Over the past week, regular readers here will ahve noticed I have been blogging a great deal about the geopolitical earthquake that has been unfolding before our eyes, and with a rapidity that is almost incomprehensible. I have also suggested that this is in response - partly - to an American foreign policy increasingly seen both by America's allies and "enemies" as out of control, irrational, and destablizing. That earthquake has three components and possible fourth and fifth components, and thus far this past week I have been writing about two of them:
- The meeting of the French, Russian, and German foreign ministers, Laurent Fabius, Sergei Lavrov, and Frank-Walter Steinmeir, in Berlin, to greenlight Russian military intervention in Syria, and most probably to discuss a schedule of decoupling Europe from the American economic sanctions regime, and also how to deal with the disastrous American meddling in the Ukraine;
- Russian President Vladimir Putin's remarks to his officers, stating clearly and unequivocally thet Russia intends to end the radical Islamicist movement ISIS in Syria, to protect CHristian and other minorities in the Levant, and that such groups were sponsored by Washington and Riyadh, which everyone knew, but which no world leader has yet stated so clearly and unequivocally
The fourth component, which I suggested yesterday, was Pope Francis I, or rather, the papacy, and Francis' recent, but all but forgotten statement, that Christians have the right of self-defense against radical Islam. The possible fifth component is a potential Chinese intervention in Syria as well, in response to an invitation from Mr. Assad to do so. In this respect, one needs to recall that Islamic terrorists have been at work in the far western provinces of that country too.
But what's the third component?
Over the past few weeks we've also been watching the United Kingdom very closely, and alluded to subtle messages coming from organs of that nation's oligarchical elite that have clearly indicated a growing measure of discontent with Washington. The United Kingdom, let us only recall, was one of the founding members, and is thus on the board, of China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Of all the major economic and military powers of the world, only the USA and Japan declined to join. There have been two principal factors to my arguments and high octane speculations that Great Britain was perfected poised to exploit the growing disenchantment with the post-9/11 Washington regime: (1) Great Britain is the leader of the British Commonwealth, and if it plays its cards properly, could revive the soft power of culture that the Commonwealth represents. This of course, will require a subtle reversal of its own domestic policies vis-a-vis emigration during Europe's growing refugee crisis. But much more important, is the second factor: (2) Britain has a great deal to gain economically, financially, and industrially, from a collaboration with China and other Asian nations if it is willing to bury the long historical policy of trying to "keep China down", and cooperate more positively.
It appears that this, indeed, is in the cards, in this article shared by Mr. W.D.:
The first four paragraphs say it all, and I hope the reader appreciates the geopolitical-financial earthquake that this represents:
Britain and China agreed on Monday to a series of initiatives ranging from an expanded currency swap agreement, Chinese investment in British nuclear power, and a feasibility study for a scheme to connect the London and Shanghai stock markets.
Speaking on the second of a five day visit to China, finance minister George Osborne said Britain would be Beijing's "best partner in the West".
He said the recent market turmoil in China was no reason for Britain not to engage more deeply with the world's second-largest economy.
Osborne wants more Chinese investment in Britain, and has championed London's bid to become the dominant center for offshore yuan trading in Europe. He said connecting the London and Shanghai stock markets would benefit Britain in the long run.(All emphases added)
What struck me - well, to be honest, stunned me - were Finance Minister Osborne's statement that the U.K. would be "Beiking's best partner in the West," language which far just a micron short of saying that Britain and China would have a "special relationship," words usually applied to the relationship between the UK and USA that developed in the necessities of collaboration, rather than confrontation, during two world wars. Nor is the statement merely rhetorical, for reading between the lines of the first paragraph doesn't require much high octane speculation to see what might be happening: an "expanded currency swamp agreement" is simply code for the agreement on direct convertibility of currency bypassing the US dollar, an arrangement that would both be necessitated by, and facilitate, the connecting of the London and Shanghai stock markets.
If they're not getting the message in Washington or the American corporate media now, then they'll never get it. Ponder that, before you ponder voting for a socialist from Vermont, or for a poisonous plant from Florida, or a clueless Cuban-American senator spouting the party line about Putin, or for any of the other mediocrities you see on the stage of so-called "debates." The rest of the world is voting "no confidence," and it's easy to see why.
See you on the flip side...