Sehr lesenswerte oek. Aussenseiteranalyse zum Imperialkrieg

verfasst von Miesespeter, 22.03.2003, 19:25

-->Hier wird deutlich, warum Nord-Korea in der Achse Des Boesen vermarktet wird. Es ist der heilige Gralswaechter des Dollars in Asien. Divide et impere, wie immer..........


A Soft, Easy Crash- Landing for

the American Empire

by Alan Turin

Eleven years ago I researched how George H. W. Bush would win reelection. Part of my confidence was the accuracy I had in predicting the beginning and end of the First Iraq war. My confidence [hubris] from that war emboldened me to new events.

Not only did I predict a Bush victory, I went the extra mile and handicapped each state. Being 1992 I typed and mailed my analysis to a group of paleolibertarians [Lew Rockwell was one].

Clinton beat Bush decisively. Lew never gigged my error: he is merciful.

Predicting events runs up against metaphysical and epistemological limits. Plus when one goes wrong, it can be embarrassing.

There is now a shooting, if not a constitutional, war going on with Iraq, so it is time to discern a path of future events. It is always time to help this website.

A list of talking points.

One. Price inflation is how the marketplace penalizes states for playing monetary inflation games. Markets discount currencies based on their perceptions of what game central bankers are playing.

Two. There’s no Soviet Union to frighten other states into cooperation with the US government.

Three. Europe and the US have interests and attitudes that are at variance and have no prospect of reconciling in the foreseeable future.

Four. Oil, except for Iraq’s, is priced in US Dollars. International financial institutions [IMF, BIS, OECD] are Dollar dominated.

Five. The Dollar has lost against the Euro, gold and Swiss Franc by over 20% in the past 90 days.

Six. The Dollar needn’t fall to zero via runaway inflation, to cause financial pain. Stock portfolios don’t have to become worthless to hurt; they merely need to be worth less.

Seven. In Asia regarding Iraq: only Australia, Japan and South Korea are following a US lead. Regarding North Korea: only Australia.

Eight. Japan has a strong export regime, strong saving ethic, lower personal debt, but has suffered for over ten years a severe recession.

Nine. China and Japan have positive trade balance with the US and hold huge Dollar reserves.

Ten. This US invasion of Iraq is, outside of the US, universally branded at best as unjustified, reckless, imperial and an abandonment of American ideals. At worst, let’s leave those criticisms aside. Countries we count as allies, even friends [ignore dictatorships] share this view.

The Invisible Hand Gives the Finger: Eurodollars, oil & central banks.

As noted above the Dollar has slid against oil, gold, the Euro and the Swiss France by 20- 25% over the past 90 days. Central banks for Japan, South Korea, China and both anti- and pro- American oil- exporting states holding Dollars have stark losses in their portfolios.

Prudence alone would call on them to adjust their portfolio’s by selling Dollars and buying gold, Euros, Swiss Francs, etc. Their problem: it would be seen as a vote no confidence against the US.

Which runs us into the next problem: market effect. An attempt to sell Dollars and move to Euros by central banks, even a small systemic move to protect their portfolios, would trigger a panicked general Dollar sell off. Under"normal" conditions the FED would offer higher interest rates to offset losses. But a higher Dollar interest rate sufficient to stall a sell off would have two painful consequences domestically: a return to high interest rates and ballooning of the government’s deficit as it paid higher interest rates on its debt.

The Eurodollar market is large, but not so large, that central banks selling Dollars to cut their exposure or contain losses, would trigger a larger sell off. Put bluntly: it would sink the Dollar.

Such a sinking doesn’t mean a runaway collapse of the Dollar, merely a downward adjustment as it seeks a new level in the international market.

Not all central bankers move by prudence alone. Spite and resistance to the American empire could motivate states to sink the Dollar.

If for spite Libya, Iran and Indonesia sell their Dollars and price oil in Euros, the Dollar would fall in value. That would be a blow to the American empire.

Somewhere, West of Luzon.

Indonesia is an Islamic, oil exporting state whose domestic economy"just happened" to collapse upon following IMF advice. Seeing the IMF and most of the international monetary order as US run, they blame this collapse on the US. They blame the US for their former, corrupt dictator’s regime. The war with Iraq has inflamed them. Indonesia is a prime candidate to shift oil sales from Dollars to Euros for spite and economics.

Japan, South Korea and China hold large Dollar reserves due to their positive trade balances with the US.

Japan is in desperate straits because its major market is the US: the very state that protects her security and trade routes. They consider Bush’s handling of North Korea to be poor and the war with Iraq as reckless. Japan endorsed the invasion, not from conviction, but to induce US cooperation for regional issues.

The Dollar’s drop hurts Japan’s export profits to the US.

Indonesia and Japan striking a bargain in trade and naval matters would solve a host of problems for both. Japan could secure its trade routes [the Japanese"Self- Defense Force" navy is larger than the Royal Navy in vessel numbers and tonnage] heretofore secured by the US Navy.

Indonesia and Japan jointly ignoring the IMF would revive their domestic economies. Indonesia would get a ready market for oil exports in a currency that isn’t falling. Japan would get oil, securing of its own trade routes and a market that, adjusted for US monetary inflation, would be one quarter, of the current US market.

A calculated risk by Japan, that the US would not end Japanese imports, is a reasonable bet.

Japan and Indonesia cooperating in trade and naval matters would revive fears of a retro- East Asian Co- Prosperity Sphere.

Vetting such a move with an Asian Three Powers entente cordial of China, Korea and Japan [Ein Asiatisches Dreikaiser- bund?] would allay China and South Korea’s fears of resurgent Japanese imperialism.

Such regional cooperation however would exclude the US, as a naval and diplomatic force, in Asia.

Right now the US has troops in South Korea and Okinawa. Both South Korea and Japan want them out.

In South Korea’s case, they recently muted that desire, because of North Korea. This muting is not due to a change of heart due to North Korea per se; rather it came on the heels of Rumsfeld’s suggestion of a US withdrawal, without renouncing intervention against North Korea.

The present array of forces on the Korean peninsula has the US forces taking the brunt of a North Korean attack. If the US removes its forces and uses its bombers to destroy North Korea’s real atomic weapons facilities, then the brunt of an attack would be felt by South Korea.

This move by South Korea is to shift a war’s risks from them to the US. They want US forces out: they may calculate removal by North Korea acting as the Grim Reaper.

American military influence in Asia comes from the US Navy. Already the US has lost its’ two main bases in the Philippines during the 1990’s. Further removal from the Korean peninsula and Japan’s Okinawa moves the US influence to Asia’s periphery.

Any cooperative effort by Japan, Korea and China to jointly peg their currencies to gold or the Euro will signal a radical shrinkage of US influence in Asia. Objectively, this would end the Asiatic branch of the American empire.

Even assuming no resentment of American empire, these states may be forced to adjust their Dollar holdings to protect their central banks and domestic economies.

How reasonable is it to expect Asia to hold Dollars to shore up US diplomatic interests? To do so even to their financial disadvantage? It doesn’t require all Asian states to dump the Dollar to have a profound, weakening effect on the Dollar.

China need only sequester, on a temporary basis, profits from American corporations the repatriation of their Dollars, to allow for an"adjustment" of the Yuan [and/ or the Hong Kong Dollar] to"coordinate currency issues pending the Yuan’s acceptance in the IMF."

This would convert US corporations into a lobby for a new Asian order or see their Asiatic assets nationalized by exchange controls. This would also split corporate America on a war with Iraq.

Such a subtle move would be worthy of Sun Tzu.

The Less- than- Almighty Dollar.

Paul Volker took over the FED in late 1979 to stop double- digit inflation. Rumors flew before his appointment that Europe was readying an alternate, hard- money currency. Other rumors held that Arab oil states were going to price oil in gold or a Euro precursor.

What kept Europe and the Middle East from so doing was a frightful

Soviet Union recently invading Afghanistan. Volker for his part implemented a monetarist regime of contracting the money supply. The prime interest rate hit 21%. Monetary supplies shrank circa 1979- 82.

A regime of tax cuts and dose of economic freedom through deregulation whilst going through a sharp, fast depression gave us the Roaring Eighties.

What saved the Dollar from being bumped off as the world’s reserve currency were a willingness of foreign central banks to cooperate with, and the US’s willingness, to experience economic pain.

February 2003 producer price index [f/ k/ a the Wholesale Price Index] recorded a 1% inflation rate. Annualized: 12% inflation. 1980 reprised sans threatening Soviets to bludgeon cooperation with US financial authorities.

Can we expect foreign central bankers to be as cooperative as then? Can friendly oil states be forced to hold Dollars even with current declines?

Downward pressure against the Dollar weakens"Dollar diplomacy."

Fraying sinews of empire.

From Christmas to Ash Wednesday we’ve seen Libya elected to head the UN commission for human rights. Iraq is next in line to head the UN commission on disarmament [they are experts].

The UN Security Council won’t authorize two member states attacking Iraq. Those members are both veto holders of the Security Council and were charter members of the UNO. This is galling to the US and UK.

The US has suffered a loss of influence in both the Security Council and the General Assembly of the UN.

When George W. Bush was sworn in as President the military forces of the U. S. Government were stretched.

His father’s war with Iraq had armed forces that were stronger. Remember his term followed Reagan’s who had expanded U. S. forces to confront the Soviets. Bush 41 had several states helping defray costs.

Paul Johnson in Modern Times noted the British attack to re- take the Suez Canal following Nasser’s nationalization. In the first Cabinet meeting the service chiefs said it would take several weeks to put together the force needed to take on the Egyptians even with French and Israeli help.

Johnson sneeringly opined that when it takes that long for a regime to amass forces, it is time to forego force.

Whether multilateral or unilateral, wars are expensive propositions that hijack resources from civilian production.

Republicans in the 1990’s lambasted the Clinton regime for cutting military spending while putting the armed services on ever increasing, lengthy missions: Armed social workers for the New World Order.

In the 222 days from W’s inaugural to the September 2001 attack, was the military restored to its former glory?

This is not mere opinion on my part, but a matter of record for a candid, or less- than- candid world, to understand. Or ignore.

My conclusion: the American empire is not something to come, but already exists and is in decline.

An empire is in decline whenever the costs of projecting imperial force rise relative to peripheral powers ability to resist the center. Once the cost deterrence begins, component units of the empire or external regimes or both begin to challenge it.

How a bounced Dollar affects Dollar diplomacy: one frightful example.

If Israel uses the cover of war to"ethnically cleanse" Palestinians to Jordan the following can be predicted: Israeli costs to do such will strain their foreign aid from the US and domestic economy; 1.

Guerrilla/ terrorist activities will increase in Israel; 2. Nominally allied Arab states will have further pressure, both financial and political, to dump the Dollar. 3.

A large number of Israelis hold dual passports. A mere exodus of five percent of Israelis trying to protect women and children would strain the present regime. East Germany built the Berlin Wall due to similar pressures. Similar strains on Rhodesia forced their capitulation.

4.

A Dollar decline during such an Israeli operation would leave the Israelis in the untenable circumstance of infuriating the Arab world, Europe, the US and then finding themselves unable to cover even their current state operations.

Note again: it doesn’t require huge numbers of people to change their behavior to change state actions. A marginal number of Israelis trying to flee a spastic economy with increased terrorism could be decisive.

Historic turning points don’t come with helpful labels.

Examining how empires end in antiquity is helpful. What is key for us is how they end in the modern, industrial era.

A Soft, Easy Crash- Landing for the American Empire by Alan Turin

http:// www. lewrockwell. com/ turin/ turin28. html (6 of 8) [22/ 03/ 2003 20: 00: 39]
How did it end for France, England, Germany, Japan or the Soviets? Wars at home and at the periphery sapping wealth. Currency devaluations. Humiliating defeats in colonial wars. Bureaucracies inhibiting innovations. Frequent challenges from client states. Inability to secure borders. Centralization of state functions. Erosion of national culture to accommodate refugees of former colonies. Diplomatic efforts becoming ineffectual. Military efforts becoming ineffectual and requiring greater resources to maintain force projections. Challengers using more primitive and cheaper techniques to bedevil imperial military actions. The US has it all! To have the happy scenario of a soft, crash- landing for the American empire [loss of Europe to its own currency bloc, fragmentation of the world currency order, loss of Asian influence, a return of"stagflation"] merely requires an outright victory by US arms in Iraq in a matter of days or weeks at trivial cost. Keep in mind two key numbers: US forces arrayed against Iraq number 250,000 and US losses in Vietnam were 54,000. If ten percent of US forces are killed in Iraq losses will be 25,000. Count on the US media to compare them to Vietnam. If there is resistance or bogging down creating anything like a"Siegfried line" casualties will rise and support in the US will fall. If the US needs to bring reinforcements from elsewhere outside of the US, mark those areas to not ever see Americans return therein. Germany, Saudi Arabia have made public their determination to not see US forces return to their soil after a war with Iraq. The present government in South Korea was elected on a platform of removal of US forces. Three"if’s" in a row! The military has designated a name for this invasion: Iraqi Freedom, which abbreviates to"IF." If everything we know from economics, tradition, history and philosophy is wrong, then this war will work out perfectly. No harm to our free institutions will come about. All our fears, concerns, objections will be for naught. The neocons will be right. America’s empire will end, as all empire’s do end, but it will be a soft, crash- landing. If.

A Soft, Easy Crash- Landing for the American Empire by Alan Turin

http:// www. lewrockwell. com/ turin/ turin28. html

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Sehr lesenswerte oek. Aussenseiteranalyse zum Imperialkrieg - Miesespeter, 22.03.2003, 19:25