September 6, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

There's been another huge earthquake in the financial geopolitics of the globe according to this article shared by Mr. S.D.: Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau has announced that Canada will join China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank:

Canada to join China-led infrastructure bank

As Mr. S.D. pointed out to me in his email, the bulk of Canada's trade is with its neighbor to the south, which places these statements in the article into a very illuminating context:

On Tuesday, Trudeau hinted that Canada's application had been in the works.

"My government believes very, very much in the importance of investing in infrastructure," Trudeau said during a roundtable discussion with business leaders.

"That's one of the reasons why we're looking very favourably at the possibility of joining the AIIB."

Prior to Wednesday's announcement, former Canadian diplomat Charles Burton said joining the bank would signal Canada was prepared to see China take a seat at the table in terms of having input on the global economic landscape.

"By supporting this institution that's primarily initiated by China indicates that we're trying to build trust that China will use this institution for the greater good in a liberal, internationalist way and not simply as a device to expand its geopolitical reach," said Burton, a political scientist at Brock University.

But there is still some wariness in official Ottawa about supporting China's global influence, particularly with its recent actions the South China Sea, said Paul Evans of the University of British Columbia's Institute for Asian Research.

But Evans said most officials feel Canada made a mistake by not joining the bank last year.

The four projects approved earlier this year addressed many of the concerns western countries had about the new bank, he said, including that China would use it to advance its own strategic and commercial interests.

Evans said Ottawa's decision to sign on would be symbolically important in terms of Canada-China relations.

While the cost — which he estimated will be as much as $1 billion — could be high, he agreed that Canadian firms would indirectly benefit from the billions of dollars in projects the bank will finance.

So what is my high octane speculation here? Well, firstly, I suspect that behind closed doors in Ottawa, there are those in Canada who have the same misgivings about the direction of US foreign and domestic policy in the post-9/11 world, the world that has issued in unipolarism, and in a slew of foreign interventions that have proven to be such disasters that even former Carter Administration National Security Advisor and vowel-impaired Zbgnw Brzznsk has had to rethink this whole approach, an approach he himself advocated in his 1990s book The Grand Chessboard. This approach has issued in frayed alliances, growing discontent with American policy at a grassroots level both in Europe and North America, and more recently, to reappraisals of globalism and the American political class itself. Recall only that op-ed piece from the July 2015 issue of The Economist pointing out the calcification of the American deep state, with specific reference to Jeb Bush and (you guessed it), Darthillary. Of course, the Trudeaus have a "family history" of not being entirely pro-USA, but perhaps that crazy Bilderberger scheme from a few years back to detach the entire province of Quebec from Canada and annex it to the USA might have something to do with Canadian caution about its "neighbor" to the south.

But I suspect there are other things going on in the background here besides the Trudeau family history and political views. And that can be expressed in one word: BREXIT. Why BREXIT? While it is true that Britons voted against the Brussels bureaucrats, one must remember that the Obama administration also put tremendous pressure on the United Kingdom to stay in the European Union, even threatening that if the UK left the EU it would go to "the back of the queue" in trade deals with the US. Well, it's very difficult to conduct trade with a nation that has outsourced most of its manufacturing, and whose military has tanks with a German gun made in the USA under license. In other words, it's hard to trade with people who don't make very much, except war. To be sure, things might be difficult in Britain for a period because of the BREXIT, but in the long run, it positions Britain to act in a true sovereign fashion and to manage its foreign relations and trade, and the signal of that was when the UK became a founding member of China's Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, again, over the expressed opposition of the USA.

So in my high octane speculation, I suggest that Canada's move might be reflecting what I predicted would emerge from the BREXIT, a revival of the Commonwealth as a way to coordinate policy and, simultaneously, to protect the values and institutions of western, and peculiarly Anglo-Saxon culture. If so, then expect similar moves from Australia and New Zealand, to be accompanied with similar opposition and threats from Washington. For the moment, that coordination will probably remain hidden, but I suspect it will gradually come more and more into the open.

But whether or not these speculations will prove to be true or not, one fact remains in either case: Canada's action demonstrates just how low, and how frayed, the USA's alliances have become, and it is nothing less than a geopolitical earthquake.

See you on the flip side...