبيو مع المسؤولين الإسرائيليين، على قضيتين أساسيتين هما :

1-

وقف أو منع مشاركة شركة CK Huchison Holdings الصينية، في مناقصة طرحتها «إسرائيل» لبناء محطة تحلية للمياه، اطلق عليها اسم سوريك بـ / Sorek B / الواقعة قرب قاعدة بالماخيم الجوية الإسرائيلية، المقامة على اراضي مدينة يِبْنا الفلسطينية المحتلة، بالقرب من منطقة ريشون ليتسيون الإسرائيلية جنوب تل ابيب.

علماً أن تكلفة هذه المحطة ستبلغ ملياراً ونصف المليار دولار، وستنفذها الشركة الصينية، بالتعاون مع شركة IDE TECHNOLOGIES الإسرائيلية، اذا ما رست المناقصة عليهما والتي ستعلن نتيجتها يوم 24/5/2020.

2-

وفِي هذا الإطار فقد طلب الوزير الاميركي من نتنياهو وقف مشاركة الشركة الصينية، في تنفيذ هذا مشروع البنى التحتية المائية هذا، لما تشكله مشاركة شركات صينية من تهديد «لأمن المواطن الإسرائيلي والاميركي»، حسب ما قاله وزير الخارجية الاميركية لمحطة «كان» التلفزيونية الإسرائيلية، خلال مقابلة له معها، أجريت خلال زيارته لتل ابيب قبيل ايام.

3-

ومن الجدير بالذكر ايضاً ان هذا الخلاف، الإسرائيلي الاميركي، ليس وليد الزيارة، المشار اليها اعلاه، وانما تمتد جذورها الى العام الماضي، حيث كانت الادارة الاميركية قد طلبت من رئيس الوزراء الإسرائيلي إعادة النظر، في كل مشاريع التعاون الإسرائيلية الصينية، لما لها من أضرار على العلاقة بين واشنطن وتل ابيب. مما اضطر نتنياهو، في شهر 10/2019، الى تشكيل لجنة فنية، لبحث هذا الموضوع، خضوعاً للامر الاميركي.

4-

ولكن الادارة الاميركية لم تقتنع بالاجراءات الإسرائيلية الشكلية، حسب ما نشره مركز راند الاميركي للدراسات الشهر الماضي، خاصة في ظل موافقة الحكومة الإسرائيلية، على عقد لشركة موانئ صينية مختصة بادارة الموانئ، تتولى بموجبه هذه الشركة ادارة ميناء حيفا، الذي يضم، في جزئه الشمالي، قاعدة بحرية أميركية. وهو ما استوجب تدخلاً أميركياً. بشخص وزير الخارجية الاميركي نفسه.

5-

وبناءً على ما وصلت إليه الاتصالات بين الطرفين، بخصوص نشاط الشركات الصينية في «إسرائيل، فإن وزير الخارجية الاميركي، قد ابلغ نتنياهو، بان الولايات المتحدة ستقوم بتخفيض او حتى وقف التعاون الاستخباري مع «إسرائيل»، اذا لم تقم «إسرائيل» بالاستجابة للشروط الاميركية، حسب ما اكد مصدر خاص تابع الزيارة المذكورة. وهذا يعني امراً أميركياً لنتنياهو بوقف نشاط الشركات الصينية والاستثمارات الصينية في «إسرائيل».

علماً ان الحكومة الإسرائيلية منخرطة في مباحثات مع شركات صينية، لمنحها حقوق ادارة ميناء اسدود جنوب البلاد، الى جانب وجود تعاون صناعي عسكري بين شركات الصناعات العسكرية الإسرائيلية والعديد من الشركات الصينية، الامر الذي تعتبره واشنطن خطراً على أسرارها الصناعية وخاصة العسكرية منها.

6-

اذن فإن هذه الزيارة لم تكن زيارة مجاملة، او ذات طابع بروتوكولي او ما شابه ذلك، وانما كانت زيارة ميدانية لإصدار أوامر محددة، وتحت طائلة المسؤولية لنتنياهو. وبالتالي فإن من الضروري تصنيف هذه الزيارة في خانة إجراءات الحرب الاقتصادية على الصين، التي تؤشر الى أن الولايات المتحدة سوف ترغم أذنابها من أعراب وأوروبيين، في القريب العاجل، على الانخراط في حربها المتعددة الوسائل ضد الصين، والطلب منهم تخفيض تبادلاتهم التجارية معها إن لم يكن وقفها بالكامل.

وهي خطوات أميركية عدائية، لا تختلف عن إعلان الحرب، وان لم تكن بالوسائل العسكرية حتى الآن. هذه الخطوات التي لن تقف جمهورية الصين الشعبية مكتوفة الأيدي تجاهها وانما ستتخذ سلسلة من الإجراءات، المالية والتجارية والاقتصادية، التي ستكلف الاقتصاد الاميركي أثماناً، ليس بمقدور سمسار العقارات، دونالد ترامب، تقديرها ومواجهة تداعياتها.

العالم يشتبك، ومركز ثقلة ينتقل من الغرب الى الشرق، والسنن الكونية تفعل فعلها…!

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله…

Putin’s Call for a New System and the 1944 Battle of Bretton Woods: Lessons for Victory Day

May 10, 2020

Putin’s Call for a New System and the 1944 Battle of Bretton Woods: Lessons for Victory Day

By Matthew Ehret for The Saker Blog

As today’s world teeters on the brink of a financial collapse greater than anything the world experienced in either 1923 Weimar or the 1929 Great depression, a serious discussion has been initiated by leaders of Russia and China regarding the terms of the new system which must inevitably replace the currently dying neo-liberal order. Most recently, Vladimir Putin re-initiated his January 16, 2020 call for a new emergency economic conference to deal with the looming disaster based upon a live session with representatives of the five nuclear powers of the UN Security Council.

While Putin’s commitment for this new system is premised upon multi-polar principles of cooperation and respect of national sovereignty, the financial oligarchy and broader deep state structures infesting the western nations who have initiated this crisis over the course of decades of globalization have called for their own version of a new system. This new system as we have seen promoted by the likes of the Bank of England and leading technocrats over the past year, is based upon an anti-Nation State, unipolar system which typically goes by the term “Green New Deal”. In other words, this is a system ruled by a technocratic elite managing the reduction of world population through the monetization of carbon reduction practices under a Global Government.

No matter how you look at it, a new system will be created out of the ashes of the currently dying world order. The question is only: Will it benefit the oligarchy or the people?

In order to inform the necessary decision making going into this emergency conference, it is useful to revisit the last such emergency conference that defined the terms of a world economic architecture in July 1944 so that similar mistakes that were then made by anti-imperialist forces are not made once more.

What Was the Bretton Woods?

As it was becoming apparent that the war would be soon drawing to a close, a major fight broke out during a two week conference in Bretton Woods New Hampshire where representative of 44 nations convened to establish the terms of the new post-war system. The question was: Would this new system be governed by those British Imperial principles similar to those that had dominated the world before the war began or would they be shaped by a community of sovereign nation states?

On the one side, figures allied to American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vision for an anti-Imperial world order lined up behind FDR’s champion Harry Dexter White while those powerful forces committed to maintaining the structures of a bankers’ dictatorship (Britain was always primarily a banker’s empire) lined up behind the figure of John Maynard Keynes[1].

John Maynard Keynes was a leading Fabian Society controller and treasurer of the British Eugenics Association (which served as a model for Hitler’s Eugenics protocols before and during the war). During the Bretton Woods Conference, Keynes pushed hard for the new system to be premised upon a one world currency controlled entirely by the Bank of England known as the Bancor. He proposed a global bank called the Clearing Union to be controlled by the Bank of England which would use the Bancor (exchangeable with national currencies) and serve as unit of account to measure trade surpluses or deficits under the mathematical mandate of maintaining “equilibrium” of the system.

Harry Dexter White on the other hand fought relentlessly to keep the City of London out of the drivers’ seat of global finance and instead defended the institution of national sovereignty and sovereign currencies based on long term scientific and technological growth. Although White and FDR demanded that U.S. dollars become the reserve currency in the new world system of fixed exchange rates, it was not done to create a “new American Empire” as most modern analysts have assumed, but rather was designed to use America’s status as the strongest productive global power to ensure an anti-speculative stability among international currencies which entirely lacked stability in the wake of WWII.

Their fight for fixed exchange rates and principles of “parity pricing” were designed by FDR and White strictly around the need to abolish the forms of chaotic flux of the un-regulated markets which made speculation rampant under British Free Trade and destroyed the capacity to think and plan for the sort of long term development needed to modernize nation states. Theirs was not a drive for “mathematical equilibrium” but rather a drive to “end poverty” through REAL physical economic growth of colonies who would thereby win real economic independence.

As figures like Henry Wallace (FDR’s loyal Vice President and 1948 3rd party candidate), Representative William Wilkie (FDR’s republican lieutenant and New Dealer), and Dexter White all advocated repeatedly, the mechanisms of the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations were meant to become drivers of an internationalization of the New Deal which transformed America from a backwater cesspool in 1932 to becoming a modern advanced manufacturing powerhouse 12 years later. All of these Interntional New Dealers were loud advocates of US-Russia –China leadership in the post war world which is a forgotten fact of paramount importance.

In his 1944 book Our Job in the Pacific, Wallace said: “It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China and it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia, China and America and Russia and America. China and Russia Complement and supplement each other on the continent of Asia and the two together complement and supplement America’s position in the Pacific.”

Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR’s assistant Francis Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her: “I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist.” In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had “supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking.”

In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes wrote: “For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless, the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.”

While Keynes represented the “soft imperialism” for the “left” of Britain’s intelligentsia, Churchill represented the hard unapologetic imperialism of the Old, less sophisticated empire that preferred the heavy fisted use of brute force to subdue the savages. Both however were unapologetic racists and fascists (Churchill even wrote admiringly of Mussolini’s black shirts) and both represented the most vile practices of British Imperialism.

FDR’s Forgotten Anti-Colonial Vision Revited

FDR’s battle with Churchill on the matter of empire is better known than his differences with Keynes whom he only met on a few occasions. This well documented clash was best illustrated in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt’s book As He Saw It (1946) who quoted his father:

“I’ve tried to make it clear … that while we’re [Britain’s] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas … I hope they realize they’re not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.”

FDR continued: “The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements–all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.”

Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that Roosevelt ”contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires.”

Unfortunately for the world, FDR died on April 12, 1945. A coup within the Democratic establishment, then replete with Fabians and Rhodes Scholars, had already ensured that Henry Wallace would lose the 1944 Vice Presidency in favor of Anglophile Wall Street Stooge Harry Truman. Truman was quick to reverse all of FDR’s intentions, cleansing American intelligence of all remaining patriots with the shutdown of the OSS and creation of the CIA, the launching of un-necessary nuclear bombs on Japan and establishment of the Anglo-American special relationship. Truman’s embrace of Churchill’s New World Order destroyed the positive relationship with Russia and China which FDR, White and Wallace sought and soon America had become Britain’s dumb giant.

The Post 1945 Takeover of the Modern Deep State

FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father’s ominous insight:

“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

Before being fired from Truman’s cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the Cold War, Wallace stated: “American fascism” which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. “Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said “Before the blood of our boys is scarcely dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as in war.”

Indeed this is exactly what occurred. Dexter White’s three year run as head of the International Monetary Fund was clouded by his constant attacks as being a Soviet stooge which haunted him until the day he died in 1948 after a grueling inquisition session at the House of Un-American Activities. White had previously been supporting the election of his friend Wallace for the presidency alongside fellow patriots Paul Robeson and Albert Einstein.

Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the FDR’s dream of an anti-colonial world. In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).

If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to heed Putin’s call for a New International system, join the BRI, and reject the Keynesian technocrats advocating a false “New Bretton Woods” and “Green New Deal”.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, is regular author with Strategic Culture, the Duran and Fort Russ and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation and can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

  1. You may be thinking “wait! Wasn’t FDR and his New Deal premised on Keynes’ theories??” How could Keynes have represented an opposing force to FDR’s system if this is the case?This paradox only exists in the minds of many people today due to the success of the Fabian Society’s and Round Table Movement’s armada of revisionist historians who have consistently created a lying narrative of history to make it appear to future generations trying to learn from past mistakes that those figures like FDR who opposed empire were themselves following imperial principles. Another example of this sleight of hand can be seen by the sheer number of people who sincerely think themselves informed and yet believe that America’s 1776 revolution was driven by British Imperial philosophical thought stemming from Adam Smith, Bentham and John Locke. 

حلف الأطلسي ما بعد كورونا إما التعاون أو الموت المحتّم

محمد صادق الحسيني

إنّ التهديدات التي كان يعيشها العالم، قبل انتشار وباء كورونا، وبغض النظر عن طبيعتها، قد اختلفت تماماً بعد ظهور هذا الوباء القاتل والخطير جداً، على البشرية جمعاء وليس على شعب بعينه.

وعليه فإنّ منطلقات الدفاع الأوروأطلسية، التي أقيم على اساسها حلف شمال الأطلسي (الناتو) قد انقلبت رأساً على عقب، لا بل انتفى وجودها من الأساس. فمن المعلوم ان أمين عام حلف شمال الأطلسي كان قد لخص مهمات الحلف بالكلمات التالية:

‏To keep Russia out , Americans in , German down.

أي:

*إبعاد روسيا.

*تمكين أميركا.

*قمع ألمانيا.

لكن الظروف التي كانت سائدة آنذاك قد انتهت تماماً، بعد تفكك الاتحاد السوفياتي وكتلة الدول الاشتراكية وضعف قدراتها العسكرية بشكل عام، وتمدد حلف شمال الأطلسي شرقاً، وضمّه جميع الدول التي كانت أعضاء في حلف وارسو للدول الاشتراكية الى عضويته، ووصول قوات الناتو الى حدود جمهورية روسيا الشمالية الغربية، بحيث أصبحت مدينة لينينغراد الروسية في مرمى مدفعية قوات الحلف الأطلسي، وذلك على عكس الضمانات التي أعطيت لآخر رئيس للاتحاد السوفياتي، ميخائيل غورباتشوف، عند توقيع اتفاقية سحب القوات السوفياتية من المانيا ودول أوروبا الشرقية.

هذا وقد اختفى التهديد السوفياتي المزعوم، من قبل الناتو والولايات المتحدة وأذنابها الأوروبيين، مما جعل الناتو، بقيادة واشنطن، يبدأ بالبحث عن أعداء جدد، ومنذ بداية تسعينيات القرن الماضي، لتبرير وجود هذا الحلف العدواني، الذي هدّد السلم العالمي منذ نشأته. وقد ترجمت هذه السياسة العدوانية، الأميركية الأطلسية، في خطوات الحلف التالية:

الحرب العدوانية، التي شنتها قوات الحلف والجيش الأميركي، ضد العراق سنة 1991.
حروب البلقان، التي هندستها وموّلتها وسلمت لاعبيها، بهدف تفكيك جمهورية يوغوسلافيا، صديقة العرب والقضية الفلسطينية، وتدمير قدراتها العسكرية، وذلك عبر حرب بدأتها سنة 1992 واستمرت حتى 1996.
الحرب الشاملة، التي شنتها الولايات المتحدة وقوات حلف شمال الأطلسي، ضد جمهورية صربيا، اليوغوسلافية السابقة، سنة 1999، والتي أدت الى تدمير شبه كامل للبنى التحتية الصربية واقتطاع إقليم كوسوفو وفصله عن الدولة الصربية، بحجة أن أغلبية سكانه من القومية الألبانية.
الحرب الأميركية الاطلسية ضد العراق سنة 2003 واحتلاله وتدمير الدولة العراقية بالكامل اضافة الى تدمير البنى التحتية المدنية والتي لا زالت تعاني من آثار تلك الجريمة حتى يومنا هذا.
5 ـ الحرب على ليبيا، سنة 2011 والمستمرة حتى اليوم، والتي دمّرت ليس فقط الدولة الليبية وإنما كل بناها التحتية وجميع مقومات الحياة في هذا البلد العربي المنكوب.

كما لا بد من الإشارة باللون الأحمر الى الحرب العدوانية على الشعب اليمني والتي بدأها محمد بن سلمان سنة 2015 بدعم أميركي أوروبي غربي وإسرائيلي مباشر.

وما ان استنفدت مبررات وجود هذا الحلف من جديد، مع بداية الألفية الثالثة، حتى تفتق عقل المخططين الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين والأوروبيين عن اختراع عدو جديد، يمتد وجوده المزعوم على امتداد العالم، اطلق عليه اسم: الارهاب.

فكان أن شنت واشنطن، بالتعاون مع الحلف ودول أخرى، إثر هجمات 11 أيلول 2001 في نيويورك، حربها على افغانستان إبتداءً من شهر 10/2001، والتي لا زالت مستمرة حتى اليوم. ثم تبع ذلك خلق وتفقيس تنظيمات إرهابية أميركية، تحت مسمّيات مختلفة، ونشرها في دول عربية عدة، مستخدمة إياها للأسباب المذكورة ذاتها أعلاه. حيث قام تنظيم داعش بالاستيلاء على أجزاء واسعة من سورية والعراق وأعلن ما اسماه «دولة الخلافة الاسلامية» سنة 2014، كمقدمة لتفكيك الدولة السورية والعراقية.

وقد سارعت واشنطن آنذاك لتشكيل «تحالف دوليّ»، بحجة محاربة الإرهاب، زجّت به من جديد بقوات حلف شمال الأطلسي، في مسرحية عسكرية، هدفت الى تمديد عمر حلف شمال الأطلسي الافتراضي، الذي كان قد انتهى بزوال الاتحاد السوفياتي. ذلك التحالف الذي لم يكن له أي دور يذكر، في محاربة وجود التنظيمات الإرهابية، مثل داعش والقاعدة، وإنما اقتصرت محاربة هذه التنظيمات على الجيش العربي السوري، مدعوماً بقوات إيرانية وأُخرى من حزب الله اللبناني، الى جانب قوى المقاومة العراقيّة ومن ثم الجيش وقوات الحشد الشعبي العراقي، التي تشكلت إثر اجتياح الإرهاب الأميركي الأسود لمناطق واسعة من سورية والعراق، سنة 2014.

هذا الصمود، الذي كان لإيران دور أساسيّ وفاعل في تحقيقه، والذي أدّى الى شعور القيادة الروسيّة بخطر الإرهاب، واحتمال تمدّده الى داخل الأراضي الروسية، من خلال مقاتلين من دول الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق في آسيا الوسطى، مما جعلها، وانطلاقاً من أهداف استراتيجية دولية، الى التدخل العسكري المباشر، في شهر أيلول 2015، لدعم الدولة السورية ومنع إسقاطها، من قبل الولايات المتحدة وحلفائها الغربيين (دول الناتو).

وهو الأمر الذي أدى الى فشل حلف الناتو وسيّد البيت الأبيض في المهمة، ما يعني إفراغ هذا الحلف من محتواه مجدداً، وطرح السؤال الحاسم حول جدوى استمرار وجوده ومبررات ذلك الوجود. علماً ان الإجابة على هذا السؤال أصبحت اكثر الحاحاً، بعد اجتياح وباء كورونا معظم دول العالم وتسببه في موت وإصابة الملايين من البشر، على امتداد العالم.

من هنا، وفي ظل استحالة تمكّن أي دولة بمفردها من مواجهة هذا الوباء، وغيره من الأوبئة المحتملة في المستقبل، وفي ظل العجز المرعب والنقص المخيف في التجهيزات الطبية اللازمة، الذي أظهرته الولايات المتحدة والدول الأوروبية جميعها، في مواجهة هذا البلاد الذي حل بالعالم، وبالنظر الى التداعيات الاقتصادية والاجتماعية والسياسية الكارثية، التي ستنجم عن انتشار هذا الوباء، فإننا نرى ان من الضرورة بمكان ان نؤكد على النقاط التالية، كمخرج آمن وحيد من الأزمة الحاليّة وأي ازمات مستقبلية:

أولاً: الحل الفوريّ لحلف شمال الأطلسي، بفروعه السياسية والعسكرية والتنظيمية وغير ذلك، وإنهاء وتصفية وجوده بشكل نهائي ودائم، وتوجيه الأموال التي تنفق على الحلف حالياً، الى مجالات الاستثمار في البنى التحتية والنشاطات الاقتصادية الإنتاجية في دول الحلف نفسها.

ثانياً: في ظل الهدر المتزايد لثروات الكرة الأرضية واستغلالها بشكل مجحف، من قبل القوى الرأسمالية الليبرالية المتوحشة جنياً لمزيد من الأرباح وتركيزاً للثروة العالمية في أيدي بضع عائلات فقط، فقد اصبح من الملح جداً، على جميع دول العالم، أن تتداعى للبحث في آليات جديدة تكون ناظمة للعلاقات الدولية، عوضاً عن سياسات التهديد العسكري المباشر والعقوبات المالية والاقتصادية، التي تمارسها الولايات المتحدة والدول الغربية، ضد العديد من دول العالم من إيران، الى جمهورية الصين الشعبية وروسيا الاتحادية، وصولاً الى خلق قاعدةٍ دولية للتعاون الاقتصادي الدولي المتوازن والمستند الى خطط علمية دقيقة، عوضاً عن سياسات النهب الشامل لثروات الارض، من قبل قوى خفية تفتقر الى وجود أية روادع أخلاقية او إنسانية وتحكمها الأنانية المطلقة، التي لا تتوانى عن شنّ الحروب وتدمير الدول وقتل شعوبها، حفاظاً على المصالح الذاتية لهذه القوى.

ثالثاً: من هنا فإن الحل الشامل والناجع، لمشاكل البشرية بشكل عام، لا يكمن في مواصلة سياسة اللعب بالنار، التي تمارسها الولايات المتحدة ودول الناتو الأخرى، على حدود روسيا الشمالية الغربية (لينينغراد)، ولا في مواصلة التحرّشات العسكرية، التي تنفذها البحرية الأميركية، في بحر الصين الجنوبي والشرقي، وفي غرب المحيط الهادئ، ومحاولات اختلاق «عدو جديد» للولايات المتحدة وحلف الناتو، الذي تواصل واشنطن استخدامه، في تنفيذ عمليات ألعاب نارية، هنا وهناك، مرة ضد إيران وأخرى في مواصلة توجيه التهديدات للصين الشعبية والعمل على دق إسفين بين روسيا والصين، من خلال إغراء روسيا بمعاملة تفضيلية، إذا ما ابتعدت عن الصين الشعبية وأوقفت التعاون معها، وإنما الحل لا يمكن إلا في التعاون الدولي، لمواجهة التحدي المشترك، المتمثل في وباء كورونا وغيره من الأوبئة.

رابعاً: ولعل أقرب الطرق للوصول الى تصور مشترك وخطة عمل مشتركة لمواجهة تحديات المستقبل، على الصعيد الكوني، هو العودة الى اقتراح الرئيس الروسي، فلاديمير بوتين، الداعي الى عقد اجتماع طارئ لرؤساء الدول الدائمة العضوية في مجلس الأمن، لتدارس إمكانيات إيجاد آليات لمواجهة التحديات المستقبلية التي تواجه البشرية جمعاء. ذلك الاقتراح او المبادرة، التي أطلقها الرئيس الروسي بتاريخ 27/1/2020، في مناسبة الذكرى الـ75 لتحرير قوات الجيش الأحمر السوفياتي لمعسكر الاعتقال في بلدة أوشفيتس، الواقعة جنوب غرب بولندا، بتاريخ 27/1/1945.

وهذا يعني، من الناحية الواقعية وانطلاقاً من المبدأ السياسي، الذي أسسة المستشار الألماني السابق ڤيللي براندت بداية سبعينيات القرن الماضي، ويطلق علية اسم « رِيالْ بوليتيك Realpolitik « –، وتعني السياسة الواقعية، والتي أسست لبدء سياسة الانفتاح الألماني على دول المعسكر السوفياتي بشكل عام وجمهورية المانيا الديموقراطية (الشرقية) آنذاك بشكل خاص، نقول إن هذا يعني:

إن على الولايات المتحدة، خاصة في ظل انتشار وباء كورونا، العدو المشترك لكل دول العالم، أن تتخلى عن سياسة المواجهة والعدوان العسكري والعقوبات المالية والاقتصادية، وتجلس الى طاولة المفاوضات وتجترح، بالتعاون مع الدول العظمى الأخرى، خريطة حلول دبلوماسية سياسية للمشكلات الدولية، الأمر الذي سيساعد واشنطن على البدء بعلاج جنودها المصابين بفيروس كورونا وسحب قواتها، من قواعدها العسكرية التي يزيد عددها عن ألف قاعدة منتشرة في العالم، وتصفية هذا الوجود العسكري المكلف وباستثمار الأموال المهدورة في استثمارات داخل الولايات المتحدة او في المشروع الصيني العملاق: طريق واحد… حزام واحد. خاصة أن التاريخ يُعَلِّم أن سبب انهيار الإمبراطوريات الرئيسي هو إنفاقها على حضورها العسكري الواسع في العالم والذي يفوق إمكانيات الإمبراطورية المالية والاقتصادية.

ولا بد من الإضافة، الى كل ما تقدم، بأن جمهورية الصين الشعبية وروسيا الاتحادية ليستا جمهوريتي موز، او ممالك رملية، كمملكة محمد بن سلمان في السعودية، كي تتمكن واشنطن من ابتزازهما بالتهديدات المستمرة، بإصدار قوانين عقابية ضد الصين، تشبة قانون جاستا الخاص بتعويض « أقرباء ضحايا « 11/ أيلول 2001. فالدولتان قادرتان، ليس على مقاومة الضغوطات الأميركية فحسب، وانما على إلحاق هزيمة عسكرية نكراء، بالولايات المتحدة الأميركية، في حال تجرأت على ارتكاب أي خطأ عسكري تجاه أي من الدولتين.

اما حديث ترامب، عن نيته تدمير الزوارق الايرانية، اذا ما «تحرشت» بسفن البحرية الأميركية في الخليج، وحديث وزير خارجيته، مايك بومبيو، عن ضرورة معاقبة إيران على إطلاق الحرس الثوري قمراً صناعياً بنجاح، فلا تنم لا عن سياسة واقعية ولا عقلانية وانما تؤشر الى استمرار السياسة الأميركية العدوانية والعنجهية، التي لن ينتج عنها سوى انهيار الإمبراطورية الأميركية من الداخل، بسبب المشكلات الداخلية، وتفكك الولايات المتحدة وتحولها الى الولايات المتقاتلة بدلاً من المتحدة.

وهي نهاية حتمية لسياسة اعتباطية ومعادية لأصول المنطق والعلم والمنهج والتخطيط الإيجابي الخلاق.

إنها السنن الكونية التي لا مناص منها.

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.

Geostrategic Factors: Will China Wins “World War C”

By Andrew Korybko

Global Research, April 14, 2020

The New Cold War between the US and China abruptly took a new form following the global outbreak of COVID-19, but Beijing still has a solid chance of coming out on top in this struggle for global leadership if it accurately assesses the changed geostrategic situation in the Eastern Hemisphere and accordingly crafts the right policies for responding to it.

Will The World Backtrack On BRI After World War C?

The US & China Are Intensely Competing To Shape The Outcome Of World War C“, as the author noted late last month when analyzing the consequences of the global COVID-19 outbreak on the New Cold War between these two Great Powers, but Beijing still has a solid chance of coming out on top in this struggle for global leadership if it accurately assesses the changed geostrategic situation in the Eastern Hemisphere and accordingly crafts the right policies for responding to it. The Asian Giant is under immense pressure as its envisaged model of reformed globalization under the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is increasingly seen with skepticism, not so much because of the intense infowar that the US has been waging against it over the past few years, but simply because of the sudden supply chain consequences that were brought about as a result of the world’s rolling lockdowns. Foreign investors and national leaders alike are no longer ignorant of the strategic vulnerabilities inherent to the globalized world system as a whole, and many are now seriously reconsidering its merits and correspondingly contemplating re-offshoring production back to their own countries or at least their immediate regions.

China’s Grand Strategy

This represents the most profound challenge that China has been forced to confront in the decades since it first decided to reform its economy by opening up to foreign investment. It was hitherto taken for granted that the globalization trend would generally continue unabated, notwithstanding some high-profile expressions of economic nationalism such as the ones most commonly associated with Trump’s “America First” policy, and that only gradual reforms would be necessary to improve this model and thus indefinitely perpetuate it. China, comfortable with its position as “the world’s factory” and flush with excess cash to invest in connectivity infrastructure projects all across the world for the purpose of more closely tying its partners’ economies to its own in pursuit of what it describes as a Community of Common Destiny, took the lead in taking globalization into its next natural phase through BRI. The grand strategic intent was to peacefully replace America’s previously predominant global economic role and therefore enter into a position of privileged soft power whereby China could then shape the world order to its liking through trade and institutions.

A Concise Analysis Of Afro-Eurasia

Those carefully crafted calculations have suddenly been thrown into uncertainty as a result of World War C, which is why it’s imperative for China to assess the changed geostrategic situation as accurately as possible in order to craft the right policies for saving its global leadership model. What follows is a concise summary of the importance that each region of Afro-Eurasia holds for Chinese strategists at the present moment, which also briefly describes their challenges and opportunities. The Western Hemisphere is omitted from this analysis because China’s relations with Latin America aren’t anywhere as significant for its global strategy as those that the country has the Eastern Hemisphere as whole, and the complex contours of Chinese-American relations will be greatly determined by the outcome of their so-called “trade war”. As such, the author believes that it’s much more relevant to discuss East & Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, the Mideast, Africa, Russia, and the EU instead, ergo the focus of the present article. Having said that, here are the geostrategic factors that will determine whether China wins World War C:

East & Southeast Asia

This region of the world previously planned to enter into the world’s largest trade bloc, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), irrespective of India’s US-influenced refusal late last year to move forward with this game-changing development. This eastern periphery of Eurasia functions as a future integrated market for Chinese goods and services, conveniently located right next to the People’s Republic. The problem, however — and one that was already emerging prior to World War C — is that these countries’ production facilities inside China are considering re-offshoring back home or to other parts of the region as a result of the trade war, with this trend taking on a renewed importance given the global supply chain disruption in recent months. The same holds true for non-regional companies such as those from the West which are eyeing ASEAN (and especially Vietnam) as a favorable replacement to China, sometimes for political reasons. China will therefore need to ensure that RCEP eventually enters into effect in order to mitigate some of the immediate economic consequences through its envisaged regional marketplace, as well as remain competitive with lower-cost labor from its neighbors in order to slow down the speed of this seemingly inevitable re-offshoring process.

South Asia

The opportunities and challenges that South Asia poses for China are more geopolitical in nature than economic. The US’ successful co-opting of India into a proxy for “containing” China reduces the likelihood of a meaningful economic rapprochement between these two Asian Giants, and instead positions what’s soon predicted to become the world’s most populous country as a possible rival to the People’s Republic in the long term, with the short- and medium-term consequences being that it might become an even more appealing re-offshoring destination for foreign Chinese-based companies than even ASEAN. The global pivot state of Pakistan, however, represents nothing but opportunities for China because of CPEC, BRI’s flagship project. This ambitious initiative serves not only as a geostrategic shortcut to the energy market of the Mideast and the growing labor-consumer one of Africa that conveniently bypasses the increasingly militarized South China Sea and Strait of Malacca, but is also the basis upon which all other major BRI projects will be managed, relying upon the invaluable experiences learned during its years-long implementation. In order to succeed in South Asia in the post-coronavirus environment, China must manage to retain pragmatic relations with India in parallel with undercutting its attractiveness as a re-offshoring center while maximizing every mutual strategic opportunity that it can reap from CPEC.

Central Asia

The Eurasian Heartland is primarily functions as a reliable source of Chinese energy imports. It has obvious connectivity potential for linking China to the Mideast and Europe through the “Middle Corridor” that’s being pursued in partnership with Turkey, but in and of itself, it doesn’t have much economic significance for the People’s Republic due to its comparatively small labor and consumer markets relative to East-Southeast-South Asia and Africa. It does, however, function as a crucial test case for the resiliency of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership insofar as it provides these two Great Powers with the opportunity to reach pragmatic “compromises” in pursuit of their grander strategic goal of multipolarity, but there’s no sidestepping the fact that some in Moscow seem to be increasingly uncomfortable with being replaced by Beijing in the region that they’ve long regarded as their “backyard”. Furthermore, rising Sinophobia in some of these countries as a result of the massive influx of Chinese goods and the replacement of some local laborers with imported Chinese ones creates a possible fault line for the future, albeit one that doesn’t necessarily have to have any security implications since the region’s traditional Russian hegemon has no interest whatsoever in allowing Central Asia to be used as a base for launching terrorist attacks against it in Xinjiang.

Mideast

Just like Central Asia, the Mideast is mostly important to China for energy reasons even though it too has obvious connectivity potential in linking East Asia with Western Europe. Unlike Central Asia, however, some of the most geostrategically positioned countries like Iraq and Syria have been destroyed by Hybrid War, while populous Iran is under sanctions pressure like never before and could very well be the next to follow in the worst-scenario scenario. This makes the Mideast risky from a strategic connectivity standpoint, though that nevertheless hasn’t stopped some Chinese firms from making inroads in this region. The GCC countries, and especially Saudi Arabia, are attempting to restructure their economies in order to reduce their dependence on energy exports, which in turn necessitates Chinese investment in their planned production facilities. China’s growing economic and military influence (in terms of exports) in the Mideast also presents it with the diplomatic opportunity to participate in resolving some of the region’s crises following the model that it’s spearheading in Myanmar, which could prove very valuable for managing other conflicts that might one day arise elsewhere along its New Silk Road.

Africa

Africa’s importance might arguably even overshadow that of East & Southeast Asia when it comes to China’s grand strategy since the People’s Republic is depending on having reliable access to the continent’s raw material, labor-consumer markets, and increasingly, its energy resources in order to maintain domestic growth throughout the present century. Unlike in East & Southeast Asia, however, there are few competitors to China’s plans in Africa, with the only ones that deserve mention being the US’ ongoing infowar campaign to discredit BRI and the nascent joint Indo-Japanese “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” being supported by the US, France, and the GCC as a possible long-term (key word) competitor to China’s investment model there (focusing instead on “soft infrastructure” like schools, job training, and healthcare services in contrast to the attention that China pays to its “hard” counterpart like physical connectivity infrastructure). Being much more under China’s influence than any other part of the world due to the mutual benefits derived from the premier position that the People’s Republic holds in Africa’s trade and investment spheres, it’s unlikely that many of its countries will be swayed into turning against Beijing’s reformed globalization model of BRI by the Trump-promoted appeal of economic nationalism. This doesn’t mean that China should grow complacent, however, but should instead strive to present Africa as a shining example to the rest of the world of everything that can be achieved as a result of bilateral cooperation through BRI.

Russia

The future of Russian-Chinese relations is quickly becoming an interesting field of study because of the progress that Moscow is making on reaching a “New Detente” with Washington, the latter of which has been extensively covered by the author in a series of four articles hereherehere, and here. To summarize, Russia’s pursuit of a series of “pragmatic compromises” with the US on a host of relevant issues ranging from NATO expansion to North Korea could lead to a fast-moving rapprochement between the two with serious strategic implications for China, especially if the People’s Republic comes to rely more on the Eurasian Great Power for ensuring reliable access to the markets of Western Europe through the complementary Eurasian Land Bridge and Northern Sea Route. That’s not to say that Russia will ever “cut off” China and/or the EU’s access to the other since the country itself is depending on reaping the economic benefits of facilitating their overland and maritime connectivity with one another, but just that this relationship could be leveraged in more “creative” ways to advance certain political-strategic objectives vis-a-vis China (such as in Central Asia for example, be it in coordination with the US or carried out independently) the same way as it’s alleged to have employed its energy relationship with the EU in the first decade of the present century. In addition, Russia’s envisaged irreplaceable role in facilitating Chinese-EU trade used to be taken for granted but is now highly uncertain since it’ll depend on whether globalization survives World War C and if China even retains an interest in having Russia fulfill this role in the first place to the extent that Moscow previously anticipated.

EU

The last region of the Eastern Hemisphere relevant to Chinese grand strategy is the EU, and it’s definitely one of the most important. This region of Western Eurasia has a large and highly developed consumer market that the Chinese economy depends on for growth, especially considering that most of its members use the euro, one of the world’s strongest and most stable currencies. It’s extremely important that China does everything that it can to ensure that the EU as a whole remains committed to expanding bilateral economic relations, especially through BRI, hence Beijing’s unprecedented soft power outreaches in recent weeks through the provision of medical equipment and healthcare specialists to some of its members like Italy and aspiring ones such as Serbia. Accordingly, it naturally follows that China would prefer for the EU to emerge from this crisis stronger and more integrated than ever in order to facilitate this goal, though that’s also why its weakening, disintegration, and/or pivot towards the US would be so detrimental to Beijing’s grand strategy. If China’s economic reach becomes limited in the EU as a result of the bloc gradually “de-globalizing” (including through re-offshoring Chinese-based production facilities to ASEAN, India, and/or back home [perhaps to the organization’s poorer members along its periphery]) or possibly even embracing a degree of Trump-inspired economic nationalism, then it would greatly reduce China’s influence to its immediate region (East and Southeast Asia) and the Global South (mostly South Asia [except India] and Africa in this respect) and thus make it more easily “containable” through Hybrid War means.

The Three Steps To Success

Taking all of the above insight into consideration, the following three steps are absolutely necessary if China wants to win World War C:

1. Ensure The Continued Attractiveness Of Globalization:

If Trump-inspired economic nationalism becomes a new global trend throughout the course of World War C, then BRI will be in danger of becoming nothing more than a bare-bones project that turns into a skeleton of its formerly so-ambitious self. This would require China to undertake a range of far-reaching reforms at home in order to restructure its economy from its hitherto export-dependent nature and into something more autarkic, though the latter has very real limits given how much the country relies on foreign trade surpluses reaped from globalization processes to drive domestic development and purchase essential resources like energy, raw materials, and even food. Without ensuring the continued attractiveness of globalization, China could very well enter into its worst-ever crisis since the 1949 Communist Revolution that could have unimaginable economic and even political consequences, which is why it’s of the highest priority that the People’s Republic does everything in its power to protect this trade model at all costs.

2. Focus On The Afro-Eurasian Triangle:

Provided that globalization survives in some relevant form after World War C (which remains to be seen but would be attributable in that case to China pulling out all the stops in pursuit of this goal), then China will have to focus on the Afro-Eurasian Triangle of RCEP, Africa (increasingly via S-CPEC+), and the EU in order to guarantee its place as the US’ global systemic rival. These three regions of the Eastern Hemisphere all complement one another in terms of China’s grand strategy as was extensively explained in each case earlier above, though this also means that they’re all possible targets upon which the US can put Hybrid War pressure. China cannot depend on any one of these regions alone if it aspires to remain a global leader, though it could still in theory manage to attain this goal provided that it only “loses” one of them. The “loss” of Africa is highly unlikely, so in the scenario that it “loses” the EU, then China would become a power relevant only to most non-Western countries (which is the still the lion’s share of the world), whereas the “loss” of RCEP would make China more dependent on Russian-controlled trans-continental trade routes to the EU (the “Middle Corridor” through Central Asia and Northern Sea Route) that could be indirectly influenced by the US through the “New Detente”.

3. Manage The US-Indian Strategic Partnership & The “New Detente”:

Both the ever-intensifying US-Indian Strategic Partnership and the gradual progress that America is making on reaching a “New Detente” with Russia represent latent challenges of the greatest geopolitical magnitude if they aren’t nipped in the bud before they blossom or properly managed in advance. There’s little that China can do to influence either of them, though the first-mentioned might fizzle out if India implodes as a consequence of World War C or due to the Hybrid War being waged by the Hindu nationalist government on its own citizens in an attempt to turn the country into a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu fundamentalist state), while the second might abruptly be derailed by the American “deep state” at any time and would almost certainly fail if Trump loses re-election. In the “worst-case” scenario of each US-backed “containment” vector entering into force and possibly even combining into an unofficial semi-united American-Russian-Indian front against it, China would do best trying to emulate its global rival’s Kissingerian policy by “triangulating” both between its Great Power neighbors and itself and between those two and the US in an effort to relieve the growing multilateral pressure upon it.

Concluding Thoughts

China’s global leadership ambitions are being challenged like never before as a result of World War C and the subsequent suspicion that many countries now have of globalization processes, especially in respect to the strategic vulnerability inherent to being dependent on foreign supply chains halfway across the world for essential products such as medical equipment. The rolling lockdowns that unfolded across the world over the past two months, beginning in China and eventually spreading to the West, exposed the fragility of the previous world system and will inevitably necessitate some serious reforms to its structure at the very least, with the possible mass movement away from globalization towards Trump-inspired economic nationalism being the absolute worst-case scenario for China since it would completely cripple its grand strategy. It’s for this reason that the People’s Republic must do everything in its power to ensure the survival of as much of the pre-crisis globalization system as possible in order to stand a credible chance of remaining the US’ only global rival, after which it must then focus on the Afro-Eurasian Triangle of RCEP, Africa, and the EU concurrent with managing the dual latent challenges posed by the US-Indian Strategic Partnership and the “New Detente” in the center of the Eastern Hemisphere. Should China succeed with these daunting tasks, then the world’s multipolar future will be assured, though its failure would mean that unipolarity will probably return with a vengeance.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorldThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Andrew Korybko, Global Research, 2020

Total system failure will give rise to new economy

Total system failure will give rise to new economy

April 11, 2020

by Pepe Escobar – posted with permission

Covid-19 driven collapse of global supply chains, demand and mobility will painfully spawn next great tech-led economic models

Is the world on a collision course with the financial and economic equivalent of a meteor impact with shock wave? Fractal illustration: AFP

Nobody, anywhere, could have predicted what we are now witnessing: in a matter of only a few weeks the accumulated collapse of global supply chains, aggregate demand, consumption, investment, exports, mobility.

Nobody is betting on an L-shaped recovery anymore – not to mention a V-shaped one. Any projection of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 gets into falling-off-a-cliff territory.

In industrialized economies, where roughly 70% of the workforce is in services, countless businesses in myriad industries will fail in a rolling financial collapse that will eclipse the Great Depression.

That spans the whole spectrum of possibly 47 million US workers soon to be laid off – with the unemployment rate skyrocketing to 32% – all the way to Oxfam’s warning that by the time the pandemic is over half of the world’s population of 7.8 billion people could be living in poverty.According to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) most optimistic 2020 scenario – certainly to become outdated before the end of Spring – global trade would shrink by 13%.  A more realistic and gloomier WTO scenario sees global trade plunging by 32%.

What we are witnessing is not only a massive globalization short circuit: it’s a cerebral shock extended to three billion hyperconnected, simultaneously confined people. Their bodies may be blocked, but they are electromagnetic beings and their brains keep working – with possible, unforeseen political and other consequences.

Soon we will be facing three major, interlocking debates: the management (in many cases appalling) of the crisis; the search for future models; and the reconfiguration of the world-system.

This is just a first approach in what should be seen as a do-or-die cognitive competition.

Particle accelerator

Sound analyses of what could be the next economic model are already popping up. As background, a really serious debunking of all (dying) neoliberalism development myths can be seen here.

Yes, a new economic model should be revolving around these axes: AI computing; automated manufacturing; solar and wind energy; high-speed 5G-driven data transfer; and nanotechnology.

China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are very well positioned for what’s ahead, as well as selected European latitudes.

Plamen Tonchev, head of the Asia unit at the Institute of International Economic Relations in Athens, Greece, points to the possible reorganization – short term – of Belt and Road Initiative projects, privileging investment in energy, export of solar panels, 5G networks and the Health Silk Road.

Covid-19 is like a particle accelerator, consolidating tendencies that were already developing. China had already demonstrated for the whole planet to see that economic development under a control system has nothing to do with Western liberal democracy.

On the pandemic, China demonstrated – also for the whole planet to see – that containment of Covid-19 can be accomplished by imposing controls the West derided as “draconian” and “authoritarian,” coupled with a strategic scientific approach characerized by a profusion of test kits, protection equipment, ventilators and experimental treatments.

This is already translating into incalculable soft power which will be exercised along the Health Silk Road. Trends seem to point to China as strategically reinforced all along the spectrum, especially in the Global South. China is playing go, weiqi. Stones will be taken from the geopolitical board.

System failure welcomed? 

In contrast, Western banking and finance scenarios could not be gloomier. As a Britain-centric analysis argues, “It is not just Europe. Banks may not be strong enough to fulfill their new role as saviors in any part of the world, including the US, China and Japan. None of the major lending systems were ever stress-tested for an economic deep freeze lasting months.”

So “the global financial system will crack under the strain,” with a by now quite possible “pandemic shutdown lasting more than three months” capable of causing  “economic and financial ‘system failure.’”

As system failures go, nothing remotely approaches the possibility of a quadrillion dollar derivative implosion, a real nuclear issue.

Capital One is number 11 on the list of the largest banks in the US by assets. They are already in deep trouble on their derivative exposures. New York sources say Capital One made a terrible trade, betting via derivatives that oil would not plunge to where it is now at 17-year lows.

Mega-pressure is on all those Wall Street outfits that gave oil companies the equivalent of puts on all their oil production at prices above $50 a barrel. These puts have now come due – and the strain on the Wall Street houses and US banks will become unbearable.

The anticipated Friday oil deal won’t alter anything: oil will stay around $20 per barrel, $25 max.

This is just the beginning and is bound to get much worse. Imagine most of US industry being shut down. Corporations – like Boeing, for instance – are going to go bankrupt. Bank loans to those corporations will be wiped out. As those loans are wiped out, the banks are going to get into major trouble.

Derivative to the max

Wall Street, totally linked to the derivative markets, will feel the pressure of the collapsing American economy. The Fed bailout of Wall Street will start coming apart. Talk about a nuclear chain reaction.

In a nutshell: The Fed has lost control of the money supply in the US. Banks can now create unlimited credit from their base and that sets up the US for potential hyperinflation if the money supply grows non-stop and production collapses, as it is collapsing right now because the economy is in shutdown mode.

If derivatives start to implode, the only solution for all major banks in the world will be immediate nationalization, much to the ire of the Goddess of the Market. Deutsche Bank, also in major trouble, has a 7 trillion euro derivatives exposure, twice the annual GDP of Germany.

No wonder New York business circles are absolutely terrified. They insist that if the US does not immediately go back to work, and if these possibly quadrillions of dollars of derivatives start to rapidly implode, the economic crises that will unfold will create a collapse of the magnitude of which has not been witnessed in history, with incalculable consequences.

Or perhaps this will be just the larger-than-life spark to start a new economy.

Coronavirus Devastates Italy: Is It the Result of Globalism and Free Trade?

Philip Giraldi April 9, 2020

Coronavirus Devastates Italy: Is It the Result of Globalism and ...

The devastating impact of the coronavirus on Italy has sparked considerable speculation as to why the country appears to have suffered so disproportionately from the disease. Some initial theories suggested that the deaths might be due to lower standards and ill-advised practices in the Italian national health system, but the reality is that northern Italy, where the virus has struck hardest, has by most metrics better and more accessible health care than does the United States overall.

By one reckoning, the claimed number of dead is too high because anyone who tested positive and died had his or her death attributed to the virus even if it was actually due to other unrelated causes. And that argument has also been flipped on its head to demonstrate that the numbers are too low, using the fact that many Italians have not been tested for the virus to assert that many dead were actually caused by coronavirus. Since those dead were not medically confirmed positive for COVID-19, the deaths were erroneously attributed to other causes.

A third bit of somewhat more bizarre speculation centers on the fact that in September 2019 Italy made legal euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses seeking to end their suffering, a move strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church. Some of those weighing in on the number of deaths have claimed without evidence that a significant percentage of the dead were actually cases of euthanasia, i.e. implying that Italy has been deliberately killing off its elderly. Those seeking an explanation for such bizarre behavior by the national health service have suggested that it would be to ease pressure on the troubled Italian economy by eliminating old age pensions and medical costs.

Be that as it may, there is an interesting backstory developing in the Italian media about why Italy has been hit so hard by the “Chinese” virus in spite of the fact that it has been in lockdown for over one month. Italy’s ties with China, and with the city of Wuhan, where the virus may have originated, run deeper than with any other European country.

Last spring, when my wife and I were traveling in Northern Italy, we noticed the large numbers of Chinese, not only in tourism centers like Venice and Verona, but also in commercial and industrial areas. Italian shop holders we spoke with told us how the Chinese government and individual entrepreneurs were buying up businesses and properties at an alarming rate, penetrating the Italian economy at all levels. One gift shop proprietor in Venice described how even tourist items were increasingly being manufactured in China, a development which he described as “selling cheap junk.” He reached beneath his counter and produced a perfume bottle which looked like a local product but instead of being made in Murano it bore a tiny stamp “Made in China.”

A little less than a year ago Italy became the first G-7 country in Europe to sign a memorandum of understanding formalizing its membership in the Chinese Belt and Road project, part of the Silk Road scheme to create a vast linked commercial network across Asia and into Europe. Two of the main hubs being developed for the project are Genoa and Trieste. The Italian government, confronted with a struggling economy, based the move on “commercial reasons” and “economic advantages,” to include the investment being offered by Beijing, but Rome paid a price for the move with intense criticism coming from both Washington and Brussels. The Atlanticist crowd, which normally applauded a form of globalism and free trade, inevitably insisted that not only were the Chinese seeking to “destabilize” Europe, Beijing was also attempting to divide Europe politically and militarily from the United States.

One of the more interesting, and perhaps coincidental, aspects of the Chinese entry into Italy has been the particular connection between China and the northern Italian fashion houses, centered on Milan, that have shifted their production to Wuhan to take advantage of the cheap labor in China’s own textile industry, largely centered on the city. By all accounts, Chinese investors bought up factories in Northern Italy starting in the early 1990s. By 2016 many major brands had been completely acquired, to include Pinco Pallino, Miss Sixty, Sergio Tacchini, Roberta di Camerino and Mariella Burani while major shares of Salvatore Ferragamo and Caruso were also obtained.

The Chinese owners and investors replaced ageing machinery and brought in, often illegally, tens of thousands of skilled Chinese seamstresses as a labor force. By the end of last year when the virus first struck China, direct flights from Wuhan to Lombardy served the roughly 300,000 Chinese residents of Italy who mostly work in Chinese-owned factories producing Chinese inspired Made in Italy designs. It is widely believed, though not confirmed by the Rome government, that the first infections by coronavirus in Italy, attributed to visiting “tourists,” actually may have taken place in crowded dormitories where Chinese shift workers from Wuhan dined and slept.

In less than a year, however, Italians have come to realize that a tight economic embrace with Beijing also has a downside. Italy’s trade gap with China has gone up, not down and much promised investment in new enterprises has failed to materialize. But even as the dust cleared, the results derived from opening the door to China were not pretty. By 2016, Chinese acquisitions had exceeded 52 billion EUROS, giving them ownership of more than 300 companies representing 27% of major Italian corporations.

The Bank of China now owns five major banks in Italy as well as the major telecommunication corporation (Telecom) and the two top energy utilities (ENI and ENEL). China also has controlling interest in Fiat-Chrysler and Pirelli.

More recently, Italian government views on China’s human rights record in Hong Kong have hardened and the country’s legislature has rejected overtures by the Chinese telecommunications conglomerate Huawei to have a major role in developing the country’s new 5G technology. One might observe, however, that the barn door is being closed after the horse has already escaped.

To limit the damage, the Chinese have sweetened their economic expansion into Western Europe by carefully integrating trade with humanitarian initiatives to make the transformation palatable to the local populations. The Health Silk Road initiative is a major exercise of soft power which has, in the current crisis, provided various forms of emergency medical assistance to a number of European nations. In doing so, it has done more than the European Union or the United States. Italy currently has three Chinese medical teams assisting its doctors in and around Milan and has benefited from airlifted medical supplies to include millions of masks and testing kits.

China is not doing what it does for altruistic reasons. It sees itself as the major economic driver of a new globalism, displacing an increasingly foundering and incapable United States, which has dominated world finance and commerce since the Second World War. For China COVID-19 is seen as an opportunity to reconfigure the playing field in its favor.

The experience of Italy, which may have become an epicenter for the virus due to its close commercial and personal ties to China, is illustrative of how globalism and free trade being promoted by a number of engaged groups in many countries can be exploited to create a new reality. Beijing is shaping that reality while the U.S. and E.U. stand on the sideline and watch.

International Finance’s Anti-China Crusade

Source

ERIC STRIKER • APRIL 6, 2020


There is a strong anti-China current being promoted in right-wing circles and some neo-liberal ones in light of the coronavirus epidemic.

These forces are seeking to redirect real criticisms of globalization – deindustrialization, stolen intellectual property, and trade deficits – and utilize them for support for regime change operations and possibly even war against China for the financial self-interest of a few American oligarchs. It’s similar to how anti-immigration sentiment was swerved into concerns about Islam’s illiberalism in hopes of advancing Israeli interests in Europe and promoting neo-conservative wars in America.

While the Trump government’s tariffs are a welcome policy in the national interest, it also refuses to fix any of the domestic problems that allow for China to always win due to the plutocratic stranglehold American capitalists have on the US government.

The US elite is divided on China. On the one hand, there is a steadily weakening wing that seeks to continue America’s relationship with the Asian superpower in hopes of keeping a foot in the door and gradually liberalizing it.

On the other side of the debate, there are figures like George Soros, Peter Thiel, and disgraced and exiled billionaire criminal Guo Wengui who see the Chinese pseudo-National Socialist system as antifragile in the face of the passive liberal subversion that helped take down the Soviet Union.

Neither Soros, Thiel, Trump or Wengui are interested in combating globalization, but only in destroying what they perceive to be a barrier to it. For Soros, he shrouds his personal financial interest thwarted by the Chinese state in the language of “human rights” familiar to the liberal-left. Thiel has tapped a number of “alt” right-wing personalities and phony populists to try and construct a civilizational and even implicitly racial clash narrative to support his business interests in India and America. Wengui’s weapon has been Steve Bannon, who has been making his appeal to whoever will have him as a neo-con jingo, reviving silly language about “liberating” the Chinese people even though we Americans have no freedom ourselves.

Anti-China? Yes. Pro-America? No.

It’s easy to mistake the discourse of China hawks for sincere patriotism. While Donald Trump ran on a platform of bringing American industry home, the Trump administration’s actual policies in recent years have not achieved this.

The Chinese government’s international message, that its nationalistic command economy provides for superior development in comparison to liberal-capitalism, appears self-evidently true. This is a problem for American plutocracy, which tells its own citizens and those of other nations that in fact free trade and liberalization are the path to prosperity.

Rather than copying what works for the Chinese economic model (nationalizing industry, strong regulations against foreign influence, etc), American capital and the Trump administration have worked to win over Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is an advocate for mass privatization, weakening the state, and deregulation, a strategy the phony nationalist refers to as “minimum government, maximum governance.”

In Asia, economic prosperity and stable growth is more compelling than military power, and America’s elites have begun making overtures towards India in hopes of creating a counter-weight to China.

Last year, the US-India Strategic and Partnership Forum announced that 200 American manufacturers were interested in moving their supply chains from China to Indianot America. The big barrier appears to be India’s low quality infrastructure and the lack of an existing free trade agreement with the US.

According to reports in Hindu press from two months ago, the Trump administration has gone into talks with the Modi government to develop a new free trade agreement that will produce $500 billion in trade between the US and India. When all these pieces are put together, the end-result will be that the US’ economically disastrous trade deficit with China will simply be shifted to benefit India.

India’s Modi is eager to turn India into a full-blown satellite of the United States. The mass privatization of the country after the fall of the Soviet Union has not significantly bettered the average Indians life and his nation is unstable and dysfunctional. The Belt and Road Initiative threatens to spread the Chinese Corporatist development model all around nations Indian oligarchs see as being rivals or subjects: Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc.

The Belt and Road Initiative is also an existential threat to international Jewish finance. Nations across Asia, Africa, Russia and Europe have signed on or expressed interest in the BRI due to its exclusive focus on real assets and Keynesian infrastructuve-led growth, as opposed to neo-liberal models that impose the primacy of financial “assets” and selling off your country to international corporations.

India has refused to join the BRI, but the nations around it are all on board. If successful, the Belt and Road Initiative will create a counter-weight to Manhattan high-finance, and thus a potential economic partner for nations uncomfortable with the cosmopolitan, hedonistic Jewish values Washington demands its subjects take up in the name of “democracy.”

Donald Trump is trying to curtail the potential liberation of these nation’s from Wall Streets cultural and economic influence by creating the Blue Dot Network, or U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP), which so far only has Australia, Japan, India and America as signatories.

Safe to say, this pact will require more foreign aid and trade deficits, and nothing that will financially benefit the people of America. A national industrial policy that looks to overturn neo-liberal reforms that have turned our economy into an overfinancialized basket case is the medicine we need. Instead, we are being drafted to fight a war to save an increasingly dysfunctional and discredited economic model that benefits only a few.

George Soros: The Open Society Against China

The international Jew George Soros has made much of his fortune collapsing the Bank of England and causing the Asian financial crisis. Most Western countries fear him due to his economic power, which he uses passively through speculative attacks or directly when he finances private coups against governments that defy him, known as “color revolutions.”

China, one of the only states in the world strong enough to put billionaire criminals to death, directly threatened George Soros with harsh legal repercussions when he saw the Chinese economy was flagging and began attacking the renminbi and Hong Kong dollar. According to the South China Morning Post, he was “sent packing.”Previous inroads were attempted by Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which helped organize the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, but was heavily infiltrated by Chinese agents and driven out of the country in its aftermath.

For Soros, the Open Society (inspired by writings by the Jewish globalist Karl Popper) is an important tool for international finance to deploy in order to control nations around the world. Soros’ global octopus of “foundations” promote racial incoherence, cosmopolitanism, immigration, homosexuality, feminism and other values that undermine social order and weaken national sovereignty or ethnic majorities so that they become vulnerable to his aggressive financial moves. Any collective identity, to Soros, is a threat to the liberal-Jewish outlook, and thus its hegemony.

Ever since China knocked Soros back, he has been active in trying to undermine its interests all over the world.

At the 2019 Davos conference, Soros pegged China as the “most dangerous opponent to the open society.”

Last February, Soros wrote an op-ed demanding European governments boycott a summit scheduled for this September with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In it, the notorious Trump-hater praised the administration’s aggressive posture towards China, and warned European nations that China’s anti-liberal values were a threat to the European Unions “open society” ideology. Nations Soros has targeted, like Poland, have shown interest in the Belt and Road Initiative, and the United Kingdom has expressed its intentions to deepen ties with China to make up for the potential loss in export markets in Europe after Brexit.

Steve Bannon and Soros are unlikely allies, but they supported the astroturfed Hong Kong protests as average Americans yawned. China has also made “global cooperation” in sanctioning and destroying Russia, Iran or other perceived enemies of liberalism impossible. Maximum pressure sanctions intended to starve the Iranian people into submission have been thwarted by Chinese investment and aid. In Venezuela, when the CIA sabotaged the country’s power grids in an attempted overthrow of Nicolas Maduro, the Chinese immediately offered to fix it.

China and Russia’s non-compliance with directives from Washington and New York have by and large brought an end to “regime-change” as default foreign policy – setting back Soros’ dream of a raceless, borderless new world order significantly. The Chinese-Russian alliance has largely neutralized America’s military dominance in the Asia-Pacific, and new blocs of different levels of resistance have become emboldened (Wisegrad Group, anti-Zionist blocs in the Middle East, etc).

This is an opportunity to charter a new foreign policy path where we capitalize on our safe geostrategic position and mind our own business or focus on developing our own country, but Washington and the Jewish goons like Soros simply cannot accept it.

Steve Bannon: “Populist” For Hire

Another figure engaging in hamfisted agitation against China is Steve Bannon, a once-interesting civic nationalist who was dismissed from the White House by Trump and Jared Kushner and now appears to be a full time special interest lobbyist.

Bannon’s anti-China crusade is financed by exiled Chinese white collar criminal Guo Wengui, who in 2014 fled to America after he was discovered to be engaging with bribery and fraud, as well as rape and kidnapping. Wengui fell afoul of the Chinese Communist Party after Xi Jinping began an anti-corruption campaign in 2012.

Initially, Donald Trump announced he would deport the billionaire fugitive back to China, but changed his mind last minute. Now Wengui has been busy using his wealth to try and mobilize professional conservatives in Washington to create popular and political interest in the overthrow of the Chinese government.

Recently, Bannon has attempted to make overtures to the anti-woke left, which is hungry for alternatives to left-liberalism. On the Red Scare podcast, Bannon blew his chance at bridging right-wing and left-wing populists by focusing almost exclusively on promoting neo-conservative talking points about “freeing the Chinese people” and spreading unfounded conspiracy theories like the idea that the coronavirus is a genetically engineered Chinese bioweapon. The latter theory was invented by a Wengui funded propaganda outfit, G News.

When asked about healthcare, Bannon refused to support a national health system for all, even though most GOP voters like the idea. After Bannon called ethno-nationalists and white nationalists “clowns,” one of the hosts of the podcast asked why he supports Israel, to which he responded with desperate and logic-free Jewish bootlicking.

When Bannon attempted to pivot back to how oppressed Chinese people are, another host questioned why Americans oppressed just as harshly by our own plutocracy should give a shit, leaving with nothing but platitudes about a liberal utopia that doesn’t exist.

Some of Bannon’s rhetoric about China’s impact on America’s economy is true. But Bannon’s ties suggest he may be merely advancing the shift from dependence on China to dependence on Indian supply-chains, which is even more absurd as India’s infrastructure is awful.

Evidence suggesting this is Bannon’s role as the co-chair of the “Republican-Hindu Coalition,” an advocacy group close to the Modi government.

Naturally, Bannon’s Hindu coalition supports Trump’s call for a “merit-based” immigration system that would be the H1-B program on steroids and would grant current H1-B holders citizenship. This program would be seen as a massive betrayal by Trump’s base and impoverish America’s tech workers as unemployment explodes, so it is unlikely to be put into effect until after the 2020 election.

This is shaping up into a cynical strategy to replace China with India as the new trade deficit recipient, rather than bringing our industries home where they belong. Both Trump and Bannon are desperate to use bait-and-switch tactics to redirect anger at the failures of globalization into simplistic and impotent anti-Chinese chauvinism in order to advance the business interests and lobbies that support them, but don’t put America first.

Peter Thiel: The Alt-Billionaire Who Has Been Locked Out of China

Peter Thiel is by far the most influential in trying to mobilize dissidents and conscript them into the China crusade.

He is close to figures like the Zionist Yoram Hazony, Mencius Moldbug, Eric Weinstein (who manages Thiel’s investment firm, Thiel Capital), Bannon, China hawk and fake populist Josh Hawley (who received $500,000 from Thiel) and Donald Trump himself.

At the Israeli Hazony’s 2019 “National Conservatism” gathering, where a liberal form of phony nationalism was presented as an alternative to ethno-nationalism (in white countries, not Israel), Thiel gave a speech attacking Silicon Valley for its work with the Chinese government. Thiel is correct in this specific instance, but why is Google privately owned instead of state-owned like Huawei is? His only solution is to investigate the company for Chinese spies.

Thiel, who now fashions himself as an “American Nationalist” and is known to have had contact with a few “alt-right” figures currently trying to advance anti-China talking points, has shady ties with foreign governments that gratuitously spy on the United States. His patriotism comes into question when one looks at his investment in Carbyne, an Israeli spying firm believed to be controlled by the IDF’s Unit 8200. Thiel,along with Jeffrey Epstein and Erik Prince, were all involved in the shady project.

“Former” officials from Unit 8200 are strongly represented among CEOs of Silicon Valley companies. The Israeli’s insolent and aggressive spying on the United States was seen recently in a quickly memory holed story, where in 2019 devices were planted by Israeli intelligence to spy on the private phone conversations of Donald Trump and other prominent people in Washington. Shockingly, the US refused to respond or address the scandal.

Thiel’s specific animosity towards China is both ideological and a question of financial self-interest. While in the past he has carefully praised China, he has also made predictions that have not come true.

As the Soviet Union teetered on collapse, Milton Friedman asserted that China must fully liberalize or fall besides the Russians. While the Chinese did promote policies to encourage private initiative in some spheres, it ultimately doubled down on its planned economy when it came to the big picture. When Trump complains that it is “unfair” for the Chinese state to control the value of its currency, the Chinese ignore him, as they know that for now the US government is not strong enough to do what it takes to rein in the selfish American capitalists China plays.

The rise of artificial intelligence has created the potential to plug the holes of traditional centrally planned economies, something libertarians like Thiel are not fond of (note that his complaint about Google and China was over an AI program they were working on). It isn’t only workers who can be replaced by automation and AI, but private economic planners, aka capitalists.

Thiel’s predictions in Zero to One about China, like resource prices making them incapable of reaching Western standards of living, have not come true. The median monthly wage of Chinese workers in its major cities is currently on par with European countries like Croatia, and unlike the stagnating West, they seemed to have the wind in their sails until the pandemic hit.

Thiel has complained on multiple occasions about the many barriers the Chinese government puts in the way of foreign investors, which is common sense for any country interested in defending its sovereignty. This has made Thiel’s chess-inspired, counter-intuitive investment strategies difficult, and it is making him upset that the Chinese government is not allowing outside capitalist interests to fully partake in its growing prosperity.

It seems to have recently dawned on libertarians and neo-liberals, that after decades of denial, China remains a nationalist and socialist country and has only been using the prospect of accessing its massive market to cock-tease Western capital into providing the initial push it needed to rise. The worldviews of shot-callers like Soros and Thiel are going to be challenged if ascendent China surpasses declining America in quality of life.

On the economic front, like Bannon, Thiel appears to have an interest in pushing America closer to India. The ridiculous “Howdy Modi” spectacle, where Trump and Modi met, was sponsored by both Walmart -eager to enter the Indian market – and OYO Homes & Hotels – an Indian start-up Thiel personally funds and supports.

On the 5G front, the Trump government appeared to be doubling down on a “free market” alternative to Huawei, but this has been fruitless. Thiel’s company, Rivada, is looking to try and enrich itself with an idea to fight the potential for “Chinese espionage” via a Department of Defense selloff that would give it “open access” to its airwaves, but historically privatization schemes like this have consistently failed.

Trump appears to contradict himself and his spokesmen. Trump is now planning to campaign on nationalizing 5G, which is the true patriotic option.

All in all, it is important to make a distinction between an accurate diagnosis of the symptoms arising from our relationship with China, and the actual problem. Moving factories from China to Vietnam, India or Taiwan will leave the American people just as poor and jobless. Wasting energy following conservatives in their idiotic crusade to change how Chinese people live in China will provide no benefit to the white worker. American liberalism is collapsing because it is an unnatural and dysfunctional system.

The real conversation should be focused on the legitimacy of money power that rules us, and whether it benefits us. The answer is that it doesn’t, which is why they would like your eyes on China, rather than them.(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)

China rolls out the Health Silk Road

China rolls out the Health Silk Road

April 02, 2020

by Pepe Escobar – Posted with permission

In the Belt and Road framework, China is supplying much of the world including virus-hit Europe with medicine and healthcare items

When President Xi Jinping was on a phone call in mid-March with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conti, before the arrival of a China Eastern flight from Shanghai to Milan full of medical help, the key takeaway was the Chinese pledge to develop a Health Silk Road (Jiankang Sichou Zhilu).

That was in fact already inbuilt in the Belt and Road Initiative playbook since at least 2017, under the framework of enhanced, pan-Eurasian health connectivity. The pandemic only accelerated the timeline. The Health Silk Road will run in parallel to the multiple overland Silk Road corridors and the Maritime Silk Road.

In a graphic demonstration of soft power, so far China has offered Covid-19-related equipment and medical help to no fewer than 89 nations – and counting.

That covers Africa (especially South Africa, Namibia and Kenya, with Alibaba in fact announcing it will send help to all African nations); Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru); the arc from East Asia to Southwest Asia; and Europe.Key recipients in Europe include Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Serbia and Poland. But Italy, most of all, is a very special case. Most are donations. Some are trade – like millions of masks sold to France (and the US).

Less than a year ago Italy became the first G-7 nation to sign a memorandum of understanding formally joining Belt and Road – much to the displeasure of Washington and the Atlanticist galaxy in Brussels and beyond.

Earlier this year in Sicily, I discussed these intricacies in detail with Enrico Fardella, Professor of History at Peking University  and an expert on China-Mediterranean relations.

Italy is supported on myriad fronts – not only at the highest political level but also via the Chinese Red Cross, Sino-Italian associations, tech/logistics Chinese companies and donations from Alibaba, Huawei, ZTE and Lenovo. There are three Chinese medical teams in Italy at the moment.

This all ties up with the larger Belt and Road picture, featuring investments in Genoa and Trieste, two key ports and future Belt and Road nodes.

A performance of a Puccini opera whose story focuses on the illness and death of a lovely seamstress is canceled, ironically due to coronavirus, at the Verdi theater in Trieste. China has made investments in Trieste and Genoa, two key ports and future Belt and Road nodes, and now it is providing medical aid to Italy as part of its newer, parallel Health Silk Roads scheme. Photo: AFP / Jacopo Landi / NurPhoto

This Chinese soft power offensive is carefully calibrated to offset the current paralysis of global supply chains. China is now working overtime to supply many parts of the world with medicine and related healthcare items – always with the Belt and Road framework in mind, as if doubling down on Globalization 2.0.

That spells out the interconnectivity of nations that badly need development and infrastructure along with the need for good health systems and practices.

And that prepares the terrain for, when Covid-19 is more or less tamed and the Chinese economy fully recovered, the Belt and Road reboot: an inexorable historic trend based on a new economic model that Beijing deems more equitable, and in the interests of the Global South.

‘Chinese lie

A Health Silk Road is already in effect when we see China, Russia – and Cuba with its first-class health system – sending teams of doctors and virologists as well as planes with medical equipment to Italy, and China sending drugs, test kits and supplies to illegally sanctioned Iran.

China immediately understood what was at stake as it saw Covid-19 ravage many hot points of world-famous Made in Italy. With its offer of skilled, cheaper manufacturing, China had initially lured key Italian fashion houses to outsource their production to China, and most of all to Wuhan.

The connectivity – which has been there for decades – works both ways. Chinese investors started to arrive in northern Italy in the early 1990s. They bought a string of factories; renovated them; created their own, top Made in Italy brands; and brought in tens of thousands of skilled Chinese seamstresses to work in these factories.

There are plenty of direct flights from Wuhan to Lombardy – to serve at least 300,000 Chinese who have moved permanently to Italy to work in Chinese-owned factories producing Made in Italy.

So it’s no wonder Doctor Giuseppe Remuzzi, director of the Mario Negri Pharmacology Institute in Milan, became a superstar in China.  In an interview that went viral, Remuzzi talks about his explosive findings in conversations with general practitioners in Lombardy.

Here’s Dr. Remuzzi, at 4:19:  “Do you know what happened? Certain family doctors, who have the best antennas in the territory, at least the most able and attentive ones, have told me recently that they were seeing grave cases of pneumonia, which we had never seen in other years.

These pneumonia cases had nothing to do with typical flu pneumonia, they were interstitial pneumonias, they had to do CT, radiography [to diagnose it], and this was seen in October, November, December. So this virus has been circulating a long time.”

That was indeed in parallel with or even before the first coronavirus cases in Wuhan in mid-November. It’s been already scientifically established that the virus strains in Wuhan and in Lombardy are different. Which came first, and where from, remains a matter of incendiary debate.

Inevitably the Health Silk Road would have to be dismissed by the Atlanticist gang as a disinformation ploy exploiting the pandemic to “destabilize” and weaken Europe. That’s the narrative promoted by EUvsDisinfo, an NGO whose personnel love to blast Russia and China for a living.

So for the Brussels bureaucracy, the Health Silk Road is not about saving lives; it’s about “destabilizing” the EU and improving Xi Jinping’s domestic image after China lied, lied and lied again about the extent and severity of coronavirus. That happens to be the exact same narrative of the Trump administration, US corporate media and US intelligence.

Does it matter? Not for those 89 nations that are receiving much-needed help and equipment. The dogs of demonization bark while the Health Silk Road caravan passes.

The Coronavirus Pandemic Is Another Reminder of Western Barbarianism

The Coronavirus Pandemic Is Another Reminder of Western Barbarianism 

By Darko Lazar

During the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, the Western military alliance devastated the country’s civilian infrastructure. The long list of targets included 19 hospitals, 18 kindergartens, 176 cultural monuments and 44 bridges. 

Several weeks into the military campaign, which was fiercely opposed by Russia and China, a total of five satellite-guided bombs, delivered by American B-2 bombers, slammed into the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. 

The attack on the symbol of Chinese sovereignty in the heart of the Balkans killed three Chinese nationals and wounded twenty others. 

Washington and Brussels claimed the attack was a mistake. But NATO’s increasingly bloody push eastwards would have unintended consequences. 

The Belt and Road Initiative vs. Western dictates 

Just a few months after the bombing of Serbia, Russia’s President Boris Yeltsin was quietly pushed out of office and replaced by the relatively unknown Vladimir Putin.

When Putin won his first election in 2000, he is rumored to have had two inauguration ceremonies. One was held in full view of the global media and another unfolded in the Kremlin’s underground chambers. 

There he was joined by a small group of Russian military officers and operatives from the country’s security apparatus. These men understood that it was only a matter of time before NATO bombs started falling on downtown Moscow, and the decision had been made to confront Western expansionism. 

In the years that followed, China and Russia would join hands with Iran to suppress American influence though the creation of a Eurasian union made up of sovereign and independent nations. 

This ambitious scheme reached Serbia in the form of Russian military hardware and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. 

Beijing found a reliable partner in the government of Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, and in less than a decade, the Chinese poured billions of dollars in investments into the Balkan state. 

The investments propped up critical industries in Serbia, including a copper mine, a steelmaker, and a thermal power plant. While safeguarding tens of thousands of jobs and driving much-needed growth, the Chinese were also building new bridges, roads, and ports. 

Meanwhile, Vucic adopted an intelligent foreign policy – one made possible by the reemergence of a multipolar world. He reached out to both east and west and then took the best deal on the table. But the West had little to offer. 

Most of the exchanges with Brussels consisted of dictates. No longer able to bomb embassies, the West demanded Belgrade introduce ‘political reforms’ and restrict Chinese investments. 

Western political elites remained convinced that China and Russia have nothing to offer countries like Serbia that could rival joining ‘democratic’ Western alliances. 

The coronavirus pandemic delivered yet another serious blow to this arrogant and abominable point of view.     

Solidarity and fairytales

As coronavirus infections spiked dramatically across Europe earlier this month, Vucic declared that “European solidarity does not exist.” 

“This was a fairytale on paper,” Vucic said as he announced a state of emergency in his country. “Today I sent a special letter to the only ones who can help, and that is China.” 

He explained that he asked Chinese President Xi Jinping “not only as a dear friend, but as a brother” to provide Serbia desperately needed assistance after the EU imposed a ban on exports of medical equipment.  

Once again, when time came for building bridges instead of destroying them, the great humanitarians of the West had nothing to offer. Meanwhile, Chinese gear and experts flooded Serbia virtually overnight.

Beijing’s assistance and strict measures imposed by the government early on helped Serbia stave off disaster.   

But Serbia isn’t the only country receiving planeloads of supplies from the east. Chinese medical equipment is being sent to Iran, Iraq, and a number of European states including Italy where over 10,000 people have thus far perished due to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Italy – the first EU state to embrace the Belt and Road Initiative in 2019 – turned to China after its plea for help from its European neighbors was refused. 

Similar acts of solidarity came from the Russians and some Latin American states. The Cubans flew their doctors to Italy and were asked to return to Brazil where they were expelled in 2018 and labeled “Communist spies” by the right-wing government of Jair Bolsonaro. 

Meanwhile, Western powerhouses are looking inwards. As they cling onto stocks depleted by years of healthcare cuts, the Trump administration was reportedly caught offering piles of money for ‘exclusive rights’ to a Covid-19 vaccine.

Imprisoned by their own twisted interpretations of human rights, many of these governments were slow to react. They hesitated in following the Chinese model and imposing drastic restrictions on freedom of movement. Instead they were worried about profits and how the stock markets would react. 

And even as the U.S. becomes the new epicenter of this pandemic, President Donald Trump expressed his readiness to potentially risk millions of American lives by reopening the country in just a few weeks.

This brutal face of capitalism is also on full display for Washington’s adversaries, namely Iran and Venezuela, where unilateral sanctions are preventing the delivery of desperately needed medical supplies.  

As such, Western governments and their policies are not only endangering individual nation states. At a time when a highly infectious disease is spreading at an unprecedented speed, these policies are threatening the entire global population. 

De omnibus dubitandum est

Despite extensive global coverage of this pandemic, very little is actually known about Covid-19. We don’t know how dangerous the virus is or its concrete consequences. And we certainly don’t have tangible details about what caused the outbreak. 

This leaves plenty of room for speculation, conspiracy theories, and even talk about aliens. Whatever the truth, biological warfare involving powerful political currents can never be ruled out. 

In an op-ed published more than two years ago, Al-Ahed pointed to the existence of hundreds of American military biological laboratories across the Eurasian continent. The labs were being used by the Pentagon to gather intelligence on microorganisms – vital for the creation of highly effective biological weapons. 

There is no doubt that the coronavirus transcends borders and religions and doesn’t discriminate between rich and poor. But that doesn’t mean that the virus isn’t helping further certain political agendas. 

The coronavirus has done what “Israel’s” politicians have failed to do for over a year. It’s brought an end to the political deadlock with indicted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to form the next government. 

By bringing the global economy to a screeching halt, Covid-19 has given birth to another Great Depression and paved the way for the collapse of certain governments. 

Equally important is the fact that the virus has the potential to determine the outcome of every single election process in the Western world for some time to come, including the U.S. presidential race. 

At times like these, it would be wise to remember the words of the late Danish philosopher Soren Aabye Kierkegaard who titled one of his books, De omnibus dubitandum est or “everything must be doubted”. 

CAN CHINA CONFRONT AND DEFEAT THE U.S. NAVY?

South Front

This video is based on the analysis “Can China Confront and Defeat the U.S. Navy?” released by SouthFront on January 4, 2020

China is on pace to achieve regional naval supremacy by the year 2025. This has been a long-term goal of the Chinese national and military leadership, the foundations of which were laid out in the early 1990s.

Chinese naval supremacy, and the absolute necessity of it on at least a regional basis, is tied not only to the development and security of the maritime segment of One Belt-One Road, but also access to China’s growing presence on the African continent. The modernization and expansion of the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has been conducted in parallel with the fortification of islands in the South China Sea and the establishment of military bases in and around the strategic Horn of Africa and the Strait of Hormuz. After centuries of isolationism, internal strife, a devastating cultural revolution and later an economic boom, China is now on the cusp of global expansion. This will not just be a limited or one-dimensional expansion, but one of economic, military and even cultural dimensions.

In contrast to the U.S. leadership of recent decades, the national and military leadership of the Chinese Communist Party has been diligent and focused on implementing long term programs. While both the military industrial complex of the U.S. and the authoritarian communist systems of government of these respective nations both breed rampant corruption, social and economic inequality, and a multitude of dysfunctionalities, the Chinese system is inherently more singular in focus, as all authoritarian regimes are. While one could reflect on U.S. foreign policy over the past forty years and determine that it has been quite haphazard, disjointed and even schizophrenic in nature, the opposite must be said of China. This fact becomes readily apparent when contrasting the development and expansion of the PLAN and that of the U.S. Navy.

A U.S. Navy in Disarray

It can rightly be asserted that the U.S. Navy is a force struggling to define its core mission and strategic focus as the year 2020 begins. Since the dissolving of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military industrial complex has encouraged a wasteful bureaucracy, an inept and overly confident civilian and military leadership, to invest vast sums of money in a growing wish list of high-tech weapons aimed at achieving full spectrum dominance over every possible adversary. Little thought was apparently given to the opportunity cost of investing in such programs, and how they would be employed in a broader national defense strategy. The U.S. Navy stands out as the worst example of these failures and is poised at a crossroads today.

After the Soviet Union disappeared as its chief adversary on the high seas, the U.S. Navy maintained its age old obsession with the aircraft carrier, and utilized its many aircraft carrier strike groups (ASG) to great effect in attacking any disobedient nation that lacked a robust navy or air defense system. While the modern ASG proved effective at power projection against weaker adversaries, its viability in a modern maritime environment heavily contested by a peer adversary has yet to be established. The U.S. Navy has decided to ignore this obvious fact and has continued to embrace the ASG as the cornerstone of naval strategic planning well into the future.

The U.S. Navy has maintained ten ASGs and launched the latest generation of aircraft carriers in the form of the Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 in 2013. Although commissioned in 2017, the carrier has yet to reach operational readiness and has been plagued by many technical problems with its most essential combat systems. The CVN-78 is the most expensive warship ever constructed, with current unit cost approaching $14 billion USD.

While the U.S. has invested vast sums of money, energy and focus in developing a massive new class of aircraft carrier, it has done very little to improve the one asset most crucial to the carrier, the carrier airwing that it carries into battle. Instead of committing to develop aircraft tailored to specific functions, the Navy chose to embrace the one-size-fits-all concept of the F-18 Super Hornet. In addition, the service also committed to this concept to a much larger degree, in throwing its support behind the F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter. Neither the F-18 nor the F-35 rectify rectifies the combat range deficiency now inherent in the aircraft carrier airwing. In short, an ASG will become a target of both land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) and even land-based Chinese aircraft equipped with anti-ship guided missiles, long before the ASG can achieve striking distance with its carrier borne aircraft. This problem becomes even more glaring when one considers the scenario of a Chinese battle group forward deployed and operating within range of its own land-based Anti-Air Warfare assets.

What has the U.S. Navy done to modernize and improve its surface warfare vessels over the past two decades? Not surprisingly, the service embraced new ship designs that were long on high-tech promise, yet did not fit into a specific, traditional and vital function within the broader strategic framework of the service. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and Zumwalt DDG-1000 programs were ill-conceived at the outset and resulted in two classes of vessels that consumed vast amounts of funding, time and energy that could have been used to improve upon traditional, proven warship designs. At an approximate unit cost of $350 million USD per LCS and $8 billion per DDG-1000, both vessels have proven long on cost and short on capability.

The Arleigh Burke class DDG is arguably the backbone of the U.S. Navy and is a highly effective and proven warship. The latest upgrade to the design, the Flight III, will not begin production until sometime between 2023 and 2029. A multi-purpose frigate vessel program known as the FFG(X), meant to pick up where the LCS failed, has yet to reach an advanced design phase. There are currently five contenders for the new FFG(X) proposal.

At the same time, there is no replacement at all planned for the aging Ticonderoga CG-47 class cruiser. The Ticonderoga class CGs perform a vital AAW and surface warfare function in the established U.S. Navy carrier strike group structure. The only other navy in the world fielding a similar warship is China’s, with the introduction of the first Type 055 class in 2018.

A Chinese Navy in Ascent

While the United States Navy struggles to identify its purpose and maintain its preeminence in the 21st century, the PLAN has embarked on a robust program of modernization and expansion based on sound strategic principles and proven technology.

China has produced a long list of modern, capable classes of warships in recent years. Not only has the PLAN designed, constructed and put a new generation of warships into operational service in the past two decades, it has engaged in an ambitious ship building program that has seen these vessels fielded at an unprecedented rate. Standardized designs for corvette, guided missile frigate (FFG), guided missile destroyer (DDG), large guided missile destroyer/cruiser (CG), landing platform dock (LPD), landing helicopter dock (LHD), and logistical support vessels of multiple classes have all been adopted and fielded in significant numbers in the past 20 years. Running in parallel to this, the PLAN has also developed a fledgling aircraft carrier program, including the 100% indigenous Type 001A Shandong. Such a feat is unparalleled in modern naval history.

The question must immediately be asked; why would a nation engage in such an ambitious program to transform and expand its naval warfighting capabilities in such totality? The answer is obvious. It intends to use this capability. But in what fashion and to what end?

In order for the Chinese nation to complete and secure the ambitious Old Belt-One Road economic trade corridor and to ensure the economic prosperity of the country into the next century, a sizeable navy of unparalleled capability will be required. Such a naval force is currently in an advanced state of completion, yet a further 5 years are likely required before the PLAN will be in a position to fight and win against a determined U.S. naval effort to confront it through force of arms.

If current production levels are maintained, the PLAN will field an impressive force of major surface warfare, amphibious warfare and aircraft carriers by 2025. By this time, major surface warfare combatants will include 50 x Type 056 Corvettes, 30 x Type 054A Frigates, 18 x Type 052D Destroyers, and 8 or more Type 055 Destroyers. The amphibious warfare fleet will be comprised of approximately 38 x LSTs, 8 x Type 071 LPDs, and at least 2 x Type 075 LHDs. The Type 001 Liaoning and Type 001A Shandong will both be operational, while the first of the much more capable Type 002 CATOBAR carriers will likely have reached operational status as well. These warships will be supported by no less than eleven logistics support and underway replenishment vessels and four garrison support vessels of modern design.

A major strategic advantage that China has achieved over the United States is that it has built the most robust and productive shipbuilding industry in the world. China has been ranked as the world’s top shipbuilder for 5 years now. The United States by contrast, ranks tenth. The gross tonnage of vessels of all types produced in Chinese shipyards; however, is 77 times greater than the total produced by U.S. shipyards.

The Greater Strategic Picture

It is important to view the development of both navies within the larger context of the respective geopolitical strategic positions of both countries. China undoubtably enjoys a stronger position today than it did a decade ago, while the opposite must be said for the United States. Not only has China gained greater political and economic influence on a global scale, but it has moved to secure military supremacy in all areas along its national borders, and increasingly within its expanding maritime territory. By contrast, the United States has lost both political and economic influence in many regions of the world, largely through its own failed policies

China has managed to develop greater economic ties with nations that have decided to participate in the One Belt-One Road project, which has also afforded them a greater political influence over these nations. China has negotiated the establishment of military bases, mostly logistical support facilities for its growing navy, which will also allow for the deployment of rapid reaction forces to deter and interdict threats to the One Belt-One Road trade corridor. China continues to solidify its presence on the Africa continent. The military base established in Djibouti, and fleet support agreements established in Gwadar, Pakistan and the African nation of Tanzania provide the resources needed to be able to exert military force if required to back up Chinese economic and political efforts on the continent.

Although the U.S. maintains numerous military bases and facilities in Africa to secure its own strategic interests in the region, it lacks the same political and economic influence that China has established. The U.S. military has been aiding a number of nations in Africa to battle Islamic extremist insurgents, but has made little investment in those nations in a broader sense, and thus exerts far less influence.

Although outside of the maritime sphere of influence of China, the nations of Europe have increasingly responded favorably to the promised benefits of the One Belt-One Road trade project. On a political and military level, China has largely remained out of European affairs. The same cannot be said for the United States.

While the Obama administration began the disastrous, multifaceted war against the Russian Federation, the Trump administration has only expanded it, while antagonizing its most traditional European allies in the process. The Trump administration appears to have doubled down on the failed Ukraine policies of its predecessor, increased U.S. military presence on the European continent, and has leveled trade tariffs on key allies. By propping up the phony Russian threat narrative with increased military deployments, the United States is squandering vast sums of money and diverting large contingents of front-line fighting forces to confront an enemy it knows to be a threat conceived through its own propaganda alone.

China has responded to the U.S. led effort to internationally isolate Russia, by leveraging its position to provide an alternate market for Russian goods. It has supplied political support for Russia on the world stage and has increased military cooperation with Russia in key regions where both nations share an interest and are forced to confront the United States. Both nations have increased bilateral cooperation in developing the northern arctic shipping route and have conducted joint naval exercises in the maritime regions of Europe, Asia and the Indian Ocean. Iran most recently joined the two in joint exercises in the Indian Ocean.

Can the PLAN Win?

A scenario where the PLAN and U.S. Navy engage in open conflict is improbable at present, yet not impossible. Although China has strengthened its position to such a degree in the South China Sea that no other nation, including the United States can change the strategic realities that exist there today, increasing interaction between PLAN and U.S. warships may lead to a tragic encounter. U.S. freedom of navigation patrols are largely symbolic in nature and do not present any real threat to Chinese interests in the region, yet they do require a response Such a situation could lead to a confrontation where an accident occurs, or an overzealous vessel commander makes a decision that leads to a military engagement which could escalate in a very short window of time.

It is most probable that China will do everything possible to avoid such a situation at present. This may not be the case after 2025, when the PLAN enjoys a much stronger position relative to the U.S. Navy and its allies in the Asia Pacific. China will occupy the central position, enjoy regional guided ballistic missile supremacy and be able to take advantage of land-based air assets in support of its navy. Surveillance and early warning facilities established on various artificial island and atolls will by then be fully operational.

If fire was exchanged between a U.S. warship and PLAN warship in the South China Sea, and the incident was not immediately deescalated, the U.S. vessel would inevitably be destroyed. The PLAN would suffer significant casualties in the exchange without doubt. China would immediately move to deny all access to the region through its already robust Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities. The United States would then have to decide what level of sacrifice would be acceptable to the state and the American public in rapidly deciding upon its level of military response. The authoritarian Chinese state would find this decision much easier to make.

The U.S. seventh fleet would be hard pressed to mount any immediate military response, beyond mounting a retaliatory attack via attack submarines forward deployed in the region. Any large effort mounted to attack Chinese island garrisons in either the Spratly or Paracel islands would be met with overwhelming force by a combination of anti-ship guided ballistic missiles, submarine, surface and air attack. It is hard to see any such scenario taking place, without the confrontation elevating to a full-spectrum war of global proportions. Most regional allies of the United States would calculate that such an outcome would render overwhelmingly negative results and would not outweigh the tragic loss of one or two U.S. warships and their crews.

Assuming that a hot war could be avoided, a new cold war would inevitable result between an ascendant China and a U.S. in decline. If current military, economic and political trends continue from the present through 2025, China will only strengthen its strategic position both regionally and globally, while the opposite will likely be the case for the United States. It is important to note that the leadership of both nations see such a conflict as undesirable and not inevitable, yet miscalculations, mistakes and poor judgement can scuttle any grand plans. History is unequivocal in this regard and must be analyzed and understood to avoid repeating disaster. We ignore the lessons of history at our peril, yet a current period bereft of insightful, measured and reasonable leadership in Washington, does not bode well for avoiding what may prove to be an unavoidable conflict between two global superpowers.

The Afghanistan ‘peace deal’ riddle

Pepe Escobar for the Saker Blog : Posted with permission 

As far as realpolitik Afghanistan is concerned, with or without a deal, the US military want to stay in what is a priceless Greater Middle East base to deploy hybrid war techniques

In this photo taken on February 21, youths and peace activists gather as they celebrate the reduction in violence, in Kandahar. A week-long partial truce took hold across Afghanistan on February 22, with some jubilant civilians dancing in the streets as the war-weary country prepared for this coming Saturday’s planned agreement on a peace deal between the Taliban and the United States. Photo: AFP / Javed Tanveer

Nearly two decades after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan post-9/11, and after an interminable war costing over $ 2 trillion, there’s hardly anything “historic” about a possible peace deal that may be signed in Doha this coming Saturday between Washington and the Taliban.

We should start by stressing three points.

1- The Taliban wanted all US troops out. Washington refused.

2- The possible deal only reduces US troops from 13,000 to 8,600. That’s the same number already deployed before the Trump administration.

3- The reduction will only happen a year and a half from now – assuming what’s being described as a truce holds.

So there would be no misunderstanding, Taliban Deputy Leader Sirajuddin Haqqani, in an op-ed certainly read by everyone inside the Beltway, detailed their straightforward red line: total US withdrawal.

And Haqqani is adamant: there’s no peace deal if US troops stay.

Still, a deal looms. How come? Simple: enter a series of secret “annexes.”

The top US negotiator, the seemingly eternal Zalmay Khalilzad, a remnant of the Clinton and Bush eras, has spent months codifying these annexes – as confirmed by a source in Kabul currently not in government but familiar with the negotiations.

Let’s break them down to four points.

1- US counter-terror forces would be allowed to stay. Even if approved by the Taliban leadership, this would be anathema to the masses of Taliban fighters.

2- The Taliban would have to denounce terrorism and violent extremism. That’s rhetorical, not a problem.

3- There will be a scheme to monitor the so-called truce while different warring Afghan factions discuss the future, what the US State Dept. describes as “intra-Afghan negotiations.” Culturally, as we’ll see later, Afghans of different ethnic backgrounds will have a tremendously hard time monitoring their own warring.

4- The CIA would be allowed to do business in Taliban-controlled areas. That’s an even more hardcore anathema. Everyone familiar with post-9/11 Afghanistan knows that the prime reason for CIA business is the heroin rat line that finances Langley’s black ops, as I exposed in 2017.

Otherwise, everything about this “historic” deal remains quite vague.

Even Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was forced to admit the war in Afghanistan is “still” in “a state of strategic stalemate.”

As for the far from strategic financial disaster, one just needs to peruse the latest SIGAR report. SIGAR stands for Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. In fact virtually nothing in Afghanistan has been “reconstructed.”

No real deal without Iran

The “intra-Afghan” mess starts with the fact that Ashraf Ghani eventually was declared the winner of the presidential elections held in September last year. But virtually no one recognizes him.

The Taliban don’t talk to Ghani. Only to some people that are part of the government in Kabul. And they describe these talks at best as between “ordinary Afghans.”

Everyone familiar with Taliban strategy knows US/NATO troops will never be allowed to stay. What could happen is the Taliban allowing some sort of face-saving contingent to remain for a few months, and then a very small contingent stays to protect the US embassy in Kabul.

Washington will obviously reject this possibility. The alleged “truce” will be broken. Trump, pressured by the Pentagon, will send more troops. And the infernal spiral will be back on track.

Another major hole in the possible deal is that the Americans completely ignored Iran in their negotiations in Doha.

That’s patently absurd. Teheran is a key strategic partner to its neighbor Kabul. Apart from the millenary historical/cultural/social connections, there are at least 3.5 million Afghan refugees in Iran.

Post 9-11, Tehran slowly but surely started cultivating relations with the Taliban – but not at a military/weaponizing level, according to Iranian diplomats. In Beirut last September, and then in Nur-Sultan in November, I was provided a clear picture of where discussions about Afghanistan stand.

The Russian connection to the Taliban goes through Tehran. Taliban leaders have frequent contacts with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Only last year, Russia held two conferences in Moscow between Taliban political leaders and mujahideen. The Russians were engaged into bringing Uzbeks into the negotiations. At the same time, some Taliban leaders met with Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) operatives four times in Tehran, in secret.

The gist of all these discussions was “to find a conflict resolution outside of Western patterns”, according to an Iranian diplomat. They were aiming at some sort of federalism: the Taliban plus the mujahideen in charge of the administration of some vilayets.

The bottom line is that Iran has better connections in Afghanistan than Russia and China. And this all plays within the much larger scope of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The Russia-China strategic partnership wants an Afghan solution coming from inside the SCO, of which both Iran and Afghanistan are observers. Iran may become a full SCO member if it holds on to the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, until October – thus still not subjected to UN sanctions.

All these actors want US troops out – for good. So the solution always points towards a decentralized federation. According to an Afghan diplomat, the Taliban seem ready to share power with the Northern Alliance. The spanner in the works is the Hezb-e-Islami, with one Jome Khan Hamdard, a commander allied with notorious mujahid Gulbudiin Hekmatyar, based in Mazar-i-Sharif and supported by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, more interested in restarting a civil war.

Understanding Pashtunistan

Here’s a blast from the past, reliving the context of the Taliban visit to Houston, and showing how things have not changed much since the first Clinton administration. It’s always a matter of the Taliban getting their cut – at the time related to Pipelineistan business, now to their reaffirmation of what can be described as Pashtunistan.

Not every Pashtun is a Taliban, but the overwhelming majority of Taliban are Pashtuns.

The Washington establishment never did their “know your enemy” homework, trying to understand how Pashtuns from extremely diverse groups are linked by a common system of values establishing their ethnic foundation and necessary social rules. That’s the essence of their code of conduct – the fascinating, complex Pashtunwali. Although it incorporates numerous Islamic elements, Pashtunwali is in total contradiction with Islamic law on many points.

Islam did introduce key moral elements to Pashtun society. But there are also juridical norms, imposed by a hereditary nobility, that support the whole edifice and that came from the Turko-Mongols.

Pashtuns – a tribal society – have a deep aversion to the Western concept of the state. Central power can only expect to neutralize  them with – to put it bluntly – bribes. That’s what passes as a sort of system of government in Afghanistan. Which brings the question of how much – and with what – the US is now bribing the Taliban.

Afghan political life, in practice, works out from actors that are factions, sub-tribes, “Islamic coalitions” or regional groups.

Since 1996, and up to 9/11, the Taliban incarnated the legitimate return of Pashtuns as the dominant element in Afghanistan. That’s why they instituted an emirate and not a republic, more appropriate for a Muslim community ruled only by religious legislation. The diffidence towards cities, particularly Kabul, also expresses the sentiment of Pashtun superiority over other Afghan ethnic groups.

The Taliban do represent a process of overcoming tribal identity and the affirmation of Pashtunistan. The Beltway never understood this powerful dynamic – and that’s one of the key reasons for the American debacle.

Lapis Lazuli corridor

Afghanistan is at the center of the new American strategy for Central Asia, as in “expand and maintain support for stability in Afghanistan” coupled with an emphasis to “encourage connectivity between Central Asia and Afghanistan.”

In practice, the Trump administration wants the five Central Asian “stans” to bet on integration projects such as the CASA-1000 electricity project and the Lapis Lazuli trade corridor, which is in fact a reboot of the Ancient Silk Road, connecting Afghanistan to Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia before crossing the Black Sea to Turkey and then all the way to the EU.

But the thing is Lapis Lazuli is already bound to integrate with Turkey’s Middle Corridor, which is part of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative, as well as with the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Plus, also part of Belt and Road. Beijing planned  this integration way before Washington.

The Trump administration is just stressing the obvious: a peaceful Afghanistan is essential for the integration process.

Andrew Korybko correctly argues that “Russia and China could make more progress on building the Golden Ring between themselves, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey by that time, thus ‘embracing’ Central Asia with potentially limitless opportunities that far surpass those that the US is offering or ‘encircling’ the region from a zero-sum American strategic perspective and ‘forcing’ it out.”

The late Zbigniew “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski’s wishful thinking “Eurasian Balkans” scenario may be dead, but the myriad US divide-and-rule gambits imposed on the heartland have now mutated into hybrid war explicitly directed against China, Russia  and Iran – the three major nodes of Eurasia integration.

And that means that as far as realpolitik Afghanistan is concerned, with or without a deal, the US military have no intention to go anywhere. They want to stay – whatever it takes. Afghanistan is a priceless Greater Middle East base to deploy hybrid war techniques.

Pashtuns are certainly getting the message from key Shanghai Cooperation Organization players. The question is how they plan to run rings around Team Trump.

إلى حكومات العراق وسورية ولبنان

ناصر قنديل

خلال أيام ستكون في العراق حكومة جديدة، ولدت تحت ظلال قرار برلماني بإنهاء الوجود الأميركي العسكري في العراق، وفي سورية حكومة تقع تحت عقوبات أميركية وأوروبية وحصار غربي شديد القسوة، وفي لبنان حكومة جديدة ولدت بمقاطعة من القوى الحليفة لحكومات الغرب والخليج، وتصلها كل يوم رسائل عنوانها عدم الاستعداد لإمدادها بالمال الذي تحتاجه لمواجهة خطر الانهيار المالي. والوضع الاقتصادي في كل من هذه الدول يعيش أسوأ أيامه، فهل فكرت الحكومات المعنية أو ستفكر في جذر الاختناق وعلاقته بتكريس واقع الفصل التعسفي بين جغرافياتها، لاعتبارات سياسية غير سيادية؟

ربما تكون الحكومة السورية الأشد استقلالاً، والأعلى إيماناً فكرياً وثقافياً بالتكامل بين الدول التي شكلت تاريخياً متحداً اقتصادياً واجتماعياً طبيعياً، لكنها ليست الأكثر مبادرة، وإن كان للانشغال بالعمل العسكري والأمني، أو لتقدير الحسابات الرماديّة للحكومات المتعاقبة على العراق ولبنان وتوقع عدم استعدادها لتلبية الدعوة لبحث المشتركات الاقتصادية، تفادياً لإغضاب بعض العرب والغرب، دورٌ في تفسير عدم المبادرة، فإن هذين العاملين إلى زوال، والأمر يحتاج إلى مبادرة، من سورية أو لبنان أو العراق، لكن النظرة لما يمكن تحقيقه بالعودة لحياة خلقها الله وكرّستها الطبيعة بين هذه الدول يشكل جواباً على أسئلة يبحث عنها المعنيون في غير مكان.

إذا بدأنا بحال العراق فسنكتشف ببساطة أن العراق يحتاج إلى أمرين عاجلين لا يحتملان التأجيل، يرتكزان على الحاجة لمنافذ بحرية على البحر المتوسط، حيث أغلب مبيعات النفط العراقي أي أغلب الصادرات العراقية، وحيث مصدر أغلب المستوردات العراقية، وحيث الدورة التجارية تمرّ من البصرة نحو مضيق هرمز وباب المندب وقناة السويس لتصل إلى المتوسط، فتستهلك وقتاً ومالاً يؤثران سلباً على الوضع الاقتصادي العراقي، بينما تستطيع موانئ بانياس وطرطوس وطرابلس وبيروت، إذا ربطت بخطوط سكك حديدية حديثة مع بغداد، وفعلت وطوّرت أنابيب النفط التي تربطها بمنابع النفط العراقية، أن تحقق للعراق وفراً مالياً يقدره الخبراء بخمسة مليارات دولار سنوياً، وعائدات إضافية، وتحسيناً لقطاعات الخدمات، وتوفيراً لسلع أرخص في الأسواق، إذا أضفنا ما سينتج على جانب هذه الدورة من إنتاج لمشتقات نفطية يستوردها العراق، ومن ربط حاجات العراقيين بخدمات مصرفية وصحية وتعليمية وسياحية ومنتجات صناعية وزراعية متاحة بدرجة عالية من الجودة بين دمشق وبيروت، ويعيق الإفادة منها غياب طرق النقل السريعة والآمنة والميسّرة.

إذا انتقلنا إلى سورية فسنجد حاجاتها للمشتقات النفطية مصدراً رئيسياً لأزمتها الاقتصادية وهي متاحة بإمداد مصافيها وتطويرها بالنفط العراقي الخام، لتأمين حاجات أسواقها، وحاجتها لإنتاج الكهرباء، وستعيد للعراق حاجته من المشتقات، ومالاً ناتجاً عن بيع نفطه الخام والمشتقات الفائضة من المصافي، وسنجد أن الساحل السوري سينتعش بفضل خط الترانزيت لحساب السوق العراقية بتشغيل وتفعيل مرفأي بانياس وطرطوس، وأن قطاعات الزراعة والصناعة من حلب إلى درعا والساحل والوسط ستجد ضالتها في السوق العراقية الضخمة، وأن المناطق السياحية في سورية ومدنها ومزاراتها الدينية وجامعاتها ومستشفياتها ستغصّ بالعراقيين؛ والمطلوب تفعيل شبكات نقل متعددة وميسّرة للركاب والبضائع والنفط والمشتقات، بما يشبه ما يفعله الصينيون في مشروع الحزام والطريق، الذي يشمل بلدان المتوسط، العراق وسورية ولبنان، والصين مهتمة بسورية وتربطها بها علاقة مميّزة، والصين وقعت مع العراق اتفاقيات بمئات مليارات الدولارات لمشاريع عملاقة يجب أن تتصدّرها مشاريع التشبيك العراقية مع سورية ولبنان، ومن بينها شبكات الربط الكهربائي أيضاً، خصوصاً أن إيران المتصلة عبر العراق بجغرافيا هذه الدول المتوسطية جزء من المشروع الصيني العملاق وعلاقاتها بالصين أكثر من مميّزة، ولديها فوائض في المشتقات النفطية، وفي إنتاج الكهرباء.

نصل إلى لبنان الواقف على رصيف الانتظار والتسوّل، بانتظار أن يرأف بحاله الغرب وبعض العرب، وهو كالبيد في الصحراء يقتلها الظمأ والماء فوق ظهرها محمولُ، فهل يدرك المعنيون في لبنان حجم التحوّل التاريخي الذي يترتب على هذا التشبيك الاقتصادي، ليس بتوفير العملات الصعبة التي تستنزف نصف موارد لبنان لتأمين المشتقات النفطية والكهرباء، فقط، بل بالحركة التي سيجلبها التشبيك بوسائل نقل سريعة لقطاع المصارف لحساب العراق، وللصناعة والاستشفاء والتعليم، والاستهلاك، والطبقة الوسطى وما دونها في العراق ستجعل من سورية وجهتها، والطبقة الوسطى وما فوق ستجعل من لبنان وجهة لها، هذا من دون أن نتحدث عن المنتوجات الزراعية. وقد قال لي صديق عراقي أن قطارا يربط بغداد ببيروت بثلاث ساعات، سيعني أن رجل الأعمال العراقي ينطلق في السابعة صباحاً من بغداد ليصل إلى مصرفه في بيروت في العاشرة ويعود في الرابعة من بيروت ليصل بغداد السابعة مساءً، وقد تناول الغداء الذي يحبّ في مطاعم بيروت، أو أمضى ليلته في فنادفها وقرّر التسوق والعودة في اليوم التالي، وختم الصديق ضاحكاً بالقول لا تنسوا إرسال خبزكم في القطارات يومها، لأنه مهما أرسلتم من كميات ستنفد عند محطة القطار، ليقول افتحوا أفراناً وسيتكفّل العراقيون باستهلاك الخبز.

لا جواب منطقي يقول إن هذه المعطيات غير واقعية، فقط الكلام في السياسة عن الانتظار، وانتظار ماذا لا نعلم، خصوصاً أنه المعيب أن نسمع بأن دورة الأوكسجين الذي ينتشلنا من الاختناق المحتم، لأننا ارتضينا أن نعيش في علب مغلقة ننتظر للخروج منها إذناً خارجياً، فهل تنتظر الاطمئنان بأن الغرب وبعض العرب لن يغضبوا، فلنتعظ مما فعله الفرنسيون يوم كانوا يحكموننا في لبنان وسورية، وقد قسمونا وأقاموا لنا جيشين ومجلسي نواب وحكومتين ورئيسين وأعدّوا لنا دستورين، لكنهم حافظوا لنا على مصرف مركزي واحد وليرة واحدة، وسواها من المصالح المشتركة التي أنشأوا لها مجلساً يحمل هذا الاسم “مجلس المصالح المشتركة”. تخيّلوا مثلا أن يتفق حكام المصارف المركزية في دولنا على تسعير أسبوعي للعملات الوطنية فيما بينها يتبعه قرار حكومي باعتماد هذه العملات في التداول بين أسواقنا وناسنا وبضائعنا وخدماتنا، ولنشكّل مجلساً للمصالح المشتركة بين لبنان وسورية والعراق يترأسه رؤساء الحكومات ويضمّ وزراء الطاقة والاقتصاد والمال وحكام المصارف المركزية ومعهم رؤساء غرف التجارة والصناعة والزراعة.

لمَ لا إذا كانت لنا إرادة وعندنا رؤية، ولم نتحدّث بعد عن عملية الإعمار في سورية ولا في العراق؟

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: