BRICS & the multi-polar [final] world order.

[TheGoddess]

U.S. presidential hopeful John McCain has again called for Russia to be booted out of the Group of Eight nations. The Republican candidate accused Russia of straying from the exclusive club’s founding principles. He added that in his opinion Russia was still being run by former President Vladimir Putin.

"We need to improve their behaviour," McCain told ABC television when asked about his threat to exclude Russia from the G8 if he wins the White House in November.

McCain added India and Brazil should be invited to join the group of the world's richest nations instead.

Russia has become an autocracy under Vladimir Putin and the Russian president-turned-prime minister has taken the country down a "very harmful" path, McCain said.

McCain said he believes Vladimir Putin is responsible for Russia’s destabilising role on the international scene.

"In the last week or so, look at Russia's actions," McCain added. "They cut back on their oil supplies to the Czechs, because the Czechs made an agreement with us. They have now thrown out - or forced out - BP out of Russia”, he said.

“They continue to put enormous pressures on Georgia in many ways. They're putting pressure on Ukraine. They are blocking action in the United Nations Security Council on Iran," McCain said.

"We want better Russian behaviour internationally, and we have every right to expect it," he concluded. "And I will do what I can to see that they reverse many of the behaviour patterns which have really been very unhelpful to peace in the world."

Throughout his presidential campaign, McCain has repeatedly used anti-Russian rhetoric to try and distance himself from the policies of President George W Bush.

Meanwhile, McCain’s main rival Barack Obama says in the new century the U.S. “must reject the Cold War mindset of the past, and resolve to work with Russia.”

Obama added that excluding Russia from the G8 would be a mistake as Moscow is a key player in the fight against nuclear proliferation.


russiatoday.ru/news/news/28115

[TheGoddess]

Pffffffffft.

[stanislav]

It made me smile for a second. To bad he won't be a president.

[TheGoddess]

I was quite amused when he used the term 'Czechoslovakia' earlier this year.

[CHORNYVOLK]

The yank bitch has skin cancer again 5th time.

[Raven]

USA is joke. Dangerous joke but, joke

[durant]

If he wants to kick Russia out then Kick the United States out. They are ruled by the Jewish Central Bankers.

[CHORNYVOLK]

India, Russia regain elan of friendship
By M K Bhadrakumar

The visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to New Delhi last week turned out to be an occasion for the Indian government to fundamentally reassess the strategic significance of the traditional India-Russia partnership. No doubt, the visit took place at a turning point in contemporary history and politics against the backdrop of massive shifts in the international system.

Medvedev arrived in India in the immediate aftermath of the horrific terrorist strikes on Mumbai. The regional security situation - especially Afghanistan - naturally figured prominently in the agenda of the visit.

The joint declaration signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Medvedev after extensive talks in New Delhi reflects that the two sides have taken serious pains to understand each other's vital concerns and have endeavored to go more than half the distance to accommodate them. They also made a conscious effort to expand their common ground in the international system. After a considerable lapse of time, Russian-Indian relationship seems to be on the move.

Things which were hanging fire in the general drift of Russian-India relations in recent years are being attended to. Principal among them is the tendentious issue of the escalation of costs for the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, which India has contracted to buy. On the eve of Medvedev's visit, the Indian cabinet took the decision to agree to discuss an additional US$2.2 billion payment as demanded by Russia. The government also has approved the acquisition of 80 medium-lift Mi-17 helicopters from Russia worth $1.3 billion.

Reaching out
Medvedev also came with a brief to discuss the leasing of a nuclear submarine to the Indian navy. India-Russia military cooperation is back in full swing with a host of projects in the pipeline. Russia has consolidated its place as the number one arms supplier for India. But the icing on the cake is the proposed cooperation in the nuclear and space fields. Agreements were signed on Russia constructing four new nuclear power plants in India and on assisting a manned Indian space flight. Russia has offered a new power plant AES-2006, which incorporates a third generation WER-1200 reactor of 1170MW. Russia has also agreed to supply uranium worth $700 million to meet India's acute shortage.

Manmohan described the agreements as signifying a "new milestone in the history of cooperation with Russia". He added, "It is a relationship that has withstood the test of time." He acknowledged that India's dialogue with Russia has "intensified considerably". Significantly, he said the terrorist attacks on Mumbai "present a threat to pluralistic societies" [read Russia] and that "there is much Russia and India can do to promote global peace".

Clearly, the two countries have rediscovered the old elan of their friendship. They are reaching out to each other once again in a world that is in transition. Apart from the volatility in the international situation, both India and Russia sense that change is in the air in the United States' global policies, but neither would wager the extent and directions of the change. Both are acutely conscious of the inexorable decline in the US influence in world politics and the urgent need to adjust to the emergent realities of multipolarity.

At the same time, the US remains the single-most important interlocutor for both India and Russia for the foreseeable future. Neither would see their partnership as directed against the US. Even as Medvedev arrived in Delhi, a senior Indian official was making contacts with key advisors to president-elect Barack Obama to brief them on Delhi's perspectives and policies. On its part, Moscow is also in an expectant mood about the Obama presidency, though tempered with cautious optimism.

The balancing of Russian-Indian mutual interests evident in the joint declaration brings out these delicate impulses as they touch on many areas. The declaration is devoid of any anti-US rhetoric as such but it is very obvious that the two countries are overhauling their partnership in tune with a "post-American century". India has identified itself with the Russian position on reforming the international economic and financial systems so that it adapts to "new realities" and promotes a "more just world economic order based on the principles of multipolarity, rule of law, equality, mutual respect and common responsibility".

Russia seeks Sino-Indian rapport
India also finds itself emphasizing the "growing and more focused interaction" within the framework of the trilateral format among Russia, China and India, despite its lukewarm attitude in the recent past towards the process which annoys Washington as a needless endeavor on India's part.

Significantly, the joint declaration says that the trilateral format "acquires importance in the framework of multilateral dialogue mechanisms, substantially contributes to strengthening newly emerging multipolarity and promotes collective leadership of world’s leading states". This is a carefully drafted formulation that speaks of an intention to inject new dynamism into the format. Conceivably, Moscow has prevailed on Delhi to reassess the significance of the format in the volatile international situation. Russia had been viewing with growing despondency its inability to foster Sino-Indian rapport.

Equally, the Russian side seems to have urged India to play a more active role and "more constructive participation and contribution to" the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Similarly, India has shed its carefully cultivated ambivalence and come out in open, unqualified support of the Russian position on the situation in the Caucasus region. It is a signal victory of the Kremlin to have finally got India on board, as this is a most sensitive issue which occupies the first circle of Russian foreign policy and is, in fact, a leitmotif of Russia's relations with the US in the coming period. The joint declaration stresses, "India supports the important role of the Russian Federation in promoting peace and cooperation in the Caucasian region".

The key expression is "Caucasian" - anything from the Caucasus region. India's support is open-ended and unequivocal.

Again, India has voiced its support for Russia's keenness to join the Asia-Europe meeting and East Asia summit mechanisms, while Russia has reiterated its support for India's claim to permanent membership in an expanded United Nations Security Council.

From the Indian perspective, no doubt, it is an invaluable asset that Moscow has voiced its total "support and solidarity" with New Delhi on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Russian gesture by far exceeds the words of sympathy offered by Washington. Of course, Moscow is not facing Washington's dilemma, which is one of having to carefully balance between New Delhi and Islamabad. Simply put, what the Mumbai attacks have badly exposed is that much as terrorism is a shared concern for the US and India, their priorities at this juncture greatly differ.

India would expect Washington to come down like a ton of bricks on Islamabad to pressure the latter to take seriously the Indian allegation that the terrorist strike in Mumbai was perpetrated by elements in Pakistan with possible links to that country's security establishment. Evidently, Washington is in no position to fulfill the Indian expectations. Its number one priority is the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's continued cooperation in the war. Washington cannot afford a "distracted" Pakistan, and its main political and diplomatic challenge, therefore, is to get Pakistan to remain "focused" on the war effort in the Afghan-Pakistan tribal areas.

New Delhi senses that as time goes by, it will find this paradigm frustrating. This is not a new paradigm, either. But Delhi's options are limited, though the government is under immense pressure not only to act but also to be seen actively acting. The delicate strategic balance between India and Pakistan virtually forecloses even a "limited" war option for either nuclear power. The only alternative open to India is to reassess its diplomatic options. But on this score, New Delhi needs to do some new thinking.

Which is where Delhi's partnership with Moscow comes into play. The strategic community in New Delhi would realize to their great discomfiture that the entire package of post-Cold War assumptions underlying the US-India strategic partnership just do not add up in the present situation for India to cope with the formidable task of pressuring Pakistan. Their broad assumption that the US would take care of India's "Pakistan problem" while India concentrated on its tryst with destiny as a great power or "balancer" in the international system is turning out to be a grotesque misjudgment by the Indian strategic gurus. So, indeed, their assumptions regarding "absolute security".

The Russian-Indian joint declaration suggests that New Delhi is swiftly adapting to the reality that it must diversify the sinews of cooperation and revitalize its diverse partnerships with countries on the basis of shared concerns and commonality of interests rather than pursue a foreign policy whose prime objective has been to harmonize Indian regional policies with the US's. This is most tellingly evident on the Joint Declaration's paragraph devoted to Afghanistan.

Realignment on Afghanistan
Ironically, New Delhi seems to have decided that if it is Afghan war that causes so much discomfiture for Washington to come out into the open in support of India over the Mumbai strikes, it shall also be Afghanistan on which Indian regional policy shall begin to make a new beginning and careen away for the first time in a long while from US benchmarks and expectations.

The punch line in the joint declaration comes almost innocuously. Sharing their concern over the "deteriorating security situation" in Afghanistan, India and Russia called for a "coherent and a united international commitment" to dealing with the threats emanating from that country. The implied criticism of the US-led war is obvious as also the rejection of the US strategy to keep the war strategy as its exclusive prerogative. The Joint Declaration then goes on to say, "Both sides welcome Russia's initiative to organize an international conference in the framework of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, involving its Member states and Observers."

New Delhi has come out into open support of a regional initiative on Afghanistan, which Washington would have loved to stifle in its cradle. The Indian stance is significant for various reasons. India has decided that there is no need to mark time until the Obama administration finalizes its own new Afghan strategy. It is asserting its own stakes independent of the US strategy. Two, India is identifying with Russia, China and Iran, which is an immensely significant happening in regional politics. Three, India is siding with a Russia-led regional initiative on Afghanistan at a time when various influential American opinion-makers have been floating the idea of a US-led "regional approach" to an Afghan settlement that virtually allows the US to be on the driving seat.

Most certainly, India is implicitly recognizing the SCO's relevance to South Asian security. Afghanistan is a member of the SAARC and could act as a bridge between South Asia and Central Asia. In essence, therefore, India is spurning the US's much-touted "Great Central Asia" strategy that aims at diluting the SCO's role in Central Asia and instead pins hopes on India as a counterweight to the Russian and Chinese regional influence.

It is apparent that India is dissociating from the concerted US policy to keep the SCO out of Afghanistan. Moscow has been vainly striving to carve out a toehold for the SCO as a regional body while Washington has been discouraging Afghan President Hamid Karzai from lending weight to the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. More than anything else, the fact remains that the Russian initiative on an SCO conference is intended as a challenge to the monopoly that Washington has kept in determining the contours of any Afghan settlement.

Indeed, it opens up more possibilities for Karzai to expand his "strategic autonomy" vis-a-vis Washington, which he has been inclined to exercise, even if timidly, of late. Karzai has every reason to cooperate with a regional initiative in which all the major powers surrounding Afghanistan such as Russia, China, India and Iran are associated. The onus is now on the US and Pakistan to explain why they should dissociate.

Of course, the US would have preferred to encourage the on-going Turkish initiative to mediate Afghan-Pakistan talks. The latest three-way round involving the presidents of Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan just concluded in Ankara. Washington was happy that Turkey lent a hand in keeping the Afghan peace process as an "in-house" affair - keeping "outsiders" like Russia or Iran at arm's length. The SCO initiative is a needless intrusion, from the US-Turkish perspective.

SCO stance on Afghanistan
A most significant aspect of the Russian-Indian Joint Declaration is its deafening silence on the US-sponsored talks with the Taliban. The Russian and Indian position is that there is nothing called "moderate" Taliban leaders, whereas, the US is edging close to a formula that so long as the Taliban leadership disengages and disowns the al-Qaeda, there should be no problem in assimilating them as part of a coalition government in Kabul. In fact, the second round of talks with the Taliban under Saudi mediation is due to take place shortly.

In the context of the Mumbai blasts, the Indian attitude towards the Taliban can only harden further, placing itself at odds with the US strategy in the coming period. In a manner of speaking, the Russian-Iranian-Indian convergence in bolstering the anti-Taliban resistance in the late 1990s is straining to reappear, though in an entirely new form. Interestingly, Iranian officials also held consultations recently in New Delhi regarding Afghanistan.

Without doubt, India would have given thought to the SCO's collective stance on the Afghan problem prior to lending support for the regional body's initiative to call an international conference. The Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin's speech at the UN General Assembly session in New York on November 10 on behalf of the SCO becomes the benchmark for New Delhi. Evidently, Delhi finds itself in harmony with the major elements in Churkin's speech. The key elements were:

"Concerted joint action" by the international community is necessary to arrest the "continuing deterioration of the military and political situation" in Afghanistan.

The policy of isolating the extremist Taliban leaders should not be watered down and any reconciliation should only include those Taliban cadres who are "rank-and-file Taliban members who are not tainted by military crimes".

A system of "anti-drug and financial security belts" should be set up around Afghanistan with the coordinating role of the UN and involvement of neighboring countries.

The NATO must cease operations involving "indiscriminate or excessive use of force, including bombings" that cause heavy civilian casualties. The level of collateral damage in the military operations is hampering Afghanistan's long-term stabilization.

An enduring Afghan settlement is "impossible without an integrated approach on the part of the international community, led by the United Nations, and at the same time without delegating to Kabul greater independence in resolving inter-Afghan problems".

"The situation in Afghanistan cannot be fixed by solely military means". Therefore, security must be backed by "real measures" towards socio-economic revival.

"It is essential to ensure respectful attitude towards national and religious values, centuries-long customs and traditions of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious people of Afghanistan and on these grounds to achieve conciliation of Afghanistan’s antagonistic forces".

In sum, the Mumbai attacks may prove to be a watershed in Indian regional policies. Relations with Russia, China and Iran assume a new level of importance in New Delhi's regional strategies. The gravitation towards the SCO signifies the new thinking. Not too long ago, India visualized the SCO as primarily an "energy club". Actually, India's petroleum minister routinely represented India at the SCO summit meetings. Now, to envisage a crucial role for an SCO-led regional initiative on Afghanistan, New Delhi has indeed come a long way. Surely, Medvedev would have returned to Moscow quietly pleased that he met a long-lost friend.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JL09Df03.html

[CHORNYVOLK]

IMF / WORLD BANK DESTROYING COUNTRIES

The World Bank - IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30 to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world. For over 150 years they have planned to take the world over through money. The former chief economist of the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz, was fired recently. He pointed out to top executives that every country the IMF/World Bank got involved in ended up with a crashed economy, a destroyed government, and sometimes in flames with riots. Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank would not comment on his dismissal.
Before Joe Stiglitz was fired he took a large stack of secret documents out of the World Bank. These secret documents from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund reveal that the IMF required nations:
1. to sign secret agreements of 111 items
2. in which they agreed to sell off their key assets - water, electric, gas, etc.
3. in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really devastating to the nations involved
4. in which they pay off the politicians billions of dollars to Swiss bank accounts to do this transfer of a countries fixed assets
If they do not agree to these steps they are cut-off from all international borrowing. Today if can't borrow money in the international marketplace, no one can survive, whether you are people or corporations or countries. If that does not work they overthrow the government and plant lies about the former government and/or even rewrite history.
The Argentina Plan
Inside documents from Argentina show the secret Argentine plan. This is signed by Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank. Argentina has had six presidents in five weeks because their economy is completely destroyed. This happened because they started out in the end of the 80s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all their assets, public assets, like their water system. Then they taxed the people. They created big government and big government handed it off to the private IMF/World Bank. They pay off the politicians billions in Swiss bank accounts.
The Enron Connection
The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to a company called Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and Chile, was sold off to a company called Enron. Then the globalists blow out Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy corporation..
They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, gas stations - the politicians then hand it over to the IMF for nothing. The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss bank accounts. The plan is total slavery for the entire population. Enron is a dummy corporation for money laundering, drug money, etc.
IMF Planed Riots
The IMF/World Bank are systematically tearing nations apart, whether it's Ecuador or Argentina. It's not privatization. They steal it from the people and hand it over to the IMF/World Bank. They hand it over, generally to the cronies, like Citibank grabbed half the Argentine banks. British Petroleum grabbed pipelines in Ecuador. Enron grabbed water systems all over the place. The problem is that they are destroying these systems as well. You can't even get drinking water in Buenos Aires. It is not just a question of the theft. You can't turn on the tap. It is more than someone getting rich at the public expense. And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the sole control over the water supply now. The IMF and the World Bank is 51% owned by the United States Treasury. Indonesia is in flames.
Every country IMF/World Bank meddling in they destroyed their economy and they ended up in flames. They even plan in the riots. They know that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you get riots in the streets. And they admit that it an IMF riot. Because you have riot, all the capital runs away from your country and that gives the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions.
California Utilities & Enron
It is really an imperial economy war to implode countries and now they are doing it here with Enron. They are getting so greedy - they are preparing it for America. The chief investigators of Enron for the State of California said that that it's not just the stockholders that got ripped off. They sucked millions, billions of dollars out of the public pocket in Texas and California in particular. Where are the assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left since Enron was a dummy corporation - from the experts I've had on and they transferred all those assets to other corporations and banks. You did pay California's electric bills according to the investigations, they are telling me that they were pumped up unnecessarily by 9 to 12-billion dollars. And I don't know who they are going to get it back from now. Well they actually caught the Governor buying it for $137 per megawatt and selling it back to Enron for $1 per megawatt and doing it over and over and over again.
Enron's Auditor - Lord Wakeham

The men who designed the system in California for deregulation then went to work for Enron right after. Lord Wakeham, who was on the audit committee of Enron, is the head of NM Rothschild. There isn't anything that he doesn't have his fingers in. He's on something like fifty Boards. And he was supposed to be head of the audit committee watching how Enron kept the books. In fact, they were paying him consulting fees on the side. He was in Margaret Thatcher's government and he's the one who authorized Enron to come into Britain and take over power plants in Britain. Enron owned a water system in the middle of England. This is what Lord Wakeham approved and then they gave him a job on the board. On top of being on the board, they gave him a huge consulting contract. Lord Wakeham is supposed to be in charge of the audit committee to see how they were handling their accounts, but he is also the head of the board to regulate the media. Lord Wakeham is trying to pass laws in England where you can't own your own water. He can't be touched because he regulates the media.
Rothschild and the Illuminati
Burrow into NM Rothschild, you'll find it all there. The IMF/World Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy the resources of the people. First you open up the capital markets. That is, you sell off your local banks to foreign banks. Then you go to what's called market-based pricing. That's the stuff like in California where everything is free market and you end up with water bills no one can pay. Then open up your borders to trade - complete free marketeering. Its like the opium wars. This isn't free trade; this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies through this. China has a 40% tariff on the USA, but the USA has a 2% on them. That's not free and fair trade. It's to force all industry into a country that the globalists fully control, and they control China.
Wal-Mart
The Illuminati owns Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart has 700 plants in China. There is almost nothing in a Walmart store that comes from the United States of America, despite all the eagles on the wall. They have big flags saying "Buy American" and there's hardly anything from America in their stores. What's even worst is they will hire a factory and right next to it will be the sister factory which is inside a prison. You can imagine the conditions of these workers producing this lovely stuff for Walmart.

Briberization
Sell off the water company and that's worth, over ten years, let's say about 5 billion dollars, ten percent of that is 500 million. A Senator from Argentina said that he got a call from George W. Bush in 1988 saying give the gas pipeline in Argentina to Enron. Enron was going to pay one-fifth of the world's price for their gas and he said how can you make such an offer? The answer was that if they only pay one-fifth that leaves quit a little bit for you to go in your Swiss bank account. This is the same George W. Bush who said he didn't get to know Ken Lay of Enron until 1994. Now they are having these white-wash hearings. Bill Clinton, to get even with Bush's big donor, cut Enron out of the California power market. He put a cap on the prices they could charge. They couldn't charge more than one-hundred times the normal price for electricity. That upset Enron. So Ken Lay personally wrote a note to Dick Cheney saying get rid of Clinton's cap on prices. Within 48 hours of George W. Bush taking office, his energy department reversed the clamps on Enron.

Step Two

Argentina is an example of step two of the IMF. A fifth of the population of Argentina is unemployed, and they said cut the unemployment benefits drastically, take away pension funds, cut the education budgets. Now if you cut the economy in the middle of a recession (created by the IMF), you absolutely demolish the nation.
You don't start cutting the budget in a recession, you start spending money to stimulate the economy. You don't raise taxes, you cut them. But they tell these countries you've got to cut, and cut, and cut. And why, according to the inside documents, it's so you can make payments to foreign banks - the foreign banks are collecting 21% to 70% interest. This is loan-sharking. If fact, it was so bad that they required Argentina to get rid of the laws against loan-sharking because any bank would be a loan-shark under Argentine law.

Part 3 and Part 4.

Then they open up the borders for trade, that's the new opium wars. They destroy an economy so that it can not produce anything, and then open the borders to sell their own goods. They force nations to pay horrendous amounts for things like drugs - legal drugs. That's how you end up with an illegal drug trade. What's there left to survive on except sell us smack and crack. And so, drive the whole world down, blow out their economies and then buy the rest of it up for pennies on the dollar. What's Part 4 of the IMF/World Bank Plan?

In Part 4, they take apart of the government by the coup d'etat and they install their own corporate government. In Venezuela where they have an elected president of the government, the IMF has announced that they would support a transition government if the president were removed. They are not saying that they are going to get involved in politics - they would just support a transition government. What that effectively is is saying we will pay for the coup d'etat, if the military overthrows the current president, because the current president of Venezuela has said no to the IMF. He told those guys to go packing. They brought their teams in and said you have to do this and that. And he said, I don't have to do anything. He said what I'm going to do is double the taxes on oil corporations because we have a whole lot of oil in Venezuela. And I'm going to double the taxes on oil corporations and then I will have all the money I need for social programs and the government - and we will be a very rich nation. Well, as soon as he did that, they started fomenting trouble with the military and watch this because the President of Venezuela will be out of office in three months or shot dead. They are not going to allow him to raise taxes on the oil companies.

Philipps [e-mail] or www.GregPalast.com or www.gregpalast.com


Bush Administration Signals End to Open Government

1) The Bush administration invoked executive privilege to keep Clinton-era documents secret. The move shocked Republican lawmakers. Why would Bush want to cover up for Bill Clinton? Representative Dan Burton, who is the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, even threatened to hold Bush in contempt of Congress unless he releases several sets of subpoenaed Justice Department documents that he has hidden. It does not matter. Bush promises to never comply with congressional investigators. Bush is determined to keep Clinton's crimes concealed.

2) Bush flatly refuses to hand over records of internal energy task force meetings. These records could either incriminate or exonerate Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding allegations of conflict of interest in the
Enron scandal. Even the General Accounting Office is suing the White House (a first) to obtain the records. Again, Bush refuses to comply. The president is even willing to ignore court orders demanding the release of documents.

3) Just this week, the United States Government's top lawyer told the U.S. Supreme Court that officials have the right to lie to American citizens. No, he did not explain how that assertion jives with Bush's Christian testimony.

4) Two days ago, the White House ordered all federal agencies to delete their web sites of all "sensitive information." The White House did not say what information it considered "sensitive."

5) Vice President Cheney is already the stealthiest Vice President in U.S. history. Seldom does anyone know where he is or what he is doing.

6) President Bush admitted to forming a mysterious "shadow government" comprised of unknown persons who are living in underground bunkers at secret sites outside Washington, D.C. Not even top legislators know who these
people are or what instructions have been given them. Furthermore, how does a "shadow government" mesh with the U.S. Constitution? These questions have never been (and never will be) answered.

When asked by a reporter about these and other matters, Bush said, "I have a duty to protect the executive branch from legislative encroachment." Congress, for the most part, only learns of Bush's clandestine carryings-on as brief sketches leak out in the press.

However, none of this seems to bother the American people or members of the press. Bush is a wartime president (even though no one officially declared war) and, therefore, can do anything he pleases with total impunity. In truth, the Bush administration signals the end to both open government and constitutional government - and few people seem to even notice.
Christians cannot comment on Government in USA
Congress has decided to silence you, me, and any other Christian who dares express a moral view that may impact a political campaign! The U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have both passed a so-called "campaign finance reform" bill ... and now President Bush has said he will sign it into law! In spite of all the propaganda in the media, this legislation actually silences Christian and conservative organizations - banning them from commenting on key moral issues during election campaigns ... while allowing the liberal media to speak out freely.
This new law is a SLAP IN THE FACE to our right to free speech. It is absolutely, blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
* This legislation effectively strips church and conservative leaders and organizations of religious free speech during elections.
* For me or any other conservative spokesperson to comment and inform you with a Christian perspective would be illegal ... and the threat of jail a reality!
* Even your own pastor cannot inform you on key political and moral issues when it comes time to vote!
So where will you get all your information about the political and moral views of candidates? FROM THE BIASED, SECULAR MEDIA!
From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com, see a related article on how scientists and academics are viewing the possibility of reducing the world's population by more than four billion people and doing so selectively with DNA biological weapons. See how hundreds of microbiologists are being assassinated world-wide to keep this plan in the hands of only a few people. www.rense.com www.narconews.com

[Яромip]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

IMF is pure evil. We should oppose any and all loans from that institution for any reason.
Actually we should oppose any borrowing for any reason.

[TsarSamuil]

Dollar stops being Russia's basic reserve currency

Pravda ^ | 19.05.2009

The US dollar is not Russia’s basic reserve currency anymore. The euro-based share of reserve assets of Russia’s Central Bank increased to the level of 47.5 percent as of January 1, 2009 and exceeded the investments in dollar assets, which made up 41.5 percent, The Vedomosti newspaper wrote. The dollar has thus lost the status of the basic reserve currency for the Russian Central Bank, the annual report, which the bank provided to the State Duma, said.

In accordance with the report, about 47.5 percent of the currency assets of the Russian Central Bank were based on the euro, whereas the dollar-based assets made up 41.5 percent as of the beginning of the current year. The situation was totally different at the beginning of the previous year: 47 percent of investments were made in US dollars, while the euro investments were evaluated at 42 percent.

The dollar share had increased to 49 percent and remained so as of October 1. The euro share made up 40 percent. The rest of investments were based on the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss frank.

The report also said that the reserve currency assets of the Russian Central Bank were cut by $56.6 billion. The losses mostly occurred at the end of the year, when the Central Bank was forced to conduct massive interventions to curb the run of traders who rushed to buy up foreign currencies. The currency assets of the Central Bank had grown to $537.6 billion by October 2008. Therefore, the index dropped by almost $133 billion within the recent three months.

The majority of Russian companies, banks and most of the Russian population started to purchase enormous amounts of foreign currencies at the end of 2008. The dollar gained 16 percent and the euro 13.5 percent over the fourth quarter. The demand on the US dollar was extremely high, and the Central Bank was forced to spend a big part of its dollar assets, experts say.

The change of the structure of the currency portfolio of the Bank of Russia has not affected the official peg of the dual currency basket, which includes $0.55 and 0.45 EUR.

The investments of the Bank of Russia in state securities of foreign issuers have been considerably increased, the report said. About a third of Russia’s international reserves are based on US Treasury bonds.

Russia became one of the largest creditors of the US administration last year, the US Department of the Treasury said. Russia increased its investments in the debt securities of the US Treasury from $32.7 billion as of December 2007 to $116.4 billion as of December 2008.

[boroslav]

BRICS: from economic growth to political influence

Kudashkina Ekaterina
Apr 19, 2011 11:43 Moscow Time

Interview with the Russian diplomat, former Deputy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Ambassador Alexander Panov.

What are you impressions of this summit?

I think, it is a very important summit. First of all, they have now five states, and those states are very important not only because they have almost half of the population of the world living on their territories, but because they have growing economies, which are now more and more influencing the development of the world economy. And also, may be for the first time, these five states produced a document concerning international relations in the world, showing that the voice of those five countries is quite influential not only in economy, but also in international politics. So now no one can deny that in the future the position of these countries in the world will be more and more important.

Do I get it right, that on some issues these countries take collision course with some other global players?

I cannot say that it is a collision course, it is still not a consensus, but even the majority of the states in the United Nations cannot work out modalities how to reorganize the Security Council of the UN, and this is the core of the problem. It is now more than 65 years after establishment of the United Nations, and world changed, so it is quite necessarily to change the structure of the Security Council, but how to change, what countries should participate, what will be the power of these new states in the Security Council, what will be the position of five permanent states of the Security Council? So discussions already last for more than 20 years, but not only the consensus, the majority of the countries-members of the United Nations cannot reach any valuable agreement. Of course, among five states there is already exists common attitude how to reform the Security Council, but it is so sensitive, that even these five nations, they cannot force their vision how to do this.

Which of the decisions of the Summit might have a long-term influence on the world politics?

First of all, influence will be on economic politics, because the five states agreed to raise their positions in the world economic organizations, they put forward an idea how to develop currency problem, also they started to speak about international problems, they expressed their position towards the situation in Libya and some decisions of the UN Security Council. This is only the beginning, I’m sure that this process will develop, and there will be more and more cases when BRICS will put forward their joined position toward international problems, and it will be very important, not only to listen, but also agree or not agree with such positions, because behind these five nations stands half of the world population.

Still, what is more important, that those countries are now discussing, they have growing economies and they would like to have more powerful voice in the world economy; they have similar problems, when they approach world markets, world financial institutions. So this is important, that despite the difference of how govern their economies; they have many common problems, which make them close to each other.

Now the BRICS summit has developed smoothly into the Asian Economic Forum. What could be the key decisions of that forum?

This forum is only at the beginning of its activity, but in Asian Pacific we see many interesting processes, especially how the economic integration of these huge territories is developing. We have different ideas, we have American idea, we have East Asian Economic Forum; this process only started, and it is very important for BRICS countries to work out their joined vision, which will help them to have more powerful position in creating future integration processes in this region, because so many unclear problems we have in this region; it is not Europe, for which integration was also difficult, but still easier, than it will be in Asian Pacific. But those countries in Asian Pacific should also cope in many cases with the same problems – customs, taxation, logistics, transportation. So it is the beginning of the long process, and the forum, which was held, is important, but it is only the first step.

To me at least it is significant, that it was China who was hosting this forum.

It is significant for everybody, because China is definitely the leading economy in this region and it is the second economy in the world. China outmatched Japanese economy even before this disaster in Japan; so, of course, China has very powerful voice in all the processes, but China alone cannot organize everything.

What challenges do you see oppose before the Chinese government now in respect of economic regional development and the place of China in that system?

China, having very powerful economy, should understand, that its position is quite sensitive, meaning those countries in the region, which may see China grows in some manner to their interest, and for China is very important to convince smaller nations in the region, that they should not worry about Chinese leadership or Chinese ideas. For China it is very important if those countries would like to have some ideas to be accepted, to consult them. It is such atmosphere, when you are more powerful than others, but still you should respect all countries; if not, then it will be rejection of Chinese position, and it may create some trade or financial wars, which is not good for the region.

What is interesting is that same sensitivity is seeing by some analysts in relation to the BRICS, because some of them are saying that BRICS seeks to promote itself as a counter way to established western powers. So why? I think, the BRICS notion as such even was invented by western analysts.

You know, that this economic system, we have now, was established mainly after the 2nd World War, with dollars as a predominance currency, with such institutes like World Bank, which is also a leading financial institute, and shares of the United States in those institutes were predominant, so the system was created, when the United States was economically dominant power and Europe to some extent. But now there is emerging a new situation, new states coming to the table, and for them is quite natural to ask for more shares, for more influential positions in this new emerging economic structure, and, of course, the old states are jealous, they are not happy with such situation, they prefer to keep the situation as it was. In 1990s there was a big financial crisis in the Asian Pacific, which was created by big western companies to try to push down emerging economies of the region. To some extent it was done, the rise of Asian Pacific economy was in crisis for some period, but finally it didn’t work, because Asian Pacific countries coped with these problems, they showed their vitality and even started to be more aggressive and demanding to take into account their interests. So we may see that in the coming period this struggle will take place more and more often, because this is reality of economic life in the world, and emerging powers definitely will ask for more, they will defend their position more aggressively.

That is interesting, that you mentioned the crisis, because if we look at the recent crisis, it still seems, that the BRICS countries were the ones, who have managed to survive it a little bit better, than large developed countries. But doesn’t that mean that they need to invent some kind of protection mechanism against new crises, because now western analysts say, there is a real chance, that another wave of crises could hit the global markets. So is there any way to protect against that?

The BRICS countries have already started to think how to escape from future crises and to help each other to create some funds; they are trying now to establish the system of using their currencies in trade between themselves; it is also the way to distance from too tight involvement in economies, which are headed by western countries. Still the structure of economies of these five states is differed from what we have in the United States, in Europe or in Japan. Even the substance of the production is different. They are emerging, but they still don’t produce so many intellectual products as the US, Japan and European countries do.

You already said that those countries are going to play an increasing role in the global economics and politics. And you also said that we should expect more opposition from old world countries. So how is the BRICS going to maneuver out of that?

I think, there will be a period, during which both sides should accommodate to new realities; and, of course, one way is to take the road of confrontation, which is not productive; the other way, the better way is what the BRICS states are saying to western countries: you should give us more room in world economy, and it is not at your expenses, it is simply the reality, and we would cooperate with each other without confrontation, we can make agreements. So, I think, this is the best way.

So we are appealing to the common sense of the old players?

We expect so, but, of course, situation may evolve in different direction. For instance, the United States now in a very unprecedented situation of default; and in reality how this leading world economy will behave may also have fallout for the whole world economy and for BRICS economy as well.

Are you saying that perhaps there could be unexpected circumstances?

Yes, it might be, that is why BRICS are trying to make early preparations for the worst scenario, how not only to survive, but to continue their growth.

BRICS is still seeing as economic and political organization. So let’s hope the world powers do not see it as a major threat.

I hope so, but I should say once again that the world is changing; it was easier to predict, what will happen, when it was Cold War and rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States, between socialism and capitalism. Now it is a different situation, and logically the United States can do anything against new growing economies such as, for instance, with China: the US is trying to find some kind of containment, because there is no other way, already American economy is heavily influenced with Chinese money.

But on the other hand, as far as I understand, the recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa and the increased oil prices must have affected the Chinese economy.

We cannot say that Chinese economy is perfect, they have a lot of problems – energy, water, population. So far Chinese leaders managed to cope with all these problems, and I’m sure, they will find solutions for their problems. The energy problem may have influence over the oil prices, but China already predicted such situation, and they started to invest a lot of money into developing of oil deposit bank. Later Chinese economy will also change, because they will step at another level of production, not so much using resources, as it is now. Look what happened with Japan: they don’t have resources, so they organized their economy in the way, which is not depended on a lot of oil and gas; when it was oil crisis in 1973 Japan decided to estimate the level of how much oil they would import and not to overcome this level; and they not only did this, they decreased the import of oil and at the same time increased production.

How did they manage to do that?

Now Japanese economy is the most energy efficient economy in the world. Problems stimulate the efforts to cope with these problems, and if you have such clever approach, then you can cope with any kind of problem: a little change the structure of economy, find new markets, new products etc.

Good conditions for further developments. But are there any charges within the BRICS organization that we should be aware of and to which we should prepare ourselves?

Of course, economies of these Big Five have similarities, but also they have their own specialties, and at this moment it is still a very vague group of countries, I mean, vague about joined economic policies. Is some sectors they have common aims and purposes, but still their economies are not so sophisticated, they are not so firmly established, that they may be sure there will be no crisis in their economies in the future, so they should prepare for many things. For instance, for Russia it is modernization, and if Russia will fail with modernization, then even in BRICS Russia will be not in a very strong position; for China is also a problem, how to sustain its economic growth and to cope with its internal social and economic problems; South Africa is the biggest economy in Africa, but still they do not have advanced production facilities; the same with India, which is a huge country, but there is still a big division between rich and poor, and they also have a lot of problems; and Brazil is of course a growing economy, but it is still fragile economy. So all five have their own problems and common problems, it is the reason, why they get together, they are trying to use their joined vision to help each other, and at the same time they are trying to be more important players in the world economy, because if not so, then they cannot use that privilege, which world economy can give them in return.

Source (+ video)
english.ruvr.ru/2011/04/19/49137246.html

[TsarSamuil]

This thing has become too big n deserves it's own thread I guess, but it's also confusing to find it spread out amongst the threads..

A news source thebricspost.com/

Refusing to share: How the West created BRICS New Development Bank.

Currently a Research Associate at the INSYTE Group, Dr. Roslyn Fuller has previously lectured at Trinity College and the National University of Ireland. She tweets at @roslynfuller

RT.com
July 21, 2014 09:34


Family photo of the BRICS-UNASUR Summit in Brasilia, on July 16, 2014. (AFP Photo / Evaristo Sa)

One of my high school history teacher’s favorite topics was the European revolutionary movement of 1848, or as he would put it, time and again, ‘the turning point where Europe failed to turn’.

“What do you think the test will be on?” the students would ask each other sarcastically, after another lengthy rumination, “The turning point where Europe failed to turn?”

But I never forgot the phrase or the events it denoted, and I think that current economic crisis could well go down in history as the turning point where the entire Western world failed to turn. The recent creation of the New Development Bank by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), which will compete with the IMF and World Bank, is yet another example of how international control is skittering away from those nations that are failing to adapt to a changing world.

In a certain sense, falling behind like this is actually quite an achievement, given that Western countries not only invented the IMF and World Bank – up until now, the preeminent international lenders of last resort – but also gave themselves a controlling stake within both institutions. They set the rules of the game. Therefore, all they had to do to stay on top of that game was throw the other players a crumb once in a while.

It’s not exactly rocket science.

When people or countries feel they have a chance to succeed, they are motivated to participate in international institutions. Generating this mindset doesn’t even demand that the rules of the game be completely fair or that the rewards for success be particularly large. Most people are willing to settle for a reasonable chance of success and modest rewards when it occurs. Provide these things and you can spin out any advantage you may have for a startlingly long time.

One of the modest rewards implicitly offered by the IMF and World Bank was the chance to someday participate within these institutions as an important partner, i.e. to have a real say in the projects these institutions undertake.

For nations are not accorded equal voting power at the IMF and World Bank. Instead, voting power is allocated based on the economic strength of a country. Decisions are not made based on what most people want, but on what the richest people want. This means that the top five shareholders (the US, Japan, Germany, the UK and France) hold nearly 40 percent of total voting power at these institutions, but only about 10 percent of the world’s population, while countries like China and India, each with approximately 20 percent of the world’s population, enjoy only about 2-3 percent of total voting power.

For a long time, this voting system was justified with the argument that those nations that were habitually lenders and not borrowers should have the final say in IMF and World Bank decisions. Implicit in this was the idea that any nation that managed to transform itself into a major world economic power with an economy stable enough to make it a habitual lender instead of a habitual borrower could expect to have its shares reallocated and thereby acquire a meaningful stake in global economic decision-making.

That was hard, some would even say it was grossly unfair, but it was within the realm of the possible. All those populous nations that were allotted miniscule fractions of voting power at the IMF and World Bank would have to do was to put their noses to the grindstone and work their way to success.

As they say in German “hope dies last.”

The Germans don’t offer any further advice about what happens when it does die, but I think we’re about to find out.

People in BRICS countries did put their noses to the grindstone and work themselves silly. And in the end, they made it. BRICS countries now make substantial contributions to the international system, from international lending programs to United Nations peacekeeping missions, and they do so at a time when many Western nations have scaled back their own contributions.

But the promised reward failed to materialize.

As of 2010, despite having the world’s second-largest economy, China is still locked out of the IMF’s top five shareholders, with only 3.81 percent of total voting power, while Brazil, with an economy comparable to France and the UK, is only permitted to wield 1.72 percent of votes at the institution (France and the UK hold 4.29 percent each).

The top five IMF shareholding nations (as well as other Western countries which are also overrepresented at the institution) have literally refused to make room at the table for these other powerful states, which could, with a little compromise, quite easily have become their natural allies. BRICS countries had played, and succeeded at, the global economic game in order to have a chance of attaining a meaningful and respected position within the international community. They had not done all that work just so that traditional powerbrokers like the IMF and World Bank could continue to ignore them. It’s not too surprising that under those circumstances anyone would look for alternatives.

Here, the inadvertent generosity of Western nations truly becomes apparent, because not only did they provide the BRICS with a reason to look for alternatives ways of acting on the world stage, they also considerately gave most of the rest of the world a reason to join them.

For a very long time, the US and other Western States, which together control most aspects of IMF and World Bank lending, abused their position at those institutions in the service of their own national interests.

For example, the IMF and World Bank repeatedly loaned to Mobutu Sese Seko, dictator of the Democratic Republic of Congo (then Zaire) in order to keep him – and the enormous natural resources within his country – out of the communist camp during the Cold War. Mobutu blew the cash on whatever struck his fancy and the people of the Congo spent decades trying to pay back the money – in fact, by the late 1980s they had paid billions of dollars just in fees related to the nation’s debt, never mind the debt itself. Such irresponsible and short-sighted lending trapped the citizens of the DRC, and many others like them, in a perpetual debt cycle.

When powerful Western states working in tandem with corporate banks, began to set down increasingly harsh loan conditions through the IMF and World Bank, there was little these nations could do about it. The practice of setting conditions on loans is often dressed up with various justifications in official rhetoric, but at bottom, the IMF, the World Bank and the countries and companies behind them, operate in a way that many petty drug dealers would recognize. They hook a victim with cheap goods and a lot of talk and later they up their demands. It’s not an endearing modus operandum.

And some of these IMF and World Bank conditions were not a great deal more pleasant than having one’s fingers cut off. One core demand over the past 20 years has been privatization. This meant that nations who received loans from the IMF and World Bank were forced to privatize public services, even when doing so made no economic sense. For example, it was not uncommon for the World Bank to demand that a developing country entice private companies to bid for infrastructure contracts. These incentives usually included allowing the company to work in a completely tax-free environment and promising a certain level of profitability for the enterprise. In the case of a power plant, a country might literally oblige itself to pay for a minimum amount of power produced regardless of how much energy was actually used by its population.

That meant that private companies, usually based in Western countries, landed fat contracts to build and run something that there was literally no demand for, but for which the people of a nation ultimately had to foot the bill.

People in these nations could, of course, always hope that schemes like the privatization one were somehow magically inspired and that the combination of non-tax-paying, overproducing private ownership would, for inscrutable reasons, prove the unerring fertilizer of economic growth. They could hope this, in much the same way that you could hope to throw a few beans out the window and end up with a magic beanstalk.

But eventually hope dies, even if it does die last, and these heavily indebted peoples quite naturally begin to ask themselves what could possibly be worse than another World Bank or IMF loan. When people start thinking like that they will only continue with what they are doing if there is really, truly no other choice. In other words, if you are going to ignore the winners of the global economic game (i.e. the BRICS) and subject the losers (developing nations like the Democratic Republic of Congo) to an impossible web of harsh conditions and crony capitalism, it shouldn’t be too surprising that these two camps might someday get together.



Looked at this way, the New Development Bank isn’t even a bold step – it’s a no-brainer. Like 19th-century monarchs, Western nations have managed to give nearly everyone a reason to want rid of them, and like an absolute monarch, the IMF and World Bank’s twisted voting structures are looking increasingly anachronistic. The world is turning, but Western leaders are only trying to hit the brakes, remaining in a comfort zone that does not require them to face a new reality that requires higher levels of compromise and cooperation.

The New Development Bank doesn’t need to be fair, it doesn’t need to be perfect, it doesn’t even need to have that much cash to succeed. All it needs to do is be better than the IMF and World Bank, and that isn’t going to be a particularly challenging task.

-------------

10 major outcomes of BRICS summit.

Dr Alexander Yakovenko, Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Deputy foreign minister (2005-2011).

RT.com
July 21, 2014 10:47

The 6th BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, has highlighted the increasing role of emerging countries in international affairs and their ability to share strategic interests and approaches while reaching for their development goals.

In my opinion, the top 10 outcomes of the event are:

1. The meeting started the second cycle of BRICS summits. This time it focused on sustainable solutions for inclusive growth. It confirmed common interests in broadening multidimensional cooperation, including mutual trade and investment. With combined GDP around 21% of global volume, 20% of global trade and 11% of accumulated investments, the five countries represent one of the largest markets in the world.

2. The summit highlighted once again that the BRICS countries play an increasingly significant role in international affairs, an example of which was the prevention of an outright military invasion of Syria, as well as the elimination of chemical weapons in that country.

3. The countries are united in their willingness to coordinate their positions and actions on issues of global development and the reform of the global financial and economic architecture, including the IMF. The G20 format offers the five countries a good framework for such cooperation.

4. Decision to create the New Development Bank (NDB) based in Shanghai will contribute to the efforts to eliminate infrastructure gaps and meet sustainable development needs of the BRICS countries and other emerging markets. With initial authorized capital of $100 billion, including $50 billion of equally shared initial subscribed capital, it will become one of the largest multilateral financial development institutions. Importantly, it will be open for other countries to join.

5. Creation of the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, or currency reserve pool, initially sized at $100 billion, will help protect the BRICS countries against short-term liquidity pressures and international financial shocks. Together with the NDB these new instruments will contribute to further co-operation on macroeconomic policies.

6. Other documents, including the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation among BRICS Export Credit and Guarantees Agencies, as well as the Cooperation Agreement on Innovation within the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism, will offer new channels of support for trade and financial ties between the five countries.

7. The BRICS framework now includes more than 20 equally important cooperation formats, including the BRICS Business Council, the BRICS Banking Forum, the BRICS Exchanges Alliance and others, embracing such areas as information security, healthcare, agriculture, science and technology, and others.

8. Russia is actively engaged in the strengthening of the BRICS framework. Among its proposals are the draft Strategy for Multilateral Economic Cooperation and the Roadmap for Investment Cooperation. We are also proposing to establish the BRICS Energy Association, the Fuel Reserve Bank, the BRICS Energy Policy Institute and a training center for experts in metals industries, as well as to widen cooperation in areas of culture and education.

9. Another important topic is the BRICS “outreach” format. Meetings with leaders of different regions add to the Summits’ agenda and make the work more relevant globally.

10. As Russia is taking over the position of the BRICS Chair, the next summit will be held in the city of Ufa in the Republic of Bashkortostan, in July 2015. We are looking forward to working ever more closely with our international partners.

[TsarSamuil]

New Development Bank ushers in a new era of money.

Patrick L Young is expert in global financial markets working in multiple disciplines, ranging from trading independently to running exchanges.

RT.com
July 22, 2014 14:50

The modestly reported Fortaleza BRICS conference delivered a seismic shift in finance: a 21st century economic development as Bretton Woods in the last century.

Seventy years ago, during bitter ongoing conflict, a lengthy conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, created a new world financial structure. Washington would host the IMF and World Bank, empowering the USA at the dawn of a new era of globalization with the US dollar at its epicenter.

The resulting global dollar-centricity has hugely benefited America; especially in recent years as government spending has increasingly spun out of control. Unlike other nations, the US can just print more cash to effectively relieve its debts.

America has abused this position for years. Fiscally reckless “pork barrel politics” have involved spending “other people’s money” in a whole new dimension. The “exorbitant privilege” of US dollar currency domination has been exploited to effectively take money from all the world’s citizens to pay for US government. This is a tragic indictment of an economy which thanks to American ingenuity and free markets became the greatest economic power in history – a success story increasingly undermined by the toxic nature of a spendthrift government with global consequences. Thus “the blob” has left the US economy in relative decline despite endless spending increases with no benefits accruing to the increasingly regulated and over-taxed American citizen.

US dollar dominance is now under threat. In part, the US has overplayed its regulatory position, imposing sanctions on foreign banks because US dollar transactions are routed via the USA. However the greatest issue is the rise of Eastern economic power, threatening Western economic dominance. The USA economy, one third of global trade during the mid-1980’s has fallen to barely 18%. China alone now accounts for 15% and rising. Relative US decline is directly attributable to the broad death of the discredited Communist economic model. Mass impoverishment delivered by delusional central planning has given way to rapid economic growth and increasing prosperity as nations like Russia endorse low income tax (simple flat ones while the western corporate socialist blob worries fallaciously about wealth inequality: growth remains the key to prosperity for all).

With a delusional EU seemingly determined to regulate its members into economic oblivion, nations outside western hegemony are increasingly doing business amongst themselves. The Sino-Russian energy pivot and Eurasian Economic Union both reduce reliance on the US dollar for international trade. Even a relatively modest swing away from the US dollar as epicenter of global payments will have a leveraged impact on the American economy. The next stage of globalization is increasingly empowered emerging markets: they do not have to rely on Western hegemony to enrich their citizens. Far from it.

The 1944 the Bretton Woods agreement was largely ignored as contemporary news media focused on the raging world war. Last week the pivot of global trade moved somewhat sharply away from Washington, yet once again the world’s media paid little attention. A planned IMF competitor was officially born in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza. The Fortaleza BRICs summit will, in due course, become as well known as the Bretton Woods agreement: the key moments of financial development in the 21st and 20th centuries, respectively.

The New Development Bank (NDB) creates a competitive enterprise to the IMF/World Bank duopoly. Competition drives innovation and success – core capitalist values which will deliver greater global prosperity. True, the NDB faces challenges. It needs to avoid becoming the lender of last resort to unrepentant serial debtor nations such as Argentina (unless and until the economically delusional government mends its spendthrift protectionist ways). However, the Fortaleza agreement is the clearest signal yet that within my lifetime, perhaps even a decade or so, the era of US dollar dominance will likely end.

The BRICs nations control some 50% of world currency reserves, the US and EU barely 8%. The EU remains in an economic death spiral while the US is hazy, especially compared to recent powerhouses of expansion such as India and China. US dollar petrocurrency pricing is also under threat, from China’s voracious energy requirements alone.

NDB is a key moment in the pivot to Eastern economic hegemony. The Fortaleza conference delivered the death warrant to the dollar. In the future, expect a much more balanced trade basis of competing currencies from national governments and indeed cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. NDB is leading the new world order of finance and trade.

[TsarSamuil]

Fidel Castro lauds BRICS summit.

English.news.cn 2014-07-23 10:02:32

HAVANA, July 22 (Xinhua) -- Cuban elder statesman Fidel Castro has praised the BRICS bloc of emerging economies, and the results of its latest meeting in Brazil.

In an op-ed piece carried Tuesday by the official Prensa Latina news agency, Castro said the agreements reached at the just-concluded sixth BRICS summit would result in "the defense of an open, transparent, inclusive and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system."

Leaders of the members of the BRICS, which groups Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, met last week in Brazil's Fortaleza, vowing to establish a new development bank and a contingent reserve arrangement, which were considered to be of profound significance to improving global governance and the international economic and financial order.

Castro, 87, in the piece titled "It's time to learn a little more about reality," particularly hailed the role of China and Russia in assisting the development of Latin American and Caribbean nations.

"The contribution of Russia and China to science, technology and economic development in South America and the Caribbean is decisive," he said.

Undoubtedly, Castro added, the recent Latin America tours of Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin could be considered "one of the great feats of human history."

"The great events of history are not forged in one day," wrote Castro, predicting that "huge and increasingly complex challenges lie on the horizon."

Castro retired from power in 2006 due to health problems, but has been serving in an advisory role as an elder statesman.