Posted by seumasach on December 6, 2014
Orban is a neocon who has “gone native” much to the chagrin of McCain. But this is one of the prime symptoms of imperial decline: the empire can no longer control its vassals.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has blasted Brussels for undermining the Russia-led South Stream gas pipeline project.
5th December, 2014
MOSCOW, December 5 (Sputnik), Ekaterina Blinova — Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister blasted Brussels for ruining the Russia-led South Stream gas pipeline project.
Posted in New Cold War | Tagged: End of empire, South Stream, Viktor Orban | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on December 6, 2014
5th December, 2014
(Reuters) – Global oil and gas exploration projects worth more than $150 billion (£95.9 billion) are likely to be put on hold next year as plunging oil prices render them uneconomic, data shows, potentially curbing supplies by the end of the decade.
Posted in Ecological and Public Health Crisis | Tagged: End of empire, fracking bubble, stop fracking! | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on November 25, 2014
Obama’s anti-Russian turn is devoid of strategic sense. He can’t court China at the expense of Russia as Nixon did: China and Russia are now inseparable allies and increasingly so in the face of Western hostility. However, anti-Russian rhetoric does serve as a cover for Washington’s close engagement with China which includes permitting China to exchange its dollar holdings for real assets, especially artificially underpriced gold, but also real estate, industrial and port facilities inside the USA.
25th November, 2014
The India-Russia annual summitry had lately become a tepid affair — something like the anniversary of a boring marriage. How often can an aged couple arouse passion? But the upcoming event bringing President Vladimir Putin to Delhi next month promises to be exciting. Geopolitics may act like an aphrodisiac.
Posted in New Cold War | Tagged: Chinese soft power, End of empire, Obama's realist turn | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on November 25, 2014
tin: Russian Economy Won’t Be Dominated by ‘Dollar Dictatorship’
14th November, 2014
MOSCOW, November 14 (Sputnik) – Russia plans to leave the “dollar dictatorship” of market oil prices and turn to using the country’s national currency and the Chinese yuan, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday.
Posted in Multipolar world | Tagged: decline of dollar, End of empire, Russian diplomacy | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on November 22, 2014
This is a tendency that can only intensify as Britain devolves control of finance. This effectively means we’re giving up our credit card since no regional or devolved administration is sovereign and will not be able to issue sovereign bonds as before. Nor will the UK government itself since it no longer controls its tax base. The SNP has already pointed out that Scottish government borrowing will be within a context of a balanced budget rather than the traditional rolling over of debt and coverage of interest charges only. This end of Keynesianism is accompanied, logically, by the demise of the Labour Party and the left.The UK is and has been for years totally dependent on capital inflows. However, the form these take is changing: rather than going into government bonds they are going into direct investment and purchase of assets.
Revealed: How the world gets rich – from privatising British public services
20th November, 2014
Foreign governments are making hundreds of millions of pounds a year running British public services, according to an Independent investigation highlighting how privatisation is benefiting overseas – rather than UK – taxpayers.
Posted in UK economy | Tagged: bankrupt Britain, End of empire, The Great British Sell-Off | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on November 11, 2014
“Chinese leaders have put forward a new model of “major-country relationship” between China and the United States, an intellectual framework for resolving one of the greatest puzzles in international history — how to avoid falling into the so-called Thucydides trap, the often-cited cycle of struggle between rising and established powers.”
11th November, 2014
President Obama arrived in Beijing on Monday for a meeting of the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation forum. He will meet with China’s president, Xi Jinping, at length on Wednesday. The occasion is a vital opportunity for the two presidents to reset the relationship between the nations.
Posted in Multipolar world | Tagged: Asian pivot, “major-country relationship” between China and the United States, End of empire, Obama agenda, Obama's realist turn, retreat from empire, strategic partnership between US and China, U.S.-China Business Council | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on September 28, 2014
28th September, 2014
When Nicola Sturgeon spoke back in January of the inevitability of change whatever the outcome of the referendum and appealed to the “No” campaign to come forward with their proposals for further devolution to Scotland she must have known that a response would be forthcoming. All political parties had been focused for some time on the issue of the decentralization of the British state and the referendum was to be the cue for these ideas to come to the fore. However, from the point of views of both campaigns this issue was to become the elephant in the room that no one wanted to see. The “Yes” campaign , notwithstanding Sturgeon’s remarks, continued to insist that it was all or nothing for Scotland, that not only was further devolution not on the agenda but that a “No” vote would see the rollback of devolution already conceded. The “No” campaign evoked the enduring stability of the union and an era of innocence in which good old Great Britain was not about to be eviscerated. As a result, it was only when “panicked” representatives of the leading UK parties came to Scotland late in the campaign, following polls suggestive of a “Yes” vote, that it became evident to all that further devolution was indeed on the agenda. The “panicked” UK leaders, far from making up policy on the hoof, were, however, merely putting forward what they had always intended in an opportune manner which would give themselves credit post-referendum. They were also shoring up the position of Alex Salmond and the SNP post-referendum who could claim that their campaign and a surge in support had forced the hand of the Westminster establishment.
That major constitutional change was on the cards was made clear in a speech in April by Labour leader, Ed Milliband, a speech which was studiously ignored by everyone. In it he blamed overcentralisation for all Britain’s ills and promised to devolve power and spending to English cities and regions. He also revealed the real point behind this “bringing of power to the people” as the Tories like to call it:
“With power of this sort comes responsibility.
These changes will only bring new jobs, greater prosperity, if the towns and cities are willing to put the private sector at the heart of decision making.”
Welsh Conservative leader Stephen Crabb was to pick up on the same theme as he launched the pre-panic, Tory devolution response in July,:
“I am very comfortable with the way devolution is developing. It is quite an exciting landscape that is emerging for devolution. So fiscal devolution I see as particularly important because of strengthening accountability for devolved government.”
This, he thought, would help to “challenge socialist orthodoxy” citing the influence of leading Thatcherite ideologue,Lord Brian Griffiths, in his conversion to devolution.
Any doubts about major constitutional change were dispelled in Cameron’s speech following the announcement of the referendum result. He called for English votes on English issues, effectively a call for English devolution. It also launched the 2015 election campaign with a shot across the bows of the Labour as Cameron sensed blood and seized the moment when the Labour/Tory duopoly gives way to a Tory/SNP axis which could dominate Britain for a long time to come. Labour’s hesitancy regarding English devolution doesn’t mean they won’t support it: they have no choice, but they wish to delay it beyond the next election. If Milliband has written their suicide note in the above mentioned speech they can be forgiven for pacing the room in a state of high agitation before finally putting the bullet through their head.
The British ruling class have embarked upon a major transformation of Britain. Milliband’s speech gives an indication of what they have in mind. The essence of this change is more easily grasped within the context of US politics and the politics of the Republican right. The goal is the end of Big Government. As Britain heads towards another crisis resembling that of 2008 it will face similar dilemmas to those they faced then. In 2008 they bailed out the banks without taking control of them. This time overwhelming popular pressure could force their hand and result in nationalization. Similar pressures could lead to renationalization of the utilities and even land and the housing stock. These measures are unacceptable and dangerous to the post-Thatcherite oligarchy. By devolving spending and tax raising powers to the regions they are vetoing that particularly noxious, in their view, outcome. Admittedly, the state is bankrupt anyway but they will not be presiding over the bankruptcy of Britain with the tax-payer as the priority creditor, the state taking on our assets and our debt to our international partners being resolved through intergovernmental negotiation as I have been proposing for some time. Instead, they will proceed through “the market”.
It could be objected that there is little left to privatize. But Britain’s privatization programme is really just a corporate welfare scheme whereby public funds are transferred to private companies. The companies would not otherwise be making money. This process is inordinately expensive to the British state and is not sustainable. The British state will then withdraw its largesse and as it does so foreign states or their agencies will take its place. This process is already well underway as James Meek has documented and is about to accelerate dramatically. The British oligarchy instead of going down for a very, very long time have opted to be bought out by the Chinese and retired to the Cayman Islands.
It is a great irony that the “yes” campaign regard further devolution as a well earned consolation prize and continue to shout betrayal in the form of its non-implimentation. They have been joining in the fun too, dancing on the the grave of the Labour Party but it is also the grave containing the corpse of their neo-Keynesian spending strategies. The active component of the “yes” campaign is basically on the left, contemptuous of Scotland’s national status except when referring to it, hilariously, as “one of the richest nations on earth”, and these heady days have been like the last faint echo of Blair’s, 1997 “Things can only get better” surge, before we finally sink into the abyss. So they’re celebrating their own demise too: it’s just one internal contradiction too far.
That the coming crisis of Western imperialism will have a neo-liberal solution is at first sight dismaying but it has its logic. I was a struck by the insistence of a Chinese academic, speaking at at Glasgow University’s Confucius Institute, on the resolution of Britain’s debt and current account deficit with China via the market. What, I thought, did we have to sell back to them. Not much, but we can let them relocate factories which produce for our market to Britain. That way, they don’t have to accept sterling fiat money in payment and we can start to correct our trade deficit. That is definitely win-win. They can also facilitate this by taking control of our utilities and building other essential infrastructure. Finally, they can take over our banking system, after its major shareholders and creditors have taken the hit,opening up control of a significant portion of Britain’s land and real estate for re-industrialization. The British government has already taken us some way down this path and we have signed a formal strategic partnership with China and are now proud issuers of Renminbi-denominated UK government bonds. Other sovereign wealth funds will, of course, participate. Just as free-market ideology furnished us with a cover for imperialism in the 18th and 19th century, so it now provides a cover for a policy for end of empire. This is anxiously sought by the Chinese and the Global South and their investments will not be just about profit but drawing the sting out of Anglo-American imperialism. In exchange for life-saving inward investment Britain will de facto renounce its imperial or hegemonic project and become a neutral, demilitarized state. Perhaps Scotland could become a Chinese concession just as we once had concessions in China. That would be poetic justice and leave us staring survival in the face.
The constitutional transformation will go through and it will also be as many have pointed out a dog’s dinner. But the goal is purely negative from the point of view of the British oligarchy: to veto Big Government. However, it contains other potentialities as Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein was quick to grasp when he pointed out that, despite the “no” vote, “the British state is not static”. Britain is not suitable for federalisation and the regionalization of England is a completely synthetic agenda which is being foisted on a reluctant people. Hence another irony: the “No” vote may be the real “break up of Britain” agenda. The constitutional agenda compromises Britain’s sovereignty and at a certain point when all the wars and tumult of empire are a fading memory that issue of sovereignty will return and, in all likelihood, resolve itself as four sovereign nations in these islands.
Posted in Constitutional change in Britain, Uncategorized | Tagged: bankrupt Britain, BRICS(Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa), Chinese soft power, End of empire | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on July 16, 2014
Did the “central banks’ central bank” just call for a stock-market collapse?
30th June, 2014
Don’t look now, but the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is often referred to as the “central banks’ central bank”, just advised the world’s central banks to stage a market collapse now rather than later.
Posted in Financial crisis | Tagged: End of empire, financial collapse | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on July 9, 2014
…calls for ‘rebalancing’ of world currencies
7th July, 2014
The French government wants to break the monopoly the dollar has on international transactions after the country’s largest bank, BNP Paribas, was slapped with a record $9 billion fine and a 1-year dollar trading ban.
Posted in Battle for Europe | Tagged: dollar collapse, End of empire | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on June 17, 2014
Not only are London wisely refraining from reinvading or bombing Iraq but the furore over Blair’s comments has revealed the total lack of appetite for such an intervention across the British and US political spectrum. The real significance of the Western response is the impetus towards rapprochement with Iran.
17th June, 2014
LONDON, June 16 (Xinhua) — British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday ruled out the possibility of British military intervention in the on-going Iraq crisis, but pledged to offer counter-terrorism expertise and humanitarian aid to the country instead.
Posted in Iraq | Tagged: detente with Iran, End of empire, no more bombing!-no more bailouts!, retreat from empire | Leave a Comment »
Posted by seumasach on June 15, 2014
15th June, 2014
The betrayal of the Iraq army leadership facilitating last week’s capture of Mosul by the so-called ISIL may become a watershed in US foreign policy in providing a significant diversion from the Ukrainian fiasco and turning attention from quasi-cold war tensions towards the new Obama doctrine already outlined in his West Point speech, anticipated by Blair’s 23rd April speech and ratified by an intervention by Kofi Annan last week on BBC Newsnight.
What is this new doctrine? It is called, with great originality, the War on Terror. Thus, we return to 2001 and the post-9/11 doctrine but in a geo-political environment which has become completely transformed. In 2003 , on the eve of the Iraq War, the USA was still regarded as the undisputed global superpower, even though a resurgent Russia and China were already disputing that status. Today it has suffered a series of military reverses and the catastrophic state of its economy and society can longer be hidden. After the dismissal of Rumsfeld in 2006 in a palace coup the stage was set for Obama to turn around US foreign policy in the aftermath of the failed Iraq and Afghan wars. He is generally regarded as having failed in this respect and that judgement has seemed to have been confirmed by the dramatic events of the last week. We appear to be condemned to relive the historical cycle of US military intervention.
But, as I say, the context is completely different. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan post-9/11 were the beginning of a global war for hegemony. This war failed and no such perspectives are in sight for a severely weakened USA. Rather than being the opening shot in an attempted roll-back of Russian and Chinese power War on Terror II could lead to a re-engagement of these two emerging superpowers by Washington. Tony Blair’s above-mentioned speech already prefigures this development:
“In this speech I will set out how we should do this, including the recognition that on this issue, whatever our other differences, we should be prepared to reach out and cooperate with the East, and in particular, Russia and China.”
This was followed up by Kofi Anna’s call for a de facto alliance with Russia , China and Iran:
“Mr Annan – the UN’s former envoy to Syria – said he did not believe that there was the “stomach” for “boots on the ground”, but that a group made up of permanent members of the UN Security Council, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and possibly Egypt could agree a common approach.”
Already, the ISIL surge has raised a prospect that was previously unthinkable: joint US-Iranian military co-operation.
I have, for some time, been talking up a strategic alliance between Washington and Moscow as the great paradigm shift in global geo-politics. It was, admittedly, difficult to see how such a shift could come about. Indeed, the failure of Obama’s reset was just another amongst a litany of seeming failures. But if that remains a strategic goal of Obama, and I believe that it must, then War on TerrorII would be the key to its realization.
The roller-coaster unleashed by the Arab spring continues. The events in Iraq last week serve as a cover for the surreal Ukraine fiasco, which in turn obscured defeat in the Syrian war which in turn diverted the world’s attention from the chaos engendered in Libya by NATO intervention. Since the hand of the NATO and Western intelligence assets is clearly present in all these scenarios you might think Obama’s strategy is merely to cover failure with even more failure. But their may be a different logic at play,a convoluted logic of end of empire. If so, the cycle may be broken in Iraq and by the time the ISIL has been checked we may see the clear outlines of a new international order.
Posted in Iraq, New Cold War | Tagged: End of empire, Obama's realist turn, retreat from empire, US-Russia strategic partnership | Leave a Comment »