As US federal debt approaches $21 trillion in a matter of months, an eye-popping equivalent amount seems to have gone cumulatively missing from government coffers over the past two decades.
The missing $21 trillion was tabulated by a team of researchers led by Dr. Mark Skidmore, Morris Chair of State and Local Government and Policy at Michigan State University. Skidmore’s teamtalliedup “undocumentable adjustments” – a euphemism for accounting prestidigitations – atthe US Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) between 1998 and 2015. The study was verified by no less authority than Catherine Austin Fitts whose mainstream credentials included a stint in the George H.W. Bush presidential administration.
The most shocking instance of such book-keeping legerdemain, amounting to a colossal $2.3 trillion, was admitted by then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld on the noteworthy date of Sept 10, 2001. Rumsfeld was very specific in identifying America’s adversary: It was “closer to home”; it was the “Pentagon bureaucracy.”
The Sept 11 terror attacks the very next day however consigned these trillions into a black hole of oblivion. Yet, the black hole kept accruing ominous mass over the years;readying itself foran event horizon that may suck in nations, stock markets, livelihoods and lives into afatal vortex.
Several imponderables remain: Who controlsthis hidden stash? Has the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) sought closure over this issue?Is the internecine civil war within the US deep state in reality a tussle overthis slush fund? Whatever the hypothesis, make no mistake: An “undocumentable” $21 trillion in limbo somewhere can fund revolutions, regime changes and wars anywhere. It can not only fix spot prices for global markets but “spot narratives” in the global mainstream media as well.
It can ensure any “days of rage” planned over US President Donald J. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would remain a damp squib until the time emerges to redraw the contours of the Middle East. Once tempers are skilfully stoked towards a Middle East endgame, global markets can be shorted to localize geopolitical attention. The “days of rage” may then be directed at local leaders who will be in desperate need of solutions to keep their regimes and societies intact.
For an added perspective, consider this: Ever wondered how George Soros, with an official net worth of $8 billion, can threaten governments in a way Li Ka-Shing with a net worth of $33.7 billion cannot?In all likelihood, funds channelled into Soros’ transnational “human rights” hydras were never quite his in the first place. An activist billionaire is the perfect shill for deep state and transnational interests.
Such snowballing suspicions must have weighed heavily on the Pentagon. It has finally decided to conduct its first audit in history byraisingan army of 2,400 auditors from independent public accounting firms to see where the missing trillions as well as an inexplicable 44,000 US troops had disappeared to. It is rather conveniently late in the day for such an “audit” as the global economic deck seems to be stacked and ready to implode.
The trillion-dollar drainage from US government agencies has occurredsynchronously with the relentless wealth fractionation process worldwide, along with a rise in global socioeconomic volatility. As the chart below shows, a mere 80 individuals hadthe same amount ofwealthas 3.5 billion people in 2014.
This trend is expected to worsen through 2020 and beyond.According to a 2016 McKinsey report, around 540 million young people in 25 advanced nations,including the United States, face the prospect of becoming poorer than their parents.
This brings up an Aristotelian dilemma. The Greek sage had equated a stable society with a strong middle class.Around 2,300 years later, financial whizkidsimmersed in Reaganomics claim otherwise.The accrual of wealth among the few, according to the new wisdom,is supposed to generate more investments and jobs. The reality isjust the opposite: According to the US-based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), about 10 percent of global GDP has been ploughed into off shore tax havens instead of national treasuries and factories. More ominously, this figure jumps to 15 percent for Europe and up to 60 percent for Gulf Arab and Latin American regions. The haemorrhage of trillions is not just limited to the United States. There are many more trillions available to the transnational oligarchy to reshape the global order.
Furthermore, accelerating technological breakthroughsare already creating a permanent global underclass. Robots alone will displace 800 million workers by 2030. This poses a quandary for highly-populated emerging powers like India where, the richest one per cent own more than 53 per cent of the national wealth. What will India’s unskilled,teeming millions do when factories adopt robots and related Industry 4.0 production paradigms? The “Make in India” initiative must be matched with “Train in India” and “Hire in India” programs. Time is of critical essence here to avoid mass population redundancy.
Echoes from the 30s
However, what happens when workers worldwideface mass redundancy?Rising global wealth inequality is nowseen as a transnational threat, witha 2007 study by the UK Ministry of Defence presciently warning of a coordinated global middle class uprising in the coming years.This anticipated backlash has been attributed to a pervasive decline in mainstream news quality anda countervailing rise in cyber-activism. While debt levels continue to set new records in the West, its media is blissfully peddling red herrings on an unprecedented scale. Google’s decision to de-rank articles from RT and Sputnik is just the latest manifestation of the West’s desperation to control the information matrix.
When the bubbles do burst, as they did during the Great Depression, the global oligarchy would face the collective ire of the masses. There is however a time-tested economic modelfor this sort of predicament. It is called Fascism. In a post-bubble landscape, the poor and dispossessed will no longer provide a market for mass-market products while factories that producethem willsooner or later go bust. The only ironclad economic enginesleft revving – as historical patterns reveal – will bethe ones focused on policing and militarization.
An Updated NWO
Henry Kissinger had long sensed this imminentdéjà vu, and is currently advocating a pre-emptive solution in the form of a “New World Order” based on regionalized power centres. “The contemporary quest for world order,” Kissinger wrote in a 2014 Wall Street Journal essay, “will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.”
In a 2012 peer-reviewed paper titled ‘Class Warfare, Anarchy and the Future Society’, the author had reached a similar conclusion – from the opposite end of the Kissingerian worldview. The world would be convulsed by a series of manufactured crises to facilitate an international order governed by regional power centres. The Kissinger solution appears like a plutocratic twist of the Gramscian Political Society; one where repressive state organs would be“counselled” by oligarchs proppedby trillions from atransnational treasury. When societies get desperate and breadlines get longer, nationalist leaders would baulk atblockingthe charities of the mega-rich. The folks in Kiev are still grateful for Victoria Nuland’s cookies even while their nation regresses into a Third World asylum. Imagine what a $21 trillion cookie jar can accomplish worldwide?
Some regions like South Asia, however, lack the basic infrastructure to impose and integrate inter-regional orders of the kind advocated by Kissinger. This is perhaps a reason why India is being courted with much alacrity by the West. Australia, one of the quadrilateral security partners proposed for India is however staring at a $5.6 trillion housing bubble worth four times its GDP. A nation of24 million people cannot carry such a burden, unless it can induce a massive destabilizing capital flight from Third Worldnations.
When that happens,NGOs and social justice warriors worldwide can expect an unexpected bonanza in the opposite direction – in the form ofcashand cookiesto champion a new order in their hopelessly-impoverished societies!
Transition 2021: How Biden is likely to approach the Middle East
In terms of foreign policy, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden,is likely to face numerous challenges, especially when it comes to the Middle East because of the disastrous policies of the former President, Donald Trump, in the region. Even in his inauguration speech, Biden made it clear that it was going to be testing time. Some of the challenges that the new administration would be facing includethe nuclear deal with Iran, the ongoing war in Yemen, issues of human rights issues and the current deadlock between Israel and Palestine. There is some possibility that Biden’s foreign policy towards the Middle East would either be a revival of Barack Obama’s former policies or new strategies would be formulated based on the nature of the challenges faced. However, it is certain that Biden will address or undo Trump’s terrible policies in the region.
The Biden administration’s top foreign policy agenda is the policy towards Iran. The Iran nuclear deal (2015) or JCOPA was considered to be a milestone in multilateral diplomacy that was irresponsibly abandoned by Trump in 2018. Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” of sanctions against Iran aimed to please the traditional allies as they faced a common enemy in Iran. Biden has promised to return to the 2015 JCPOA agreement, and he would also discuss Iran’s nuclear program and exchange for sanctions relief. In this process, it is expected that Washington might pressure Iran to withdraw its support for regional proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Moreover, the US would also seek to curb Iran’s export of precision guided missiles to her regional allies. Iran though, has already made it clear that these issues would not be discussed in the event of a renegotiated JCPOA. Furthermore, this plan may be complicated by the recent assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, which was not condemned by the White House that Iran blames on Israel. Public outrage had not even subdued at the point due to the assassination of Qasim Sulemani. Currently, the architecture of the Middle Eastern region is even more complex and challenging than it was four years ago butthe fact is that Iran cannot afford military conflict at this point when its economy is already crippling amidst the COVID-19 pandemic along with the sanctions imposed by the US.
Trump administration’s “Israel-first” approach in the region brought severe criticism at the global level. The Abraham Accord, signed in September of last year,which normalized Israel’s relations with UAE & Bahrain, is widely seen as Donald Trump’s most significant foreign policy achievement. This Accord altered the decades long regional perception that Arab-Israel peace could not be achieved without first addressing the issue of statehood for Palestinians. Biden has said that he supports more countries recognizing Israel but at the same time Israel needs to work towards genuine solutions between the two states. Moreover, the new administration at the White House will not show the same tolerance for Israel’s settler expansionism as its predecessor. However, there are certain foreign policies by the Trump administration that the new US leadership does not want to renew. The normalization of Arab-Israel relations is something that enjoys bipartisan support. And also, the shift of the US embassy to Jerusalem seems unlikely to be undone.
The US policy inthe Middle East under the new leadership will be less ideological and would be more based on fundamental principles. These principles will greatly focus on human rights as some analysts view human rights as the core foreign policy agenda of the Biden administration. Thus, it does not seem not to be good news for the traditional allies of the US including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. There are a variety of issues in addition to the human rights issues: the KSA intervention in Yemen, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the lingering mistrust, the jailing of activists and Jamall Khashoggi’s murder case, which are creating uncertainties between the Washington and Riyadh. Hence, KSA is going to have a very difficult time with the Biden administration. Similarly, the new administration can also be expected to take a less tolerant view towards Moscow and Ankara because of the extraterritorial activities in the Middle Eastern region.
Certainly, returning to the Iran nuclear dealofficially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action-will take a longer time to review because of the complexity of the issue and the domestic problems that the US is currently facing. There is also a possibility of a dangerous escalation without a nuclear deal due to Iran’s aims of buildingmilitary scenarios. Therefore, multilateral diplomacy is the best option for regional peace and security, which has been tried in the previous years.Even the JCPOA was a result of such diplomacy. The US ending its support to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen might turn away the traditional allies for some time but not permanently due to the common interests in the region. Biden is also likely to alter Trump’s decision to withdraw US forces from the region as it would decrease US influence in the region. The top priority of the US administration in the Middle East would be to try and manage Iran’s problems and to maintain reasonable relations with Israel. Traditional allies of the US in the Middle East were content and supportive of Trump’s policies in the region but they view Biden, not as a President, but Vice President of the Obama Administration. Trump’s bilateral relations were often based on personal ties with the foreign leaders while Biden is expected to adopt a more multilateral approach in engaging with the allies. Still, scholars believe that there would be no fundamental change in the US foreign policy towards the Middle East, especially when it comes to protecting its vested interests in the region.
Rejoining the UNHRC will be the State Department’s first diplomatic mistake
As over the last days US Vice President Harris swore in Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the new US Ambassador to the UN, US Secretary of State Blinken announced in parallel that the US is now seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council, in an attempt to rejoin the UN system. But that’s not the right first move back at the UN that the US should be making. And that’s not what the progressive left had in mind when the real left groups put in office the new Biden Administration.
My perspective comes from having worked in the UN human rights system and as a finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech last year – but also as a progressive left voice.
The days when UN engagement defined Democrats vis-a-vis Republicans are over.
Shunning the UN has always been a Republican hallmark but backing and pouring so much funding into an old style, corrupt bureaucracy that has little to do with “diplomacy” is not what the new, awaken progressive left wants either.
Several weeks ago, I made the estimate that the 10bln dollars which the US government pours into the black hole called the UN equals the Covid relief that 16mln struggling American people could be getting now. The Biden Administration’s State Department diplomats have to remember who put them in office.
Democrat centrist diplomats have more in common with the UN in terms of ways, goals, style and world view than they do with the progressive left. Backing the UN means backing the old, corrupt ways, which the real progressive left voted to break last year.
The decision to announce the US’s goal to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council comes in the same week when President Biden finally announced his real stance on the Black Lives Matter ‘defund the police’ goals. Biden, it turns out, unsurprisingly does not support that. That’s not what the progressive left signed up for, either.
The UN institutional funding inertia by the US government does not define the Democratic Party anymore. That’s not what the left voters want.
The left’s reasons for not embracing the UN and the UN Human Rights Council have little to do with the usual Republican ‘go it alone’ at the international stage.
Yes to diplomacy and multilateralism. No to the corrupt, faceless UN. “International diplomacy” is no longer the same thing as the UN system.
The wave that rose across American political life last year, with so many young black activists and so many people voting for the first time, signaled a big resounding No to old ways and old institutions, which have little concern for the actual needs of the people.
The new US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas-Greenfield, will have the tough job of reforming the UN, and in my opinion, even defunding the UN.
The days when love for the UN defined Democrats are certainly over. It’s time for the Biden Administration to do what it was elected for, which is to not simply go back to the same old, same old corrupt, faceless bureaucratic institutions swimming in money. This is not what we want. The progressive left voted for change and now that also includes the UN.
U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia
“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity” — Albert Einstein
Within the climate crisis lies strategic opportunity for the United States. Climate change offers the chance to earn back the good will of allies, to prepare American cities for an urgently needed increase in immigration, and to reinvent U.S.-led institutions that have gone stale. Perhaps most of all, foreign policymakers should remain cognizant of how climate action can help the U.S. navigate relations with the other great powers.
As a recent report from the Center for a New American Security details, synergy between China and Russia is more problematic for U.S. interests than the sum of the challenges that each nation poses individually. Similarly, a recent Atlantic Council publication observed that “allowing Russia to drift fully into China’s strategic embrace over the last decade will go down as the single greatest geostrategic error.” Chinese and Russian interests do currently align on defense, economics, and the degradation of the U.S.-designed world order, but the nature of their alignment does not constitute an alliance.
In characterizing the relationship, this distinction is paramount. For as long as China and Russia remain merely convenient partners, rather than ideologically kindred allies, it is possible to keep these neighbors at arm’s length. To this end, the U.S. must reorient its approach to Russia. It is the Russian perception that world politics are rigged to benefit the U.S. at Russia’s expense that has prompted its support for China.
Russia’s national interests are rooted in the desire for respect. With this in mind, Russia could pull back from synergy with China if a better opportunity to advance these interests presented itself. Ultimately, the ability of the U.S. to offer a mutually acceptable alternative will hinge on two related factors: the Arctic and NATO. Critically, the issue of climate change is central to both of these factors.
In the Arctic, rapid warming removes barriers to resource exploitation, shipping activity, and great power competition. This has drawn many non-Arctic states to the region. Yet, even with China inserting itself as a “Near-Arctic State,” Russia has expressed the need for a hierarchy of regional influence in which the interests of Arctic states are prioritized over non-Arctic states. On this, American and Russian interests align.
Russian distrust of the U.S. complicates matters, however. Arctic military assertiveness from Russia is evidence of its sensitivity to the NATO alliance. In response, U.S. military branches have been releasing strategies for Arctic-specific forward defense. Such militarism is not conducive to improving relations, securing sovereign influence, or addressing climate change.
In order to limit undue Chinese influence in the region and stabilize its relations with Russia by securing a multilateral agreement that formalizes an Arctic hierarchy, the U.S. will need to alter its foreign policy so that Russia perceives it to be a viable partner. The alteration should be sufficient for reducing friction with Russia’s core interests, but not so extreme that liberal values or American security are put in jeopardy. Such transactional considerations should include fashioning a new climate-positive role for the U.S. in NATO. After all, the permanent physical presence of roughly 76,000 U.S. troops on the European continent not only irks Russia, but this posture is also expensive, carbon-intensive, and perhaps not even the most effective approach to conflict deterrence.
Indeed, research has shown that rapid deployment of new forces is significantly more likely to stymie aggression. This suggests that the U.S. should reduce its troop levels in Europe by at least 75 percent while bolstering rapid deployment readiness. This would allow the U.S. to simultaneously reduce its military’s fuel demand and greenhouse gas emissions, earn the good will necessary for stronger diplomacy with Russia, and still honor its security commitment to NATO in the event of a crisis. Moreover, the U.S. could then reinvest the potential savings into both Arctic sustainability and NATO’s capacity to manage climate insecurity.
Through the establishment of a bounded Arctic order and the greening of American leadership in NATO, the U.S. can dispel Sino-Russian synergy in the region and help maintain balance between the great powers. Specifically, these actions would both politically distance China from Russia and give the Kremlin substantial reason to begin feeling more optimistic about its relations with the West. To be sure, similar measures will be necessary in other regions to fully assure balance. However, the Arctic is a natural place for the U.S. to begin this endeavor. Usefully, the themes of climate mitigation and adaptation provide a blueprint for what countering Sino-Russian synergy elsewhere ought to generally entail.
Cease-Fire Review: A ray of hope
Pre-Negotiations are very much crucial to achieve the state of “Negociation Continuelle” (continuous negotiations) the only way due to which...
India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation
In recent years, the India-US bilateral relationship has been more closely bonded, especially defense-security cooperation in various fields including nuclear...
After steep drop in 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions have rebounded strongly
The Covid-19 crisis in 2020 triggered the largest annual drop in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World...
EU and Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement enters into force
On 1 March 2021, the European Union-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) will enter into force. It has now...
India-Pakistan LOC peace
India and Pakistan have both announced to “strictly observe” the truce along the Line of Control and all other sectors...
COVID-19 cases rise for first time in seven weeks
After six consecutive weeks of decline, COVID-19 cases worldwide increased last week for the first time, the World Health Organization...
Russia responsible for Navalny poisoning, rights experts say
Russia is responsible for the poisoning and attempted killing of jailed opposition figure Alexei Navalny, two independent UN rights experts said on Monday, issuing an...
Middle East3 days ago
Back to Strategic Hedging and Mediation in Qatar Foreign Policy after the Gulf Reconciliation
Europe3 days ago
Dara of Jasenovac
Americas3 days ago
Transition 2021: How Biden is likely to approach the Middle East
South Asia3 days ago
Pakistan Day Celebrations: Civilian Participation
Europe2 days ago
Russia-EU break possible but unwanted
Human Rights3 days ago
UN Security Council demands COVID-19 vaccine ceasefires
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Crisis in Armenia Provides Fertile Ground for Russian Meddling
Middle East2 days ago
US intelligence report leaves Saudi Arabia with no good geopolitical choices