April 30,
2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- America’s renewed desire to escalate
military tensions is a front for America’s
continual financial war, this time directed at
North Korea, Syria and possibly Iran. This is
likely to be the opinion of China’s strategic
advisors. We analyse the geopolitics and
economics behind America’s war strategy from
China’s perspective, concluding that it is
entering its final phase. China’s exit plan
appears to be to tie the pricing of energy and
then other major commodities to gold, returning
to the pre-1971 status quo, when the dollar was
just a settlement link between commodity prices
and gold. Except this time, the dollar itself
will be side-lined, so far as China is
concerned, which will use the yuan instead for
its empire, which will be far larger than that
of the US in time, measured by GDP.
Introduction
The day
President Trump assumed office, it appeared that
at last there would be détente with Russia,
leading to America’s withdrawal from unwinnable
conflicts and towards a new peaceful agreement
between these long-term enemies. However, within
the traditional presidential bedding-down period
of one hundred days, Trump has gone from his
electoral platform of disengagement from foreign
ventures to overt aggression in multiple
locations.
Something
major has changed his thinking. Trump has
committed no less than five acts of foreign
aggression in that short time, with a sixth
pending. The first was a joint operation with
Emirati commandos in Yemen, which backfired,
leading to the death of a Navy SEAL. The second
was the recent attack on a Syrian airfield, in
response to an alleged poison gas attack. The
third is the escalation of military threats
against North Korea. The fourth is the bombing
of a cave network in Eastern Afghanistan. And
the fifth is the deployment of more troops to
Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria to step up the
fight against ISIS. The rhetoric is also being
ramped up against America’s long-term bogeyman,
Iran.
The three
theatres of war that offer the best prospects
for further escalation are Syria, Korea, and
Iran. They are in two regions where significant
quantities of dollars are owned and invested,
offering the potential for capital flight, which
should be kept in mind, when reading this
article.
Trump is
also seeking congressional approval for an
increase in defence spending totalling $54bn, a
massive increase which, to put it in
perspective, compares with Russia’s total
defence budget of $66bn.
The
default assumption is that American military
power and weapons technology guarantees
battlefield objectives will be achieved. This
hasn’t usually been the case since the first
Iraq invasion in 1990. Since then, any initial
success has been more than outweighed by
subsequent failures and unintended consequences.
It is because of American-led operations in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria that Europe
is flooded with refugees, bringing undercover
terrorists with them. There can be little doubt
that a dispassionate analyst would recommend
America abandons military action, so there must
be other reasons behind America’s war-mongering.
China,
itself a long-time strategic target for American
aggression, is sure to be worried about the
escalation of threats to North Korea, and with
good reason. In terms of trade, South Korea is
now an important trading partner, and for that
reason, China will not want to see the situation
on the Korean peninsula deteriorate. She will
also not want America securing territory which
abuts her border. Russia has a small border with
North Korea as well and is likely to share that
view. However, Russia’s trade is not so much
with South Korea, but she is a major arms
supplier to the North.
The only
leader with good access to North Korea’s
president, Kim Jong-un, is Russia’s President
Putin. When Trump was first elected,
negotiations with North Korea were a realistic
option, and there was even talk of Trump meeting
Kim Jong-un to negotiate. The route to
negotiations was always through Putin, and if
that is not actually closed, it is made much
more difficult, because of America’s action
launching missiles against Russia’s interests in
Syria.
While the
renewal of hostilities in Korea threatens to
resume (they never officially ended in 1953),
China and Russia are sure to avoid escalating
the situation. President Xi will have made his
own assessment of President Trump to this end,
which was probably the most important reason for
the meeting at Mar-a-Lago, from Xi’s point of
view. The rather casual way in which Xi is
reported to have been told about the missile
strike against Syria over chocolate cake looks
like a businessman’s power-play to impress an
opponent. It was not an action of statesmanship.
Xi is likely to have thought it amateurish, even
a sign of weakness, and might have given Putin a
debrief of the meeting including this view.
The
relationship between Russia and China is strong,
and they are likely to coordinate their
strategic responses to American aggression in
both Korea and Syria. The question is, if
America continues to escalate its bellicose
actions against North Korea, Syria, and possibly
Iran, what will their response be? For clues, we
should look at this from China’s point of view.
The People’s Liberation Army’s most influential
strategist, Major-General Qiao Liang laid out
his overall strategic philosophy at a book-study
forum of the Communist Party’s Central Committee
in Autumn 2015. His view can be taken to be that
of the Chinese leadership.i
China’s
working assumptions
Qiao’s
economic analysis and conclusions are both
interesting and important, but it should be read
for what is not said, as much as what is said.
His paper will have been examined and cleared by
China’s leadership, before being made publicly
available. To that extent, there is likely to be
an element of disinformation involved as well.
It will also have been intended to be studied by
foreign governments, alerting them to America’s
true motives.
With these
cautions in mind, we can proceed. Qiao’s
principal thesis is that America uses the dollar
to manage external trade and finance for its
domestic benefit. Many of us are familiar with
the proposition that by exporting dollars and
dollar-denominated bank credit, America creates
wealth for both the US government and the major
American banks, and that the dollar’s reserve
status is accordingly vital to the US economy.
But Qiao takes this much further, claiming that
since the dollar’s peg to the gold price was
abandoned, America has initiated a cycle of
economic boom and bust among foreign users of
the dollar for its own benefit. As Qiao puts it:
The
U.S. avoided high inflation by letting the
dollar circulate globally. It also needs to
restrain the printing of dollars to avoid a
dollar devaluation. Then what should it do when
it runs out of dollars?
The Americans came up with a solution: issuing
debt to bring the dollar back to the U.S. The
Americans started to play a game of printing
money with one hand and borrowing money with the
other hand. Printing money can make money.
Borrowing money can also make money. This
financial economy (using
money
to make money) is much easier than the real
(industry-based) economy. Why will it bother
with manufacturing industries that have only low
value-adding capabilities?
Since
August 15, 1971, the U.S. has gradually stopped
its real economy and moved into a virtual
economy. It has become an “empty” economy state.
Today’s U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has
reached US$18 trillion, but only $5 trillion is
from the real economy.
By issuing debt, the U.S. bringsa
large amount of dollars from overseas back
to the U.S.’s three big markets: the commodity
market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock
market. The U.S. repeats this cycle to make
money: printing money, exporting money
overseas, and bringing
money back. The U.S. has thus become a financial
empire.
In other
words, America’s wealth is sustained by a
pump-and-dump operation facilitated by the
dollar’s reserve status, replacing genuine
industrial production. It is worth clarifying
one point: foreign owned dollars never leave the
US, only their function. It is more correct to
state that the US Government causes dollars to
be diverted from foreign trade and investment in
manufacturing, to be invested in Treasuries. It
can do this by increasing the risks of other
uses compared with owning US Treasuries, which
are deemed to be “risk free”.
The first
cycle identified by Qiao was the expansion of
dollars aimed at creating a boom in Latin
America in the mid-seventies. Bank credit
expanded on the back of a weak dollar. America
then raised interest rates to strengthen the
dollar when inflation threatened, leading to
dollars being switched from riskier uses into
safe-haven Treasuries. A widespread financial
crisis in Latin America ensued. This allowed
American investors subsequently to buy
productive assets at rock-bottom prices (the
Brady bonds). Meanwhile, the US stock market
rose strongly from 1981 onwards, as interest
rates subsequently declined.
The second
cycle was aimed at South-East Asia, which
expanded on the back of a dollar that weakened
from 1986 onwards. From 1995, the dollar began
to strengthen, culminating in a bear-raid on the
Thai baht, which spread to Malaysia, Indonesia
and other countries in the region. The Asian
Tiger phenomenon was created and destroyed, not
by the countries themselves, but by the flood
and ebb of dollar ownership and investment. Qiao
notes that China escaped being caught up in this
US-inspired operation. Again, dollars flowed
back into US assets, this time fuelling the tech
boom, which had another two years to run.
Qiao goes
so far to state that the most important event in
the twentieth century was not the two world
wars, but America’s abandonment of the gold
standard in 1971. This is some statement. While
he explains the events that led up to this event
convincingly, the flaw in Qiao’s analysis is to
assume that America deliberately added the
pump-and-dump money-making strategy to the
benefits of exporting dollar ownership when
freed from the discipline of gold. US
strategists in the Deep State almost certainly
lacked the degree of control necessary over
events.
The real
reason US interest rates rose in 1980-81 was to
stop runaway domestic inflation, which was
getting out of control. The collapse of Latin
America was unintended. The Asian crisis was
mostly the result of bad investment and outright
theft of capital, not the premeditated actions
of the American government. Qiao claims that the
way dollars were deliberately diverted from
foreign investment is by America issuing
Treasury debt. While the benefits to America of
this pump-and-dump cycle might be obvious
expressed in Qiao’s description, the expansion
of the quantity of Treasuries being issued is
primarily tied to credit cycles, not the result
of some devious dealings by the Deep State. But
we can at least agree that the consequences of
America’s mismanagement of her own financial
affairs match Qiao’s observations.
Where
Qiao’s analysis gets less easy to criticise is
in subsequent American actions. He claims that
Saddam Hussein was overthrown because he
instituted a policy of selling oil for euros,
not dollars. That was true, and there is little
doubt that the threat to dollar hegemony was
discouraged. He claims the break-up of
Yugoslavia was to undermine the status of the
new euro. The euro lost 30% of its value from
that time and was damaged as a settlement option
for global trade. As Qiao goes on to say, “after
the first cruise missiles exploded in Kabul, the
Dow Jones index jumped up 600 points in one
day”.
Qiao then
turns his attention to the contemporary cycle
(in 2015) of dollar management, claiming it was
now aimed at China. In his words,
It was
as precise as the tide; the U.S. dollar was
strong for six years. Then, in 2002, it started
getting weak. Following the same pattern, it
stayed weak for ten years. In 2012, the
Americans started to prepare to make it strong.
They used the same approach: create a regional
crisis for other people.
Therefore, we saw that several events happened
in relation to China: the Cheonan sinking event,
the dispute over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu
Islands in Chinese), and the dispute over
Scarborough Shoal (the Huangyan Island in
Chinese). All these happened during this period.
The conflict between China and the Philippians
over Huangyan Island and the conflict between
China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, might
not appear to have much to do with the U.S.
dollar index, but was it really that case? Why
did it happen exactly in the tenth year of the
U.S. dollar being weak?
Unfortunately, the U.S. played with too much
fire [in its own mortgage market] earlier and
got itself into a financial crisis in 2008. This
delayed the timing of the U.S. dollar’s hike a
bit.
If we
acknowledge that there is a U.S. dollar index
cycle and the Americans use this cycle to
harvest from other countries, then we can
conclude that it was time for the Americans to
harvest China. Why? Because China had obtained
the largest amount of investment from the world.
The size of China’s economy was no longer the
size of a single county; it was even bigger than
the whole of Latin America and about the same
size as East Asia’s economy.
At the
time Qiao presented his paper to the CCP’s
Central Committee, the Shanghai stock market was
collapsing, and ever since then, there have been
bouts of capital flight, which the Chinese
authorities have had difficulty containing. The
main-stream media in the US has been
consistently negative. From Qiao’s perspective,
everything points to a pump-and-dump aimed at
China. However, China has protected herself from
America’s financial attacks through its national
ownership of the banks and by capital controls.
Consequently, only foreigners can sell yuan to
buy dollars, or withdraw dollars from their own
operations to invest in Treasuries. Therefore,
the damage was always going to be limited.
China also
bends with the wind. While America increases her
Naval domination of the Pacific region, instead
of fighting it she merely increases her
influence towards the West. This is the basis of
the One Belt One Road project, which is already
running goods trains as far as Madrid and
London.
China
prefers her trade partners to take yuan in
payment, and will lend them yuan if called upon.
In time, yuan payments will have convertibility
into gold using the Shanghai Gold Futures Market
when it gains greater depth, making it superior
to the dollar as a settlement currency, though
Qiao is silent on this point. More on this
below. Embedded in Qiao’s analysis is an
understanding that the Chinese empire will not
only become far larger than the US in terms of
trade, but by understanding the weaknesses of
American financial imperialism, it will be more
enduring.
Solving
the US debt limit
These
future events are implicit in Qiao’s thesis. Let
us assume for a moment that his thesis is valid,
then Trump’s threats to escalate a regional war
over North Korea and/or Syria/Iran takes on a
wholly different light. While it is a stretch of
the imagination to believe that the US’s Deep
State planned to “harvest” Latin America,
followed by South-East Asia in the late
nineties, we are entitled to assume that the US
government’s own strategic advisors would have
learned that manipulating the dollar’s exchange
rate in this way is a powerful financial weapon,
benefiting America’s domestic finances and
keeping its enemies under control. By
threatening North Korea, dollar investment is
likely to flow out of trade and investment in
South Korea and Japan, back to US Treasuries.
Thinking
ahead, this could solve two pressing problems:
the first is to persuade Congress to sanction an
increase in the deficit limit, it always being
easier to persuade Congress to finance a
government at war, and the second is to attract
the necessary dollar-denominated capital to buy
Treasury debt, without having to increase
interest rates. The US Government is bound to be
aware that higher interest rates must be capped
to minimise the risk of triggering a full-blown
debt crisis.
As was the
case with the Asian crisis, it seems China will
avoid being undermined by these negative capital
flows. Unknown to the public, America has
already failed in its financial war against
China, and needs new victims, which is why the
attention has switched to the Korean peninsula
as well as the Middle East. Trump now realises
the only way his presidency can prosper is to
encourage capital flight into America from
abroad, and have the debt limit raised to
accommodate it. This, surely, is behind his
Damascene conversion.
Japan and
South Korea will most probably have studied
Qiao’s paper, becoming wise to America’s true
motives, and are therefore more likely to
distance themselves from trading in dollars
thereafter. Their private sectors will be slow
to understand these financial dynamics, so will
remain victims. But for governments and large
corporations, the American gaff has been blown.
This is likely to lead us into a new world,
where the dollar’s decline as a reserve and
trade currency accelerates, as America runs out
of its pump-and-dump victims. And when that
happens, the dollar is almost certain to rapidly
lose its purchasing power, leading to a global
currency reset and a far higher dollar price for
gold.
Gold’s
glaring omission
A clue
that Qiao’s report was censored is the absence
of any mention of China’s gold accumulation
strategy. While Qiao was quick to notice the
importance of the link between gold and the
dollar in the Bretton Woods years, there is no
mention of why China has been amassing gold,
ever since the original regulations were
promulgated in 1983, appointing the Peoples Bank
for this function. There is no mention of why
gold was promoted to ordinary citizens after the
Shanghai Gold Exchange opened in 2002, no
mention of why China has invested in gold mining
to the point where it is now the largest
producer in the world by far, and no mention of
why the government retains a monopoly on
refining, even buying doré from other countries
to refine and accumulate. There is no mention
that leads us to understand why Chinese state
refined gold bars are hardly ever seen outside
China.
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is
Independent Media
China
places a great emphasis on hoarding gold, both
for itself and its citizens. The public has
acquired an estimated 12,000-14,000 tonnes since
2002, and this writer has speculated that the
Government has hoarded in various accounts as
much as a further 20,000 tonnes since 1983. For
the government, this represents an average
annual accumulation of less than 600 tonnes a
year, mostly at contemporary prices far lower
than the current dollar level.
But China
has gone even further, seeking to control the
global market by making the Shanghai Gold
Exchange the largest physical exchange by far.
She has now introduced yuan gold futures
contracts, which will be followed by yuan oil
futures contracts in time. This ensures that
foreign traders in commodities and wholesale
goods can sell forward the yuan they receive in
return for gold, increasing the attractiveness
of trade finance and settled in yuan compared
with dollars. And when the yuan oil contract is
introduced, oil importers will use the yuan
contracts to sell oil for gold.
In one
simple action, China is ready to change the
pricing of oil to gold instead of dollars. All
she needs to do is pull the trigger, presumably
when she has sold down her own dollar reserves
to stockpile industrial commodities. And when
oil is effectively settled in gold through the
futures markets, we can expect other commodities
to follow.
This
should come as no surprise to the American
state, close to being declared check-mate by
China on the geopolitical chess board. The
dollar price of gold is likely to rise sharply,
reflecting the loss of purchasing power for the
dollar, and it will end the American dollar’s
exorbitant privilege, enjoyed since the end of
the gold standard in 1971. It is potentially the
coup-de grace for both the paper dollar and
American imperialism.
Conclusion
China is
thinking ahead, and has its own unique
understanding of how America manages its
financial empire for the benefit of its domestic
economy, at the expense of everyone else. China
has protected herself, and attempts by America
to undermine China’s economy have already
failed. Attention is now focused elsewhere. The
latest war-mongering against North Korea, Syria
and possibly Iran has much to do with persuading
Congress to raise the debt ceiling, and to
encourage capital flight back into a new wave of
US Treasuries without interest rates being
raised. This neatly explains Trump’s change of
heart over foreign adventures.
The
current attempt to pump-and-dump the economies
of Japan and South Korea by escalating tension
over North Korea, as well as countries with
dollar balances in the Middle East by escalating
Syria, Northern Iraq and Iran, will likely be
the last such attempt. China’s publication of
Qiao’s analysis has alerted government
strategists everywhere to the use of this
tactic, reducing its efficacy. America is
running out of fools to fleece.
The end
game for the dollar and America’s harvesting of
foreign countries is therefore in sight, and it
will likely end with a final dollar crisis.
China could bring this about at a time of its
own choosing, simply by introducing the planned
oil futures yuan contract alongside the gold
futures yuan contract. When liquid enough, oil
producers will be able to sell oil for gold,
effectively restoring the pre-1971 price
relationships. This explains the dynamics being
played out at the highest levels, and America
has the most to lose. But because China still
owns large quantities of US Treasuries and
dollar reserves, for the moment she might prefer
more time before executing the coup de grace.
But
execute it, she will. Her fundamental objective
is to remove America’s ability to profit from
having everything priced in dollars. Logically,
that means getting oil and other key commodities
referenced in gold, as they were before the
Nixon shock in 1971, with fiat currencies merely
being the settlement media. America must be
careful not to bring forth the date of her own
demise by attacking North Korea, Syria, or Iran.
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. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)