Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Geopolitics of the Third world
Material posted: Publication date: 28-09-2014

Contrary to popular view, the conduct of Nations on the international scene has almost always been determined not by moral considerations, and muddy mixture of money and geopolitics. So, when you see the mouthpieces of the ruling class begin to demonize a foreign country, the first question in your head should be: "What's at stake here?"

Not for the first day in the crosshairs of the sights are Russia, China, Iran and Syria. Once you understand why, the events unfolding right now in the world, for you will have much more meaning.

The US dollar is a unique currency. In fact, in our present purposes, and with respect to the geopolitics it is different from any other currency in history. Although it is the world's reserve currency since 1944, it not unique makes it. Reserve status had many currencies, but the uniqueness of the dollar caused by the fact that since the beginning of 1970-ies he is, with few notable exceptions, the only currency used to purchase oil on the world market.

Until 1971 the US dollar was pegged to the gold standard, at least officially. According to the IMF, by 1966, foreign Central banks held 14 billion, while the United States had only $ 3.2 billion in gold allocated to cover foreign reserves holders.

Explanation: the fed printed more money than they could provide.

The result was rampant inflation and a General flight from the dollar.

In 1971, in what later became known as the "Nixon Shock", Nixon finally brought the dollar under the gold standard.

At this point the dollar became a currency solely based on the debt. When currency is based on debt, money originates a loan in the truest sense of the word.

Approximately 70 percent of money circulation is created by banks who are allowed to lend more than they actually have in the accounts.

The remaining part is created by the Federal reserve which provides a loan of money, which he doesn't have – mainly the state.

It's something like the issuance of fraudulent receipts, except that it is legal for banks. This practice, called fractional reserve banking, sort regulated by the fed – a school that by chance owned and controlled by the conglomerate banks. But the activity of the fed in any service or branch is not regulated.

But even more interesting is the fact that these loans under fractional reserve, the interest is attached, but the money for their payment isn't in the system. As a result, total debt is always greater than money in circulation, and in order to stay afloat, the economy must constantly grow.

It is obvious that this system is unstable.

Here you can ask how the dollar for over 40 years held such a dominant position on the world stage, if it is not much different from the dodgy financial pyramid?

Well, here dollar and intersects with geopolitics.

In 1973 in the shadow of the artificial OPEC oil crisis, the Nixon administration began secret negotiations with the Saudi government on the establishment of a system, which later became known as the petrodollar recycling system. According to the agreement, the Saudis were selling their oil only for US dollars and most of its oil profits to invest in American banks and capital markets. Then the IMF would use this money to facilitate the issuance of loans to oil importers, barely covering the costs caused by rising oil prices. Of course, the payments and interest on these loans were to be expressed in US dollars.

This agreement was formalized in a Joint Commission the United States and Saudi Arabia on economic cooperation, established in 1974 by Secretary of state Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

From the document research service of the Congress can be seen that these negotiations were particularly acute, since American officials openly discussed the possibility of seizure of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia militarily.

Oil shocks were generated in the U.S. inflation, the concern about foreign investment from oil producing countries and speculation about the advisability and practical feasibility of a military takeover of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and other countries. After the embargo, Saudi and U.S. officials worked to stabilize bilateral relations on the grounds of their common hostility to communism, the restoration of military cooperation, and through economic initiatives that promoted the recycling of Saudi petrodollars to the United States via Saudi investment in infrastructure, industrial development and American securities.

The system was extended to include the by 1975, other OPEC countries.

Despite the fact that this agreement was presented as a softener recessionary effects of rising oil prices, he had one hidden side effect. It was removed from the monetary policy of the USA and its traditional constraints.

Now the fed is free to increase the money supply at its discretion. The steady growth in oil demand was to exclude the flight from the dollar, while distributing the inflationary consequences across the globe.

From the currency provided with gold, the dollar became the currency provided by oil. And he became the main article of American export.

You never wondered how the American economy afloat for decades with multibillion dollar trade deficits?

You never wondered how the U.S. maintains such a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth when 70 percent of the U.S. economy based on debt?

In the modern era the world is ruled by fossil fuels. It has become inextricably linked with every aspect of civilization: agriculture, transportation, plastics, heating, defense and medicine; and the demand only continues to grow.

While the world needs oil, and while oil sold only for us dollars, demand for dollars will continue to exist, and this demand gives the dollar its value.

For the United States it is very profitable. Dollars, in the form of paper or digits in a computer system, go away, and come real tangible goods and services. However, for the rest of the world this is a very sneaky form of exploitation.

In addition, the conduct of world trade mainly in dollars gives Washington a powerful financial weapon in the form of sanctions. The fact is that most large scale dollar transactions must pass through the United States.

This petrodollar system was inviolable, while in September 2000 Saddam Hussein announced his decision to transfer the sale of Iraqi oil from dollars to euros. It was a direct attack on the dollar, and, undoubtedly, the most important geopolitical event of the year, but in Western media it was mentioned only in one article.

In the same month that Saddam announced his rejection of the dollar, an organization called "project for a new American century", a member of which just happens to dick Cheney, issued a document entitled "Rebuilding America's defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century". The document called for massive increases in U.S. military spending and a much more aggressive foreign policy with the aim of spreading American dominance throughout the world. At the same time, the document lamented that achieving these goals will require many years, "in the absence of of some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new pearl Harbor".

A year later they got it.

Riding the emotional reaction to 9/11, the Bush administration failed to capture Afghanistan with Iraq, and to hold the patriot act, without meeting any significant resistance.

In Iraq of weapons of mass destruction was not, and it's not a question of bad intelligence work. It was based on the cold calculation of a lie, and the decision to invade was made in full awareness of what a disaster this will cause.

They knew exactly what was going to happen, but in 2003 they did it anyway. Once Iraqi oil fields were under U.S. control, the calculations for oil were immediately switched back to the dollar. The job is done.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration attempted to extend these wars to Iran. It was believed that the Iranian government is working to create nuclear weapons. After the Iraq fiasco Washington's reputation suffered severe damage, with the result that he was unable to garner sufficient international and domestic support for intervention. The administration's efforts were sabotaged by the CIA and Mossad, who entered with the statement that Iran never even decided to develop nuclear weapons, not to mention the early attempts of its creation. However, the campaign of demonization of Iran continued even under the Obama administration.

Why?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that since 2004 Iran is in the process of organizing an independent oil Bourse. The Iranians were building their own oil market, and he had to be tied not to the dollar. The first shipments of oil were sold through this market in July 2011.

Unable to pursue the war they wanted, the US used the UN for sanctions against Iran. The sanctions were supposed to lead to the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Even though it caused damage to the Iranian economy, these measures failed to destabilize the country. In many ways this has happened thanks to the help provided by Russia to bypass banking prohibitions of the United States.

In February 2009, the Chairperson of the African Union was elected Muammar Gaddafi. He immediately offered to form a United state with a single currency. His murder is directly related to the nature of this proposed currency.

In March 2009, the African Union released a document entitled "Towards a single African currency". On pages 106 and 107 of this document particularly considers the benefits and technical details the activities of the African Central Bank under the gold standard. On page 94 it is clearly stated that the key to the success of the African monetary Union would be "the ultimate binding of a single African currency to the most monetary of all commodities – gold." (Keep in mind that different versions of a published document, the page number varies.)

In 2011 the CIA has penetrated into Libya and began to support militant groups who were fighting to overthrow Gaddafi. The US and NATO in pushing through the UN resolution on a no-fly zone and, by extension it is true, I used it for using airstrikes to decide the outcome of the case. The presence among the rebels rebels al Qaeda extremists have been overlooked.

Libya, like Iran and Iraq had committed the unforgivable crime was questioned in the American dollar.

NATO's intervention in Libya is gradually moved to a covert war in Syria. Weapons looted from Libyan warehouses through Turkey crossed the Syrian rebel groups acting to overthrow Assad. Already it was clear that many of these fighters were affiliated with terrorist organizations. However, the U.S. national security team looked at it as a necessary evil. In 2012, the Council of foreign relations has even published an article in which it was said that "the influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Persian Gulf and, most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs now is al-Qaeda".

Let's be Frank – the US brought ISIS to power.

In 2013, those associated with al-Qaeda Syrian rebels staged two chemical attacks with sarin. This was attempt to frame Assad and to consolidate international support for military intervention. Fortunately, she was exposed and UN investigated the incident by the Russians, and when in case the offer of mediation in reaching a diplomatic solution, joined Russia, the campaign for air strikes had collapsed completely.

As in Libya, the requirements of regime change in Syria were served under the guise of caring about human rights. It is clear that the real motive was different.

In 2009, Qatar made a proposal to build through Syria gas pipeline from Turkey to Europe. However, Assad rejected it, and in 2011 signed a contract with Iraq and Iran on the construction of a pipeline to the East, which was supposed to leave Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It is not surprising that in the campaign to overthrow the Syrian government Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were the most aggressive regional players.

But why would this pipeline dispute should have been put in the crosshairs of Washington's Syria? There are three reasons:

1. This gas agreement would greatly strengthen Iran's position, allowing him to export gas to European markets without transit through the territory of any of the allies of Washington. While this obviously reduces the impact of the U.S. government.

2. Syria – Iran's closest ally. Its collapse will definitely weaken Iran.

3. In Syria and Iran the agreement on mutual military assistance, as U.S. intervention in Syria could create conditions for the beginning of the conflict with Iran.

In February of 2014 this global chess game has a new hot spot – Ukraine. Although the real goal was Russia.

You see, it just so happens that Russia is the second largest oil exporter in the world, and she not only became a source of constant irritation to Washington on the diplomatic front, but also opened in 2008, the energy exchange, where transactions are made in rubles and gold. Work on this project began in 2006. In addition, the Russians cooperate with China on the withdrawal of all dollar bilateral trade.

Russia is also in the process of organizing a Eurasian economic Union, development plans which include the adoption of a common currency and their own independent energy market.

The situation in Ukraine before the crisis was characterized by a choice or within the framework of the Association agreement to join EU or join the Eurasian Union. The EU has put a question point-blank. Join and there, and here, Ukraine could not. Russia, on the other hand, argued that accession to both problems have been created. President Yanukovych decided to go with Russia.

In response, the American national security apparatus did what he does best – overthrew Yanukovych and brought to power a puppet government.

Although at first it seemed that everything goes according to plan, the US quickly lost control of the situation. Crimea held a referendum and the people overwhelmingly voted to secede from Ukraine and reunification with Russia. The transition was orderly and peaceful. No one died, although the West immediately presented the incident as an act of Russian aggression, and, from this point on, this interpretation has become his favorite mantra.

Crimea is of great geostrategic importance because of its location in the Black sea, making possible the projection of naval power in the Mediterranean. In addition, this land was Russian for much of recent history.

This is a seek admission of Ukraine into NATO. Such a step would bring US forces right on the border with Russia and, in principle, could lead to the loss of Russia's naval base in Crimea. This is why Russia immediately accepted the results of the Crimean referendum and quickly annexed the territory.

Meanwhile, two regions in Eastern Ukraine declared independence from Kiev and held referendums of their own, the results of which overwhelmingly were in favor of the government.

Your response to this Kiev called anti-terrorist operation. In practice, this was a campaign of massive and indiscriminate artillery shelling, which killed thousands of civilians. Apparently, the murder of civilian in the West as aggression do not qualify. Moreover, the IMF explicitly warned the provisional government that their loan package of 17 billion dollars can be called into question if it failed to crush the rebellion in Eastern Ukraine.

Despite the raging in Eastern Ukraine war, elections were held, in which was elected President Petro Poroshenko. From the leak of diplomatic correspondence published by Wikileaks in 2008, it became clear that since 2006, Poroshenko worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department. There it was called "our Ukrainian insider", and most of the telegrams referred to information provided to them. (One telegram shows that the US is already at that stage knew about the corruption Poroshenko.)

But for the emergence of Washington the advantage in this crisis, the presence of puppets in the right place was not enough. What makes Washington when he has no other levers? He imposes sanctions, demonized and brandishing a weapon (or throwing a provocation false flag).

It's not the best strategy when dealing with Russia. In fact, it has backfired. Sanctions are simply pushed Russia and China into closer cooperation and accelerated the implementation of Russian plans dedollarization. And, despite the rhetoric, the isolation of Russia is resulted. The U.S. and NATO drove a wedge not between Russia and the rest of the world (look at the BRICS, if in doubt), as between itself and Russia.

This new antidollarovye axis goes beyond Economics. These countries understand what's at stake here. That is why China, in light of the Ukrainian crisis proposed a new Pact on Eurasian security, which will include Russia and Iran.

Think of the resulting consequences, when the administration begins bombing in Syria which also has a Treaty on mutual military assistance from Iran.

This is not cold war 2.0. This is world war 3.0. The masses may not be aware, but in the story it will become so.

Already happening the crystallization of alliances, and the hot war is on many fronts. If provocations and war through intermediaries will continue to direct the clash of the big players among themselves would be a matter of time, and that is the sure path to disaster.

You all think this is insane? Well, you're right. The people ruling at the moment, the world is insane, and the society, like a sleepwalker, goes towards tragedy. If you want to change the course that we follow, there is only one way to do it. We need to Wake this society. Even the most powerful weapon of war can be cleaned, if you get to the consciousness of the person behind the trigger.

How do we Wake the masses you ask? Don't wait until you will meet someone else. Be creative. Act as if the future of your children and grandchildren. Because the way it is.

Source: http://mixednews.ru/archives/65222


RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение