 |
| Jerry John Rawlings is taking the front bench of the NDC |
By James Biney
There appears to be jubilation among some members and
followers of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) following what appears to
be the comeback of Mr Jerry John Rawlings, one of the founders of the party.
In the run up to the 2016 elections, Mr Rawlings flatly
refused to campaign for the party and its candidates on the grounds that there
was nothing to campaign for.
He never endorsed the candidature of then President John
Dramani Mahama or any other candidate of the party except his own daughter
Zanetor Rawlings who contested as a Parliamentary candidate.
Indeed, Mr Rawlings joined the New Patriotic Party (NPP)
in heaping allegations of corruption on the Mahama administration and the NDC,
insisting that the party had lost its moral fibre.
Even the late President John Evans Atta Mills had a fair
share of the venom of former President Rawlings.
Surprisingly, any time, the NPP’s presidential candidate
was attacked, Mr Rawlings rose to the occasion and stoutly defended him.
Mr Rawlings insisted that Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo
could not be a tribalist, he referred to him as a man of integrity and swore
that Akufo-Addo was not corrupt.
Mr Rawlings’ wife, Konadu even went a step further after
the declaration of Nana Akufo –Addo as the President of Ghana. She said the
election of Akufo-Addo was a pleasant relief and that the new President could
not be expected to clear the mess of the NDC within a few months in office.
Mr Rawlings did not disagree with his darling wife and
still insists that Nana Akufo –Addo is a man of integrity. He has gone further
to call for the replacement of all the leaders of the NDC in order to give the
party a fighting chance at the next election.
So what makes some NDC faithful believe that he is now
back to the fold and is ready to help build the party?
Clearly his presence at the party functions sends the
signal that he has not completely abandoned the party.
Secondly, his calls for unity within the party suggests
that he is ready to become a party of that unity.
The important question is whether he is ready to abandon
his newly found friends in the NPP to work for the victory of the NDC in the
2020 elections?
What kind of political relations will he have with his
wife Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings who has become an open collaborator of the
NPP?
In any case is the comeback of Mr Rawlings sufficient to
ensure the victory of the NDC?
Whiles party loyalists ponder over these questions, it
would be important to recognise that as far as Mr Rawlings is concerned the
youthful leaders of the party fit into the category of children with sharp
teeth and the elders couldn’t be better than greedy bastards.
The future of the NDC will certainly be most interesting.
Editorial
NDC’S FUTURE
The multi-party democratic arrangement can only thrive if
the competing political parties are strong.
Indeed, it is possible to have a defect one party state in
a multi- party arrangement if one political party becomes too strong.
In the specific conditions of Ghana, if any political
party secures more than two thirds of the seats in Parliament, it can even
amend entrenched clauses in the constitution.
It is for this reason that all the political parties need
to be encouraged to reorganize themselves so that they can offer constructive
opposition to the incumbent.
The defeat suffered by the National Democratic Congress
(NDC) in the last election was massive and it is heartwarming that it has begun
its reorganization effort in earnest.
We wish the NDC the best in its efforts to stay relevant.
Local News:
NIB DONATES MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
It is a fact of life that, health is wealth. A healthy
people are critical to the socio-economic development of any country and Ghana
is no exception. Public health is an integral part of the social system. National Investment Bank recognizes that, good health is a right for the citizenry and supports the
government’s mission of providing good health for all at an affordable cost.
NIB further recognizes the promotion of good health as an important part of its
corporate social responsibility.
It is in this regard that NIB last Wednesday presented
Medical equipment to the Medical Facility of Southern Command of the Ghana
Armed Forces at Kpeshie. The equipment valued at about GHS87, 000.00 which is
to be used at the Kpeshie Medical Facility of the Command included, an Urit 300
Haematology and Mind Ray Chemistry Analyser.
These Analysers were donated together with a computer and
accompanying UPS.
Presenting the equipment on behalf of NIB, the Head of
Corporate Affairs, Mr. Charles Wordey, said NIB places importance on supporting
the improvement of healthcare delivery in the country.
He affirmed the continuous support of such initiatives to
improve the health of citizens.
He added that the Bank has been collaborating with the
Ghana Armed Forces in areas such security and expressed the hope that the
existing relationship between the two institutions will be deepened further.
The General Commanding Officer (GCO) of the Southern
Command, Brigadier General Thomas Oppong-Peprah lauded NIB for the gesture,
saying the presentation of the equipment came as a relief because the Medical
facility lacked basic medical equipment to ensure its proper functioning.
The health facility he added, serves both the Armed Forces
and civilians living within the environs of Teshie. Brigadier General
Oppong-Peprah promised to ensure proper maintenance of the equipment.
Foreign News:
Manipulation of Human Rights Continues
(Image right) To date, Venezuela’s
Great Housing Mission has built 1,505,028 homes for the country’s most
vulnerable. Photo: TELESUR
By Elson Concepción Pérez
A recurring
theme over these days has been human rights, giving rise to media
manipulations, and involving individuals who, from centers of power or paid by
them, are making a veritable feast with the issue, for those wanting to impose
their model on the world and others who, working as paid mercenaries, are used
for that purpose.
Some,
such as Luis Almagro, secretary general of the discredited Organization of
American States (OAS), have targeted the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
seeking foreign intervention in the country. This could be due to the fact that
the nation’s governments, first led by Chávez and subsequently Maduro, have
developed social programs to guarantee the population their basic human rights,
such as building and delivering over one million homes, free healthcare for
all, eradicating illiteracy, or many other achievements which have been
recognized both in and outside the country.
It could
also be because of Venezuela’s solidarity efforts, primarily with Latin America
and Caribbean nations, efforts the OAS and its secretary general have chosen to
ignore.
In a
move to put pressure on the country, Luis Almagro has requested that Venezuela
be suspended from the OAS.
This
begs the question: is leaving the OAS is a disgrace or an honor? I’d say the
latter, as Cuba has shown.
For
decades our country has been targeted by those who critique human rights from
behind the bullet proof glass of a command post, in order to wage wars and kill
millions of civilians, like in Iraq, or in pursuit of monetary gain by way of
illegal arms dealing, causing the death of thousands of people, including U.S.
adolescents and children in their own schools, recreation centers, and streets.
They
have always used, and are doing so again, some mercenary, who for a couple of
bucks would even dress up in white with the sole intention of creating a media
circus by causing disturbances in order to later accuse local authorities of
human rights violations.
Hence
the recent attempt made from within the United States - which pays officials
like Almagro extra - to put on a show with counter-revolutionary frills, with
the “innocent” OAS secretary general leading the aggression which Cuba has
never allowed and never will.
As such
the Cuban government has stated that the OAS has always been one of
Washington’s tools, a platform from which to launch attacks against Latin
America and the Cuban Revolution.
In the
same vein, the U.S. State Department draws up lists condemning nations,
applying blockades, economic sanctions, and even authorizing military
intervention.
It seems
to me that the issue of human rights and democracy – from a U.S. perspective –
are the most frequent and most damming, and almost always used to enable the
powerful to impose their standards on poor nations, and above all, progressive
governments.
Of
course no one would ever cite what happened to Jesús Navarro as a human rights
violation; denied a kidney transplant at the San Francisco University Hospital,
in California, for being an undocumented immigrant.
According
to a report at the time by newspaper La Opinión, Navarro had been waiting
for the transplant for seven years. He worked for 15 years as a welder at
Pacific Steel, before he lost his job after the company was audited by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, with 200 of its 600 workers laid
off for being undocumented immigrants.
Family
and friends of the patient were told by a hospital official that the transplant
could not be performed even if they managed to raise the 200,000 dollars needed
to pay for the procedure, because undocumented immigrants are not allowed to
receive treatment.
In
another case exposed by Europa Press, a dispatch from Washington states
that a 14 year old African American boy was exonerated 70 years after his
execution in South Carolina, when Judge Carmen Tevis Mullen ruled that he had
not received a fair trial.
The boy
in question, George Stinney Jr., was executed in 1944 and was so small that he
had to sit on a telephone book to reach the headpiece of the electric chair,
according to U.S. news agency NBC. Family members stated that the police
interrogated the boy without his parents' presence, while it took a white jury
less than 10 minutes to find him guilty. The defense attorney didn’t even
appeal the conviction.
The
words 'human rights' hid beneath them events such as that of a youngster
gunning-down his classmates, or another forced to sell sperm on a New York
street corner; or the fact that every night, hundreds of human beings sleep
under bridges in cities across the United States, with no food or shelter.
None of
these are human rights abuses, according to U.S. standards.
Such
examples, which are daily occurrences in the richest country on the planet, are
never seen, heard of or cited by a man like Almagro – who can read and speak
English - and is therefore more than capable of learning more about the monster
from inside its entrails, instead of seeking out alleged violations in
countries where human rights are more than just simple words, or a tool used by
the media for political purposes.
In
Venezuela, just like in Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, and other nations the OAS and
Washington want to control, human rights consist of guaranteeing the people
health; education for all; promoting racial and gender equality; ensuring that
every citizen has the right to employment; and that no one dies because they
can’t afford an organ transplant; that families never have to mourn the loss of
their children, killed in a school shooting…
Isn’t
illegally detaining prisoners in the criminal Guantánamo base where they are
savagely tortured, denied the right to a lawyer, and imprisoned without
officially being charged for over 10 years, a human rights abuse?
What is
the economic and financial blockade of Cuba, intended to starve an entire
nation, if not a flagrant violation of human rights?
Here is
a bit of advice: Almagro should start to read - in English and in Spanish – the
true history of human rights and democracy in the U.S., where the OAS
headquarters is based and where these continue to be a pending issue.
Perhaps
those who question the validity of the OAS, and if is it worth spending so much
money on maintaining this den at the service of the empire, have a point.
What Made Trump Sign the Largest Arms Deal in US History
© REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst
 |
| Trump and Saudi King signs arms deal |
President Trump, a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia, a nation
he's previously condemned for treating women like "slaves" and
wanting to "kill gays" and accused of extremism, has now signed the
"largest arms deal in US history" with Riyadh. Russian experts
explain what made the US leader change his views.
"Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that
gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women
as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money
from such countries!" Trump's Facebook post read in June,
2016.
During a presidential debate Trump also said Saudis were
“people that push gays off buildings” and “kill women and treat women
horribly." He has also claimed the Saudi government had ties
to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks and accused the country
of extremism.
However, according to a statement just issued
by the White House, the US leader "has just completed largest single
arms deal in US history, negotiating a package totaling more than $109.7
billion" with this particular country, which will "boost Saudi
Arabia's defense capabilities, bolstering equipment and services in the
face of extreme terrorist groups and Iran." The White House
added that the deal will create defense jobs while also reaffirming America's
commitment to Saudi Arabia.
Stanislav Byshok, a political analyst at the
CIS-Europe Monitoring Organization think tank does not consider the actions
of the US president inconsistent or illogical.
"Trump's policy is based on the following:
with all his skepticism towards Saudi Arabia, he, as a
businessman and a politician who promised to develop the US' military and
industrial complex, is lobbying and pushing the deals on the sales
of the US arms. However Trump is a realist. He understands that the Saudis
will continue pursuing their interests in the region, in Yemen and
in Syria," he told Russia's RT news channel.
The political analyst also noted that the Syrian factor is
playing a vital role in this deal.
"Current agreement came as the result of a
certain discontent of a number of influential US politicians
with Trump's softness towards Syria. So now his support for the
state which openly acts against President Assad should appease the
critical establishment," Byshok suggested.
His view is echoed by Vladimir Bruter, an expert
at the International Institute of Humanities, Social and Political
Studies, who also said that Trump's deal comes as no surprise. First
of all, arms supplies to the Saudis are very profitable to the
US, Secondly, Saudi Arabia is the key ally of the US in the region.
"From these points of view, any restrictions
on the deals between the US and Riyadh will cause certain damage
to Washington. And this is what exactly worries the US. The fact
that their arms may end up with some Islamist group is not of any
particular concern to the US," he told RT.
In a separate comment on the deal, Robert Kaufman, a
professor at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and
author of “Dangerous Doctrine: How Obama’s Grand Strategy Weakened America” told
Radio Sputnik that Trump has identified Iran as the "greatest
threat" to the region. Thus, he suggested that Trump is "sending
a message of inclusion and tolerance encompassing three great
religions." And his trip is aimed to underscore that and not just
internationally but to the American domestic audience as well.
"This trip is to reassure his allies and the
world that he is not intolerant," he told Sputnik.
Myanmar Dodges Human
Rights Abuses
 |
| A Rohingya muslim woman carries a dying baby |
By Joseph Thomas
Myanmar appears poised to escape international scrutiny of
its vast and expanding
human rights abuses targeting its Rohingya minority.
US State Department-funded media platform, The Irrawaddy,
would report in an article titled, “Burma set to Dodge
Full UN Probe on Arakan State,” that:
Burma looks set to escape an international investigation
into alleged atrocities in Arakan State, after the European Union decided not
to seek one at the UN Human Rights Council, a draft resolution seen by Reuters
showed on Wednesday.
The UN said in a report last month that the army and
police had committed mass killings and gang rapes of Rohingya Muslims in
northern Arakan state and burned villages in a campaign that may amount to
crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.
The article would also reveal the role the European Union
played in avoiding the UN probe, stating:
EU diplomats told a meeting on Tuesday that they preferred
using an existing mechanism that had received good cooperation and access from
Burma’s government, rather than a new approach, and to give more time to the
domestic process.
The article indicates, however, that existing mechanisms
lack transparency, independence and thus legitimacy. It also notes that other
nations, including Ukraine and Syria, have not escaped similar probes.
Why Myanmar is
“Special”
The Southeast Asian state of Myanmar’s political
transition last year which saw Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for
Democracy come to power and herself assume office as the first “State Counselor
of Myanmar,” was the culmination of decades of US-European regime change
efforts.
The extent of this support is documented in immense detail
in the 2006 Burma Campaign UK report, “Failing the People of Burma?” (.pdf). It
states:
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED – see Appendix
1, page 27) has been at the forefront of our program efforts to promote
democracy and improved human rights in Burma since 1996. We are providing
$2,500,000 in FY 2003 funding from the Burma earmark in the Foreign Operations
legislation. The NED will use these funds to support Burmese and ethnic
minority democracy-promoting organizations through a sub-grant program. The
projects funded are designed to disseminate information inside Burma supportive
of Burma’s democratic development, to create democratic infrastructures and
institutions, to improve the collection of information on human rights abuses
by the Burmese military and to build capacity to support the restoration of
democracy when the appropriate political openings occur and the exiles/refugees
return.
While many laud Western support for the supposed
democratic movements within Myanmar’s political landscape, one of the keys to
genuine democracy is self-determination, a concept completely negated by
foreign funding and involvement within a nation’s internal politics.
Suu Kyi’s political party, street fronts and a
vast network both within Myanmar and abroad of foreign-funded organisations
posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have incrementally undermined
and displaced Myanmar’s institutions and political circles of power.
Since taking power, rhetoric regarding human rights,
democracy and freedom evaporated as many of the abuses used as excuses by the
US and Europe to meddle in Myanmar’s internal affairs to begin with, expanded
rather than were abated by their political proxies.
Why Myanmar’s Human
Rights Abuses Remain “Sort of” in the News
While US and European organisations continue to place
pressure on Myanmar’s current leadership, it is now abundantly clear that such
pressure is used as geopolitical leverage against the government in pursuit of
concessions and in no way constitutes a genuine interest in protecting human
rights.
Among the concessions US and European interests seek, includes
Myanmar’s divestment from its ties to neighbouring China. US-European interests
are engaged in Myanmar’s internal politics not simply to enter, monopolise and
profit from the nation’s markets, population and natural resources, but as part
of a much larger, regional agenda aimed at encircling China with a hostile
unified Southeast Asian front to hinder Beijing’s rise as a region and
international superpower.
China has invested in a series of large infrastructure and
develop projects within Myanmar, as well as projects aimed at securing China’s
trade routes from Asia to Africa, Europe and beyond. China’s proximity to
Myanmar gives it a distinct advantage that allows it to continue making inroads
despite US proxies holding power. Dissuading Myanmar’s political leadership
from building further ties at current or accelerated rates is done through a
variety of methods, including the use of disingenuous human rights advocacy
used as a form of geopolitical blackmail.
The severity, duration and scope of human rights
investigations, or whether they happen at all, depends entirely on any given
state’s obedience to US and European powers which hold a monopoly on what is
essentially weaponised human rights advocacy. Exposing this weaponisation of
human rights advocacy is essential in both preserving a nation’s sovereignty
and protecting legitimate, essential human rights advocacy.
Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based
geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor
to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
America’s Financial
War Strategy
By Alasdair
Macleod
America’s renewed desire to escalate military tensions is
a front for America’s continual financial war, this time directed at North
Korea, Syria and possibly Iran. This is likely to be the opinion of China’s
strategic advisers.
We analyse the geopolitics and economics behind America’s
war strategy from China’s perspective, concluding that it is entering its final
phase. China’s exit plan appears to be to tie the pricing of energy and then
other major commodities to gold, returning to the pre-1971 status quo, when the
dollar was just a settlement link between commodity prices and gold. Except
this time, the dollar itself will be side-lined, so far as China is concerned,
which will use the yuan instead for its empire, which will be far larger than
that of the US in time, measured by GDP.
Introduction
The day President Trump assumed office, it
appeared that at last there would be détente with Russia, leading to America’s
withdrawal from unwinnable conflicts and towards a new peaceful agreement
between these long-term enemies. However, within the traditional presidential
bedding-down period of one hundred days, Trump has gone from his electoral
platform of disengagement from foreign ventures to overt aggression in multiple
locations.
Something major has changed his thinking. Trump has
committed no less than five acts of foreign aggression in that short time, with
a sixth pending. The first was a joint operation with Emirati commandos in
Yemen, which backfired, leading to the death of a Navy SEAL. The second was the
recent attack on a Syrian airfield, in response to an alleged poison gas
attack. The third is the escalation of military threats against North Korea.
The fourth is the bombing of a cave network in Eastern Afghanistan. And the
fifth is the deployment of more troops to Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria to
step up the fight against ISIS. The rhetoric is also being ramped up against
America’s long-term bogeyman, Iran.
The three theatres of war that offer the best prospects
for further escalation are Syria, Korea, and Iran. They are in two regions
where significant quantities of dollars are owned and invested, offering the
potential for capital flight, which should be kept in mind, when reading this
article.
Trump is also seeking congressional approval for an
increase in defence spending totaling $54bn, a massive increase which, to put
it in perspective, compares with Russia’s total defence budget of $66bn.
The default assumption is that American military power and
weapons technology guarantees battlefield objectives will be achieved. This
hasn’t usually been the case since the first Iraq invasion in 1990. Since then,
any initial success has been more than outweighed by subsequent failures and
unintended consequences. It is because of American-led operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya and Syria that Europe is flooded with refugees, bringing
undercover terrorists with them. There can be little doubt that a dispassionate
analyst would recommend America abandons military action, so there must be
other reasons behind America’s war-mongering.
China, itself a long-time strategic target for American
aggression, is sure to be worried about the escalation of threats to North
Korea, and with good reason. In terms of trade, South Korea is now an important
trading partner, and for that reason, China will not want to see the situation
on the Korean peninsula deteriorate. She will also not want America securing
territory which abuts her border. Russia has a small border with North Korea as
well and is likely to share that view. However, Russia’s trade is not so much
with South Korea, but she is a major arms supplier to the North.
 |
| Vladimir Putin |
The only leader with good access to North Korea’s
president, Kim Jong-un, is Russia’s President Putin. When Trump was
first elected, negotiations with North Korea were a realistic option, and there
was even talk of Trump meeting Kim Jong-un to negotiate. The route to
negotiations was always through Putin, and if that is not actually closed, it
is made much more difficult, because of America’s action launching missiles
against Russia’s interests in Syria.
While the renewal of hostilities in Korea threatens to
resume (they never officially ended in 1953), China and Russia are sure to
avoid escalating the situation. President Xi will have made his own
assessment of President Trump to this end, which was probably the most
important reason for the meeting at Mar-a-Lago, from Xi’s point of view. The
rather casual way in which Xi is reported to have been told about the missile
strike against Syria over chocolate cake looks like a businessman’s power-play
to impress an opponent. It was not an action of statesmanship. Xi is likely to
have thought it amateurish, even a sign of weakness, and might have given Putin
a debrief of the meeting including this view.
The relationship between Russia and China is strong, and
they are likely to coordinate their strategic responses to American aggression
in both Korea and Syria. The question is, if America continues to escalate its
bellicose actions against North Korea, Syria, and possibly Iran, what will
their response be? For clues, we should look at this from China’s point of
view. The People’s Liberation Army’s most influential
strategist, Major-General Qiao Liang laid out his overall strategic
philosophy at a book-study forum of the Communist Party’s Central Committee in
Autumn 2015. His view can be taken to be that of the Chinese leadership.
China’s working
assumptions
Qiao’s economic analysis and conclusions are both
interesting and important, but it should be read for what is not said, as much
as what is said. His paper will have been examined and cleared by China’s
leadership, before being made publicly available. To that extent, there is
likely to be an element of disinformation involved as well. It will also have
been intended to be studied by foreign governments, alerting them to America’s
true motives.
With these cautions in mind, we can proceed. Qiao’s
principal thesis is that America uses the dollar to manage external trade and
finance for its domestic benefit. Many of us are familiar with the proposition
that by exporting dollars and dollar-denominated bank credit, America creates
wealth for both the US government and the major American banks, and that the
dollar’s reserve status is accordingly vital to the US economy. But Qiao takes
this much further, claiming that since the dollar’s peg to the gold price was
abandoned, America has initiated a cycle of economic boom and bust among
foreign users of the dollar for its own benefit. As Qiao puts it:
The U.S. avoided high inflation by letting the dollar
circulate globally. It also needs to restrain the printing of dollars to avoid
a dollar devaluation. Then what should it do when it runs out of dollars?
The Americans came up with a solution: issuing debt to
bring the dollar back to the U.S. The Americans started to play a game of
printing money with one hand and borrowing money with the other hand. Printing
money can make money. Borrowing money can also make money. This financial
economy (using money to make money) is much easier than the real
(industry-based) economy. Why will it bother with manufacturing industries that
have only low value-adding capabilities?
Since August 15, 1971, the U.S. has gradually stopped its
real economy and moved into a virtual economy. It has become an “empty” economy
state. Today’s U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has reached US$18 trillion,
but only $5 trillion is from the real economy.
By issuing debt, the U.S. brings a large amount
of dollars from overseas back to the U.S.’s three big markets: the
commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The U.S.
repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting
money overseas, and bringing money back. The U.S. has thus become a financial
empire.
In other words, America’s wealth is sustained by
a pump-and-dump operation facilitated by the dollar’s reserve
status, replacing genuine industrial production. It is worth clarifying
one point: foreign owned dollars never leave the US, only their function. It is
more correct to state that the US Government causes dollars to be diverted from
foreign trade and investment in manufacturing, to be invested in Treasuries. It
can do this by increasing the risks of other uses compared with owning US
Treasuries, which are deemed to be “risk free”.
The first cycle identified by Qiao was the expansion of
dollars aimed at creating a boom in Latin America in the mid-seventies. Bank
credit expanded on the back of a weak dollar. America then raised interest
rates to strengthen the dollar when inflation threatened, leading to dollars
being switched from riskier uses into safe-haven Treasuries. A widespread
financial crisis in Latin America ensued. This allowed American investors
subsequently to buy productive assets at rock-bottom prices (the Brady bonds).
Meanwhile, the US stock market rose strongly from 1981 onwards, as interest
rates subsequently declined.
The second cycle was aimed at South-East Asia, which
expanded on the back of a dollar that weakened from 1986 onwards. From 1995,
the dollar began to strengthen, culminating in a bear-raid on the Thai baht,
which spread to Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries in the region. The
Asian Tiger phenomenon was created and destroyed, not by the countries themselves,
but by the flood and ebb of dollar ownership and investment. Qiao notes
that China escaped being caught up in this US-inspired operation. Again,
dollars flowed back into US assets, this time fuelling the tech boom, which had
another two years to run.
Qiao goes so far to state that the most important event in
the twentieth century was not the two world wars, but America’s abandonment of
the gold standard in 1971. This is some statement. While he explains the events
that led up to this event convincingly, the flaw in Qiao’s analysis is to
assume that America deliberately added the pump-and-dump money-making strategy
to the benefits of exporting dollar ownership when freed from the discipline of
gold. US strategists in the Deep State almost certainly lacked the degree of
control necessary over events.
The real reason US interest rates rose in 1980-81 was to
stop runaway domestic inflation, which was getting out of control. The collapse
of Latin America was unintended. The Asian crisis was mostly the result of bad
investment and outright theft of capital, not the premeditated actions of the
American government. Qiao claims that the way dollars were deliberately
diverted from foreign investment is by America issuing Treasury debt. While the
benefits to America of this pump-and-dump cycle might be obvious expressed in
Qiao’s description, the expansion of the quantity of Treasuries being issued is
primarily tied to credit cycles, not the result of some devious dealings by the
Deep State. But we can at least agree that the consequences of America’s
mismanagement of her own financial affairs match Qiao’s observations.
Where Qiao’s analysis gets less easy to criticise is in
subsequent American actions. He claims that Saddam Hussein was overthrown
because he instituted a policy of selling oil for euros, not dollars. That was
true, and there is little doubt that the threat to dollar hegemony was
discouraged. He claims the break-up of Yugoslavia was to undermine the status
of the new euro. The euro lost 30% of its value from that time and was damaged
as a settlement option for global trade. As Qiao goes on to say,“after the
first cruise missiles exploded in Kabul, the Dow Jones index jumped up 600
points in one day”.
Qiao then turns his attention to the contemporary cycle (in
2015) of dollar management, claiming it was now aimed at China. In his words,
It was as precise as the tide; the U.S. dollar was strong
for six years. Then, in 2002, it started getting weak. Following the same
pattern, it stayed weak for ten years. In 2012, the Americans started to
prepare to make it strong. They used the same approach: create a regional
crisis for other people.
Therefore, we saw that several events happened in relation
to China: the Cheonan sinking event, the dispute over the Senkaku Islands
(Diaoyu Islands in Chinese), and the dispute over Scarborough Shoal (the
Huangyan Island in Chinese). All these happened during this period. The
conflict between China and the Philippians over Huangyan Island and the
conflict between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, might not appear to
have much to do with the U.S. dollar index, but was it really that case? Why
did it happen exactly in the tenth year of the U.S. dollar being weak?
Unfortunately, the U.S. played with too much fire [in its own
mortgage market] earlier and got itself into a financial crisis in 2008. This
delayed the timing of the U.S. dollar’s hike a bit.
If we acknowledge that there is a U.S. dollar index cycle
and the Americans use this cycle to harvest from other countries, then we can
conclude that it was time for the Americans to harvest China. Why? Because
China had obtained the largest amount of investment from the world. The size of
China’s economy was no longer the size of a single county; it was even bigger
than the whole of Latin America and about the same size as East Asia’s economy.
At the time Qiao presented his paper to the CCP’s Central
Committee, the Shanghai stock market was collapsing, and ever since then, there
have been bouts of capital flight, which the Chinese authorities have had
difficulty containing. The main-stream media in the US has been consistently
negative. From Qiao’s perspective, everything points to a pump-and-dump aimed
at China. However, China has protected herself from America’s financial attacks
through its national ownership of the banks and by capital controls. Consequently,
only foreigners can sell yuan to buy dollars, or withdraw dollars from their
own operations to invest in Treasuries. Therefore, the damage was always going
to be limited.
China also bends with the wind. While America increases
her Naval domination of the Pacific region, instead of fighting it she merely
increases her influence towards the West. This is the basis of the One Belt One
Road project, which is already running goods trains as far as Madrid and
London.
China prefers her trade partners to take yuan in payment,
and will lend them yuan if called upon. In time, yuan payments will have
convertibility into gold using the Shanghai Gold Futures Market when it gains
greater depth, making it superior to the dollar as a settlement currency,
though Qiao is silent on this point. More on this below. Embedded in Qiao’s
analysis is an understanding that the Chinese empire will not only become far
larger than the US in terms of trade, but by understanding the weaknesses of
American financial imperialism, it will be more enduring.
Solving the US debt
limit
These future events are implicit in Qiao’s thesis. Let us
assume for a moment that his thesis is valid, then Trump’s threats to escalate
a regional war over North Korea and/or Syria/Iran takes on a wholly different
light. While it is a stretch of the imagination to believe that the US’s Deep
State planned to “harvest” Latin America, followed by South-East Asia in the
late nineties, we are entitled to assume that the US government’s own strategic
advisers would have learned that manipulating the dollar’s exchange rate in
this way is a powerful financial weapon, benefiting America’s domestic finances
and keeping its enemies under control. By threatening North Korea, dollar
investment is likely to flow out of trade and investment in South Korea and
Japan, back to US Treasuries.
Thinking ahead, this could solve two pressing problems:
the first is to persuade Congress to sanction an increase in the deficit limit,
it always being easier to persuade Congress to finance a government at war, and
the second is to attract the necessary dollar-denominated capital to buy
Treasury debt, without having to increase interest rates. The US Government is
bound to be aware that higher interest rates must be capped to minimise the risk
of triggering a full-blown debt crisis.
As was the case with the Asian crisis, it seems China will
avoid being undermined by these negative capital flows. Unknown to the public,
America has already failed in its financial war against China, and needs new
victims, which is why the attention has switched to the Korean peninsula as
well as the Middle East. Trump now realises the only way his presidency can
prosper is to encourage capital flight into America from abroad, and have the
debt limit raised to accommodate it. This, surely, is behind his Damascene
conversion.
Japan and South Korea will most probably have studied
Qiao’s paper, becoming wise to America’s true motives, and are therefore more
likely to distance themselves from trading in dollars thereafter. Their private
sectors will be slow to understand these financial dynamics, so will remain
victims. But for governments and large corporations, the American gaff has been
blown. This is likely to lead us into a new world, where the dollar’s decline as
a reserve and trade currency accelerates, as America runs out of its
pump-and-dump victims. And when that happens, the dollar is almost certain to
rapidly lose its purchasing power, leading to a global currency reset and a far
higher dollar price for gold.
Gold’s glaring
omission
A clue that Qiao’s report was censored is the absence of
any mention of China’s gold accumulation strategy. While Qiao was quick to
notice the importance of the link between gold and the dollar in the Bretton
Woods years, there is no mention of why China has been amassing gold, ever
since the original regulations were promulgated in 1983, appointing the Peoples
Bank for this function. There is no mention of why gold was promoted to
ordinary citizens after the Shanghai Gold Exchange opened in 2002, no mention
of why China has invested in gold mining to the point where it is now the
largest producer in the world by far, and no mention of why the government
retains a monopoly on refining, even buying doré from other countries to refine
and accumulate. There is no mention that leads us to understand why Chinese
state refined gold bars are hardly ever seen outside China.
China places a great emphasis on hoarding gold, both for
itself and its citizens. The public has acquired an estimated 12,000-14,000
tonnes since 2002, and this writer has speculated that the Government has
hoarded in various accounts as much as a further 20,000 tonnes since 1983. For
the government, this represents an average annual accumulation of less than 600
tonnes a year, mostly at contemporary prices far lower than the current dollar
level.
But China has gone even further, seeking to control the
global market by making the Shanghai Gold Exchange the largest physical
exchange by far. She has now introduced yuan gold futures contracts, which will
be followed by yuan oil futures contracts in time. This ensures that foreign
traders in commodities and wholesale goods can sell forward the yuan they
receive in return for gold, increasing the attractiveness of trade finance and
settled in yuan compared with dollars. And when the yuan oil contract is
introduced, oil importers will use the yuan contracts to sell oil for gold.
In one simple action, China is ready to change the pricing
of oil to gold instead of dollars. All she needs to do is pull the trigger,
presumably when she has sold down her own dollar reserves to stockpile
industrial commodities. And when oil is effectively settled in gold through the
futures markets, we can expect other commodities to follow.
This should come as no surprise to the American state,
close to being declared check-mate by China on the geopolitical chess board.
The dollar price of gold is likely to rise sharply, reflecting the loss of
purchasing power for the dollar, and it will end the American dollar’s
exorbitant privilege, enjoyed since the end of the gold standard in 1971. It is
potentially the coup-de grace for both the paper dollar and American
imperialism.
Conclusion
China is thinking ahead, and has its own unique
understanding of how America manages its financial empire for the benefit of
its domestic economy, at the expense of everyone else. China has protected
herself, and attempts by America to undermine China’s economy have already
failed. Attention is now focused elsewhere. The latest war-mongering against
North Korea, Syria and possibly Iran has much to do with persuading Congress to
raise the debt ceiling, and to encourage capital flight back into a new wave of
US Treasuries without interest rates being raised. This neatly explains Trump’s
change of heart over foreign adventures.
The current attempt to pump-and-dump the economies of
Japan and South Korea by escalating tension over North Korea, as well as
countries with dollar balances in the Middle East by escalating Syria, Northern
Iraq and Iran, will likely be the last such attempt. China’s publication of
Qiao’s analysis has alerted government strategists everywhere to the use of
this tactic, reducing its efficacy. America is running out of fools to fleece.
The end game for the dollar and America’s harvesting of
foreign countries is therefore in sight, and it will likely end with a final
dollar crisis. China could bring this about at a time of its own choosing,
simply by introducing the planned oil futures yuan contract alongside the gold
futures yuan contract. When liquid enough, oil producers will be able to sell
oil for gold, effectively restoring the pre-1971 price relationships. This
explains the dynamics being played out at the highest levels, and America has
the most to lose. But because China still owns large quantities of US
Treasuries and dollar reserves, for the moment she might prefer more time
before executing the coup de grace.
But execute it, she will. Her fundamental objective is to
remove America’s ability to profit from having everything priced in dollars.
Logically, that means getting oil and other key commodities referenced in gold,
as they were before the Nixon shock in 1971, with fiat currencies merely being
the settlement media. America must be careful not to bring forth the date of
her own demise by attacking North Korea, Syria, or Iran.
Note
For a summary of Qiao Liang’s speech, see
http://chinascope.org/archives/6458/76
