InternetActivist.Org
26 March 2005
What are they trying to accomplish?
Two prominent economists, Nouriel Roubini (NYU) and Brad Setser (Oxford) have recently made considerable waves in macroeconomic circles with their paper "Will the Bretton Woods 2 Regime Unravel Soon? The Risk of a Hard Landing in 2005-2006"
[First draft online at:
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/BW2-Unraveling-Roubini-Setser.pdf ]
This is by far the most comprehensive analysis of the global financial system currently in operation that I've seen, known as "Bretton Woods 2". This system is based upon the United States being allowed to operate massive trade deficits (as well as fiscal deficits) which are then covered by the purchasing of U.S. debt by foreigners, especially the East Asian central banks (esp. the Bank of Japan & the People's Bank of China). Essentially these foreign central banks purchase U.S. debt in order to prevent their local currencies from appreciating against the dollar (i.e. they artificially inflate the dollar to keep it higher than their own currency) in order to fuel their export based economies. That is, as long as the dollar remains higher than the yen or the yuan, Japan and China can export to the United States at an advantage, thereby fueling their own growth.
All said, such a system would only be sustainable if the United States adopted a responsible trade and fiscal spending policy. However, the neo-cons have determined - with some truth - that essentially the world community, and especially the East Asians, are forced into buying U.S. debt in order to maintain their economic solvency, that is, in order to keep their existing dollar assets (which serves as their foreign currency reserve) from losing value, they have to perpetually buy more dollar assets. Therefore the Bush administration has considered this something of carte blanche to throw fiscal responsibility to the wind, after all, no matter how grossly irresponsible they opt to behave, the world community will be forced to pick up the bill in order to keep their own economies strong.
However this is not sustainable for a number of reasons, but the most important of these is that the government's policy of grossly irresponsible spending (severely complicated by the continued occupation of Iraq and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy) means that the dollar will continue to lose value, making the purchasing of U.S. dollar-denominated debt a losing investment. Quite simply, with interest rates at their current level, no major U.S. investment will provide a real return against the devaluation of the dollar. And, of course, should they remedy this by increasing interest rates, then the U.S. debt bubble runs the risk of bursting leading to a major "adjustment" or revaluation of the dollar.
Anyway, this system would only be sustainable if the leading economic powers decided to evenly distribute the U.S. debt load, but this is not likely to happen because - as noted above - due to our domestic spending policies the dollar is bound to continue losing value, meaning the dollar is simply not a good investment (i.e. why would anyone invest in an asset that is certain to lose value?). The alternative is, of course, what economists refer to as an "adjustment" - "The basic outlines of a hard landing are easy to envision: a sharp fall in the value of the US dollar, a rapid increase in US long-term interest rates and a sharp fall in the price of a range of risk assets including equities and housing. The asset price adjustment would lead to a severe slowdown in the US, and the fall in US imports associated with the US slowdown and the dollar's fall would lead to a global severe economic slowdown, if not an outright recession."
In their paper, Roubini and Setser cite a number of "potential triggers" that could result in the collapse of the current (Bretton Woods 2) system, i.e. foreign investors either stop buying U.S. debt or begin dumping existing U.S. debt holdings, sparking a sell off. What I found really odd is that the it seems to me that the current administration is specifically trying to trigger this. They're rich and their holdings are offshore so they won't be hurt, but anyone trapped in a purely dollar-based economy will be screwed, further such a crisis would justify a Republican shut-down of almost ALL government social services (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, &c.) while the "war on terrorism" would justify redirecting all existing financial resources into military/security projects. Perhaps this is what they are trying to do.
Anyway, among the "potential triggers" identified by Roubini and Setser are:
> "Congress makes the Bush Administration's tax cuts permanent but balks at deep cuts in FY 2006 discretionary spending * or the bond market starts to recognize that it is impossible to substantially reduce the deficit simply by limiting growth in non-defense discretionary spending."
The tax cuts are completely incompatible with the current perceived interests of the country, to quote: "Bush's tax cuts have reduced the federal government's revenues from 20% of GDP in 01 to a bit above 16% of GDP, even as spending rose from 18.5% of GDP to almost 20% of GDP (CBO data). The 2004 budget deficit would have been even larger if the average interest rate on marketable debt had not fallen from 6% to 3.5%, reducing the federal government's (net) debt servicing costs from 2.1% to 1.4% of GDP even as debt held by the public rose from 35% to 41% of GDP." And yet, Bush & gang are fighting hard specifically for these cuts to be made permanent despite the inevitable reaction that this will cause on the bond market - they want it to happen.
> "The Bush Administration proposes and Congress passes a costly scheme for partial privatization of Social Security. Doubters are won over by smaller benefit cuts and larger private accounts, leading the markets to anticipate sharply higher consolidated budget deficits after 2009 and a surge in the supply of Treasuries."
This one is self-evident, and yet Bush & gang are pressing hard to make it happen despite the inevitable reaction among those currently financing the U.S. - they want it to happen.
> "The monthly trade data continues to belie hopes most recently expressed by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan -- that the lagged impact of the dollar's fall in 2002 and 2003 has been sufficient to at least moderate the expansion of the US trade deficits. Oil stays relatively high, and non-oil import volumes continue to grow rapidly, pushing the monthly trade deficit toward $65 billion ($780 billion annualized) and the current account deficit toward $850 billion."
The administration simply needs to do nothing, i.e. take no counter-measures, to ensure that this is will continue as it has been.
Of course there are many other potential triggers - some included in the paper cited above and others not mentioned there - such as a move by Venezuela or Iran to sell oil in currencies other than dollars (or "in-kind" barter, which Venezuela has already started doing). Either option would allow countries to acquire oil without using dollars, thereby lower the demand for dollars elsewhere. So, of course the current U.S. campaign of provocation against Iran (and Venezuela) is utterly and completely detrimental to our financial interests.
So, the very simple question is, what are they doing? Are they TRYING to "adjust" the economy to the detriment of all Americans that do not have extensive non-US dollar assets?
[First draft online at:
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/BW2-Unraveling-Roubini-Setser.pdf ]
This is by far the most comprehensive analysis of the global financial system currently in operation that I've seen, known as "Bretton Woods 2". This system is based upon the United States being allowed to operate massive trade deficits (as well as fiscal deficits) which are then covered by the purchasing of U.S. debt by foreigners, especially the East Asian central banks (esp. the Bank of Japan & the People's Bank of China). Essentially these foreign central banks purchase U.S. debt in order to prevent their local currencies from appreciating against the dollar (i.e. they artificially inflate the dollar to keep it higher than their own currency) in order to fuel their export based economies. That is, as long as the dollar remains higher than the yen or the yuan, Japan and China can export to the United States at an advantage, thereby fueling their own growth.
All said, such a system would only be sustainable if the United States adopted a responsible trade and fiscal spending policy. However, the neo-cons have determined - with some truth - that essentially the world community, and especially the East Asians, are forced into buying U.S. debt in order to maintain their economic solvency, that is, in order to keep their existing dollar assets (which serves as their foreign currency reserve) from losing value, they have to perpetually buy more dollar assets. Therefore the Bush administration has considered this something of carte blanche to throw fiscal responsibility to the wind, after all, no matter how grossly irresponsible they opt to behave, the world community will be forced to pick up the bill in order to keep their own economies strong.
However this is not sustainable for a number of reasons, but the most important of these is that the government's policy of grossly irresponsible spending (severely complicated by the continued occupation of Iraq and Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy) means that the dollar will continue to lose value, making the purchasing of U.S. dollar-denominated debt a losing investment. Quite simply, with interest rates at their current level, no major U.S. investment will provide a real return against the devaluation of the dollar. And, of course, should they remedy this by increasing interest rates, then the U.S. debt bubble runs the risk of bursting leading to a major "adjustment" or revaluation of the dollar.
Anyway, this system would only be sustainable if the leading economic powers decided to evenly distribute the U.S. debt load, but this is not likely to happen because - as noted above - due to our domestic spending policies the dollar is bound to continue losing value, meaning the dollar is simply not a good investment (i.e. why would anyone invest in an asset that is certain to lose value?). The alternative is, of course, what economists refer to as an "adjustment" - "The basic outlines of a hard landing are easy to envision: a sharp fall in the value of the US dollar, a rapid increase in US long-term interest rates and a sharp fall in the price of a range of risk assets including equities and housing. The asset price adjustment would lead to a severe slowdown in the US, and the fall in US imports associated with the US slowdown and the dollar's fall would lead to a global severe economic slowdown, if not an outright recession."
In their paper, Roubini and Setser cite a number of "potential triggers" that could result in the collapse of the current (Bretton Woods 2) system, i.e. foreign investors either stop buying U.S. debt or begin dumping existing U.S. debt holdings, sparking a sell off. What I found really odd is that the it seems to me that the current administration is specifically trying to trigger this. They're rich and their holdings are offshore so they won't be hurt, but anyone trapped in a purely dollar-based economy will be screwed, further such a crisis would justify a Republican shut-down of almost ALL government social services (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, &c.) while the "war on terrorism" would justify redirecting all existing financial resources into military/security projects. Perhaps this is what they are trying to do.
Anyway, among the "potential triggers" identified by Roubini and Setser are:
> "Congress makes the Bush Administration's tax cuts permanent but balks at deep cuts in FY 2006 discretionary spending * or the bond market starts to recognize that it is impossible to substantially reduce the deficit simply by limiting growth in non-defense discretionary spending."
The tax cuts are completely incompatible with the current perceived interests of the country, to quote: "Bush's tax cuts have reduced the federal government's revenues from 20% of GDP in 01 to a bit above 16% of GDP, even as spending rose from 18.5% of GDP to almost 20% of GDP (CBO data). The 2004 budget deficit would have been even larger if the average interest rate on marketable debt had not fallen from 6% to 3.5%, reducing the federal government's (net) debt servicing costs from 2.1% to 1.4% of GDP even as debt held by the public rose from 35% to 41% of GDP." And yet, Bush & gang are fighting hard specifically for these cuts to be made permanent despite the inevitable reaction that this will cause on the bond market - they want it to happen.
> "The Bush Administration proposes and Congress passes a costly scheme for partial privatization of Social Security. Doubters are won over by smaller benefit cuts and larger private accounts, leading the markets to anticipate sharply higher consolidated budget deficits after 2009 and a surge in the supply of Treasuries."
This one is self-evident, and yet Bush & gang are pressing hard to make it happen despite the inevitable reaction among those currently financing the U.S. - they want it to happen.
> "The monthly trade data continues to belie hopes most recently expressed by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan -- that the lagged impact of the dollar's fall in 2002 and 2003 has been sufficient to at least moderate the expansion of the US trade deficits. Oil stays relatively high, and non-oil import volumes continue to grow rapidly, pushing the monthly trade deficit toward $65 billion ($780 billion annualized) and the current account deficit toward $850 billion."
The administration simply needs to do nothing, i.e. take no counter-measures, to ensure that this is will continue as it has been.
Of course there are many other potential triggers - some included in the paper cited above and others not mentioned there - such as a move by Venezuela or Iran to sell oil in currencies other than dollars (or "in-kind" barter, which Venezuela has already started doing). Either option would allow countries to acquire oil without using dollars, thereby lower the demand for dollars elsewhere. So, of course the current U.S. campaign of provocation against Iran (and Venezuela) is utterly and completely detrimental to our financial interests.
So, the very simple question is, what are they doing? Are they TRYING to "adjust" the economy to the detriment of all Americans that do not have extensive non-US dollar assets?
25 March 2005
The Kyrgyz revolution...
Unlike the popular revolt in Georgia which was a completely U.S.-backed operation carried out in support of U.S. pipeline ambitions through the region and the Ukrainian revolt which was strongly supported by the EU with some support from the U.S. in helping to limit Russian influence in Europe, the U.S. has been somewhat quiet about the revolt in Kyrgyzstan. The reason is that the ousted pseudo-dictator Akayev was a willing collaborator with the U.S. imperial ambitions in the region. While they are sorry to see Akayev leave, the neo-cons have already taken an aggressive stance in denouncing their former ally in hopes of maintaining U.S. influence in the successor regime. Kyrgyzstan is already under the heavy influence of U.S. imperial elements - USAID, the State Department, various pro-imperial NGOs, &c. So the hope is that by quickly betraying their former ally, they will be able to maintain their role in that state.
First, a little background...
Excerpts from "The Dust of Empire: The Race for Mastery in the Asian Heartland" by Karl E Meyer, 2003, by the Century Foundation:
[p. 187] The rise of Askar Akayev in Kyrgyzstan is an anomaly in the region's post-Soviet era. He is the intellectual, the liberal, the putative democrat, the convert to free market ideology, or so he has struck his Western admirers.
[p. 188] From the moment of independence, President Akayev sought to break irrevocably with the Soviet system. He decreed the privatization of state farms whose profits fell below 15 percent, he welcomed foreign investors, he gave tenants title to their apartments, he named Westerners to key economic jobs, and he invited the International Monetary Fund to outline an economic plan, which he put into effect in 1993. Five years later, Kyrgyzstan became the first Central Asian state to join the World Trade organization.
[p.188] Akayev's economic hopes failed to materialize. Foreign investors were more generous with applause than with money, partly owing to the logistical difficulties of doing business in landlocked Kyrgyzstan. ... As the number of jobless grew, so did political opposition ....
[p. 189] The bigger clouds over the 'Switzerland of Central Asia' are America's military involvement and the perennial questions of nepotism and succession. Overnight, following September 11, Washington turned to Bishkek for assistance in the looming Afghan campaign. Akayev agreed to provide an air base for two thousand U.S. and allied troops, and in return he became an honored guest at the White House. The fear among Kyrgyz democrats is that if the base becomes permanent (as also seems likely in Uzbekistan) , the host government may view it as an immunizing shield. They worry that Washington will brush aside allegations of corruption, presidential nepotism and the muzzling of what has been a relatively free press. The New York-based Committee to Protect journalists has already listed Kyrgyzstan as one of the ten worst countries to work in as a journalist. And as visitors to Bishkek quickly discover, the prime focus for political gossip is the affluence of the president's family.
[p.190] One suspects that President Akayev is being equally candid when he denies having any interest in continuing his rule under a new constitutional arrangement after his second presidential term expires in 2005. Critics fear that the region's only quasi-democrat has turned quasi-authoritarian, fears quickened by his eldest son Aidar's dynastic marriage in 1998 to Aliya Nazarbayev, the youngest daughter of the Kazakh president (though the couple later separated). It would be a pity if Central Asia's most promising leader should dwindle into yet another decrepit liberator-for-life.
Not surprisingly, the neo-cons in Washington fully supported Akayev as a willing collaborator of the American empire. See for example, Baktybek Abdrisaev's lecture to the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation:
U.S.–Kyrgyz Strategic Cooperation
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/HL760.cfm
"If we look at what was done during this uneasy transition period in the sphere of economics, I would like to underline that, among other things, Kyrgyzstan was the first country in Central Asia to introduce its own currency; Kyrgyzstan from the very beginning was an active partner in world economic and financial organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; Kyrgyzstan was one of the first countries in the region which established modern investment laws; Kyrgyzstan was the first country which introduced private land ownership. And it was not a surprise that Kyrgyzstan in 1998 (only a year and a half after submitting documents to Geneva) became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in 2000 Kyrgyzstan was granted PNTR (permanent normal trade relations) status with United States. According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, at present Kyrgyzstan is the country in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that has undertaken the most market economic reform. All these results we achieved due to a strong commitment and determination on the part of Kyrgyz leaders and to invaluable assistance from the United States.
"The United States provided both financial and moral assistance to Kyrgyzstan in building the foundation for a modern economy. Our economic and investment laws were written with the help of American specialists. With the assistance of the U.S. Agency for International Development and other American agencies Kyrgyzstan implemented various projects in the economic area that taught our entrepreneurs how to do business with the outside world. If we look at all these developments and facts, we clearly see how much a small and young Kyrgyzstan could achieve in just a little bit more than 10 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Kyrgyzstan has actively and aggressively pursued all these liberal policies because we believed that the sooner we adopted them, the sooner we would pass this unpredictable transition period. We believed that only a liberal and open economy, free entrepreneurship, would be the solid foundation for a successful long-term development. And as a result, until 1998 Kyrgyzstan’s development was moving very rapidly.
"In addition to the economic aspect of our bilateral cooperation, we also certainly need to mention another area where the September 11 events brought some dynamism. That is our cooperation in the sphere of security and the war on terrorism. There has been close military cooperation between our nations since our independence. Kyrgyzstan established very fruitful relations with the Pentagon, the Central Command, and the National Guard of Montana. Our young officers have learned English in the U.S. Kyrgyzstan and the U.S. cooperated closely in the framework of the "Partnership for Peace" program and Central Asian Battalion. American and Kyrgyz military have conducted joint bilateral and multilateral military exercises. The National Guard of Kyrgyzstan has conducted joint military exercises in Montana with the National Guard of this state, during which they shared expertise in conducting military actions in mountainous areas. This expertise and experience were very instrumental in allowing our army to be able to defeat very strong groups of Islamic militants. As you know, in 1999 and 2000 Islamic militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IDU) invaded our territory on their way to Uzbekistan. During that harsh time, the U.S. Administration was very quick to provide us with the military assistance which was so needed to defeat our enemies. The Kyrgyz Army was given radios and other valuable military equipment.
"That is why I would say that the deployment of American and coalition forces in Kyrgyzstan was a natural and expected move because we fight a common enemy, which continues to pose a threat to stability and peace in Central Asia and our goals to create open and democratic society in our country. This military cooperation reached a unprecedented level, and we know that we can effectively combat international terrorism only by joint efforts.
"Kyrgyzstan is ready to continue these joint efforts in combating international terrorism, in bringing the lasting peace and security in Afghanistan, which unfortunately because of the world’s negligence and ignorance served as a haven for terrorism. We will support any American policy toward uniting Afghanistan and turning it into a secure and prosperous place. We will provide any assistance within our abilities to resolve the problem of Afghanistan finally."
Of course now that Akayev has been ousted by the people, the Heritage Foundation has quickly changed its tune and rejected Akayev, he is no longer useful and therefore can be betrayed. There is lesson here for the other dictators that are currently enjoying U.S. aid and support, from Musharif in Pakistan to the rest of the Central Asian "presidents". See for example:
Helping Kyrgyzstan’s Democratic Revolution
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/wm701.cfm
"The people of Kyrgyzstan have spoken—and acted. On Thursday, they stormed presidential headquarters and government buildings in the capital Bishkek in response to rigged parliamentary elections, and the government appears to be losing its grip on power. The Supreme Court has since annulled the elections, and the country is likely to return to the polls shortly. Still, Kyrgyzstan may face the prospects of civil war and possible disintegration if President Askar Akaev does not resign. In turn, turmoil in Kyrgyzstan could bring inter-ethnic and political violence to its larger neighbors, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and lead to their destabilization. To prevent this outcome and win another victory for democracy, the U.S. and its allies convince President Akaev to step down—and soon.
"Kyrgyzstan’s neighbors, the United States, European Union, OSCE, United Nations, and possibly Russia, must convince Akaev to resign and help the opposition find a quick and bloodless way out of the current crisis."
So, the question is whether the revolutionaries in Kyrgyzstan will declare their independence and create their own free and sovereign state, or whether they'll be seduced by U.S. money into staying a willing collaborator with the empire.
First, a little background...
Excerpts from "The Dust of Empire: The Race for Mastery in the Asian Heartland" by Karl E Meyer, 2003, by the Century Foundation:
[p. 187] The rise of Askar Akayev in Kyrgyzstan is an anomaly in the region's post-Soviet era. He is the intellectual, the liberal, the putative democrat, the convert to free market ideology, or so he has struck his Western admirers.
[p. 188] From the moment of independence, President Akayev sought to break irrevocably with the Soviet system. He decreed the privatization of state farms whose profits fell below 15 percent, he welcomed foreign investors, he gave tenants title to their apartments, he named Westerners to key economic jobs, and he invited the International Monetary Fund to outline an economic plan, which he put into effect in 1993. Five years later, Kyrgyzstan became the first Central Asian state to join the World Trade organization.
[p.188] Akayev's economic hopes failed to materialize. Foreign investors were more generous with applause than with money, partly owing to the logistical difficulties of doing business in landlocked Kyrgyzstan. ... As the number of jobless grew, so did political opposition ....
[p. 189] The bigger clouds over the 'Switzerland of Central Asia' are America's military involvement and the perennial questions of nepotism and succession. Overnight, following September 11, Washington turned to Bishkek for assistance in the looming Afghan campaign. Akayev agreed to provide an air base for two thousand U.S. and allied troops, and in return he became an honored guest at the White House. The fear among Kyrgyz democrats is that if the base becomes permanent (as also seems likely in Uzbekistan) , the host government may view it as an immunizing shield. They worry that Washington will brush aside allegations of corruption, presidential nepotism and the muzzling of what has been a relatively free press. The New York-based Committee to Protect journalists has already listed Kyrgyzstan as one of the ten worst countries to work in as a journalist. And as visitors to Bishkek quickly discover, the prime focus for political gossip is the affluence of the president's family.
[p.190] One suspects that President Akayev is being equally candid when he denies having any interest in continuing his rule under a new constitutional arrangement after his second presidential term expires in 2005. Critics fear that the region's only quasi-democrat has turned quasi-authoritarian, fears quickened by his eldest son Aidar's dynastic marriage in 1998 to Aliya Nazarbayev, the youngest daughter of the Kazakh president (though the couple later separated). It would be a pity if Central Asia's most promising leader should dwindle into yet another decrepit liberator-for-life.
Not surprisingly, the neo-cons in Washington fully supported Akayev as a willing collaborator of the American empire. See for example, Baktybek Abdrisaev's lecture to the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation:
U.S.–Kyrgyz Strategic Cooperation
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/HL760.cfm
"If we look at what was done during this uneasy transition period in the sphere of economics, I would like to underline that, among other things, Kyrgyzstan was the first country in Central Asia to introduce its own currency; Kyrgyzstan from the very beginning was an active partner in world economic and financial organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; Kyrgyzstan was one of the first countries in the region which established modern investment laws; Kyrgyzstan was the first country which introduced private land ownership. And it was not a surprise that Kyrgyzstan in 1998 (only a year and a half after submitting documents to Geneva) became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and in 2000 Kyrgyzstan was granted PNTR (permanent normal trade relations) status with United States. According to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, at present Kyrgyzstan is the country in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that has undertaken the most market economic reform. All these results we achieved due to a strong commitment and determination on the part of Kyrgyz leaders and to invaluable assistance from the United States.
"The United States provided both financial and moral assistance to Kyrgyzstan in building the foundation for a modern economy. Our economic and investment laws were written with the help of American specialists. With the assistance of the U.S. Agency for International Development and other American agencies Kyrgyzstan implemented various projects in the economic area that taught our entrepreneurs how to do business with the outside world. If we look at all these developments and facts, we clearly see how much a small and young Kyrgyzstan could achieve in just a little bit more than 10 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Kyrgyzstan has actively and aggressively pursued all these liberal policies because we believed that the sooner we adopted them, the sooner we would pass this unpredictable transition period. We believed that only a liberal and open economy, free entrepreneurship, would be the solid foundation for a successful long-term development. And as a result, until 1998 Kyrgyzstan’s development was moving very rapidly.
"In addition to the economic aspect of our bilateral cooperation, we also certainly need to mention another area where the September 11 events brought some dynamism. That is our cooperation in the sphere of security and the war on terrorism. There has been close military cooperation between our nations since our independence. Kyrgyzstan established very fruitful relations with the Pentagon, the Central Command, and the National Guard of Montana. Our young officers have learned English in the U.S. Kyrgyzstan and the U.S. cooperated closely in the framework of the "Partnership for Peace" program and Central Asian Battalion. American and Kyrgyz military have conducted joint bilateral and multilateral military exercises. The National Guard of Kyrgyzstan has conducted joint military exercises in Montana with the National Guard of this state, during which they shared expertise in conducting military actions in mountainous areas. This expertise and experience were very instrumental in allowing our army to be able to defeat very strong groups of Islamic militants. As you know, in 1999 and 2000 Islamic militants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IDU) invaded our territory on their way to Uzbekistan. During that harsh time, the U.S. Administration was very quick to provide us with the military assistance which was so needed to defeat our enemies. The Kyrgyz Army was given radios and other valuable military equipment.
"That is why I would say that the deployment of American and coalition forces in Kyrgyzstan was a natural and expected move because we fight a common enemy, which continues to pose a threat to stability and peace in Central Asia and our goals to create open and democratic society in our country. This military cooperation reached a unprecedented level, and we know that we can effectively combat international terrorism only by joint efforts.
"Kyrgyzstan is ready to continue these joint efforts in combating international terrorism, in bringing the lasting peace and security in Afghanistan, which unfortunately because of the world’s negligence and ignorance served as a haven for terrorism. We will support any American policy toward uniting Afghanistan and turning it into a secure and prosperous place. We will provide any assistance within our abilities to resolve the problem of Afghanistan finally."
Of course now that Akayev has been ousted by the people, the Heritage Foundation has quickly changed its tune and rejected Akayev, he is no longer useful and therefore can be betrayed. There is lesson here for the other dictators that are currently enjoying U.S. aid and support, from Musharif in Pakistan to the rest of the Central Asian "presidents". See for example:
Helping Kyrgyzstan’s Democratic Revolution
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/wm701.cfm
"The people of Kyrgyzstan have spoken—and acted. On Thursday, they stormed presidential headquarters and government buildings in the capital Bishkek in response to rigged parliamentary elections, and the government appears to be losing its grip on power. The Supreme Court has since annulled the elections, and the country is likely to return to the polls shortly. Still, Kyrgyzstan may face the prospects of civil war and possible disintegration if President Askar Akaev does not resign. In turn, turmoil in Kyrgyzstan could bring inter-ethnic and political violence to its larger neighbors, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and lead to their destabilization. To prevent this outcome and win another victory for democracy, the U.S. and its allies convince President Akaev to step down—and soon.
"Kyrgyzstan’s neighbors, the United States, European Union, OSCE, United Nations, and possibly Russia, must convince Akaev to resign and help the opposition find a quick and bloodless way out of the current crisis."
So, the question is whether the revolutionaries in Kyrgyzstan will declare their independence and create their own free and sovereign state, or whether they'll be seduced by U.S. money into staying a willing collaborator with the empire.
24 March 2005
The real issues are still out there...
Despite the fact that Congress is enjoying itself playing with non-issues such as the "Baseball Hearings" and now the fate of a brain-dead woman in Florida, the re-organization of empire continues.
U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Release
http://www.dod.gov/releases/2005/nr20050318-2245.html
The Department of Defense (DoD) released its National Defense Strategy (NDS) and National Military Strategy (NMS) today. These strategies outline an active, layered approach to the defense of the nation and its interests. ...
The National Defense Strategy of the United States, March 2005
http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nds2.pdf
Just to set the tone, the opening line after Rumsfeld's prologue is, of course, a lie... "America is a nation at war." Of course there is no declaration of war, no defined enemy, and no defined goal or objective beyond vague abstractions regarding "terrorism" and the like, i.e. Bush's militarist adventurism is just that, adventurism and naked aggression against whoever on any pretext. If America is legitimately "at war" the only possible target of this war is the entire world at large in the absence of any defined enemy or objective. Just for clarification, "war" has a defined meaning and the last "war" we were engaged in was World War II. The "war on terrorism" is a campaign, akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on breast cancer", not a "war" per se.
A few notable excerpts with commentary:
[pdf p.9] "We will have no global peer competitor and will remain unmatched in traditional military capability"
There is no question that the earlier stance of the Bush White House - that the U.S. will tolerate NO competitors regarding military superiority is still a leading principle. I believe the old term was "full spectrum dominance"
[pdf p.9] "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international for a, judicial processes, and terrorism."
I thought this was nice - the weak who often resort to the United Nations (Palestinians, Sudanese, &c.) for relief or international judicial bodies (re: the ICJ ruling against Israel's Apartheid Wall, the Belgian indictment of Bush, the German indictment of Rumsfeld, the International Criminal Court, &c.) are now firmly equated with "terrorists" as far as the Pentagon is concerned.
[pdf p.9] "Crises related to political stability and governance will pose significant security challenges. Some of these may threaten fundamental interests of the United States, requiring a military response."
That is, governments who "threaten fundamental interests" may stimulate a U.S. "military response". An ominous warning to say Venezuela (threatening to sell its oil to other countries as opposed to the U.S.) or Iran (threatening to follow Iraq's lead in selling oil in a different currency than the U.S. dollar), and so on. The message is clear, the Pentagon considers military action a suitable response to other country's internal political issues that do not suit our interests.
[pdf p.10] Strategic Objective #2 - "Secure Strategic Access and Retain Global Freedom of Action: The United States cannot influence that which it cannot reach. Securing strategic access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons: promotes the security and prosperity of the United States; ensures freedom of action; helps secure our partners; and helps protect the integrity of the international economic system."
This accurately reflects the earlier goals of ensuring that the U.S. military has immediate access to all regions of the world, i.e. military governance of the empire. However, what is interesting is that the Pentagon is now playing a leading role in global economics, i.e. the "integrity of the international economic system" is now part and parcel of the military's mission. Of course we (like other imperial powers) have always used the military to enforce and impose our economic interests on others, however, this is usually hidden behind some military/security façade - e.g. we invaded Iraq to 'defend' against weapons of mass destructions, not to monopolize Iraqi oil and destroy the one country in the world to start selling oil in a currency other than the U.S. dollar. I suppose we should respect the White House for at least being honest now - the military is a key aspect of our economic domination.
[pdf p. 13] "At the direction of the President, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing - setting the conditions for future security."
The idea of unilateral U.S. "pre-emptive" strikes is a constant theme in this document. The line above highlights that the United States reserves the right to act as it sees fit despite U.S. treaty obligations and the interests of other countries and/or the world community in general.
[pdf p. 13] "The United States will seize the strategic initiative in all areas of defense activity - assuring, dissuading, deterring, and defeating. Our first priority is the defeat of direct threats to the United States. Terrorists have demonstrated that they can conduct devastating surprise attacks. Allowing opponents to strike first - particularly in an era of proliferation - is unacceptable. Therefore the United States must defeat the most dangerous challenges early and at a safe distance, before they are allowed to mature."
If we were in fact in a real war - with a defined enemy - this would of course make sense. In World War II, such a policy against the Japanese empire would make perfect sense in that we knew who the enemy was, where they were, and their intentions toward us, i.e. war. However, when dealing with non-state actors, i.e. individual people and small groups of individual people, the above principle effectively justifies the murder of anyone based on absolutely nothing. With no legal review or due-process, the idea that the military is reserving the right to unilaterally declare anyone an "enemy" and then killing them is effectively no different than the Nazi policy against the Jews. After all, by its actions the Nazi government reasonably guaranteed that most Jews were its enemies and therefore - using the Pentagon's logic as portrayed here - the Holocaust was a perfectly justified "pre-emptive" attack on potential enemies. Make no mistake about it, this new Pentagon policy effectively gives the U.S. military carte blanche to commit any murder, mass murder, or even genocide it so feels like.
[pdf p.14] "Preventive actions also might entail other military operations - for example, to prevent the outbreak of hostilities or to help defend or restore a friendly government."
Effectively the Pentagon is declaring that it has the right to impose and defend U.S. installed puppet regimes (i.e. Iraq, Colombia, Panama, &c.) over others. Notice there is certainly no mention of any sort of "democratic" criteria here, thus we can continue to support vicious and bloody dictatorships as long as they remain "friendly", i.e. obedient, to the United States like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and so on.
[pdf p. 17] "Ceding our historic maritime advantage would unacceptably limit our global reach. Our capacity to operate from international airspace and outer space will remain important for joint operations. In particular, as the nation's reliance on space-based systems continues to grow, we will guard against new vulnerabilities. Key goals, therefore are to ensure our access to and use of space, and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."
Having overwhelming military power on land, sea, and sky; the Pentagon now seeks to monopolize space as part of America's "full spectrum dominance" scheme to properly enslave the world to serve U.S. interests.
[pdf p.19] "In addition, we will need to train units for sustained stability operations. This will include developing ways to strengthen their language and civil-military affairs capabilities as required for specific deployments."
"Stability operations" is the euphemism for military occupations of victim peoples having U.S. will imposed on them at the barrel of U.S. guns, e.g. "sovereign Iraq". The real question here is whether the Pentagon is talking about improving the U.S. occupation force in Iraq or preparing for another occupation elsewhere.
also released today...
National Military Strategy of the United States of America
http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Release
http://www.dod.gov/releases/2005/nr20050318-2245.html
The Department of Defense (DoD) released its National Defense Strategy (NDS) and National Military Strategy (NMS) today. These strategies outline an active, layered approach to the defense of the nation and its interests. ...
The National Defense Strategy of the United States, March 2005
http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nds2.pdf
Just to set the tone, the opening line after Rumsfeld's prologue is, of course, a lie... "America is a nation at war." Of course there is no declaration of war, no defined enemy, and no defined goal or objective beyond vague abstractions regarding "terrorism" and the like, i.e. Bush's militarist adventurism is just that, adventurism and naked aggression against whoever on any pretext. If America is legitimately "at war" the only possible target of this war is the entire world at large in the absence of any defined enemy or objective. Just for clarification, "war" has a defined meaning and the last "war" we were engaged in was World War II. The "war on terrorism" is a campaign, akin to the "war on drugs" or the "war on breast cancer", not a "war" per se.
A few notable excerpts with commentary:
[pdf p.9] "We will have no global peer competitor and will remain unmatched in traditional military capability"
There is no question that the earlier stance of the Bush White House - that the U.S. will tolerate NO competitors regarding military superiority is still a leading principle. I believe the old term was "full spectrum dominance"
[pdf p.9] "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international for a, judicial processes, and terrorism."
I thought this was nice - the weak who often resort to the United Nations (Palestinians, Sudanese, &c.) for relief or international judicial bodies (re: the ICJ ruling against Israel's Apartheid Wall, the Belgian indictment of Bush, the German indictment of Rumsfeld, the International Criminal Court, &c.) are now firmly equated with "terrorists" as far as the Pentagon is concerned.
[pdf p.9] "Crises related to political stability and governance will pose significant security challenges. Some of these may threaten fundamental interests of the United States, requiring a military response."
That is, governments who "threaten fundamental interests" may stimulate a U.S. "military response". An ominous warning to say Venezuela (threatening to sell its oil to other countries as opposed to the U.S.) or Iran (threatening to follow Iraq's lead in selling oil in a different currency than the U.S. dollar), and so on. The message is clear, the Pentagon considers military action a suitable response to other country's internal political issues that do not suit our interests.
[pdf p.10] Strategic Objective #2 - "Secure Strategic Access and Retain Global Freedom of Action: The United States cannot influence that which it cannot reach. Securing strategic access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons: promotes the security and prosperity of the United States; ensures freedom of action; helps secure our partners; and helps protect the integrity of the international economic system."
This accurately reflects the earlier goals of ensuring that the U.S. military has immediate access to all regions of the world, i.e. military governance of the empire. However, what is interesting is that the Pentagon is now playing a leading role in global economics, i.e. the "integrity of the international economic system" is now part and parcel of the military's mission. Of course we (like other imperial powers) have always used the military to enforce and impose our economic interests on others, however, this is usually hidden behind some military/security façade - e.g. we invaded Iraq to 'defend' against weapons of mass destructions, not to monopolize Iraqi oil and destroy the one country in the world to start selling oil in a currency other than the U.S. dollar. I suppose we should respect the White House for at least being honest now - the military is a key aspect of our economic domination.
[pdf p. 13] "At the direction of the President, we will defeat adversaries at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing - setting the conditions for future security."
The idea of unilateral U.S. "pre-emptive" strikes is a constant theme in this document. The line above highlights that the United States reserves the right to act as it sees fit despite U.S. treaty obligations and the interests of other countries and/or the world community in general.
[pdf p. 13] "The United States will seize the strategic initiative in all areas of defense activity - assuring, dissuading, deterring, and defeating. Our first priority is the defeat of direct threats to the United States. Terrorists have demonstrated that they can conduct devastating surprise attacks. Allowing opponents to strike first - particularly in an era of proliferation - is unacceptable. Therefore the United States must defeat the most dangerous challenges early and at a safe distance, before they are allowed to mature."
If we were in fact in a real war - with a defined enemy - this would of course make sense. In World War II, such a policy against the Japanese empire would make perfect sense in that we knew who the enemy was, where they were, and their intentions toward us, i.e. war. However, when dealing with non-state actors, i.e. individual people and small groups of individual people, the above principle effectively justifies the murder of anyone based on absolutely nothing. With no legal review or due-process, the idea that the military is reserving the right to unilaterally declare anyone an "enemy" and then killing them is effectively no different than the Nazi policy against the Jews. After all, by its actions the Nazi government reasonably guaranteed that most Jews were its enemies and therefore - using the Pentagon's logic as portrayed here - the Holocaust was a perfectly justified "pre-emptive" attack on potential enemies. Make no mistake about it, this new Pentagon policy effectively gives the U.S. military carte blanche to commit any murder, mass murder, or even genocide it so feels like.
[pdf p.14] "Preventive actions also might entail other military operations - for example, to prevent the outbreak of hostilities or to help defend or restore a friendly government."
Effectively the Pentagon is declaring that it has the right to impose and defend U.S. installed puppet regimes (i.e. Iraq, Colombia, Panama, &c.) over others. Notice there is certainly no mention of any sort of "democratic" criteria here, thus we can continue to support vicious and bloody dictatorships as long as they remain "friendly", i.e. obedient, to the United States like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and so on.
[pdf p. 17] "Ceding our historic maritime advantage would unacceptably limit our global reach. Our capacity to operate from international airspace and outer space will remain important for joint operations. In particular, as the nation's reliance on space-based systems continues to grow, we will guard against new vulnerabilities. Key goals, therefore are to ensure our access to and use of space, and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."
Having overwhelming military power on land, sea, and sky; the Pentagon now seeks to monopolize space as part of America's "full spectrum dominance" scheme to properly enslave the world to serve U.S. interests.
[pdf p.19] "In addition, we will need to train units for sustained stability operations. This will include developing ways to strengthen their language and civil-military affairs capabilities as required for specific deployments."
"Stability operations" is the euphemism for military occupations of victim peoples having U.S. will imposed on them at the barrel of U.S. guns, e.g. "sovereign Iraq". The real question here is whether the Pentagon is talking about improving the U.S. occupation force in Iraq or preparing for another occupation elsewhere.
also released today...
National Military Strategy of the United States of America
http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf
10 March 2005
Don't get in any trouble abroad...
In yet another withdrawal from the norms of international behavior, the United States has pulled out of the optional protocol to the Vienna Convention requiring that foreign citizens arrested and charged with a crime in a different country have access to their embassy and/or consulate. The reason cited is that Mexicans arrested for crimes in the U.S. should not be given special access to the Mexican Embassy/Consulate.
Of course, the inverse is that if an American is arrested abroad - though he may have the right to contact the American Embassy/Consulate by virtue of that country being a member of the protocol - if that right is not extended, the American in custody would not really be able to appeal to this protocol to question the legality of this limitation. Most norms of international law are essentially based on reciprocity, i.e. if you do this for our nationals, we'll do the same for your nationals. Needless to say, any American who finds himself arrested abroad would have a hard time making his case now.
That is, in so many words, if you get arrested in a foreign country you - as an American - no longer have an uncontested case in demanding that you be allowed to contact the U.S. diplomatic official in that country for help. Of course if you're Bush & his friends, you're rich enough not to need this, but everyone else is screwed....
U.S. Quits Agreement on Access to Diplomats -- Paper
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7859607
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has withdrawn from an international agreement that guarantees jailed foreigners the right to talk to consular officers, ... Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice notified U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a letter dated March 7, that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the newspaper reported.
I wonder if this will put a damper on tourism to Mexico; they - like everyone else - are not too happy with us right now anyway...
Rice to Confront U.S. Resentment in Mexico
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_RICE?SITE=CAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Mexican congressmen and Cabinet members have denounced recent U.S. warnings about violence on the border, human rights abuses, continuing drug trafficking problems and possible election-related instability. U.S. ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza added fuel to the nationalistic fires last week when, during a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico City, he spoke about corruption and crime, Mexico's dependence on remittances from the United States and the country's failure to adapt "to the new rules of the globalization game."
Of course, the inverse is that if an American is arrested abroad - though he may have the right to contact the American Embassy/Consulate by virtue of that country being a member of the protocol - if that right is not extended, the American in custody would not really be able to appeal to this protocol to question the legality of this limitation. Most norms of international law are essentially based on reciprocity, i.e. if you do this for our nationals, we'll do the same for your nationals. Needless to say, any American who finds himself arrested abroad would have a hard time making his case now.
That is, in so many words, if you get arrested in a foreign country you - as an American - no longer have an uncontested case in demanding that you be allowed to contact the U.S. diplomatic official in that country for help. Of course if you're Bush & his friends, you're rich enough not to need this, but everyone else is screwed....
U.S. Quits Agreement on Access to Diplomats -- Paper
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7859607
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has withdrawn from an international agreement that guarantees jailed foreigners the right to talk to consular officers, ... Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice notified U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a letter dated March 7, that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the newspaper reported.
I wonder if this will put a damper on tourism to Mexico; they - like everyone else - are not too happy with us right now anyway...
Rice to Confront U.S. Resentment in Mexico
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_RICE?SITE=CAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Mexican congressmen and Cabinet members have denounced recent U.S. warnings about violence on the border, human rights abuses, continuing drug trafficking problems and possible election-related instability. U.S. ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza added fuel to the nationalistic fires last week when, during a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico City, he spoke about corruption and crime, Mexico's dependence on remittances from the United States and the country's failure to adapt "to the new rules of the globalization game."
08 March 2005
So much for Bush's "fence-mending"...
Despite the glowing reports of Bush’s unmitigated “success” during his recent European tour and discussions with EU leaders, what has become readily apparent is that behind the smiles and photo-ops, Bush failed miserably. Nothing could possibly illustrate this point better than his decision to appoint john Bolton – one of the most rabidly unilateralist neo-cons in the administration – to the position of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. This is beyond a slap in the face to the Europeans – who take the UN very seriously – as well as the rest of the world. Let’s take a quick glance at this…
White House Press Release: Personnel Announcement
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050307-4.html
The President intends to nominate John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary; and to be United States Representative in the Security Council of the United Nations; and to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States to the United Nations.
John Robert Bolton has served as director of the Project for a New American Century (a leading neo-conservative think-tank advocating U.S. domination of the world – http://www.newamericancentury.org ) as well as vice-president of the American Enterprise Institute (the primary neo-conservative think-tank – http://www.aei.org/ ). He has held a number of offices in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations and has been an undersecretary of state in the Bush Jr. administration.
Let’s look at his views on international issues:
“I believe…our foreign policy should support American interests. Let the rest of the world support the rest of the world’s interests.” (The O’Reilly Factor, 3/24/99) [11]
On the United Nations:
“If I were doing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world… [and that member would be] the United States.” (NPR, Talk of the Nation, 6/6/00) [11]
Comments from the number three man at the State Department, John Bolton, indicate this is how the US perceives it: "There is no such thing as the UN. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the US, when it suits our interests." [5]
In an article for the right-wing Weekly Standard (10/4/99) entitled "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," Bolton excoriates the UN Secretary General for trying to limit warfare and to establish the supremacy of UN forces. In Bolton's words, "If the United States allows that claim to go unchallenged, its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future." [7]
"Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system." Washington Times, 10/24/98 [2]
At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association Bolton claimed "there's no such thing as the United Nations," and stated "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." [2]
In addition, the continual gaffes of hawks like Bolton make the U.S. position seem even more hypocritical in the global arena. For example, the ostensible excuse for attacking Iraq is its defiance of UN resolutions. However, Bolton has defied the UN's very existence for most of his political career. He has made it plain that the U.S. government should not abide by any UN decisions that may prove inconvenient to the U.S. pursuit of its national interests. [8]
On the International Criminal Court:
Within the State Department, Bolton led the drive for U.S. refusal to sign the Rome Statute that created the new International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. To recognize his commitment to opposing the Statute, Powell permitted Bolton to sign the letter to Annan formally announcing Washington's withdrawal, an act he later described to the Wall Street Journal as "the happiest moment of my government service." [3]
"Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system." House International Relations Committee, 07/07/00 [2]
"A product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous." - 1998, senior vice president, American Enterprise Institute [1]
For the past two years, his single-handed campaign to destroy the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has done much to cement European and third world resentment of U.S. "diplomacy" and unity in advance of the Iraq issue. Indeed, his campaign get bilateral treaties exempting American citizens from the ICC's jurisdiction precipitated the fissure lines we now see emerging in the global community. His few successes include the East Europeans, desperate to get into NATO, as well as the tiny island states, which are, well, just desperate. [8]
On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty:
After the Senate voted not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Bolton declared categorically, "CTBT is dead." Here he's at odds with much of the American public. Public opinion polls consistently show that more nearly 80% of Americans support a ban on all underground tests. [7]
"The Senate vote on the CTBT actually marks the beginning of a new realism on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their global proliferation... the Senate vote is also an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties." The Jerusalem Post, 10/18/99 [2]
On the Biological Weapons Convention:
"It's dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead." - 2001, State Department arms control chief, privately to U.S. allies [1]
Several months later, following the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax scare, Bolton led the U.S. delegation to a major UN bio-weapons conference in Geneva, which he first inflamed by naming in his first speech six nations that he alleged were building bio-weapons illegally, and then sabotaged by trying to terminate an effort to forge a verification protocol. The latter move provoked expressions of shock and outrage from U.S. allies in Europe. [3]
One such critic, Amy Smithson, a biological-weapons expert at the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank, told the Journal that the U.S. was right in rejecting a protocol for verifying compliance with the biological-weapons ban. "They inherited a lemon. ... But Bolton was so in-your-face, rejecting the entire negotiations, that he angered even allies who wanted to work with the United States to create a much stronger monitoring regime," she said. [1]
On the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons:
Unrepentant, Bolton said the United States is not going to accept “misguided” international rules on small arms. “We’re not going to talk about international gun control regimes that contravene the Constitution,” he said. “The fact that there are weapons around the world indicates there is a demand for these weapons. It may be a good or bad thing. But it is a mistake to believe that some international regime is going to address the problem. The presence of weapons is reflective of disputes and uncertainty around the world. That is the problem, not the weapons.” [10]
In the summer of 2001, he shocked foreign delegations and non-governmental organizations at the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons when he announced that Washington would oppose any attempt to regulate the trade in firearms or non-military rifles or any other effort that would "abrogat[e] the constitutional right to bear arms." "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," exclaimed Tamar Gabelnick, Director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), who charged that the U.S. position single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus. [3]
"We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states. What individual governments do in this regard is for them to decide, but we do not regard the international governmental support of particular political viewpoints to be consistent with democratic principles. Accordingly, the provisions of the draft Program that contemplate such activity should be modified or eliminated." [6]
On the European Union:
Previously, Bolton had sounded the alert, warning that "the Europeans can be sure that America's days as a well-bred doormat for EU political and military protection are coming to an end." [8]
On China/Taiwan:
Bolton's other battles, at least in recent years, have centered on Taiwan and the United Nations. In a clear break with Washington's long-standing "one-China" policy, Bolton advocates that Taiwan be recognized as an independent state and be given a seat in the United Nations. In 1994, Bolton opened his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee by declaring, "I believe that the United States should support the efforts of the Republic of China on Taiwan to become a full member of the United Nations." [7]
He writes that "diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for… The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West." And, according to the Washington Post (April 9, 2001), Bolton is motivated by more than his ultra-rightwing ideology. He's also been on the payroll of the Taiwan government. According to the Post, over a period of three years in the 1990s and at the time he promoting diplomatic recognition of Taiwan before various congressional committees, Bolton was paid a total of $30,000 by the government of Taiwan for "research papers on UN membership issues involving Taiwan." Bolton has denied that his testimony was in any way tied to the fee paid by the Taiwanese. [7]
China has been his main target: More than a dozen Chinese entities have been sanctioned for selling missiles and other proscribed technology to Iran and Pakistan. Another set of sanctions is expected within a week, the Journal says. [1]
"...diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for. The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy." AEI web site, 8/9/99 [2]
On North Korea:
The highly unusual statement was reportedly provoked by a speech given by Bolton in Seoul last week excerpts of which were reprinted on the highly sympathetic editorial pages of the Asian Wall Street Journal Friday, in which the undersecretary, who ranks fourth in the State Department hierarchy, described life in North Korea as a "hellish nightmare" and accused Pyongyang's leader, Kim Jong Il," of being a "dictator" or running a "dictatorship" or "tyranny" no less than a dozen times. Some U.S. and Asian analysts indicated last week that Bolton, who has made no secret of his belief that Washington should pursue "regime change" in Pyongyang rather than a new agreement on its de-nuclearization, may have intended to use the speech to provoke Kim into rejecting the forthcoming meeting. Cheney and the Pentagon have long been skeptical of any negotiation with North Korea. [3]
North Korea is another Bolton target. He has been fierce in his opposition to U.S. engagement with North Korea. He says that for the worst offenders, the U.S. has other tools it can use, including covert operations and military action. [1]
"A sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have "normal" diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours. We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country." Los Angeles Times, 09/22/99 [2]
While in Israel, Bolton met Sharon and Netanyahu. He promised that after the U.S. has sorted Iraq "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." [8]
On Nicaragua:
A staunch backer of the Nicaraguan contras, Bolton played a key role in trying to undermine efforts by Sen. John Kerry to investigate drug smuggling and gunrunning by the contras, according to Nation columnist David Corn, and was later put in charge of stonewalling Congressional efforts to obtain Justice Department documents and interview Meese's deputies about their role in the Iran-Contra scandal. [3]
On Cuba:
In a speech called Beyond the Axis of Evil, the undersecretary of state John Bolton presented no evidence for his claims, pointing only to Cuba's advanced biomedical industry and Mr Castro's visits last year to three "rogue states" accused by the the US state department of sponsoring terrorism: Iraq, Syria and Libya. "States that renounce terror and abandon WMD [weapons of mass destruction] can become part of our effort," Mr Bolton said. "But those that do not can expect to become our targets." [4]
At the same time, Bolton was also engaged in a lengthy row with U.S. intelligence agencies over his unprecedented public charge that Cuba had an offensive biological warfare program that U.S. military and intelligence officials had previously "underplayed." His statement became an embarrassment after anonymous intelligence officials and retired senior military officers, including the former head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the media that no such evidence existed and charged that Bolton was politicizing intelligence. [3]
On Syria:
Last month, Bolton was accused of the same charge when he was due to testify before Congress on Syria's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction which, according to his prepared remarks, had come to pose a threat to regional stability. His testimony was abruptly canceled and rescheduled for September after the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department's own intelligence bureau objected to his characterization. [3]
While in Israel, Bolton met Sharon and Netanyahu. He promised that after the U.S. has sorted Iraq "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." [8]
On Iran:
While in Israel, Bolton met Sharon and Netanyahu. He promised that after the U.S. has sorted Iraq "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." [8]
On Iraq:
On the invasion, see the Complete Iraq Timeline: John Bolton - http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-809
“We’re going ahead. If you want to come along, come along. We hope you will. But be advised, we’re going ahead on our own…I believe that approach is most likely to produce a larger coalition, because I think, quite frankly, a lot of the members of the old coalition are looking for that kind of American leadership. And a firm and decisive stand by the United States, paradoxical though it may sound, will actually induce more countries to come along.” - John Bolton, NPR, 1/29/98 [11]
“The work in Iraq is taking longer than people wanted. It is giving rise to claims that there was never a weapons capability. It has led to some questions about our credibility. I think the evidence is there and will be overwhelming when it comes out,” he said. [10]
Notes:
[1] NewsMax: “John Bolton: The Iron Hand in the State Department's Velvet Glove”http://64.135.21.3/archive/print.pl?a=2002/7/19/113709
[2] Council for a Livable World: "Oppose John Bolton's Nomination as State Department's Arms Control Leader!"http://www.clw.org/bush/opposebolton.html
[3] Inter Press Service: "North Korea Won't Recognize State Dep't. Ideologue"http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/articles/030804-lobe.html
[4] The Guardian: "War on terror may extend to Cuba"http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,11983,711296,00.html
[5] Common Dreams: "Blair May Be First Buddy, But It's Time He Faced the Facts"http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-06.htm
[6] United State Mission to the UN: "Statement by John R. Bolton, United States Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, to the Plenary Session of the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, July 9, 2001"http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm
[7] Foreign policy in Focus: "other Official's Profiles"http://www.fpif.org/republicanrule/officials_body.html
[8] Global Policy Forum: "John Bolton in Jerusalem: The New Age of Disarmament Wars"http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0220Bolton.htm
[9] US Department of State: "The NPT: A Crisis of Non-Compliance"http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/31848.htm
[10] Washington Diplomat: "Hard-Edged Bush Official Helps Craft Foreign Policy"http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-08/a1_03_08.html
[11] Think Progress Blog http://www.thinkprogress.org/
This is the guy that is going to be representing all Americans before the United Nations... so much for any pretense to "democracy."
White House Press Release: Personnel Announcement
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050307-4.html
The President intends to nominate John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary; and to be United States Representative in the Security Council of the United Nations; and to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States to the United Nations.
John Robert Bolton has served as director of the Project for a New American Century (a leading neo-conservative think-tank advocating U.S. domination of the world – http://www.newamericancentury.org ) as well as vice-president of the American Enterprise Institute (the primary neo-conservative think-tank – http://www.aei.org/ ). He has held a number of offices in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations and has been an undersecretary of state in the Bush Jr. administration.
Let’s look at his views on international issues:
“I believe…our foreign policy should support American interests. Let the rest of the world support the rest of the world’s interests.” (The O’Reilly Factor, 3/24/99) [11]
On the United Nations:
“If I were doing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world… [and that member would be] the United States.” (NPR, Talk of the Nation, 6/6/00) [11]
Comments from the number three man at the State Department, John Bolton, indicate this is how the US perceives it: "There is no such thing as the UN. There is an international community that can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the US, when it suits our interests." [5]
In an article for the right-wing Weekly Standard (10/4/99) entitled "Kofi Annan's UN Power Grab," Bolton excoriates the UN Secretary General for trying to limit warfare and to establish the supremacy of UN forces. In Bolton's words, "If the United States allows that claim to go unchallenged, its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future." [7]
"Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system." Washington Times, 10/24/98 [2]
At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association Bolton claimed "there's no such thing as the United Nations," and stated "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." [2]
In addition, the continual gaffes of hawks like Bolton make the U.S. position seem even more hypocritical in the global arena. For example, the ostensible excuse for attacking Iraq is its defiance of UN resolutions. However, Bolton has defied the UN's very existence for most of his political career. He has made it plain that the U.S. government should not abide by any UN decisions that may prove inconvenient to the U.S. pursuit of its national interests. [8]
On the International Criminal Court:
Within the State Department, Bolton led the drive for U.S. refusal to sign the Rome Statute that created the new International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent tribunal with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. To recognize his commitment to opposing the Statute, Powell permitted Bolton to sign the letter to Annan formally announcing Washington's withdrawal, an act he later described to the Wall Street Journal as "the happiest moment of my government service." [3]
"Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system." House International Relations Committee, 07/07/00 [2]
"A product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous." - 1998, senior vice president, American Enterprise Institute [1]
For the past two years, his single-handed campaign to destroy the effectiveness of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has done much to cement European and third world resentment of U.S. "diplomacy" and unity in advance of the Iraq issue. Indeed, his campaign get bilateral treaties exempting American citizens from the ICC's jurisdiction precipitated the fissure lines we now see emerging in the global community. His few successes include the East Europeans, desperate to get into NATO, as well as the tiny island states, which are, well, just desperate. [8]
On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty:
After the Senate voted not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Bolton declared categorically, "CTBT is dead." Here he's at odds with much of the American public. Public opinion polls consistently show that more nearly 80% of Americans support a ban on all underground tests. [7]
"The Senate vote on the CTBT actually marks the beginning of a new realism on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their global proliferation... the Senate vote is also an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties." The Jerusalem Post, 10/18/99 [2]
On the Biological Weapons Convention:
"It's dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead." - 2001, State Department arms control chief, privately to U.S. allies [1]
Several months later, following the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax scare, Bolton led the U.S. delegation to a major UN bio-weapons conference in Geneva, which he first inflamed by naming in his first speech six nations that he alleged were building bio-weapons illegally, and then sabotaged by trying to terminate an effort to forge a verification protocol. The latter move provoked expressions of shock and outrage from U.S. allies in Europe. [3]
One such critic, Amy Smithson, a biological-weapons expert at the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank, told the Journal that the U.S. was right in rejecting a protocol for verifying compliance with the biological-weapons ban. "They inherited a lemon. ... But Bolton was so in-your-face, rejecting the entire negotiations, that he angered even allies who wanted to work with the United States to create a much stronger monitoring regime," she said. [1]
On the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons:
Unrepentant, Bolton said the United States is not going to accept “misguided” international rules on small arms. “We’re not going to talk about international gun control regimes that contravene the Constitution,” he said. “The fact that there are weapons around the world indicates there is a demand for these weapons. It may be a good or bad thing. But it is a mistake to believe that some international regime is going to address the problem. The presence of weapons is reflective of disputes and uncertainty around the world. That is the problem, not the weapons.” [10]
In the summer of 2001, he shocked foreign delegations and non-governmental organizations at the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons when he announced that Washington would oppose any attempt to regulate the trade in firearms or non-military rifles or any other effort that would "abrogat[e] the constitutional right to bear arms." "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," exclaimed Tamar Gabelnick, Director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), who charged that the U.S. position single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus. [3]
"We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states. What individual governments do in this regard is for them to decide, but we do not regard the international governmental support of particular political viewpoints to be consistent with democratic principles. Accordingly, the provisions of the draft Program that contemplate such activity should be modified or eliminated." [6]
On the European Union:
Previously, Bolton had sounded the alert, warning that "the Europeans can be sure that America's days as a well-bred doormat for EU political and military protection are coming to an end." [8]
On China/Taiwan:
Bolton's other battles, at least in recent years, have centered on Taiwan and the United Nations. In a clear break with Washington's long-standing "one-China" policy, Bolton advocates that Taiwan be recognized as an independent state and be given a seat in the United Nations. In 1994, Bolton opened his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee by declaring, "I believe that the United States should support the efforts of the Republic of China on Taiwan to become a full member of the United Nations." [7]
He writes that "diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for… The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy, albeit one the Communist leaders welcome and encourage in the West." And, according to the Washington Post (April 9, 2001), Bolton is motivated by more than his ultra-rightwing ideology. He's also been on the payroll of the Taiwan government. According to the Post, over a period of three years in the 1990s and at the time he promoting diplomatic recognition of Taiwan before various congressional committees, Bolton was paid a total of $30,000 by the government of Taiwan for "research papers on UN membership issues involving Taiwan." Bolton has denied that his testimony was in any way tied to the fee paid by the Taiwanese. [7]
China has been his main target: More than a dozen Chinese entities have been sanctioned for selling missiles and other proscribed technology to Iran and Pakistan. Another set of sanctions is expected within a week, the Journal says. [1]
"...diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for. The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy." AEI web site, 8/9/99 [2]
On North Korea:
The highly unusual statement was reportedly provoked by a speech given by Bolton in Seoul last week excerpts of which were reprinted on the highly sympathetic editorial pages of the Asian Wall Street Journal Friday, in which the undersecretary, who ranks fourth in the State Department hierarchy, described life in North Korea as a "hellish nightmare" and accused Pyongyang's leader, Kim Jong Il," of being a "dictator" or running a "dictatorship" or "tyranny" no less than a dozen times. Some U.S. and Asian analysts indicated last week that Bolton, who has made no secret of his belief that Washington should pursue "regime change" in Pyongyang rather than a new agreement on its de-nuclearization, may have intended to use the speech to provoke Kim into rejecting the forthcoming meeting. Cheney and the Pentagon have long been skeptical of any negotiation with North Korea. [3]
North Korea is another Bolton target. He has been fierce in his opposition to U.S. engagement with North Korea. He says that for the worst offenders, the U.S. has other tools it can use, including covert operations and military action. [1]
"A sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have "normal" diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours. We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country." Los Angeles Times, 09/22/99 [2]
While in Israel, Bolton met Sharon and Netanyahu. He promised that after the U.S. has sorted Iraq "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." [8]
On Nicaragua:
A staunch backer of the Nicaraguan contras, Bolton played a key role in trying to undermine efforts by Sen. John Kerry to investigate drug smuggling and gunrunning by the contras, according to Nation columnist David Corn, and was later put in charge of stonewalling Congressional efforts to obtain Justice Department documents and interview Meese's deputies about their role in the Iran-Contra scandal. [3]
On Cuba:
In a speech called Beyond the Axis of Evil, the undersecretary of state John Bolton presented no evidence for his claims, pointing only to Cuba's advanced biomedical industry and Mr Castro's visits last year to three "rogue states" accused by the the US state department of sponsoring terrorism: Iraq, Syria and Libya. "States that renounce terror and abandon WMD [weapons of mass destruction] can become part of our effort," Mr Bolton said. "But those that do not can expect to become our targets." [4]
At the same time, Bolton was also engaged in a lengthy row with U.S. intelligence agencies over his unprecedented public charge that Cuba had an offensive biological warfare program that U.S. military and intelligence officials had previously "underplayed." His statement became an embarrassment after anonymous intelligence officials and retired senior military officers, including the former head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the media that no such evidence existed and charged that Bolton was politicizing intelligence. [3]
On Syria:
Last month, Bolton was accused of the same charge when he was due to testify before Congress on Syria's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction which, according to his prepared remarks, had come to pose a threat to regional stability. His testimony was abruptly canceled and rescheduled for September after the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department's own intelligence bureau objected to his characterization. [3]
While in Israel, Bolton met Sharon and Netanyahu. He promised that after the U.S. has sorted Iraq "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." [8]
On Iran:
While in Israel, Bolton met Sharon and Netanyahu. He promised that after the U.S. has sorted Iraq "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran, and North Korea afterwards." [8]
On Iraq:
On the invasion, see the Complete Iraq Timeline: John Bolton - http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-809
“We’re going ahead. If you want to come along, come along. We hope you will. But be advised, we’re going ahead on our own…I believe that approach is most likely to produce a larger coalition, because I think, quite frankly, a lot of the members of the old coalition are looking for that kind of American leadership. And a firm and decisive stand by the United States, paradoxical though it may sound, will actually induce more countries to come along.” - John Bolton, NPR, 1/29/98 [11]
“The work in Iraq is taking longer than people wanted. It is giving rise to claims that there was never a weapons capability. It has led to some questions about our credibility. I think the evidence is there and will be overwhelming when it comes out,” he said. [10]
Notes:
[1] NewsMax: “John Bolton: The Iron Hand in the State Department's Velvet Glove”http://64.135.21.3/archive/print.pl?a=2002/7/19/113709
[2] Council for a Livable World: "Oppose John Bolton's Nomination as State Department's Arms Control Leader!"http://www.clw.org/bush/opposebolton.html
[3] Inter Press Service: "North Korea Won't Recognize State Dep't. Ideologue"http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/articles/030804-lobe.html
[4] The Guardian: "War on terror may extend to Cuba"http://www.guardian.co.uk/cuba/story/0,11983,711296,00.html
[5] Common Dreams: "Blair May Be First Buddy, But It's Time He Faced the Facts"http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0912-06.htm
[6] United State Mission to the UN: "Statement by John R. Bolton, United States Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, to the Plenary Session of the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, July 9, 2001"http://www.un.int/usa/01_104.htm
[7] Foreign policy in Focus: "other Official's Profiles"http://www.fpif.org/republicanrule/officials_body.html
[8] Global Policy Forum: "John Bolton in Jerusalem: The New Age of Disarmament Wars"http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0220Bolton.htm
[9] US Department of State: "The NPT: A Crisis of Non-Compliance"http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/31848.htm
[10] Washington Diplomat: "Hard-Edged Bush Official Helps Craft Foreign Policy"http://www.washdiplomat.com/03-08/a1_03_08.html
[11] Think Progress Blog http://www.thinkprogress.org/
This is the guy that is going to be representing all Americans before the United Nations... so much for any pretense to "democracy."
07 March 2005
The Missile Defense Scheme and China's veto
[submitted to ZNet/Zmag for publication]
The Missile Defense Scheme and China's veto
John Sigler, March 6, 2005
Canada's recent decision to not contribute to the Bush administrations ballistic missile defense project [1] as well as European intentions to lift the arms embargo against China [2] has highlighted a simmering dispute that has largely been overlooked in the flood of headlines regarding U.S. policy. However, even among those that have been following this issue - ballistic missile defense and its geopolitical implications - there is a very important aspect of the equation that has been almost completely ignored; China's ability to use American financial weakness to veto any move that threatens China.
"Missile Defense"
At least since Ronald Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI, "Star Wars") missile defense scheme, the idea of ballistic missile defense has been close to the heart of American strategic planners and conservative war hawks. The various ideas in this respect have undergone a series of changes since and the newest manifestation is the National Missile Defense (NMD) program [3]. The primary stumbling block in this respect was the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, however this problem was swept aside when President Bush and the U.S. Congress agreed to withdraw from it [4]. The basic line of reasoning is to protect the United States from attacks by states that the United States maintains a hostile relationship to - such as North Korea or Iran - and to defend against "accidental" launchings by other powers.
However, what is downplayed by those supporting NMD is that this system is being designed to be integrated into a larger system known as Theater Missile Defense (TMD)[5]. TMD is meant to integrate a series of missile defense programs - in Japan, Australia, Mongolia and elsewhere - to utterly dominate and control Asian airspace. While such systems may be able to stop a ballistic missile attack - though this is questionable due to problems with the technology thus far developed - it will also provide the U.S. with the option of completely controlling Asian airspace, not just missiles, but airplanes, space exploration, satellites, and everything else.
Despite the rhetoric regarding North Korea and its nuclear capabilities, everyone from Pyongyang to Washington realizes that any North Korean weapons program is a deterrent of last resort as any use of such weapons by that state would result in North Korea's complete obliteration. Such weapons ensure that the United States will think twice about attacking North Korea because it does have the means to defend itself unlike Iraq. Iraq graphically illustrated that the U.S. will defy all law and public opinion and attack countries unable to defend themselves while states like North Korea that are able to defend themselves are at much less risk of being "liberated" by Anglo-American conquest and occupation. Nevertheless, unless the United States pushes North Korea into an utterly impossible situation where it simply has nothing else to lose, North Korea represents no ballistic missile threat to the United States or anyone else.
The target is not North Korea or Iran nor is it accidental launches by other powers. Instead the target is specifically China. The alleged "threat" posed by China has been one of the primary arguments raised in defense of NMD and TMD programs [6].
The heart of Sino-American dispute today relates to Taiwan, the rebel province of China dominated by a rightist nationalist regime with U.S. backing. Other issues, such as the obscenely hypocritical (in view of our support for many of the world's most oppressive regimes) criticisms of Chinese human rights in Tibet and elsewhere are simply "supplemental" arguments. Tensions over Taiwan escalate from time to time and it is entirely possible that one day an open conflict could be provoked over the issue by one faction or another. However, even at that there is no reason to believe that either the United States or China would have any interest in pursuing a "total war" against the other, the type of war that would result in the launching of ballistic missiles. Neither power has the means of totally defeating the other short of nuclear holocaust and that option doesn't serve either side's interests in the least. So even if a conflict were to emerge over Taiwan or elsewhere, it would be limited to both sides seeking to defend its immediate interests and perhaps inflicting a humiliation on the other. There exists absolutely no rational reason to believe that China poses a ballistic missile threat to the United States.
So what is the purpose of TMD programs? If China does not pose a missile threat unless forced into a situation where it has nothing to lose, what is the idea here? After all, these missile defense schemes are enormously expensive and largely based on technology that has had a lukewarm performance at best thus far.
The idea is to emulate Reagan's example with regard to the Soviet Union, to stimulate a massive arms race against China, pitting the growing Chinese economy against that of the United States and those states currently sustaining our grossly irresponsible spending. If China can be forced into a situation akin to that of the Soviet Union and the current regime in China can be replaced with a pro-U.S. one, then the massive Chinese market can be openly exploited on U.S. terms, again like what is happening in "sovereign Iraq". Quite simply, the goal is - as it has been since the nineteenth century - to "open China" to Western economic control and dominance. The method being chosen is quite logical as anyone who follows geopolitics knows that China cannot allow its airspace to be controlled by the United States and on the surface China's only recourse is to radically increase its spending on counter-measures, something that China's growing economy cannot do without severely retarding its investment in other sectors. However, unlike the old Soviet Union, China does in fact have an "ace-in-the-hole" which can effectively veto U.S. strategic dominance efforts.
The 'Achilles Heel' of the United States
In the simplest terms, the United States - like many individual U.S. citizens - has been "living beyond its means" for quite sometime. Most particularly since Ronald Reagan who invested enormous sums into the military-industrial complex in order to defeat the Soviet Union. The subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to justify this massive increase in military expenditures, however, as the Cold War came to a close, massive investment in military resources didn't stop or even slow down. Under the Clinton presidency, there was a small slow down in "defense" investment and his otherwise fiscally responsible policies earned the United States something of a "benefit of the doubt" among other countries. As long as the United States continued to spend responsibly, the advantages of investing in the U.S. economy made it worth the gamble despite its massive debt.
However, Bush Jr. has completely destroyed this "benefit of the doubt" by a grossly irresponsible fiscal policy. First, despite his rhetoric to the contrary, he specifically dropped the "strong-dollar" policy of his predecessors [7]. While this measure successfully helped to maintain the U.S. consumer spending and borrowing, internationally it began to erode confidence in the dollar as a store of value. This move pre-dated the "war on terrorism", so although foreign investors were somewhat wary, this alone wasn't enough to end the "benefit of the doubt."
What really changed the situation was Bush's "war on terrorism". From the afternoon of September 11, 2001, everyone knew that the United States was going to go after someone on the international stage despite the fact that the attacks were carried out by a small terrorist group. Once al-Qaeda was determined to be responsible and it was determined that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was sheltering Bin Laden and his operation, a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan became inevitable. Further, most of the world community sympathized, the United Nations and NATO fully backed the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.
On the international financial front, the attacks in of themselves had a very limited effect. Though a U.S. military response would result in a slight rise in government borrowing, because the military-industrial complex had been operating at more than war time levels since Reagan it wouldn't represent too much of an issue. Just as importantly, with most of the First World supporting the U.S. endeavor in Afghanistan, the U.S. alone would not have to shoulder the burden. If it had been left at that we would not be in the situation we are today.
However, this wasn't enough for the Bush administration. The "war on terror" was soon used as means of pursuing U.S. foreign policy objective elsewhere as well as a dramatic increase in unilateral action that the U.S. could ill afford. Obviously Iraq exemplifies this trend, but other measures also played a role by both expanding U.S. spending (and thus borrowing) while simultaneously alienating the United States from most of the rest of the world, developed and otherwise. Examples of these measures include: bribing countries into accepting "Article 98 agreements" to make Americans immune to international prosecution for war crimes [8]; the Proliferation Security Initiative allowing the United States to intercept virtually any foreign naval vessel at sea [9]; and of course the NMD and TMD missile programs discussed above.
All of these programs and many others have resulted in the net result that government spending - and thus borrowing - has skyrocketed. Any pretense to fiscal responsibility has been cast aside. In fact, some rightist economists have argued that the current system, known as "Bretton Woods 2" in which foreign countries perpetually buy U.S. debt in order to keep the dollar higher than their local currencies in order to maintain a beneficial trade relationship with the U.S. means that the United States need no longer worry about fiscal responsibility at all. However, serious economists recognize that this is not in anyway true. Continued investment in U.S. debt depends upon confidence in dollar as a stable currency, and this demands U.S. fiscal responsibility [10]. Instead, the modern United States finds itself the world's largest debtor nation, and among our primary creditors is the People's Republic of China.
China's financial veto
China's recent spectacular economic growth is based on the its yuan being pegged to the dollar allowing it to produce and export products to the United States - and elsewhere - at a advantage. This is the same with other states, especially in East Asia, as well. In order for this to work, the dollar has to remain valued higher than their local currencies. With the demise of the "strong dollar policy" under Bush, these export dominated countries opted to begin heavily buying U.S. debt in order to keep the dollar strong. Thus today, China is in fact the United States second largest foreign creditor, after Japan, holding about $200 billion in U.S. Treasuries [11].
In view of the overall U.S. foreign debt, which is at almost $2 trillion, China's holdings would not, in of themselves, give China too much leverage regarding the value of the dollar. However, this is where Bush's gross fiscal responsibility has come into play. As the dollar continues to decline and as the government backing it - that of the United States - continues to spend as though it has the money to do anything it wants, global confidence in the dollar has dramatically declined. Chinese economist Fan Gang' echoed a growing sentiment throughout the world when he said that "The U.S. dollar is no longer, in our opinion is no longer, (seen) as a stable currency and is devaluating all the time,..." [12] Just as importantly, those countries that have been moving away from investing in the dollar have been showing tangible results [12].
In fact, not only is the U.S. utterly dependent on the East Asian central banks keeping their existing holdings of U.S. debt, we depend on them to continue buying the ever expanding U.S. debt. In November of 2004, a mere rumor - later denied by the Chinese Central Bank - led to a dramatic drop in the dollar [13]. Similarly, a statement by South Korea in February 2005 expressing an interest in diversifying its holdings away from U.S. treasuries led to another scare [14]. The reason for these scares is that should our foreign creditors begin selling off their dollar holdings, it would spark a massive dump of the dollar because those left holding them - like the United States - will be stuck holding heavily devalued and grossly inflated U.S. dollars. Thus, right now there is something of a "poker game" underway, with the holders of U.S. Treasuries closely watching all the others, because if one starts to sell, essentially they all have to or else be left holding largely worthless dollars or dollar denominated securities.
If - or more likely, when - this dollar sell off begins, the U.S. government's ability to borrow will essentially collapse, after all, why would anyone want to invest in an asset bound to provide an extremely low return if any return at all. This, in turn, will force the Federal Reserve to radically increase short-term interest rates in order to encourage foreign investment, and while that may keep the government functioning it would have massive repercussions on the American people with an inevitable social and political backlash. More importantly, the very expensive U.S. military ventures abroad, such as the continued occupation of Iraq and the "missile defense" scheme over China will become untenable. Pressure at home will be for financial relief at home, while the foreign investors currently paying the bill for Bush's militarist adventurism will obviously stop buying U.S. debt, i.e. lending the government money.
Thus, China essentially has a de facto veto over any U.S. military operations. While dumping its U.S. debt would also be costly for China (and everyone else currently financing the U.S. government), it would not necessarily be fatal. The Chinese Central Bank would quickly end its peg to the U.S. dollar, probably replacing this with some other currency to a choice export market, like the European Union, India or ASEAN. Further consequences of such a move would likely be the end of the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency, which is already under massive threat as the dollar continues to devalue. One can also see OPEC breaking its rule denominating all oil sales in dollars, or doing at the very least what it has been doing over the last few years, keeping oil prices denominated in dollars, but increasing prices in order to compensate for the dollar's devaluation.
Regardless, China has the option of literally breaking the financial back of the American empire. While China may not consider making such a move in defense of Iraq, the defense of its own sovereign airspace - the target of the U.S. inspired TMD programs - may very well provide enough of a stimulus to see such a move. After all, a global recession/depression may be viewed as a lesser evil than U.S. "hegemony" over sovereign China. Just as importantly, China is fully aware of this option and has been at least since 2003 a time when China's holdings of U.S. debt were considerably less and confidence in the dollar was considerably more [15].
Notes:
[1] Canada shuns missile defense, Christian Science Monitorhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0225/dailyUpdate.html
[2] Bush threatens Europe on ending arms ban, China Dailyhttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/23/content_418605.htm
[3] National Missile Defense, Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
[4] U.S. quits ABM treaty, CNN News
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/
[5] Theater Missile Defense and Northeast Asian Security, Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_3b.html
[6] See, for example, the American Enterprise Institute's Target America: The Need for a Missile Defense System
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.10058,filter./news_detail.asp
[7] The US' Weak Dollar Policy, DailyFX
http://www.dailyfx.com/article_rr_005.html
[8] US Opposition to the International Criminal Court, Global Policy
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/usindex.htm
[9] The Proliferation Security Initiative: Naval Interception Bush-Style, Center for Defense Information
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1667
[10] For the core problems with the "Bretton Woods 2" system, see:
Will the Bretton Woods 2 Regime Unravel Soon? The Risk of a Hard Landing in 2005-2006
by Nouriel Roubini and Brad Setser
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/BW2-Unraveling-Roubini-Setser.pdf
[11] MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES, U.S. Treasury Department
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
[12] If China Shuns Dollar, Look Out U.S. Bonds: William Pesek Jr., Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=columnist_pesek&sid=aEBBmwvtNuxA
[13] See, for example, Dollar off its lows, but still down, CNN/Money
http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/26/markets/bondcenter/bonds/
[14] Dollar scare reveals fragile support, Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7468d91e-860b-11d9-b506-00000e2511c8.html
[15] China says it will not dump US Treasuries to retaliate, Chinese Embassy
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/jjmy/b/t44970.htm
The Missile Defense Scheme and China's veto
John Sigler, March 6, 2005
Canada's recent decision to not contribute to the Bush administrations ballistic missile defense project [1] as well as European intentions to lift the arms embargo against China [2] has highlighted a simmering dispute that has largely been overlooked in the flood of headlines regarding U.S. policy. However, even among those that have been following this issue - ballistic missile defense and its geopolitical implications - there is a very important aspect of the equation that has been almost completely ignored; China's ability to use American financial weakness to veto any move that threatens China.
"Missile Defense"
At least since Ronald Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI, "Star Wars") missile defense scheme, the idea of ballistic missile defense has been close to the heart of American strategic planners and conservative war hawks. The various ideas in this respect have undergone a series of changes since and the newest manifestation is the National Missile Defense (NMD) program [3]. The primary stumbling block in this respect was the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, however this problem was swept aside when President Bush and the U.S. Congress agreed to withdraw from it [4]. The basic line of reasoning is to protect the United States from attacks by states that the United States maintains a hostile relationship to - such as North Korea or Iran - and to defend against "accidental" launchings by other powers.
However, what is downplayed by those supporting NMD is that this system is being designed to be integrated into a larger system known as Theater Missile Defense (TMD)[5]. TMD is meant to integrate a series of missile defense programs - in Japan, Australia, Mongolia and elsewhere - to utterly dominate and control Asian airspace. While such systems may be able to stop a ballistic missile attack - though this is questionable due to problems with the technology thus far developed - it will also provide the U.S. with the option of completely controlling Asian airspace, not just missiles, but airplanes, space exploration, satellites, and everything else.
Despite the rhetoric regarding North Korea and its nuclear capabilities, everyone from Pyongyang to Washington realizes that any North Korean weapons program is a deterrent of last resort as any use of such weapons by that state would result in North Korea's complete obliteration. Such weapons ensure that the United States will think twice about attacking North Korea because it does have the means to defend itself unlike Iraq. Iraq graphically illustrated that the U.S. will defy all law and public opinion and attack countries unable to defend themselves while states like North Korea that are able to defend themselves are at much less risk of being "liberated" by Anglo-American conquest and occupation. Nevertheless, unless the United States pushes North Korea into an utterly impossible situation where it simply has nothing else to lose, North Korea represents no ballistic missile threat to the United States or anyone else.
The target is not North Korea or Iran nor is it accidental launches by other powers. Instead the target is specifically China. The alleged "threat" posed by China has been one of the primary arguments raised in defense of NMD and TMD programs [6].
The heart of Sino-American dispute today relates to Taiwan, the rebel province of China dominated by a rightist nationalist regime with U.S. backing. Other issues, such as the obscenely hypocritical (in view of our support for many of the world's most oppressive regimes) criticisms of Chinese human rights in Tibet and elsewhere are simply "supplemental" arguments. Tensions over Taiwan escalate from time to time and it is entirely possible that one day an open conflict could be provoked over the issue by one faction or another. However, even at that there is no reason to believe that either the United States or China would have any interest in pursuing a "total war" against the other, the type of war that would result in the launching of ballistic missiles. Neither power has the means of totally defeating the other short of nuclear holocaust and that option doesn't serve either side's interests in the least. So even if a conflict were to emerge over Taiwan or elsewhere, it would be limited to both sides seeking to defend its immediate interests and perhaps inflicting a humiliation on the other. There exists absolutely no rational reason to believe that China poses a ballistic missile threat to the United States.
So what is the purpose of TMD programs? If China does not pose a missile threat unless forced into a situation where it has nothing to lose, what is the idea here? After all, these missile defense schemes are enormously expensive and largely based on technology that has had a lukewarm performance at best thus far.
The idea is to emulate Reagan's example with regard to the Soviet Union, to stimulate a massive arms race against China, pitting the growing Chinese economy against that of the United States and those states currently sustaining our grossly irresponsible spending. If China can be forced into a situation akin to that of the Soviet Union and the current regime in China can be replaced with a pro-U.S. one, then the massive Chinese market can be openly exploited on U.S. terms, again like what is happening in "sovereign Iraq". Quite simply, the goal is - as it has been since the nineteenth century - to "open China" to Western economic control and dominance. The method being chosen is quite logical as anyone who follows geopolitics knows that China cannot allow its airspace to be controlled by the United States and on the surface China's only recourse is to radically increase its spending on counter-measures, something that China's growing economy cannot do without severely retarding its investment in other sectors. However, unlike the old Soviet Union, China does in fact have an "ace-in-the-hole" which can effectively veto U.S. strategic dominance efforts.
The 'Achilles Heel' of the United States
In the simplest terms, the United States - like many individual U.S. citizens - has been "living beyond its means" for quite sometime. Most particularly since Ronald Reagan who invested enormous sums into the military-industrial complex in order to defeat the Soviet Union. The subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union appeared to justify this massive increase in military expenditures, however, as the Cold War came to a close, massive investment in military resources didn't stop or even slow down. Under the Clinton presidency, there was a small slow down in "defense" investment and his otherwise fiscally responsible policies earned the United States something of a "benefit of the doubt" among other countries. As long as the United States continued to spend responsibly, the advantages of investing in the U.S. economy made it worth the gamble despite its massive debt.
However, Bush Jr. has completely destroyed this "benefit of the doubt" by a grossly irresponsible fiscal policy. First, despite his rhetoric to the contrary, he specifically dropped the "strong-dollar" policy of his predecessors [7]. While this measure successfully helped to maintain the U.S. consumer spending and borrowing, internationally it began to erode confidence in the dollar as a store of value. This move pre-dated the "war on terrorism", so although foreign investors were somewhat wary, this alone wasn't enough to end the "benefit of the doubt."
What really changed the situation was Bush's "war on terrorism". From the afternoon of September 11, 2001, everyone knew that the United States was going to go after someone on the international stage despite the fact that the attacks were carried out by a small terrorist group. Once al-Qaeda was determined to be responsible and it was determined that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was sheltering Bin Laden and his operation, a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan became inevitable. Further, most of the world community sympathized, the United Nations and NATO fully backed the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.
On the international financial front, the attacks in of themselves had a very limited effect. Though a U.S. military response would result in a slight rise in government borrowing, because the military-industrial complex had been operating at more than war time levels since Reagan it wouldn't represent too much of an issue. Just as importantly, with most of the First World supporting the U.S. endeavor in Afghanistan, the U.S. alone would not have to shoulder the burden. If it had been left at that we would not be in the situation we are today.
However, this wasn't enough for the Bush administration. The "war on terror" was soon used as means of pursuing U.S. foreign policy objective elsewhere as well as a dramatic increase in unilateral action that the U.S. could ill afford. Obviously Iraq exemplifies this trend, but other measures also played a role by both expanding U.S. spending (and thus borrowing) while simultaneously alienating the United States from most of the rest of the world, developed and otherwise. Examples of these measures include: bribing countries into accepting "Article 98 agreements" to make Americans immune to international prosecution for war crimes [8]; the Proliferation Security Initiative allowing the United States to intercept virtually any foreign naval vessel at sea [9]; and of course the NMD and TMD missile programs discussed above.
All of these programs and many others have resulted in the net result that government spending - and thus borrowing - has skyrocketed. Any pretense to fiscal responsibility has been cast aside. In fact, some rightist economists have argued that the current system, known as "Bretton Woods 2" in which foreign countries perpetually buy U.S. debt in order to keep the dollar higher than their local currencies in order to maintain a beneficial trade relationship with the U.S. means that the United States need no longer worry about fiscal responsibility at all. However, serious economists recognize that this is not in anyway true. Continued investment in U.S. debt depends upon confidence in dollar as a stable currency, and this demands U.S. fiscal responsibility [10]. Instead, the modern United States finds itself the world's largest debtor nation, and among our primary creditors is the People's Republic of China.
China's financial veto
China's recent spectacular economic growth is based on the its yuan being pegged to the dollar allowing it to produce and export products to the United States - and elsewhere - at a advantage. This is the same with other states, especially in East Asia, as well. In order for this to work, the dollar has to remain valued higher than their local currencies. With the demise of the "strong dollar policy" under Bush, these export dominated countries opted to begin heavily buying U.S. debt in order to keep the dollar strong. Thus today, China is in fact the United States second largest foreign creditor, after Japan, holding about $200 billion in U.S. Treasuries [11].
In view of the overall U.S. foreign debt, which is at almost $2 trillion, China's holdings would not, in of themselves, give China too much leverage regarding the value of the dollar. However, this is where Bush's gross fiscal responsibility has come into play. As the dollar continues to decline and as the government backing it - that of the United States - continues to spend as though it has the money to do anything it wants, global confidence in the dollar has dramatically declined. Chinese economist Fan Gang' echoed a growing sentiment throughout the world when he said that "The U.S. dollar is no longer, in our opinion is no longer, (seen) as a stable currency and is devaluating all the time,..." [12] Just as importantly, those countries that have been moving away from investing in the dollar have been showing tangible results [12].
In fact, not only is the U.S. utterly dependent on the East Asian central banks keeping their existing holdings of U.S. debt, we depend on them to continue buying the ever expanding U.S. debt. In November of 2004, a mere rumor - later denied by the Chinese Central Bank - led to a dramatic drop in the dollar [13]. Similarly, a statement by South Korea in February 2005 expressing an interest in diversifying its holdings away from U.S. treasuries led to another scare [14]. The reason for these scares is that should our foreign creditors begin selling off their dollar holdings, it would spark a massive dump of the dollar because those left holding them - like the United States - will be stuck holding heavily devalued and grossly inflated U.S. dollars. Thus, right now there is something of a "poker game" underway, with the holders of U.S. Treasuries closely watching all the others, because if one starts to sell, essentially they all have to or else be left holding largely worthless dollars or dollar denominated securities.
If - or more likely, when - this dollar sell off begins, the U.S. government's ability to borrow will essentially collapse, after all, why would anyone want to invest in an asset bound to provide an extremely low return if any return at all. This, in turn, will force the Federal Reserve to radically increase short-term interest rates in order to encourage foreign investment, and while that may keep the government functioning it would have massive repercussions on the American people with an inevitable social and political backlash. More importantly, the very expensive U.S. military ventures abroad, such as the continued occupation of Iraq and the "missile defense" scheme over China will become untenable. Pressure at home will be for financial relief at home, while the foreign investors currently paying the bill for Bush's militarist adventurism will obviously stop buying U.S. debt, i.e. lending the government money.
Thus, China essentially has a de facto veto over any U.S. military operations. While dumping its U.S. debt would also be costly for China (and everyone else currently financing the U.S. government), it would not necessarily be fatal. The Chinese Central Bank would quickly end its peg to the U.S. dollar, probably replacing this with some other currency to a choice export market, like the European Union, India or ASEAN. Further consequences of such a move would likely be the end of the dollar's reign as the world's reserve currency, which is already under massive threat as the dollar continues to devalue. One can also see OPEC breaking its rule denominating all oil sales in dollars, or doing at the very least what it has been doing over the last few years, keeping oil prices denominated in dollars, but increasing prices in order to compensate for the dollar's devaluation.
Regardless, China has the option of literally breaking the financial back of the American empire. While China may not consider making such a move in defense of Iraq, the defense of its own sovereign airspace - the target of the U.S. inspired TMD programs - may very well provide enough of a stimulus to see such a move. After all, a global recession/depression may be viewed as a lesser evil than U.S. "hegemony" over sovereign China. Just as importantly, China is fully aware of this option and has been at least since 2003 a time when China's holdings of U.S. debt were considerably less and confidence in the dollar was considerably more [15].
Notes:
[1] Canada shuns missile defense, Christian Science Monitorhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0225/dailyUpdate.html
[2] Bush threatens Europe on ending arms ban, China Dailyhttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/23/content_418605.htm
[3] National Missile Defense, Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
[4] U.S. quits ABM treaty, CNN News
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/
[5] Theater Missile Defense and Northeast Asian Security, Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_3b.html
[6] See, for example, the American Enterprise Institute's Target America: The Need for a Missile Defense System
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.10058,filter./news_detail.asp
[7] The US' Weak Dollar Policy, DailyFX
http://www.dailyfx.com/article_rr_005.html
[8] US Opposition to the International Criminal Court, Global Policy
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/usindex.htm
[9] The Proliferation Security Initiative: Naval Interception Bush-Style, Center for Defense Information
http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=1667
[10] For the core problems with the "Bretton Woods 2" system, see:
Will the Bretton Woods 2 Regime Unravel Soon? The Risk of a Hard Landing in 2005-2006
by Nouriel Roubini and Brad Setser
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/globalmacro/BW2-Unraveling-Roubini-Setser.pdf
[11] MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES, U.S. Treasury Department
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
[12] If China Shuns Dollar, Look Out U.S. Bonds: William Pesek Jr., Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&refer=columnist_pesek&sid=aEBBmwvtNuxA
[13] See, for example, Dollar off its lows, but still down, CNN/Money
http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/26/markets/bondcenter/bonds/
[14] Dollar scare reveals fragile support, Financial Times
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7468d91e-860b-11d9-b506-00000e2511c8.html
[15] China says it will not dump US Treasuries to retaliate, Chinese Embassy
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/jjmy/b/t44970.htm
06 March 2005
Despite U.S. interests, another Latin state has asserted itself...
Despite U.S. interests - which demand that Latin America serve U.S. financial interests - yet another Latin American state has asserted its independence and taken such horrible anti-American pro-terrorist moves as passing a $100 billion law to help the country's poor. Tabare Vazquez has just assumed power - legally and democratically - in Uruguay. See:
Tabare Vazquez for the Happiness of the Uruguayan People
http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/international/2005/Marzo/02-03-05a.htm
Montevideo.- After more than 170 years of conservative control over power in Uruguay, dictatorships and missing people, this South American country has taken a new path in history with the inauguration of Tabare Vazquez, the first Uruguayan Socialist President.
Tabare Vazquez assumes power in Uruguay surrounded by fellow leftist leaders
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050301/1/3qyfd.html
This is part of something of a social-democratic revolution sweeping through South America. Although there are obvious comparisons between the modern left in Latin America and its forerunners from the 1960's and 1970's, unlike these forerunners they are clearly democratic and popular. Perhaps this was most graphically illustrated by the Venezuelan population's refusal to allow the U.S. sponsored Rightist coup in 2002 to succeed.
Further, these changes are essentially social-democratic in that though they are sympathetic with some socialist principles, they are not trying to remove their states from the global capitalist order. Instead have adopted the heresy of advocating that the fruits of capitalism be used to help ALL their people as opposed to a small plutocratic elite. The last twenty years has more than adequately illustrated that "globalization" and "free trade" only benefits a small economic elite while leaving everyone else wallowing in ever deeper and ever more hopeless poverty. Of course the same trend has existed in the United States as well, but luckily for Bush, the American poor have been properly trained support their plutocrats despite their own situation. However, in Latin America, where the polarization is much more apparent, the people have opted to assert themselves.
Another country likely to soon go left is Bolivia, whose government was overthrown by the people in October 2003 because of its intention to sell Bolivia's natural gas reserves to U.S. companies for export while in their own country - South America's poorest - the people are in desperate need for energy. After the 2003 revolt, the sitting vice president, Carlos Diego Mesa, came to power. However Mesa remains a supporter of the tiny white elite that holds a monopoly over Bolivian business against the vast majority of his people who are largely native and poor. Mesa decided to advance the prior governments scheme to sell his country's natural gas to the U.S. for the sole benefit of himself and a few wealthy white plutocrats, he simply decided to go about it in a slower and quieter way. Nevertheless, the truth comes out and now the Bolivian people are asserting themselves yet again against Mesa efforts to enrich himself and his friends with U.S. money at the expense of his own people. See, for example:
Bolivia’s Strife Intensifies
http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=63&num=16474
Meanwhile, tensions with Venezuela are again increasing. Interestingly enough, U.S. pressure on Venezuela correspnds with Venezuelas efforts to diversify its oil markets. With the U.S. as Venezuelas primary export destination, the U.S. holds considerable clout, so Chavez has decided to break this monopoly by diversifying his export markets. Chavez has been exporting to Cuba and Brazil as well as other countries, but now he is making deals with energy hungry India as well as Russia -
LUKOIL TO BUILD OIL REFINERY IN VENEZUELA?
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5448411&startrow=1&date=2005-03-02&do_alert=0
ST. PETERSBURG, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russian oil producer LUKOIL is pondering construction of an oil refinery in Venezuela, LUKOIL President Vagit Alekperov said.
India, Venezuela Sign Historic Oil Agreement
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=59995&d=6&m=3&y=2005&pix=world.jpg&category=World
NEW DELHI, 6 March 2005 — India and Venezuela signed a historic agreement yesterday, allowing Indian companies to take 49 percent stake in Venezuelan oil industry.
For context on this and the rise of Chinese and Indian competition for oil, see:
The Axis of Oil - By Jehangir Pocha
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/2005/0131oilaxis.htm
Not surprisingly, the U.S. is not reacting well to this infringement of its imperial perogative...
Chavez: Evidence proves Washington murder plot, US denies
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/06/content_422199.htm
NEW DELHI - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday he had evidence that the United States was planning to assassinate him, an accusation that a U.S. official quickly
denied.
And of course Chavez isn't one to be easily intimidated...
Venezuelan President renews threat to cut oil supplies to US
http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/mar/06/06032005bs.htm#A16
See our earlier post regarding the U.S. Southern Command. As the Latin Americans continue to assert themselves and their own interests at the expense of the U.S. empire, the chances that the U.S. will use force - as it has some many times before in Latin America - to suppress the will of the people grows ever more likely.
Tabare Vazquez for the Happiness of the Uruguayan People
http://www.ahora.cu/english/SECTIONS/international/2005/Marzo/02-03-05a.htm
Montevideo.- After more than 170 years of conservative control over power in Uruguay, dictatorships and missing people, this South American country has taken a new path in history with the inauguration of Tabare Vazquez, the first Uruguayan Socialist President.
Tabare Vazquez assumes power in Uruguay surrounded by fellow leftist leaders
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050301/1/3qyfd.html
This is part of something of a social-democratic revolution sweeping through South America. Although there are obvious comparisons between the modern left in Latin America and its forerunners from the 1960's and 1970's, unlike these forerunners they are clearly democratic and popular. Perhaps this was most graphically illustrated by the Venezuelan population's refusal to allow the U.S. sponsored Rightist coup in 2002 to succeed.
Further, these changes are essentially social-democratic in that though they are sympathetic with some socialist principles, they are not trying to remove their states from the global capitalist order. Instead have adopted the heresy of advocating that the fruits of capitalism be used to help ALL their people as opposed to a small plutocratic elite. The last twenty years has more than adequately illustrated that "globalization" and "free trade" only benefits a small economic elite while leaving everyone else wallowing in ever deeper and ever more hopeless poverty. Of course the same trend has existed in the United States as well, but luckily for Bush, the American poor have been properly trained support their plutocrats despite their own situation. However, in Latin America, where the polarization is much more apparent, the people have opted to assert themselves.
Another country likely to soon go left is Bolivia, whose government was overthrown by the people in October 2003 because of its intention to sell Bolivia's natural gas reserves to U.S. companies for export while in their own country - South America's poorest - the people are in desperate need for energy. After the 2003 revolt, the sitting vice president, Carlos Diego Mesa, came to power. However Mesa remains a supporter of the tiny white elite that holds a monopoly over Bolivian business against the vast majority of his people who are largely native and poor. Mesa decided to advance the prior governments scheme to sell his country's natural gas to the U.S. for the sole benefit of himself and a few wealthy white plutocrats, he simply decided to go about it in a slower and quieter way. Nevertheless, the truth comes out and now the Bolivian people are asserting themselves yet again against Mesa efforts to enrich himself and his friends with U.S. money at the expense of his own people. See, for example:
Bolivia’s Strife Intensifies
http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=63&num=16474
Meanwhile, tensions with Venezuela are again increasing. Interestingly enough, U.S. pressure on Venezuela correspnds with Venezuelas efforts to diversify its oil markets. With the U.S. as Venezuelas primary export destination, the U.S. holds considerable clout, so Chavez has decided to break this monopoly by diversifying his export markets. Chavez has been exporting to Cuba and Brazil as well as other countries, but now he is making deals with energy hungry India as well as Russia -
LUKOIL TO BUILD OIL REFINERY IN VENEZUELA?
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5448411&startrow=1&date=2005-03-02&do_alert=0
ST. PETERSBURG, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russian oil producer LUKOIL is pondering construction of an oil refinery in Venezuela, LUKOIL President Vagit Alekperov said.
India, Venezuela Sign Historic Oil Agreement
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=59995&d=6&m=3&y=2005&pix=world.jpg&category=World
NEW DELHI, 6 March 2005 — India and Venezuela signed a historic agreement yesterday, allowing Indian companies to take 49 percent stake in Venezuelan oil industry.
For context on this and the rise of Chinese and Indian competition for oil, see:
The Axis of Oil - By Jehangir Pocha
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/economy/2005/0131oilaxis.htm
Not surprisingly, the U.S. is not reacting well to this infringement of its imperial perogative...
Chavez: Evidence proves Washington murder plot, US denies
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/06/content_422199.htm
NEW DELHI - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday he had evidence that the United States was planning to assassinate him, an accusation that a U.S. official quickly
denied.
And of course Chavez isn't one to be easily intimidated...
Venezuelan President renews threat to cut oil supplies to US
http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/mar/06/06032005bs.htm#A16
See our earlier post regarding the U.S. Southern Command. As the Latin Americans continue to assert themselves and their own interests at the expense of the U.S. empire, the chances that the U.S. will use force - as it has some many times before in Latin America - to suppress the will of the people grows ever more likely.
05 March 2005
USA! USA! USA!
This article mostly speaks for itself... the bold emphasis is added by us.
America by the numbers, No. 1?
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp
by Michael Ventura, February 23, 2005
No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in:
> The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
> The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
> Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
> "The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
> Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!
> "The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).
> "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70). Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).
> Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.
> The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
> "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
> Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
> "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
> Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
> The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
> Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
> The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
> "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
> "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).
> "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).
> The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
> U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
> Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).
> Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.
> Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
> As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
> Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.
> One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).
> "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).
> "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).
> Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).
> "Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).
> "The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).
No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.
The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and
delusion.
[In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. InternetActivist.Org has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is InternetActivist.Org endorsed or sponsored by the originator.]
One quick observation on the above...
Historically speaking, countries that were at one time "#1" or generally successful find decline intolerable and frequently resort to militarism and conservative reaction - seeking a mythological past glory - in the face of decline. This can be seen in the decline of the old European empires (where its result was Fascism), the Soviet Union, and yes - the United States. What is clear is that the United States IS in decline and thus in a desperate attempt to maintain our lost glory, one can expect an even more dramatic shift to the Right - led by evangelical Christians, Neo-Cons, and fellow travellers - as well as increased militarism in the future. The conservative reaction is to "bring us back" to the height of our glory - the 1950's (a booming economy on the ruins of WW2, unquestioned U.S. economic dominance, institutional racism, McCarthyism, women happy in their place and God on everyone's lips in reaction to the godless 'communists', &c.). The militarism is simply an expression of the one field where we are most assuredly still vastly superior to the rest of the world.
However, as always happens when great empires are in decline, despite however we choose to lash out and impose ourselves on others, the rot is within not without and the decline will continue regardless of how many others we choose to make suffer for our glory. Iraq is probably not the end of the story, but the reaction is doomed to fail.
America by the numbers, No. 1?
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp
by Michael Ventura, February 23, 2005
No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in:
> The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
> The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
> Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
> "The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
> Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!
> "The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).
> "Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70). Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).
> Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.
> The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
> "The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
> Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
> "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
> Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
> The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
> Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
> The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
> "Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
> "Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69).
> "Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European.... In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world's leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European.... The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world's top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies...are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top ten. Only four U.S. companies are on the list" (The European Dream, p.68).
> The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
> U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
> Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million--one in five--unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).
> Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40 percent of our government debt. (That's why we talk nice to them.) "By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom" (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.
> Sometime in the next 10 years Brazil will probably pass the U.S. as the world's largest agricultural producer. Brazil is now the world's largest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee, and tobacco. Last year, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world's largest beef producer. (Hear that, you poor deluded cowboys?) As a result, while we bear record trade deficits, Brazil boasts a $30 billion trade surplus (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
> As of last June, the U.S. imported more food than it exported (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
> Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.
> One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).
> "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).
> "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).
> Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).
> "Nearly 900,000 children were abused or neglected in 2002, the last year for which such data are available" (USA Today, Dec. 21, 2004).
> "The International Association of Chiefs of Police said that cuts by the [Bush] administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever" (USA Today, Nov. 17, 2004).
No. 1? In most important categories we're not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close.
The USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and
delusion.
[In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. InternetActivist.Org has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is InternetActivist.Org endorsed or sponsored by the originator.]
One quick observation on the above...
Historically speaking, countries that were at one time "#1" or generally successful find decline intolerable and frequently resort to militarism and conservative reaction - seeking a mythological past glory - in the face of decline. This can be seen in the decline of the old European empires (where its result was Fascism), the Soviet Union, and yes - the United States. What is clear is that the United States IS in decline and thus in a desperate attempt to maintain our lost glory, one can expect an even more dramatic shift to the Right - led by evangelical Christians, Neo-Cons, and fellow travellers - as well as increased militarism in the future. The conservative reaction is to "bring us back" to the height of our glory - the 1950's (a booming economy on the ruins of WW2, unquestioned U.S. economic dominance, institutional racism, McCarthyism, women happy in their place and God on everyone's lips in reaction to the godless 'communists', &c.). The militarism is simply an expression of the one field where we are most assuredly still vastly superior to the rest of the world.
However, as always happens when great empires are in decline, despite however we choose to lash out and impose ourselves on others, the rot is within not without and the decline will continue regardless of how many others we choose to make suffer for our glory. Iraq is probably not the end of the story, but the reaction is doomed to fail.
