Is the United States a world dictator? It's a question I've been wrestling with for some time. Being situated next door to the US, but as a separate country, Canadians get a fairly unique view on the matter. We aren't encumbered, or most of us are not, with wrapping ourselves in an American flag. In fact most Canadians are only quite happy to distinguish themselves from our American cousins to the south. Our foreign policy has typically been based on international law. For example we refused to take part in bombing Syria as we were not invited to do so by the Syrian government or the UN. We refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq for the same reasons. However, under our last Prime Minister, Harper, and apparently under our new Prime Minister, that has somewhat changed. My country has become far more vassal-like which is disturbing and upsetting.
Simply put, the United States has been subjecting the rest of the world to its economic and military will since that cement wall came down in Germany. Slowly at first, but since Bush it has been a dam burst. The US has attacked, militarily and especially financially, countries counter to any semblance of international law. It has become readily apparent that the US considers international law whatever it deems it to be - in other words international law is American law. Nations are defined primarily on their ability to assert their own law within their borders. If a country can't do that it loses sovereignty over areas of its country, and it quickly devolves into a state without borders or control - a failed or non-state.
Some examples of very disturbing, unilateral American actions include: unilateral withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile defence treaty with Russia; the imposing of economic sanctions against individuals and countries at will; the promotion of escalating tensions by accepting new NATO members of nations that border Russia; encouraging "regime" change in sovereign countries like Venezuela; needlessly provoking conflicts with China, Iran, and North Korea; unilaterally leaving trade agreements like NAFTA or environmental agreements like the Paris Accord; and the list goes on. All these instances have one thing in common though - belligerence. The US government is strutting about the world like a drunk man in a bar, taking swings and pushing people in a desperate quest for a fight.
I realize this sounds harsh, but how else can you credibly describe it? Let's take a moment. When is the last time North Korea, Iran or Venezuela militarily attacked another country - let alone the US? When is the last time Russia, as Russia, invaded another country - let alone the US? How about China? India just invaded a southern part of China which the two sides claim. China has held back from attacking India even though a part of its country has been occupied. That is restraint. What are the odds that the US was behind the scenes on this one? They have a "interest" in dividing the two Eurasian and BRICS partners. That will come out in due time no doubt. The bottom line is the US has not been seriously threatened by any of these countries. Even the US Generals I've listed to have stated North Korea's threats of retaliation (note "retaliation") are not serious given their vast superiority in fire power. So why the aggressive US stance in the world?
Frankly, the US's problems are not military, but rather financial. Russia, China, and Iran are now trading in their own currencies. In short order those trades will be backed by gold bullion - including trades in oil. As these vast markets trade in their own currencies, and/or gold bullion, the US petro dollar, established by Nixon with Saudi Arabia in the 1970's, will be undermined - thus undermining its position as the world reserve currency. In other words, it will no longer be needed in the fastest growing and most important markets in the world. As its demand falters so goes its value, and US dominance at home and abroad. That is really what you are witnessing play out on the world stage right now. It's a very big game of chess to try and preserve the "American century". The goals are quite obvious: alienate Iran from Iraq; alienate Syria from Iran; alienate India from China; alienate Russia from Europe; and eventually alienate China from all the above. A divide and conquer strategy, by any means, to; stop the Eurasian economic block from forming. If the Eurasian block, or the "Silk Road" as China terms it, does not successfully form the threat to the US dollar from gold backed currencies is removed.
The biggest question in the room is this: do the ends justify the means? Or, what does it benefit a man to win the world, but lose his soul? That's a question a lot of American should be asking themselves. What if the US wins? We have a world subjugated into virtual economic dictatorship by the US houses of Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? Isn't the United States supposed to be the country that was founded on freedom and liberty when it rebelled against... wait fir it ... the dictatorship of the English Crown? Isn't freedom the most defining value most Americans associate with their nationality? Yet, those very same people are prepared to see the rest of the people on this earth denied that same freedom in the name of "American national interest"? That very notion sticks in the back of the throat as a stone too large to swallow.
Yes, the US government is acting as though it were a world dictator. Of that nobody can have any serious doubt. It does so without the concern over the impact it may have on the other nations and their people. It does so without the implied or express consent of those people. It meats out sanctions and military action against nations without regard to the suffering of others. In essence it has become the bully of the world. If you believe that we reap what we sow, then the US may well be in for a rocky road in the near future. Just like those early American patriots that rebelled against an oppressive King, nations capable of fighting back against the thwarting of their sovereign rights will do so. Unfortunately for us all, the result can only be a devastating world war that leaves no part of the earth untouched.
Showing posts with label Venezuela. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Venezuela. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Thursday, October 22, 2015
The King is Dead. Long Live the King
The oil world as we have known it is dead.
As the established market price setter, OPEC has reigned supreme internationally since 1960. In that year Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Kuwait founded the organization - known as the "Founding Members". In 1973, US President Richard Nixon signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for US protection, and arms, the Saudis would accept only US dollars in oil transactions. The other OPEC members then followed suit. All was well in the Kingdom.
Things have changed for three primary reasons. Firstly, China has risen to the point where it is now the second largest consumer of oil in the world. Secondly, the US with its fracking policies has now become the largest producer of oil in the world. Thirdly, Russia has grown to challenge Saudi Arabia's production levels. Three monumental shifts. Essentially the shifts have on the one hand structurally reduced the value of oil, and on the other hand have changed the demand cycle for oil.
Between 1973 and 1980, the US produced roughly an equal amount of oil as that of Saudi Arabia. However, from 1980 to 2009 US production dropped dramatically until the fracking revolution again placed it near Saudi production. At the same time Russia dramatically grew its production of oil just after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990's, to the point that Russia shares top spot with the US, and Saudi.
Then there were wars. The US and Saudi Arabia covertly and overtly attempted to either control or destroy the oil capabilities of Iran, Iraq and Venezuela (three of OPEC's founding members) by way of military force or revolution. For the most part these actions were successful to one degree or another. However, now all three have gravitated toward Russia and China for their economic well being. In a sense, this is another monumental shift to add to the three above.
That brings us to today. Russia and China have moved to eliminate the US as the controller of world-wide oil wealth. They have created a Eurasian trading community that speaks to the production of oil, and perhaps more importantly the consumption of oil.
In 2015, Russia and China began signing oil supply and purchase agreements that required transactions to be conducted in local currencies - not US dollars. That had the effect of increasing oil production and trading among the Eurasian bloc of countries. It excluded the US, but also Saudi Arabia, from oil market influence. For example, Russia signed agreements with Venezuela to swap Venezuelan oil for Russian consumer goods - not much different than the old Soviet model of international trading. China signed oil supply agreements with Iran. And so it goes.
That left the old King of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, out in the cold. In an attempt to restore its position Saudi Arabia increased production, along with the Americans, The resulting massive price per barrel decline had the effect of driving many countries into recession and/or hyperinflation (Venezuela). But, and it's a big but, the move failed in its objective. The Eurasian community, and its allies, simply turned inward and compensated each other by trading in their own currencies and products.
Hence the recent visits by Saudi royalty to Russia. On the face of it, Saudi is looking for Russian cooperation in Syria - ie: a departure of Russia from the Syria conflict. However, the real reason for the sudden Saudi diplomacy toward Russia is peace overtures in an oil war they have lost. Saudi is now a lonely supplier of oil running out of markets. Worse for them, the US now no longer needs them for supply and or control of OPEC. The new OPEC is in Eurasia. Specifically Russia.
What all this means for the world of oil is that the cartel days are over. The US stands alone as an oil force. Eurasia and allies stand alone as an oil force. Saudi stands alone with Kuwait and Qatar. It means that world oil prices will now be permanently depressed - likely well below where they rest today. It means an end to the boom of the expensive oil exploration and trade that fueled petro economies around the world - my own included. It's a new reality. Oil is no longer King, and it is no longer exclusive. So, while OPEC is dead, a new oil King has been anointed. That King without any doubt whatsoever is Eurasia.
As the established market price setter, OPEC has reigned supreme internationally since 1960. In that year Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Kuwait founded the organization - known as the "Founding Members". In 1973, US President Richard Nixon signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for US protection, and arms, the Saudis would accept only US dollars in oil transactions. The other OPEC members then followed suit. All was well in the Kingdom.
Things have changed for three primary reasons. Firstly, China has risen to the point where it is now the second largest consumer of oil in the world. Secondly, the US with its fracking policies has now become the largest producer of oil in the world. Thirdly, Russia has grown to challenge Saudi Arabia's production levels. Three monumental shifts. Essentially the shifts have on the one hand structurally reduced the value of oil, and on the other hand have changed the demand cycle for oil.
Between 1973 and 1980, the US produced roughly an equal amount of oil as that of Saudi Arabia. However, from 1980 to 2009 US production dropped dramatically until the fracking revolution again placed it near Saudi production. At the same time Russia dramatically grew its production of oil just after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990's, to the point that Russia shares top spot with the US, and Saudi.
Then there were wars. The US and Saudi Arabia covertly and overtly attempted to either control or destroy the oil capabilities of Iran, Iraq and Venezuela (three of OPEC's founding members) by way of military force or revolution. For the most part these actions were successful to one degree or another. However, now all three have gravitated toward Russia and China for their economic well being. In a sense, this is another monumental shift to add to the three above.
That brings us to today. Russia and China have moved to eliminate the US as the controller of world-wide oil wealth. They have created a Eurasian trading community that speaks to the production of oil, and perhaps more importantly the consumption of oil.
In 2015, Russia and China began signing oil supply and purchase agreements that required transactions to be conducted in local currencies - not US dollars. That had the effect of increasing oil production and trading among the Eurasian bloc of countries. It excluded the US, but also Saudi Arabia, from oil market influence. For example, Russia signed agreements with Venezuela to swap Venezuelan oil for Russian consumer goods - not much different than the old Soviet model of international trading. China signed oil supply agreements with Iran. And so it goes.
That left the old King of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, out in the cold. In an attempt to restore its position Saudi Arabia increased production, along with the Americans, The resulting massive price per barrel decline had the effect of driving many countries into recession and/or hyperinflation (Venezuela). But, and it's a big but, the move failed in its objective. The Eurasian community, and its allies, simply turned inward and compensated each other by trading in their own currencies and products.
Hence the recent visits by Saudi royalty to Russia. On the face of it, Saudi is looking for Russian cooperation in Syria - ie: a departure of Russia from the Syria conflict. However, the real reason for the sudden Saudi diplomacy toward Russia is peace overtures in an oil war they have lost. Saudi is now a lonely supplier of oil running out of markets. Worse for them, the US now no longer needs them for supply and or control of OPEC. The new OPEC is in Eurasia. Specifically Russia.
What all this means for the world of oil is that the cartel days are over. The US stands alone as an oil force. Eurasia and allies stand alone as an oil force. Saudi stands alone with Kuwait and Qatar. It means that world oil prices will now be permanently depressed - likely well below where they rest today. It means an end to the boom of the expensive oil exploration and trade that fueled petro economies around the world - my own included. It's a new reality. Oil is no longer King, and it is no longer exclusive. So, while OPEC is dead, a new oil King has been anointed. That King without any doubt whatsoever is Eurasia.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Patriot Games: Ukraine,Venezuela and the like.
The Olympics are over, and so is the peace. During the games, two separate, but curiously related insurgencies erupted: one in the Ukraine and one in Venezuela. Separated from each other by geography, but linked to each other by the "national interests" of the United Sates. Venezuela being the pot that stirs the anti-american kettle in South America, and the Ukraine being the soft under belly of Russia's traditional buffer zone to the West.
They each erupted over civil issues: Ukraine-a loan agreement with Russia and the abandoning of the European Union approach; and Venezuela - a student protest over security on a campus. From there they both transformed into mass demonstrations, complete with violence and death. Each insurgency sought primarily one thing - the over throw of their government. A troubling trend.
If you believe that democracy is the rule of the majority, as expressed by election of representatives, then you have to be concerned about these events. Both Venezuela and the Ukraine are democracies that elect their own governments. We may not like the choices made, and the losers of the elections may not like to lose, but that is the natural result of democracy. There are those that win elections and those that lose. The key is to respect the result of the election. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of democracy, and unfortunately we've been seeing a lot of that recently.
A short while ago, the Egyptian military overthrew the elected President of Egypt. The reason? He wasn't governing on behalf of all Egyptians. Those that voted against him in the election protested and demanded he be overthrown, and after much bloodshed he was. Ditto for the Ukraine. Possibly the same coming for Venezuela. If any one reads this that believes these "revolts" are spontaneous cries for freedom, well, you're fooling yourself. These are quite obviously "revolts" that resulted from the destabilization of these governments, because they didn't serve the "national interest". The problem with this approach is that it takes us back, yet again, to the rule of the jungle.
We barely walked away from the American/European intervention in Syria without a world war. If you recall, while the Americans and French were threatening to turn the Syrian government into a parking lot by way of military strikes, the Chinese and Russians were sending war ships and troops to the area in response. Like the Ukraine, Syria involved key strategic allies of Russia - vital to its national interests. Now, we are headed back to a similar scenario. However, this time the stakes are far greater, and far more dangerous.
Up until now the Russians and the West were satisfied with trying to bribe the Ukraine government over to one side or the other. The Russians offering $15 billion in aid, and the West offering EU trade membership. When the Ukrainian government chose the Russian option over the Western option all hell broke loose. Demonstrations and then violence flooded the centre of Kiev. Then, when the government agreed to go with the Western option and abandon the Russian option, the crowds demanded a change of President. Finally, the Ukrainian President changed his mind again, and went with the Russian option. That resulted in an escalation of the violence, many deaths, and his overthrow.
Now, as I write this, Russian troops, ships and aircraft are being deployed all around Ukraine. At a minimum, it looks as though Russia is prepared to annex Eastern Ukraine, which is heavily influenced by Russia, and home to many Russian speaking people. It's also home to the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. That is a minimum. At a maximum, Russia could decide that its "national interests" require a buffer state the size of all of the Ukraine. Russia has always used countries around it as buffer states to foreign aggression. It is at the core of Russian strategic planning, and always has been. It is the reason why the US and Britain have already issued warnings to Russia not to militarily intervene. It's another game of chicken between the US and Russia - just like Syria.
What should trouble us in all this, besides the obvious dangers of war, is what I call "democracy of convenience". That is, yes we'll be democratic, but if we decide that our interests aren't being served, we will overthrow that democratically elected government. Having a "democracy of convenience" is like having "principles of convenience", neither of them mean anything. The problem with having "democracies of convenience", that don't mean anything, is that the entire order of our world is threatened. After all, our trade and integrity as countries in a global community requires rules, protocols, and order. Without it, the world becomes a free for all. We are at that point now. A free for all. We can't expect to disregard the very things that separate us from the animal kingdom, and remain apart from the jungle.
Perhaps, that is the way it's meant to go. Perhaps our society, and our freedoms such as they are, have become inconvenient. Perhaps this is all one step toward the collapse of our international order which might result in a world government of sorts. Perhaps that is the point. Maybe the only thing left to decide between the big powers of the US, China, Russia, and the West is who will dominate that world government. Just maybe that is what we are witnessing in our time. In any case one thing is for certain, the values of democracy are being rendered meaningless each and every day - to our certain detriment.
They each erupted over civil issues: Ukraine-a loan agreement with Russia and the abandoning of the European Union approach; and Venezuela - a student protest over security on a campus. From there they both transformed into mass demonstrations, complete with violence and death. Each insurgency sought primarily one thing - the over throw of their government. A troubling trend.
If you believe that democracy is the rule of the majority, as expressed by election of representatives, then you have to be concerned about these events. Both Venezuela and the Ukraine are democracies that elect their own governments. We may not like the choices made, and the losers of the elections may not like to lose, but that is the natural result of democracy. There are those that win elections and those that lose. The key is to respect the result of the election. To do otherwise is to undermine the very foundation of democracy, and unfortunately we've been seeing a lot of that recently.
A short while ago, the Egyptian military overthrew the elected President of Egypt. The reason? He wasn't governing on behalf of all Egyptians. Those that voted against him in the election protested and demanded he be overthrown, and after much bloodshed he was. Ditto for the Ukraine. Possibly the same coming for Venezuela. If any one reads this that believes these "revolts" are spontaneous cries for freedom, well, you're fooling yourself. These are quite obviously "revolts" that resulted from the destabilization of these governments, because they didn't serve the "national interest". The problem with this approach is that it takes us back, yet again, to the rule of the jungle.
We barely walked away from the American/European intervention in Syria without a world war. If you recall, while the Americans and French were threatening to turn the Syrian government into a parking lot by way of military strikes, the Chinese and Russians were sending war ships and troops to the area in response. Like the Ukraine, Syria involved key strategic allies of Russia - vital to its national interests. Now, we are headed back to a similar scenario. However, this time the stakes are far greater, and far more dangerous.
Up until now the Russians and the West were satisfied with trying to bribe the Ukraine government over to one side or the other. The Russians offering $15 billion in aid, and the West offering EU trade membership. When the Ukrainian government chose the Russian option over the Western option all hell broke loose. Demonstrations and then violence flooded the centre of Kiev. Then, when the government agreed to go with the Western option and abandon the Russian option, the crowds demanded a change of President. Finally, the Ukrainian President changed his mind again, and went with the Russian option. That resulted in an escalation of the violence, many deaths, and his overthrow.
Now, as I write this, Russian troops, ships and aircraft are being deployed all around Ukraine. At a minimum, it looks as though Russia is prepared to annex Eastern Ukraine, which is heavily influenced by Russia, and home to many Russian speaking people. It's also home to the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. That is a minimum. At a maximum, Russia could decide that its "national interests" require a buffer state the size of all of the Ukraine. Russia has always used countries around it as buffer states to foreign aggression. It is at the core of Russian strategic planning, and always has been. It is the reason why the US and Britain have already issued warnings to Russia not to militarily intervene. It's another game of chicken between the US and Russia - just like Syria.
What should trouble us in all this, besides the obvious dangers of war, is what I call "democracy of convenience". That is, yes we'll be democratic, but if we decide that our interests aren't being served, we will overthrow that democratically elected government. Having a "democracy of convenience" is like having "principles of convenience", neither of them mean anything. The problem with having "democracies of convenience", that don't mean anything, is that the entire order of our world is threatened. After all, our trade and integrity as countries in a global community requires rules, protocols, and order. Without it, the world becomes a free for all. We are at that point now. A free for all. We can't expect to disregard the very things that separate us from the animal kingdom, and remain apart from the jungle.
Perhaps, that is the way it's meant to go. Perhaps our society, and our freedoms such as they are, have become inconvenient. Perhaps this is all one step toward the collapse of our international order which might result in a world government of sorts. Perhaps that is the point. Maybe the only thing left to decide between the big powers of the US, China, Russia, and the West is who will dominate that world government. Just maybe that is what we are witnessing in our time. In any case one thing is for certain, the values of democracy are being rendered meaningless each and every day - to our certain detriment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)