Syria's Pipelineistan war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Syria's Pipelineistan war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Syria's Pipelineistan war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Syria's Pipelineistan war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Asia Times Online :: Eurasian consolidation and India's policy

Asia Times Online :: Eurasian consolidation and India's policy

Transforming Mongolia-Russia-China Relations: The Dushanbe Trilateral Summit :: JapanFocus

Transforming Mongolia-Russia-China Relations: The Dushanbe Trilateral Summit :: JapanFocus

The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 12, Issue 44, No. 1, November 10, 2014. Transforming Mongolia-Russia-China Relations: The Dushanbe Trilateral Summit Alicia Campi The trilateral summit among the presidents of Mongolia, China, and Russia, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at Dushanbe, Tajikistan on September 11, 2014, was the culmination of a deliberate summer whirlwind policy blitz of Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj to position his country to take advantage of deepening Sino-Russian economic relations. Concerned that a “great game” to create a new version of the Eurasian Silk Road was being played out without any Mongolian input, Mongolia’s activist president used the celebrations around the commemoration of different anniversaries in Sino-Mongol and Mongol-Russian relations to make certain that his two powerful neighbors did not proceed with transportation and energy cooperation without taking into account the role of a mineral-rich Mongolia. The landlocked Northeast Asian nation is seeking to become an international transportation hub and at the same time diversify its mineral exports. This spotlight trilateral summit moment in Mongolian-Chinese-Russian relations, together with the trips of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin to Mongolia a few weeks previous, attracted attention, bordering on concern, of other Eurasian countries, the European Union, and the United States who do not fully comprehend Mongolia’s strategy. A Spring and Summer of Bilateral Summits in Shanghai and Ulaanbaatar The Dushanbe summit came at a time when both China and Russia have serious foreign policy challenges in their home regions—China in the South China and East China seas involving clashes with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam among others, and Russia in Ukraine resulting in increasingly crippling economic sanctions. Mongolia, for its part, has had a precipitous decline of over 62% in foreign direct investment (FDI) and reduction of its growth rate to 5.3% (one-half of 2013’s 11.8%) in the first half of 2014.1 This was connected to concern over Mongolia’s vacillating investment legal regime and a slowdown in sales of coal to China. All of these factors propelled increased cooperation among the three nations in the first half of 2014—initially seen via a series of bilateral meetings. The first example was the planning among the leaders when they were in Shanghai on May 20, 2014 at the Fourth Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia over the timing of the Xi and Putin visits to Mongolia. President Xi had agreed to go to Ulaanbaatar to celebrate 65 years of Sino-Mongolian diplomatic relations and announce a new push towards energizing China’s strategic partnership with Mongolia. Putin’s Mongolian visit, ostensibly to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Soviet-Mongol victory over an invading Japanese army in 1939 at Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan), was aimed at jumpstarting Russian’s morbid economic relations with its former Cold War satellite whose trade and investment picture has been monopolized for over a decade by China. Originally it seems that Xi and Putin mulled over the possibility of holding a trilateral gathering in Ulaanbaatar in August, but this timetable ultimately was rejected because Putin decided to squeeze in a 5 hour visit to Mongolia instead on September 3rd as part of a swing through the Russian Far East. Mongolian officials told this writer they believe that while Putin was in Shanghai, he also agreed to not oppose Chinese proposals for deeper investment and economic ties with Mongolia in exchange for China’s support for Russian plans on modernizing and developing rail links with Mongolia.2 Xi Jinping (left) and Vladimir Putin in China Mongolia hosted Chinese President Xi’s state visit on August 21-22. Mongolian leaders deemed the visit very successful in signaling Chinese recognition of the value of stronger political and economic ties to Mongolia, as well as for Chinese acquiescence to Mongolia’s desire to develop trilateral cooperation among China, Russia and Mongolia on a shared vision for a new Silk Road economic corridor. The Chinese signed 26 documents with the Mongols, and Xi’s personal offer, in his address to the Mongolian parliament which was broadcast live on both Mongolian and Chinese television, for the Mongols to participate in his “China Dream” initiative was seen in Mongolia as a positive gesture by the government and domestic press. However, Mongolian blogs resonated with nervous chatter about Chinese hegemonic ambitions fueled by Xi’s strange recital of a famous Mongolian nationalist poem in which he called Mongolia his “native land.”3 Mongolia and China signed a Joint Declaration on relations that set a bilateral trade target of $10 billion by 2020 (up from $6.2 billion in 2013) under a "three-in-one" cooperation model, integrating mineral exports, infrastructure construction and financial cooperation. The Chinese side promised to provide Mongolia 1.3 billion RMB [US$260 million] of aid within 3 years for major economic projects and to possibly grant a soft loan in the amount of RMB 1 billion [$162.7 million]. The presidents of Mongol Bank and Chinese National Bank agreed to an increase of the currency swap exchange from 10 billion to 15 billion RMB to provide foreign currency to Mongolia’s domestic market. The five new transportation agreements may prove the most significant of all in that they relate to the future of Eurasian economic integration and Sino-Russo-Mongolian cooperation on regional rail projects. These were 1) Inter-Governmental Agreement on “access to the seaport and transit transport” 2) Inter-Governmental General Agreement on development of cooperation of the railway transit transport 3) Inter-Governmental MOU on Development of Railway Cooperation 4) MOU between Ministry of Road and Transportation of Mongolia and Railway Authority of People’s Republic of China on renewal of the “Mongolia and China Border Railway Agreement” and 5) Agreement on “Mongolia-China Border Port Management Cooperation Commission” between National Council of Border Port of Mongolia and General Customs Office of People’s Republic of China. The latter document designated six Chinese seaports, including Tianjin, Dalian, and Jinzhou, for the transit of Mongolian exports to overseas markets. A key breakthrough for the landlocked Mongolia was the agreement that two-thirds of Mongolian goods transported on Chinese rails would be destined for the Chinese market while one-third would be for export via Chinese seaports to third countries. Border crossing co-operation and access to rail capacity within China were promised, and four new Mongolian ports (Shiveekhuren, Bichigt, Gashuunsukhait and Nomrog) were opened for rail transport. New tariffs and additional volume for Mongolian cargo on Chinese railroads were established, and China also gave Mongolia a 40% discount on current transportation tariffs. The big catch to all of these agreements is the necessity to secure ratification by the Mongolian parliament, which remains divided on new rail links to China and which size rail gauge to use. Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj (right) and Xi Jinping Not two weeks later the Mongols welcomed Russian President Putin’s visit as visual proof of a new era in Russian economic investment in Mongolia to balance nearly total Chinese monopolization (89% in 2013) of Mongolia’s foreign trade. The 14 bilateral agreements signed were vaguer than those with China, but of greater importance was Putin’s political message that Russia had not forgotten Mongolia. What is most interesting about the rail projects covered in the Russo-Mongolian agreements is the potential impact on Sino-Russian rail cooperation. An example is the electrification and construction of a second track for the 1100 km (684 mile) rail from Mongolia’s northern border with Russia through the planned Sainshand minerals processing industrial zone in the Gobi to Zamyn Uud on the Chinese border. Russo-Mongolian cooperation also covered exploring development of a western Mongolian railway line joining Russia and China for Russian exports to China, India and Pakistan, as well as researching utilizing the 230 km (143 miles) Choibalsan–Erentsav eastern railway for transit goods into northeast China. During the press conference that Putin held at the end of the Mongolian visit, he singled out bilateral transport cooperation: “This is a very important sector for Mongolia, and it is in our interests too to increase Mongolia’s transit potential. Mongolia is located between Russia and China after all. We are big trade and economic partners and have bilateral trade with China that will come to $64 or already $65-67 billion this year. It therefore makes sense to put Mongolia’s transport possibilities to greater use than is the case today.”4 Dushanbe Trilateral Summit The Mongols in the spring had begun to talk publicly about a trilateral summit meeting taking place in Ulaanbaatar. When it finally occurred in Dushanbe, President Elbegdorj particularly hailed the meeting as a historically significant first in the history of the three countries5 and suggested it take place every three years in Mongolia. Both Xi and Putin expressed their general interest but did not confirm the venue and timing. President Xi proclaimed that the trilateral summit was of “great significance to deepening mutual trust among the three parties, and pushing forward regional cooperation in Northeast Asia.”6 He said that his Silk Road Economic Belt initiative meshed well with Russia's transcontinental rail plans and Mongolia's desire to build up a China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor in its Talyn Zam [Steppe Road] program. However, he cautioned that if this concept were to succeed, the three nations needed to strengthen traffic interconnectivity, facilitate cargo clearance and transportation, and build a transnational power grid.7 As for Putin, he noted that: “Things discussed at this meeting create the appropriate mechanism to discuss and resolve the largest projects to be implemented by us in the future, and we agreed to promote our cooperation in this regard.” Moreover, the Russian leader asserted that the geographic proximity of Mongolia, Russia and China facilitated long-term projects in infrastructure, energy and mining: “We have things to discuss and we find it important, feasible and useful to establish a regular dialogue.”8 Many foreign observers saw the Dushanbe meeting as proof of China and Russia’s deepening coordination, especially regarding Mongolia and the greater Eurasian continent. However, equally discussed was the concern of Mongolia’s “third neighbors” about the real intentions of President Elbegdorj. Despite the strong democratic record of Elbegdorj from his days in the streets as one of the key protest leaders who brought down Mongolia’s communist government in 1990 and the fact that the plethora of agreements with both China and Russia to improve Eurasian transportation connections through Mongolia also should help Turkey, Europe, Japan and South Korea to become stronger regional trade partners, Mongolia’s new strategy has caught many, including in the restless foreign investor community, off guard. When a Mongolian delegation visited New York and Washington in connection with President Elbegdorj’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly in late September, its members were met with a barrage of questions from American officials about the future of Mongolian allegiance to its policy of reaching beyond its two border neighbors to integrate into the world economy (the so-called ‘third neighbor policy’), as if Mongolia were returning to a pre-democratic mentality. This concern, while understandable, arises from a lack of understanding of Mongolia’s overall trade predicament and its limited options to find a way forward. After 20 years of unsuccessful efforts to find new trade partners other than its two border neighbors for its minerals and animal by-products, Mongols of all political persuasions came to recognize that they cannot ameliorate the Chinese monopoly over their economy without careful development of real transport and pipeline alternatives to their present poor infrastructure. Following World Bank and IMF advice to just build new roads and rail spurs south to service the Chinese market would merely perpetuate the dependence on China, yet it may be necessary in the short- and mid-term to keep the economy afloat. A longer term strategy of reviving Russian economic investment in Mongolia and building transport infrastructure north to link with the Trans-Siberian rail system as well as promoting Mongolia as a reliable and cheaper alternative for Sino-Russian transit traffic within a greater Eurasian transit zone are absolute necessities. Moreover, Elbegdorj and many other Mongolian policymakers are clever enough to recognize that the Chinese-Russian political rapprochement, which is based on economic self-interest, can only profit Mongolia if Mongolia is seated at the negotiating table and participating in drafting new transport and energy growth models. Thus the U.S. and other democracies should be supportive of Mongolia’s strategy of trust building as possibly leading to greater Northeast Asian political stability and being economically beneficial to American allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Progress after Dushanbe Since the tripartite summit, the Mongols have moved to maintain the momentum of Sino-Russo-Mongolian cooperation. Elbegdorj announced after the SCO that Ulaanbaatar would host a meeting on implementing the Railway Transit Transportation agreements just signed among the three governments and set up a working group to study linking Central Asia’s natural gas fields to China and South Korea through Mongolia via Russia’s “Western Corridor of Natural Gas.”9 The Mongolian government on October 15th at the 18th regular meeting of the Mongolian-Russian Intergovernmental commission on trade, economic, science and technical cooperation initiated a Steppe Road highway project together with the Russian company Dalistroimachanizasiya to develop a 997 km highway, 1100 km high voltage electrical line, gas and oil pipeline from Altanbulag at the northern border through Ulaanbaatar to Zamin Uud on the southern border.10 On October 20th an MOU for a high speed rail line project linking Beijing and Moscow through Mongolia was signed by Russia and China during a visit to Moscow by the Premier of the PRC State Council Li Keqiang. This new passenger train project would reduce the 7000 km journey from 6 days to 2. Cost projections for the new rail line are set at US$ 230 billion on a 5-year construction time schedule.11 The line would parallel the route of the present Ulaanbaatar Railway, which likely would be turned over solely to freight traffic. A few days later in Mongolia’s parliament a draft bill was approved that permits for the first time narrow-gauge (1,435 mm) railroad spurs from coal processing plants to the Chinese border for transporting raw minerals (Tavantolgoi-Gashuunsukhait, Sainshand-Zamiin Uud, and Khuut-Bichigt), contingent on agreement on border crossing cooperation between Mongolia and China. The Russian wide gauge (1,520 mm) spurs were approved for Arts Suuri-Erdenet, Tavantolgoi-Sainshand-Baruun-Urt-Khuut-Choibalsan, and Khuut-Numrug, while the Sainshand and Zamiin Uud lines were eliminated from the government’s proposed plan because of the new Sino-Russo rail agreement.12 The above-mentioned transport and energy projects clearly indicate that Mongolia is now well positioned in the middle of Chinese and Russian plans to expand their transportation cooperation throughout the Eurasian region. This trend is likely to continue, particularly with the continuing delay on the development of the second phase of the giant Rio Tinto-controlled copper and gold deposit at Oyu Tolgoi. That project has been touted as inextricably linked to Mongolia’s economic development. While that assessment is still true, Mongolia has many domestic factors to consider before coming to a final solution on how to proceed. With the indecision and delay, western investors have grown weary and leery of entering into big new mining projects in Mongolia at the central government level which might be derailed by local and environmental groups locked out of the original negotiating processes. Also, many Mongols are uncomfortable with the present reality of major western companies acting as middlemen to move Mongolian raw minerals to Chinese customers—a pattern that further strengthens Chinese monopoly over its economy. Mongolia now has an alternative to this type of foreign investment—increase its role as a transit corridor in the region as it simultaneously develops its dual rail gauge infrastructure in a more balanced manner so that its products are better able to reach new trade partners, and it profits in transit fees from exploding Sino-Russian trade. Ultimately this plan could break China’s stranglehold on Mongolian trade by helping Japan, South Korea, Southeast Asia and Vietnam sell their goods as alternatives to Chinese ones to Mongolia, especially if North Korean ports are developed to avoid Vladivostok congestion. Also, a modernized rail system across Eurasia would permit Turkey, the Middle East, Iran, and Europe to grow their trade with Mongolia in a substantive fashion. However, the ever present danger of this new game plan lies in Mongolia’s ability to manage the influence of the Sino-Russian partnership in its domestic political scene. Mongolian history tells us that rising Chinese and Russian economic ties brought strong political pressures and even bloody competition. As the 21st century progresses, the challenge of balancing economic benefit and national security remains key for Mongolian leaders. Alicia Campi has a Ph.D. in Mongolian Studies from Indiana University, was involved in the preliminary negotiations to establish U.S.-Mongolia bilateral relations in the 1980s, and served as a diplomat in Ulaanbaatar. She has a Mongolian consultancy company (U.S.-Mongolia Advisory Group), and writes and speaks extensively on Mongolian issues. She has published over 80 articles and book chapters on contemporary Mongolian, Chinese, and Northeast Asian issues, and advises Chinese and western financial institutions on Mongolian investment, particularly in the mining sector. She is the author of The Impact of China and Russia on U.S.-Mongolian Political Relations in the 20th Century. Recommended citation: Alicia Campi, "Transforming Mongolia-Russia-China Relations: The Dushanbe Trilateral Summit", The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 12, Issue 44, No. 1, November 10, 2014. Related articles • Peter Lee, Mongolian coal's long road to market: China, Russia and Mongolia • Peter Lee, A New ARMZ Race: The Road to Russian Uranium Monopoly Leads Through Mongolia • MK Bhadrakumar, Sino-Russian Alliance Comes of Age: Geopolitics and Energy Politics • Geoffrey Gunn, Southeast Asia’s Looming Nuclear Power Industry • MK Bhadrakumar, Russia, Iran and Eurasian Energy Politics Notes 1 Economic growth in Mongolia decelerated sharply from 8.7% year on year in the final quarter of 2013 to 7.5% in the first quarter of 2014 and to 3.8% in the second, as stimulus was partly withdrawn and foreign direct investment plunged by 62.4%, tamping down investment by 32.4%. ADB, Asian Development Outlook 2014 Update (Manila, 2014). 2 Author’s interviews, Ulaanbaatar, August 7-8, 2014. 3 From the Natsagdorj poem, “My Native Land.” Xi read this to open his August 21, 2014 speech to the Mongolian parliament. 4 “Answers to journalists’ questions following a working visit to Mongolia,” President of Russia website (September 3, 2014). 5 With the exception of a tripartite meeting held almost a century ago at the level of vice foreign ministers. G. Purevsambuu, “First-ever summit held between Presidents of Mongolia, Russia, and China,” The Mongol Messenger(September 19, 2014). 6 “China, Russia, Mongolia to Create Economic Corridor,” thebrickspost (September 12, 201). 7 Mongol Messenger (September 19, 2014); website of President of Mongolia (September 11, 2014). 8 Mongol Messenger (September 19, 2014). 9 Elbegdorj speech, website of President of Mongolia (September 11, 2014). 10 “B. Ooluun, “1000 km highway planned to connect China and Russia,” The Mongol Messenger (October 17, 2014). 11 “Russia and China high speed rail line across Mongolia project MoU signed,” Montsame (October 20, 2014). 12 “State Policy on Railway Transportation finally approved,” Montsame (October 24, 2014).

Can China Contain America? by John V. Walsh -- Antiwar.com

Can China Contain America? by John V. Walsh -- Antiwar.com

Can China Contain America?

by John V. Walsh, November 17, 2014

Print This | Share This

"Can America Contain China?" it is often asked in the West. But given America’s endless wars and assaults on the developing nations of the world, the question ought to be, "Can China Contain America"? Or at least, can China restrain the U.S. from doing more damage in East Asia and perhaps elsewhere in the developing world?

Last week Obama went to Beijing for the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit as the representative of the West and its centuries old grand project in East Asia. And what has that project been? History tells us that the West with its missionaries and soldiers, Obama’s predecessors, bathed the region in suffering and bloodshed. A short and incomplete list includes: the Opium Wars on China, the war on the Philippines, the nuclear bombing of Japan, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the bombings that laid waste Laos and Cambodia, the bloody CIA coup in Indonesia, and the military assault on the Korean movement to overthrow the Park dictatorship.

And that thumbnail history merely recounts the Anglo-American contribution to the European rape of East Asia. For centuries, every two bit Western European power with a little bit of advanced military technology was in on the plunder in the Western Pacific.

Obama went to East Asia to say in essence: "We are not finished yet. The Indispensable Nation must dominate everywhere. We departed when the Vietnamese humiliated us and drove us from the neighborhood. But we are back. We are pivoting."

Even before Obama departed the U.S., his "pivot" to the Western Pacific had come a cropper, because the U.S. is nostril deep in the swamp of the Middle East, thanks to the Israel lobby, and because the U.S. has driven Russia into an embrace with China by engineering a fascist-infested coup in Ukraine. True to form, just before climbing aboard the imperial 747 bound for Beijing, Obama could not resist wading a little deeper into the Middle East swamp and dispatched another 1500 ground troops to the killing fields of Iraq.

On the eve of the APEC summit, the Russia-China connection came alive as Presidents Putin and Xi closed a major petroleum pipeline deal that will bring into China the supply of natural gas that the U.S. has managed to deny Europe by its coup in Kiev. This pipeline, the so-called Western or Altai line, is the second from Russia to China, the first one having been agreed upon last May, with much fanfare. These land routes provide China with abundant petroleum resources that cannot be interdicted at sea by the massive U.S. Navy. This enhances the security of the Middle Kingdom in the face of the pivot. Thus, the deal goes far beyond symbolism. With it the American naval behemoth becomes less relevant as an instrument of U.S. dominance, although it is not one wit less burdensome to the U.S. taxpayer for that.

The talk at APEC was all about economics, which is going to determine the shape of the world to come. China’s economy is now slightly larger than that of the U.S. in terms of Purchasing Power Parity and on its way to become the equal of the U.S. in absolute terms within a decade. China relentlessly pursues economic growth and the overall stability that it demands. What did Obama have to offer? There he was peddling his Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, which is to include Japan and 10 other Pacific nations but to exclude China. He says with a straight face that its purpose is not to contain or isolate China although that is precisely what it is designed to do. The TPP, however, is not making much headway, because it is written in secret by and for U.S. corporate and financial monoliths. Other countries will not take the TPP bait if there is little or nothing in it for them.

Some Western commentators saw the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FAATP) as a Chinese riposte to the TPP. But although China pushed hard to move the FAATP forward at the APEC meeting and won approval for it among all 21 attendees, it is not a new idea, nor even a Chinese idea. It was there from the beginning when APEC was created in 1989, according to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien who praised China for pushing for the next step to realize the pact, which is a study that will take two years. Lee said that when the FAATP is finally created, it will benefit all countries in the region and be one of the largest free trade areas in the world.

Similarly China has taken the lead in forming the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will provide capital for badly needed investment in the region. The need for investment is estimated at $8 trillion; China has put in the first $100 billion and will host the headquarters in Beijing. The bank was formally inaugurated in October just a few weeks before the APEC meeting and included 21 countries: China, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Laos, Myanmar, Mongolia, Nepal, Oman, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Australia, Indonesia, South Korea did not join despite the interest they expressed a year earlier – a turnaround that was due to U.S. pressure. It is hard to believe that the U.S. is not trying to isolate and weaken China, that is, "contain" it by yanking other countries out of an arrangement that would benefit them.

But whatever the U.S. may attempt at this point, China has sufficient military strength to repel an attack by the West – although not to launch one. With that and its economic strength, China should be able to provide to the world alternatives to the diktats of the West. The BRICS may be the first sign of that. And China’s economic and infrastructure projects in Asia extending all the way to Europe herald a new and welcome multipolar world as outlined here.

The U.S. is busy in many corners of the world bombing, sanctioning and generally sowing misery and discord – most especially in the Middle East. In East Asia it has so far been pursuing a policy of isolating China and building military alliances against it. China, in contrast, has been busy getting rich and encouraging others to do the same. The U.S. is touting guns; China is banking on butter. Which is better for humanity?

John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com

Banking on a new outlook for the future | GulfNews.com

Banking on a new outlook for the future | GulfNews.com

What brings all these countries and economic blocs together is the need to break up the US monopoly and dominance over financial relations. This is possible through the establishment of parallel or alternative institutions in view of the weak US economy and its deteriorating structural problems. Without shale oil and gas production it would have deteriorated further.

How Russia and Putin's Alliances Will Challenge U.S. Hegemony - Equities.com Global Financial Community

How Russia and Putin's Alliances Will Challenge U.S. Hegemony - Equities.com Global Financial Community

Putin is taking a leadership role in the creation of an international alliance among four of the ten most populous countries on the planet—its combined population constitutes over 40% of the world’s total, just short of 3 billion people. It encompasses the two fastest-growing global economies. Adding Iran means its members would control over half of all natural gas reserves. Development of Asian pipeline networks would boost the nations of the region economically and tie them more closely together.

If Putin has his way, the SCO could not only rival NATO, it could fashion a new financial structure that directly competes with the IMF and World Bank. The New Development Bank (AKA the BRICS Bank), created this past summer in Brazil, was a first step in that direction. And that could lead to the dethroning of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency, with dire consequences for the American economy.

China’s Silky Road to Glory » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

China’s Silky Road to Glory » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names





When Little Dubya Bush came to power in early 2001, the neo-cons were faced with a stark fact: it was just a matter of time before the US would irreversibly lose its global geopolitical and economic hegemony. So there were only two choices; either manage the decline, or bet the whole farm to consolidate global hegemony using – what else – war.We all know about the wishful thinking enveloping the “low-cost” war on Iraq – from Paul Wolfowitz’s “We are the new OPEC” to the fantasy of Washington being able to decisively intimidate all potential challengers, the EU, Russia and China.

BRICS leaders dissatisfy with slow action on IMF reform - CCTV News - CCTV.com English

BRICS leaders dissatisfy with slow action on IMF reform - CCTV News - CCTV.com English

In a statement released after the meeting, the leaders agreed that the slow action on IMF reforms undermined the "legitimacy and credibility" of IMF.

Russia Shuns Dollar as Putin Strengthens Ties with China - NASDAQ.com

Russia Shuns Dollar as Putin Strengthens Ties with China - NASDAQ.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated on Friday that he wants to strengthen ties with China, and avoid using the dollar for bilateral trade. Data from China's central bank suggest that companies are already starting to shun the U.S. currency.

In an interview with the Russian news agency Tass, Mr. Putin said that oil giant Rosneft is working with a major Chinese corporation to receive renminbi as a payments for a significant flow of oil.

"We're moving away from the diktat of the market that denominates all the commercial oil flows in U.S. dollars," Mr. Putin said.

Russian companies are increasingly shifting to direct renminbi-ruble trading to settle their imports and exports with Asia.

Turnover in direct transactions in the two currencies soared to $1.2 billion over the course of October, from $307 million in September and as low as $52 million in July, according to data available on the website of the China Foreign Exchange Trading System, the trading division of China's central bank.

"Volumes are picking up as both countries aren't against using their own currencies instead of the dollar for mutual transactions. I expect the turnover to grow," said Evgeny Gavrilenkov, a currency strategist at Sberbank.

The Moscow Exchange reported a record daily turnover of 1.5 billion yuan ($245 million) against the ruble on October 16.

"The Moscow Exchange cooperates with China's largest banks to promote the use of the two national currencies in settlement between Russian and Chinese companies," a spokesperson at the exchange said.

Ruble-yuan trading was launched by the Moscow Exchange in 2010 but failed to gain significant interest from Russian companies until October, just after the U.S. and Europe widened their sanctions against the country.

To further strengthen cooperation, the exchange signed an agreement with the Bank of China in October and is currently negotiating with Chinese authorities the launch of new services to investors on the Chinese and Russian markets.

"Sanctions on Russia will undoubtedly encourage ties with other countries, particularly China," said Andy Seaman, fund manager at Stratton Street Capital LLP which manages a renminbi bond fund.

"The Chinese currency is already likely to be the third most actively traded currency in the world by the end of 2015 and greater trade links between Russia and China can only accelerate the internationalization of the renminbi," he added.

Still, despite the recent rapid growth, direct trading volumes between the two currencies remain tiny compared with the overall size of the market.

Direct sterling-renminbi trading, which started in June 2014 had a turnover of about $2 billion in October. Each day, total average currency-trading flows through the Moscow Stock Exchange stand at around $23 billion.

"Russian corporates are very interested in denominating in renminbi in the future. But the significance of direct trading volumes offshore remains limited until [there is] more access to onshore Chinese markets, " said Jinny Yan, director of renminbi solutions at Standard Chartered.

Write to Chiara Albanese at chiara.albanese@wsj.com

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/russia-shuns-dollar-as-putin-strengthens-ties-with-china-20141114-00417#ixzz3JJ3jDnBb

Did Russia and China just sign a death warrant for U.S. LNG exports?

Did Russia and China just sign a death warrant for U.S. LNG exports?

Russia and China have signed two large natural gas deals in the last six months as Russia turns its attention eastward in reaction to sanctions and souring relations with Europe, currently Russia's largest energy export market.

But the move has implications beyond Europe. In the department of everything is connected, U.S. natural gas producers may be seeing their dream of substantial liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports suffer fatal injury because of Russian exports to the Chinese market, a market that was expected to be the largest and most profitable for LNG exporters. Petroleum geologist and consultant Art Berman--who has been consistently skeptical of the viability of U.S. LNG exports--communicated in an email that Russian supply will force the price of LNG delivered to Asia down to between $10 and $11, too low for American LNG exports to be profitable.

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

The Full Letter Written By The FBI To Martin Luther King Has Been Revealed

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/13/2014 08:55 -0500

• FBI
 
• Germany
 
• New York Times
 
• None
 
• Reality

inShare4

 

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of my personal heroes. Not just because of his outsized contribution to the civil rights movement, but because of his leadership capabilities and emphasis on non-violent civil disobedience. It also goes without saying, that this wasn’t just a great orator with enlightened tactics, he was also a highly intelligent man with a strong sense of history. This is on full display in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which I highlighted in the piece: Martin Luther King: “Everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was Legal.” Here are some of his timeless words.

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice.

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?

Naturally, a man that utters such words and who also has a considerable following would not appeal to the thug in charge of the FBI at the time, J. Edgar Hoover. So what did Mr. Hoover do? He sent a letter to Dr. King, pretending to be a black person and implied that he should kill himself. None of this is news, but until the New York Times released it yesterday, copies of this letter had always been partly redacted. We now have the uncensored version. Here it is:

Now ask yourself a question. Is the FBI any more ethical today than it was back then? I would argue certainly not. After all, it had a file on on tech prodigy Aaron Swartz, who wasdriven to suicide by the feds. Now imagine what the FBI could do to political dissidents in a world in which they have a backdoor into all your electronic devices, which is precisely what it wants.

So the next time you think to yourself “so what, I have nothing to hide,” think again. You don’t know what the future holds, do you really want the status quo to have everything you’ve ever done or said accessible in an electronic file on you? What about the threat this poses to other people who put themselves in the arena of fighting for social change? Do you want the FBI to be able to do to them what they did to MLK but 10x worse? Think deeply about that.

Love revolution on globalisation

The overall lesson of the fall of Berlin Wall in 1989 is not an optimistic one. Each of the great powers (Europe, U.S., Russia & China) barrels ahead guided by its own version of the past. The new world order after 1989 seemed so promising. As the British rock band Jesus Jones explained, watching the wall fall was like "watching the world wake up from history." Because the story of the Berlin Wall's fall reads differently around the world, however, history might yet, alas, have the last laugh.

Europe remains committed to collectivism, standing up to geopolitical bullies with only the greatest reluctance. Europe had nearly committed suicide in World War I. It tried again in World War II. No one believed it might survive a third try in the Atomic Age. Europe's ongoing fascination with consensus reveals in large measure why its leaders have been so critical of aggressive U.S. policies over the last two decades.

The United States remains committed to fielding the world's most powerful military, even at the cost of its economic base and the educational system that generated such power in the first place because the Soviet surrender symbolized in the minds of American elite; a worldwide acceptance of U.S. global dominance where might makes right, and the West were right all along about free markets and democratic values hence the birth of globalization.

Russians typically draw more bitter lessons from the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Gorbachev's hopes for further integration with Europe were soon dashed. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization expanded, despite what Moscow took to be explicit promises that it would be held at a newly unified Germany's eastern border. Russians whose strength had once made the West shake with fear were now chastised for seeking order in their own backyard by a rival willing to send troops halfway around the world at the slightest provocation.

China's legacy of 1989 is the most inwardly focused, as the year conjures memories not of Berlin, but instead of Tiananmen Square. Eastern Europe's upheaval worried Chinese leaders, haunted by their violent Cultural Revolution when crowds went awry. Among the regimes that faced demonstrations in 1989, only China's government remains in power today. Why? Because it showed no mercy. The government made an implicit deal with its citizens: political sclerosis in exchange for economic growth.

At the end of the day, there would be a world government and a single currency whether we like it or not; in order to facilitate the grand lie that we can be superhuman outside Christ and instigate the ultimate rebellion of accepting the beast's mark. The book of Daniel clearly depicts a multipolar world order during the last days. So as the wild West meets the wise East in a very tensed atmosphere, be rest assured that there is nothing in it for us just like the fall of the Berlin Wall; nevertheless as we should all know Christ Jesus makes a better place for us while the dragon takes full charge of the gullible.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-12/economic-end-game-explained

The Economic End Game Explained

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/12/2014 22:22 -0500

• B+
 
• BRICs
 
• Capstone
 
• China
 
• Corruption
 
• ETC
 
• Fisher
 
• Global Economy
 
• Great Depression
 
• headlines
 
• International Monetary Fund
 
• John Maynard Keynes
 
• Krugman
 
• Martial Law
 
• Maynard Keynes
 
• New Normal
 
• New York Stock Exchange
 
• New York Times
 
• Paul Krugman
 
• Purchasing Power
 
• Reality
 
• Recession
 
• recovery
 
• Reserve Currency
 
• The Economist
 
• Tribune
 
• Unemployment
 
• Volatility
 
• World Bank
 
• Yuan

 

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Throughout history, in most cases of economic collapse the societies in question believed they were financially invincible just before their disastrous fall. Rarely does anyone see the edge of the cliff or even the bottom of the abyss before it has swallowed a nation whole. This lack of foresight, however, is not entirely the fault of the public. It is, rather, a consequence caused by the manipulation of the fundamental information available to the public by governments and social gatekeepers.

In the years leading up to the Great Depression, numerous mainstream “experts” and politicians were quick to discount the idea of economic collapse, and most people were more than ready to believe them. Equities markets were, of course, the primary tool used to falsely elicit popular optimism. When markets rose, even in spite of other very negative fiscal indicators, the masses were satisfied. In this way, stock markets have become a kind of dopamine switch financial elites can push at any given time to juice the citizenry and distract them from the greater perils of their economic future. During every upswing of stocks, the elites argued that the “corner had been turned,” when in reality the crisis had just begun. Nothing has changed since the crash of 1929. Just look at some of these quotes and decide if the rhetoric sounds familiar today:

John Maynard Keynes in 1927: “We will not have any more crashes in our time.”

H.H. Simmons, president of the New York Stock Exchange, Jan. 12, 1928: “I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool’s paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future.”

Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist, The New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929: “There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash.”And on 17, 1929: “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.”

W. McNeel, market analyst, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, Oct. 30, 1929: “This is the time to buy stocks. This is the time to recall the words of the late J. P. Morgan… that any man who is bearish on America will go broke. Within a few days there is likely to be a bear panic rather than a bull panic. Many of the low prices as a result of this hysterical selling are not likely to be reached again in many years.”

Harvard Economic Society, Nov. 10, 1929: “… a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall.”

I hear nearly identical statements from pro-mainstream, pro-dollar skeptics all the time. And all of their assertions rest solely on the illusion of the Dow and the dollar index, not to mention statistics that are sourced from the very government that has much to gain by fooling the public into believing all is well.

In 2009, Paul Krugman, perhaps the worst and most famous economist of our age, lamented on the fact that no one in mainstream finance saw the derivatives and credit crash coming. Yet it is the same kinds of manipulative policies that Krugman champions that caused this collective ignorance in mainstream circles to begin with.

What the past proves, time and time again, is that establishment trained and educated economists are perhaps the most useless of all analysts. They are perpetually wrong. Only independent analysts have ever been able to predict anything of value as far as our economic future — not because they are psychic, but because they have the advantage of standing outside the foggy propaganda of brainwashed financial academia.

It also proves that the appearance of prosperity means nothing if the fundamentals do not support the optimism. That is to say, a bullish stock market, a high dollar index and a low unemployment percentage mean nothing if such stats are generated by false methods and fiat.  The fundamentals ALWAYS matter.  As we saw during the Great Depression, the markets cannot hide from reality forever.

I relate these points because the future I am about to suggest here might sound outlandish to some, because it is so contrary to the “official” accounting of our current financial world. It is important to remember that the mainstream, the majority, is almost always wrong and that the truth is very rarely accepted broadly until calamity has already fallen.

I outlined the hard facts behind the reality of economic downturn in my article “We Have Just Witnessed The Last Gasp Of The Global Economy.”

The bottom line is that the stock market, the greatest false indicator of all time, is on the verge of implosion; and the banking elites are positioning themselves to avoid blame for this implosion while the rest of us are being sold on the most elaborate recovery con-game ever conceived. But what is the purpose behind this con-game? Lies are generally only told by those who hope to gain something through deception. What do the elites hope to gain by creating a facade of recovery?

They have openly admitted to the public on numerous occasions EXACTLY what they want — namely, the institution of a truly global and centralized economic system revolving around a highly controlled world currency framework and dominated by a select cult of banking oligarchs. Anyone who claims that this is not the goal is either a liar or an uneducated fool.

I have covered the evidence supporting this program many times in the past, but it would seem with the precariously surreal nature of our world today that much needs repeating. In 1988, the financial magazine 'The Economist' published an article titled “Get ready for a world currency by 2018,” in which it outlined the framework for a global currency system called the “Phoenix” (a hypothetical title), administered by the International Monetary Fund by the year 2018, which would erase all national economic sovereignty and require governments to borrow from the world central banking authority, rather than print, in order to finance their infrastructure programs. This would mean total control by the IMF over member nations as they beg and plead for more capital under the global currency umbrella.

If this sounds familiar, it is because I have been warning about the IMF takeover of the global monetary system for at least six years. The Economist actually admits that the Phoenix system would start out in the format of the Special Drawing Rights basket currency:

The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power…

The plan is to introduce a basket currency system as an alternative to the dollar as world reserve, then slowly but surely phase out all sovereign currencies until the basket becomes a currency itself - the ONLY currency.  Former World Bank Chief Economist Justin Yifu Lin seems to agree with this ideology, arguing that national currencies must be replaced with a supranational currency, and pointing out that no single currency has the strength to stand alone as world reserve:

"I think the dominance of the greenback is the root cause of global financial and economic crises...The solution to this is to replace the national currency with a global currency..."

I would mention that a "Phoenix" rises from the ashes of calamity reborn.  What ashes are the elites expecting the new global currency to rise from?

It is important to note that 'The Economist' is not just any random financial publication; it is in large part owned by the Rothschild banking family and is based out of the London financial center, meaning, The Economist does not have to “guess” on the economic developments of the future; it has an inside track on exactly what is planned to occur.

You can see my more recent analysis on the IMF global currency scheme here.

A plan for global governance has also been touted by international elites over the years, the roots of which would supposedly begin around 2015. The Gorbachev Foundation, which boasts many American elites as members, has long predicted the rise of a global government. In 1995, the executive director of the foundation, Jim Garrison, had this to say to the San Francisco Weekly:

"Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government. … It’s inevitable. It will happen and become just as normal to have a relationship with the rest of the world as we now have, say, if you are a Californian and you go to Vermont."

At the Gorbachev-led State of the World Forum in 1995, Council On Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski had this to say:

“We do not have a New World Order. … We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. … In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”

Regionalization is already occurring as the BRIC nations form their own bilateral trade agreements and their own global bank, and this is by design.  The catalyst to trigger the end of the dollar and the dominance of a global currency system, I believe, will be the false East/West paradigm. I have seen an incredible array of analytic interpretations of the macro-economy by multiple mainstream and independent financial writers, but very few of them recognize that the conflict between the West and the eastern BRICS is nothing more than a farce. I have compiled a considerable profile of evidence on the reality that governments like Russia and China are actually complicit in the formation of a global currency and global government controlled by the IMF. You can see that evidence here, here and here.

China in particular has loudly pronounced a need for a global currency system to replace the dollar, and they have suggested that this system be controlled by the IMF:

The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

China is NOT anti-establishment or anti-new world order, nor is Russia. Eastern opposition to the NWO is a lie. Period. In fact, the BRICS have argued only for greater inclusion in the IMF system and have no intention of developing a legitimate alternative to “Western” globalization. If you do not understand that the BRICS are part of the NWO, not opposed to it, then you do not understand a thing.

With the BRICS on board with the plan for global currency, what is likely to happen over the course of the next few years if the schedule for an economic reset is on track for 2018?

As I outlined in my last article, the U.S. in particular has been prepped like a sacrificial lamb, with the populace for the most part oblivious to the extent of the threat. Middle-class wealth is being driven into bonds and will be driven more so by market declines, which will progress over the next few months. This “herding” of capital into bonds is only in preparation for the death of the dollar’s world reserve status, thus erasing what little savings were left among the common citizenry.

The ceremony initiating our nation’s fiscal destruction will likely take place in the near term. To achieve global centralization by 2018, the elites would need a serious crisis soon in order to provide the proper collective panic required to generate public consent for global economic governance in four years’ time.

The first, most important factor to consider is the fake conflict between the IMF and the U.S. Congress over the approval of IMF policy changes agreed upon in 2010. The U.S. has yet to officially sign off on the IMF policy measures that would bring more “inclusiveness” for developing nations like Russia and China, and this has led the IMF to assert that a move forward without the U.S. is necessary. IMF head Christine Lagarde is now demanding that Congress pass the reforms of 2010; but with the election of a predominantly Republican government, those reforms have little or no chance of being approved.

Lagarde recently joked that she would be willing to "belly dance" to get IMF reforms passed (I would pass them just to avoid the gut churning image of that belly dance), but the joke will ultimately be on the U.S. as IMF heads suggest that if the current Congress does not pass reforms by the end of this year, they will be forced to apply a "Plan B".  The details of this Plan B are not public.

It is now highly likely that the IMF will set policy WITHOUT the input of the U.S., as they have warned they would, crippling the assumptions by many that the IMF is somehow a “U.S.-owned institution.” It is actually the reverse; the IMF is setting the stage for ownership of the U.S. monetary structure, along with the Bank Of International Settlements, which appears to be the capstone of the NWO system.

The next IMF meeting on SDR inclusion is not set, but will probably take place in early 2015. It is expected that China and the Yuan will be officially added to the SDR basket. Gold should also be watched carefully. There is a reason why the BRICS have been accumulating thousands of tons of the precious metal. The IMF introduction of gold into the SDR basket is inevitable, and a new Bretton Woods style-agreement has already been called for by a number of elites.

The IMF has been openly discussing the ascension of the SDR to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency since at least 2011.

With developing nations already asking for help from the IMF due to volatility caused by the Fed taper and the BRICS well into their own programs to remove the dollar as the world reserve, the only question left is: How will the banks be able to accomplish the currency reset without taking blame for the resulting catastrophe that will no doubt bury the majority of middle-class and poor?

There is no way around it. The elites need a geopolitical disaster so overwhelming that all economic changes taking place in the background go completely unnoticed. They also need to set themselves up as the prognosticators and rescuing heroes in the midst of the coming chaos, as outlined in my last article.

I do not know what that disaster will specifically look like, because there are too many possibilities to consider. Think about this honestly, 10 years ago, would you or your friends and family have ever thought that the U.S. would be at war in Syria with a terrorist organization we created ourselves out of thin air? That we would be immersed in renewed tensions and the possibility of economic warfare with Russia? That our presidency would have attempted and failed the initiation of socialized healthcare? That our military would be tapped as a possible response force for domestic unrest? That an outbreak of Ebola would be suggested as a trigger for medical martial law?

How many conspiracies have been exposed in just the past few years? How many government crimes have hit the headlines and then disappeared? Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting of activists, government-aided illegal immigration, etc. — a nonstop parade of corruption that few would have thought possible a decade ago. We are being boiled slowly, economically as well as politically. We are being conditioned to accept imminent crisis as a way of daily life, to become used to it and to blame these crises on hundreds of various scapegoats, but never the international banks.

And while the Titanic sinks, the band plays on, as mainstream pundits and dupes accuse independent analysts of “crying wolf.” The economic endgame is not about collapse alone. Collapse is nothing more than a process that ends abruptly only when public faith is finally lost. The endgame is about acceptance — the acceptance by the masses of a “new normal” in which financial and political terror become the foundation of daily life. The endgame is, first and foremost, about the psyche of mankind and its mutation into something unrecognizable. This kind of pervasive conditioning requires immeasurable fear. Our economic philosophy of sovereign trade and identity cannot be erased without it. The elites have already given us their timeline. The crash of 2008 was only the beginning of the program, and 2014-2015 looks to be the next stage. I have written hundreds of articles on how to prepare and diffuse the dangers of the impending reset, but the most important issue of all is that people understand the threat is at their doorstep. It’s not a few years off or a decade away; it’s here now. We are right in the middle of collapse, even if many cannot see it.  Watch global developments carefully, as market volatility increases and international conflicts escalate. Time is up.