Technocracy And The Making of China

DengXiaoping.jpgIt was no mis­take of his­tory that China trans­formed from a Com­mu­nist dic­ta­tor­ship into a neo-authoritarian Technocracy.
In this regard, the influ­ence of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, its mem­bers and poli­cies on the world stage can hardly be quan­ti­fied. The Com­mis­sion, founded by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski in 1973, drew mem­ber­ship from North America, Europe and Japan. Out of approx­i­mately 300 mem­bers, only 86 were orig­i­nally from the United States, and yet they cor­po­rately devised and pushed poli­cies that suited the entire mem­ber­ship, and did so under a vir­tual cloak of invis­i­bility that lasts even into 2013.
Today, we reap the “ben­e­fits” of Tri­lat­eral manip­u­la­tion. The Euro­pean economy is trashed, Japan’s economy is still smol­dering from the mid-1990’s and the U.S. is much worse off today than in the late 1960’s. But, the polit­ical sys­tems of these coun­tries are not much better off than their economies. The fruit of decay in the United States is painfully evi­dent with a frac­tured and con­tentious politic that defies rec­on­cil­i­a­tion on even the most minor issues.

Read more

Trans Pacific Partnership is a Globalist Expansion of the American Empire


Anonymous warned us of this last year and now that it has passed, we will begin to see the scary results.  The US has managed to create a NAFTA-like plan for Asia combined with a NATO-like military expansion in order to contain China and bring about a New World Order the likes of what the world saw around the time of World War I & II with the expansion of the I.G. Farben and Nazi empire, known as the Third Reich.

This is a continuation of the Fourth Reich as described in detail by historian and investigative journalist, Jim Marrs.

“The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War fundamentally altered the global security environment…but regional, local and internal conflicts have been on the rise. In recent years, the rise of failed and failing states and the growing presence of increasingly capable non-state actors has presented the US and its coalition partners with new military challenges. Concurrently, US forces face an increasing number of access challenges, including geography, potential adversaries’ capabilities, and host country concerns which prohibit access to their ports, airfields, and territory in the pursuit of action, and finally: domestic US and coalition political sentiment against large troop presence in ‘non-permissive operating environments’. The closing of US bases around the world, and austere port and infrastructure; international and domestic sentiments against a large troop presence in a foreign country, or even outright denial of US military presence have all limited the number of troops placed ashore.”


It has been highly protested by Japanese and others informed citizens, afraid of the destruction brought on their markets by the economic rape, pillage, and plunder.

4000+ Japanese farmers and fishers hit the streets of Tokyo on March 13 demanding Prime Minister Shinzo Abe keep his promises to boycott the talks despite pressure from the US.  Sound familiar?  Obama’s fast-tracking this deal brings new meaning to his campaign promise to ‘renegotiate NAFTA’.
There’s been recent news that over 400 civil society organizations representing more than 15 million Americans have written to Congress urging that Fast Track be replaced by a more democratic trade negotiating and approval process’.
Electronic Frontier Foundation lists the dangers from draconian copyright and intellectual property rules, online free speech and privacy, fair use exceptions, and much  more.  The leaked draft 2011 text is here(pdf).
Sandra Fulton of the ACLU called the TPP ‘the biggest threat to free speech and intellectual property that you’ve never heard of’ in this interview with EFF in September of 2012.
The leaked provisions caused Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch to react with incredulity and barely suppressed rage:
The rollback of the modest Bush-era reforms is shocking, but what is truly stunning is the new proposal to empower pharmaceutical firms to attack the medicine formulary systems that New Zealand, Australia and other developed countries have used so successfully to achieve what is ostensibly an Obama administration goal of reducing sky-high drug prices.”
Lori Wallach is interviewed in the next two videos; this one with Amy and Juan covers many of the most hideous features of the deal as leaked so far, although as I remember it they don’t cover the super-muscular power Monsanto and other GMO multinationals will have, and the powerlessness of citizens in signatory nations to fight back.  There are also provisions for financial deregulation and decreased capital control, Investor State arbitration (iirc; I’ve read and watched a lot today) and a US military presence to help keep citizens pacified.
If anyone can still believe that this President gives a fuck about you, or the 40% of the citizens of the world this will negatively impact forever…I’d like you to make your case.  As far as I’m concerned, it‘s treasonous.  

Bretton Woods II – China Leads the Way

Expect China to Shape the Next Bretton Woods Pact: Philip Coggan

China to Shape the Next Bretton Woods

Illustration by Josh Cochran
When the world economy heads into crisis, the international currency system often breaks down. This occurs either because debtors can’t meet their obligations, or because creditors fear they are not being repaid in sound money. The first condition exists today in the euro zone; the second is likely to emerge in the China-U.S. relationship.
So how might these conditions change the system? Much discussion concerns whether the U.S. dollar will be replaced as the global reserve currency by the Chinese yuan or whether it will simply be one of a number of reserve currencies that includes the euro, yuan and yen.
The global reserve currency is the one that forms the largest proportion of the holdings of central banks. More broadly, it is also the currency most likely to be accepted by merchants worldwide. In my view, the debate about whether the dollar will be replaced by the yuan is a bit of a red herring because such a shift will not occur quickly.
As of 2010, about 60 percent of all foreign-exchange reserves were denominated in dollars, giving the U.S. currency a critical mass. Investors are still comfortable with holding it; despite the country’s fiscal problems, in times of crisis, the dollar is regarded as a haven. It will take a long while for international investors to become confident that a Communist-led government will always respect their rights.

China’s Enormous Economy

By 2020, if current trends are realized, China will become the world’s largest economy. The nation’s foreign-exchange reserves already give it significant power as a creditor nation. But even if foreigners wanted to hold yuan instead of dollars, there would be constraints on their doing so. And removing the constraints would probably cause the yuan to soar, something that the Chinese are keen to avoid.
So it seems unlikely that the next 10 years will see a yuan standard replacing a dollar standard. But might the present crisis conditions lead to some other sort of change? Might countries, for example, be driven to enter a new arrangement comparable to the 1944 Bretton Woods pact, in which the world’s major industrial states agreed to adhere to a global gold standard to stabilize international currencies?
At this juncture, an agreement on this scale would be very difficult. Bretton Woods was made possible because of the limited number of participants and the urgency of wartime. Much ofEurope was under Nazi occupation and could not take part; the Soviet Union had little intellectual input; and the developing world was consulted on a fairly cursory basis. The Americans were in charge, but listened to John Maynard Keynes out of respect for his intellect.
A modern agreement would have to get consensus from the U.S., China, the European Union,IndiaBrazil, and so on. This would be tricky. But perhaps there could be an arrangement less formal than Bretton Woods. In November 2010, Robert Zoellick, a former U.S. Treasury official who runs the World Bank, wrote of a concept in which countries would agree on structural reforms to boost growth, forswear currency intervention and build a “co- operative monetary system.” This system, he continued, “should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values.”
Some saw this mild suggestion as a call for a return to the gold standard, which, barring desperate circumstances, is unlikely. But before we dismiss all ideas for reform, we should remember that the world operates under what some call a Bretton Woods II regime, with the Americans buying Chinese goods and the Chinese supplying the finance. The implications of this process are everlasting U.S. trade deficits and an ever-greater investment by the Chinese people in U.S. government debt.

Dollar Connection

The system may have suited the Chinese until now because they were eager to find manufacturing jobs for their rural population. At some point, however, the Chinese may feel the need to do something else with their trillions of dollars in reserves. Already they are looking to diversify by acquiring natural resources in the developing world. They have also criticized the U.S. for its economic policy, calling on the Americans to limit their budget deficit.
Despite the strength of this rhetoric, the Chinese will not abandon the dollar outright. They already own so much in the way of U.S. government debt that any indication of their intention to sell would cause a plunge in bond prices. The fates of creditor and debtor are locked together. So the answer might be some kind of managed deal, with the Chinese agreeing to let their currency strengthen and to limit their current account surplus while the Americans agree to tackle their budget deficit. The currencies would trade in a range while the deficit would have a target.
Timothy Geithner, the U.S. Treasury secretary, hinted at such a solution in October 2010, suggesting a limit on current account surpluses of about 4 percent of gross domestic product. A Group of 20 meeting of finance ministers nodded mildly in the direction of this proposal. But nothing will happen overnight. Neither the Chinese nor the Americans will want to accept constraints on their behavior.
The Chinese will change tack if they believe such a shift is in their own interest. This might be because they face losses on their government-bond holdings, or because they wish to shift to a consumption-based, rather than an export-led, model to court domestic popularity.
To some, the idea that the U.S. would accept constraints on the independence of its economic policy might seem a fantasy. It is hard enough for a president to get his own plans through Congress, let alone get approval for a set of policies dictated from abroad. As a result, one would expect a new system to arise only as part of a further crisis.

Savers and Spenders

In a speech in October 2010, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, called for a “grand bargain” among the major players in the world economy. “The risk,” he said, “is that, unless agreement on a common path of adjustment is reached, conflicting policies will result in an undesirably low level of world output, with all countries worse off as a result.”
The fundamental problem is the imbalance between the saving and the spending nations. In a sense, the situation resembles that of the late 1920s when the Americans and French owned a huge proportion of the world’s gold reserves; this time it is the Asian and OPEC countries that have too much squirreled away. What should naturally happen in such circumstances is for the exchange rates of the surplus nations to appreciate. But countries have been attempting to hold their currencies down, either by intervening in the markets or by imposing capital controls. All currencies, however, cannot fall; some must rise and risk deflation in the process.
Any target for exchange rates, or current-account surpluses, would have to be flexible. Fixed exchange rates require either subordination of monetary policy or capital controls to be effective. The Chinese, who already restrict investment, might favor capital controls, but it is hard to see the U.S., with its huge financial-services industry, agreeing to a worldwide restriction.
However, there is one factor that might persuade the U.S. government to change its mind: its debt burden. As has already been discussed, reducing debt via an austerity program is unpalatable, and outright default is almost unthinkable. But governments did manage to reduce their debt burdens after World War II, under the auspices of the Bretton Woods system.
Only with capital controls can government debt burdens be inflated away. Private savings can be more easily forced into public-sector debt.
How would a managed exchange-rate system work today? Even under Bretton Woods, after all, it eventually proved impossible to keep exchange rates pegged. But the system did work for a quarter of a century. And if an exchange-rate peg gives speculators a tempting target, the answer would be to curb the speculators. Again, if the Chinese set the rules, such a move would seem more likely. They regard Western governments as foolish for allowing their economic policies to be at the mercy of the markets.
If the U.K. set the terms of the gold standard, and the U.S. set those of Bretton Woods, then the terms of the next financial system are likely to be set by the world’s biggest creditor: China. And that system may look a lot different to the one we have become used to over the past 30 years.
(Philip Coggan is a columnist for the Economist. This is an excerpt from his book, “Paper Promises: Debt, Money and the New World Order,” to be published Feb. 7 by Perseus Books. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Philip Coggan at philipcoggan@economist.com
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net

Bretton Woods II – China Leads the Way

Expect China to Shape the Next Bretton Woods Pact: Philip Coggan

China to Shape the Next Bretton Woods

Illustration by Josh Cochran
When the world economy heads into crisis, the international currency system often breaks down. This occurs either because debtors can’t meet their obligations, or because creditors fear they are not being repaid in sound money. The first condition exists today in the euro zone; the second is likely to emerge in the China-U.S. relationship.
So how might these conditions change the system? Much discussion concerns whether the U.S. dollar will be replaced as the global reserve currency by the Chinese yuan or whether it will simply be one of a number of reserve currencies that includes the euro, yuan and yen.
The global reserve currency is the one that forms the largest proportion of the holdings of central banks. More broadly, it is also the currency most likely to be accepted by merchants worldwide. In my view, the debate about whether the dollar will be replaced by the yuan is a bit of a red herring because such a shift will not occur quickly.
As of 2010, about 60 percent of all foreign-exchange reserves were denominated in dollars, giving the U.S. currency a critical mass. Investors are still comfortable with holding it; despite the country’s fiscal problems, in times of crisis, the dollar is regarded as a haven. It will take a long while for international investors to become confident that a Communist-led government will always respect their rights.

China’s Enormous Economy

By 2020, if current trends are realized, China will become the world’s largest economy. The nation’s foreign-exchange reserves already give it significant power as a creditor nation. But even if foreigners wanted to hold yuan instead of dollars, there would be constraints on their doing so. And removing the constraints would probably cause the yuan to soar, something that the Chinese are keen to avoid.
So it seems unlikely that the next 10 years will see a yuan standard replacing a dollar standard. But might the present crisis conditions lead to some other sort of change? Might countries, for example, be driven to enter a new arrangement comparable to the 1944 Bretton Woods pact, in which the world’s major industrial states agreed to adhere to a global gold standard to stabilize international currencies?
At this juncture, an agreement on this scale would be very difficult. Bretton Woods was made possible because of the limited number of participants and the urgency of wartime. Much ofEurope was under Nazi occupation and could not take part; the Soviet Union had little intellectual input; and the developing world was consulted on a fairly cursory basis. The Americans were in charge, but listened to John Maynard Keynes out of respect for his intellect.
A modern agreement would have to get consensus from the U.S., China, the European Union,IndiaBrazil, and so on. This would be tricky. But perhaps there could be an arrangement less formal than Bretton Woods. In November 2010, Robert Zoellick, a former U.S. Treasury official who runs the World Bank, wrote of a concept in which countries would agree on structural reforms to boost growth, forswear currency intervention and build a “co- operative monetary system.” This system, he continued, “should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values.”
Some saw this mild suggestion as a call for a return to the gold standard, which, barring desperate circumstances, is unlikely. But before we dismiss all ideas for reform, we should remember that the world operates under what some call a Bretton Woods II regime, with the Americans buying Chinese goods and the Chinese supplying the finance. The implications of this process are everlasting U.S. trade deficits and an ever-greater investment by the Chinese people in U.S. government debt.

Dollar Connection

The system may have suited the Chinese until now because they were eager to find manufacturing jobs for their rural population. At some point, however, the Chinese may feel the need to do something else with their trillions of dollars in reserves. Already they are looking to diversify by acquiring natural resources in the developing world. They have also criticized the U.S. for its economic policy, calling on the Americans to limit their budget deficit.
Despite the strength of this rhetoric, the Chinese will not abandon the dollar outright. They already own so much in the way of U.S. government debt that any indication of their intention to sell would cause a plunge in bond prices. The fates of creditor and debtor are locked together. So the answer might be some kind of managed deal, with the Chinese agreeing to let their currency strengthen and to limit their current account surplus while the Americans agree to tackle their budget deficit. The currencies would trade in a range while the deficit would have a target.
Timothy Geithner, the U.S. Treasury secretary, hinted at such a solution in October 2010, suggesting a limit on current account surpluses of about 4 percent of gross domestic product. A Group of 20 meeting of finance ministers nodded mildly in the direction of this proposal. But nothing will happen overnight. Neither the Chinese nor the Americans will want to accept constraints on their behavior.
The Chinese will change tack if they believe such a shift is in their own interest. This might be because they face losses on their government-bond holdings, or because they wish to shift to a consumption-based, rather than an export-led, model to court domestic popularity.
To some, the idea that the U.S. would accept constraints on the independence of its economic policy might seem a fantasy. It is hard enough for a president to get his own plans through Congress, let alone get approval for a set of policies dictated from abroad. As a result, one would expect a new system to arise only as part of a further crisis.

Savers and Spenders

In a speech in October 2010, Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, called for a “grand bargain” among the major players in the world economy. “The risk,” he said, “is that, unless agreement on a common path of adjustment is reached, conflicting policies will result in an undesirably low level of world output, with all countries worse off as a result.”
The fundamental problem is the imbalance between the saving and the spending nations. In a sense, the situation resembles that of the late 1920s when the Americans and French owned a huge proportion of the world’s gold reserves; this time it is the Asian and OPEC countries that have too much squirreled away. What should naturally happen in such circumstances is for the exchange rates of the surplus nations to appreciate. But countries have been attempting to hold their currencies down, either by intervening in the markets or by imposing capital controls. All currencies, however, cannot fall; some must rise and risk deflation in the process.
Any target for exchange rates, or current-account surpluses, would have to be flexible. Fixed exchange rates require either subordination of monetary policy or capital controls to be effective. The Chinese, who already restrict investment, might favor capital controls, but it is hard to see the U.S., with its huge financial-services industry, agreeing to a worldwide restriction.
However, there is one factor that might persuade the U.S. government to change its mind: its debt burden. As has already been discussed, reducing debt via an austerity program is unpalatable, and outright default is almost unthinkable. But governments did manage to reduce their debt burdens after World War II, under the auspices of the Bretton Woods system.
Only with capital controls can government debt burdens be inflated away. Private savings can be more easily forced into public-sector debt.
How would a managed exchange-rate system work today? Even under Bretton Woods, after all, it eventually proved impossible to keep exchange rates pegged. But the system did work for a quarter of a century. And if an exchange-rate peg gives speculators a tempting target, the answer would be to curb the speculators. Again, if the Chinese set the rules, such a move would seem more likely. They regard Western governments as foolish for allowing their economic policies to be at the mercy of the markets.
If the U.K. set the terms of the gold standard, and the U.S. set those of Bretton Woods, then the terms of the next financial system are likely to be set by the world’s biggest creditor: China. And that system may look a lot different to the one we have become used to over the past 30 years.
(Philip Coggan is a columnist for the Economist. This is an excerpt from his book, “Paper Promises: Debt, Money and the New World Order,” to be published Feb. 7 by Perseus Books. The opinions expressed are his own.)
To contact the writer of this article: Philip Coggan at philipcoggan@economist.com
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net

Great News: US Manufacturing Wages Will Be Lower Than China’s in 5 yrs @collapse #peakoil @chrislhayes @maddow

Really? The BCG study suggests that US manufacturing workers are 3x more productive than China’s, that their wages are growing rapidly, and that companies are opening plants in the US because labor is so cheap.

Chinese manufacturing cant grow 17% a year for 5 yrs without ENERGY and we understand that China is facing the worst energy crisis ever.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/17/chinas-energy-crisis/?test=latestnews

So where will the US get all the natural resources and steel needed to manufacture goods? Especially with oil costing more than $120 a barrel?

Ok, here is the jobs plan from US politicians.

Oh, but wait it also says this: If the U.S. can not maintain or expand its wide productivity advantage vs. China the the projections quoted are likely to be modified to the detriment of U.S. manufacturing.

That means US Sweat Shops Likely – productivity means more hours, no unions, no healthcare, etc. USD drops and thats good for us! Yahoo.

Clipped from econintersect.com
manufacturing Econintersect (Updated May 5):  According to a report by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), manufacturing is on the increase within the the U.S.  The study concludes that the U.S. will surpass China in manufacturing production of goods sold in North America over the next four years.  The U.S. lost the world lead in manufacturing that it had held for most of the twentieth century during the weak recovery from The Great Recession.  According to data from IHS Global Insight, quoted by the Financial Times, China had 19.8% of world manufacturing output with the U.S. second at 19.4% in 2010.
A key factor in the U.S. manufacturing resurgence comes from labor productivity, which is more than 3x that of China.  With the wages in China growing at a much higher rate than in the U.S. the productivity advantage is drawing domestic production back home, especially for the “more sophisticated” producrs mentioned in the FT article.
Among the U.S. corporations mentioned by the FT which have announced plans for major investments in new U.S. manufacturing are Caterpillar, General Electric and Ford.  In the first quarter of 2011 manufacturing production in the U.S. rose by 9.1% (annual rate), making it the fastest growing segment in the U.S. economy.
On May 5, as discussed at GEI Analysis by Steven Hansen, The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) reported an unexpected drop in labor productivity growth.  Productivity is a key component of the projections for manufacturing reported in this news brief.  If the U.S. can not maintain or expand its wide productivity advantage vs. China the the projections quoted are likely to be modified to the detriment of U.S. manufacturing. 
The BCG study says that Chinese manufacturing wage costs seem likely to rise 17 per cent a year in the next five years, compared with only 3 per cent a year in the US.

Read more at econintersect.com

 

Chinese national bank in terror financing

Is the Cold War part 2 the endless war on terror financed by chinese and russian banks as well as by Iran and OPEC nations that gain from the sale of oil to the USA?


Chinese Bank in terror
Financing 

By Bhaskar Roy 

In a startling
development, one hundred plaintiffs filed a
case last week with a Los Angeles Circuit
Court that a Chinese state-owned bank was
acting as a financial conduit for terrorist
groups Islamic Jihad (IJ) and Hamas. The
Bank of China Ltd. China’s third largest
bank, has expectedly denied the charge
saying it would contest the suit.  

The law suit alleged
that the bank was aware of these illegal
transactions but did nothing to stop them.
It claimed, through certain supportive
documents, that millions of dollars were
sent through the Bank of China to finance
attacks by the two terrorist outfits,
resulting in death and injuries to innocent
people.  

The charges add that
the illegal transfers emanated from the
Middle East, sent to the banks’ branches in
the USA, and were then transferred to
accounts at the Bank of China branch in
Guangzhou in Southern China, and finally
wire-transferred to Hamas and IJ leaders in
Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
This money helped terrorist attacks between
2004 and 2007.  

Israeli officials in
2005, brought these activities of the bank
to the notice of officials of China’s
Central Bank but the practice continued, the
law suit said.  

Following the war on
terror led by the USA from 2001, US
intelligence and federal justice department
officials started working with a large
number of countries including China to block
the routes of terror financing. For example,
US Justice Department officials have trained
Bangladesh central bank officials on
tracking illegal money transactions. This
happened following the 2005 country-wide
terrorist bombings in Bangladesh and it was
discovered that a number of Gulf NGOs like
the Al Hamrain trust and the Revival of
Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS) of Kuwait
were funding Islamic terrorist groups in the
country.  

According to the Bank
of China’s website, it reported by 2006 more
than one thousand cases of suspicious
transactions amounting to $ 56.5 billion to
the Chinese police, but there is no official
report on how these cases were dealt with.  

Illegal monetary
transactions are also hidden in Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) in China. Money sent
out illegally by some companies about which
not much is known,      return as FDI.
Information on such financial flows is
rarely sought by the government agencies.
One partner involved in illegality will
surely need an unscrupulous partner outside
China. Money laundering is a murky world
where all the undesirable people – gun
runners, narco traders, terrorists and black
marketers are partners – with no questions
asked.  

It is well known that
China assisted the Taliban during the war
against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
But it was not China alone who supported the
Taliban – the USA was the main culprit along
with king pin Pakistan. While the western
countries withdrew from Afghanistan after
the Soviet Union left to gradually implode,
China, with assistance from Pakistan, stayed
with the new rulers of Afghanistan, the
Al-Qaeda indoctrinated Taliban.

China’s commitment to
counter terrorism has always been suspect,
although it has its own problems with the
Muslim Uighur separatists in the western
region of Xinjiang. This problem is not
receding.  

At a particular period
of the cold war, China maximized its gains
from most sides. The experience may have
encouraged the Beijing leaders to sit in the
middle and fish in troubled waters.  

China was very much
aware that its Uighur militants were being
trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan by
Pakistani Jehadis of ISI creation, the
Taliban and even the Al Qaeda. Some of these
training camps were common to both Uighurs
and Kashmiri militants.It hoped that with
good relations with Pakistan and the Taliban
in Afghanistan, the Uighur separatist menace
would be resolved or, at least, kept within
manageable limits.

It may be recalled that
even after the US missile attacks on Taliban
post 9/11, China maintained for some time
that there was no evidence that the Taliban
was involved in terrorism. Chinese companies
were entering Taliban controlled Afghanistan
in a big way in telecommunication, military
informatics, and oil and gas survey.
Further, Afghanistan was seen as a strategic
gateway to Central Asia. 

Pakistan was, and
remains, China’s gateway to the Gulf and
West Asia or as the Chinese prefer to call
it these days, the “Golden Gate” out of US
encirclement. The route from western China
to Pakistan extending to Afghanistan into
Central Asia was also very important to
consolidate its multi-pronged surge in that
ex-Soviet region. 

Simultaneously, growing
militancy in countries perceived to be
potential competitors or adversaries was
apparently seen as a bonus by the Chinese
security establishment. China’s larger
regional strategy seemed to have given some
cover to Islamic terrorism and militancy, at
least by omission. This strategy has also
enabled terrorists to sneak into southern
China from Hong Kong and near by areas in
the cover of petty businessmen. Terrorist
money laundering from Guangdong province
bordering Hong Kong was reported as early as
2002. 

The Bank of China case
raises the question whether there is
disconnect between the hard line
intelligence and security establishment and
the top section of the Central leadership
group led by President Hu Jintao? If that is
so, this is a dangerous call for the rest of
the world, especially neighbouring regions
troubled by Islamic militancy and terrorism.
The West, of course, would be a major
target.  

Otherwise, it is
difficult to find an answer how such huge
illegal transfers through the Bank of China
in Guangzhou has remained unaddressed for so
long when evidence was staring the Chinese
security in the face. The related question
is whether the Bank of China case is the tip
of the iceberg, given the fact that
terrorists in UK, Europe and India appear
financially well-supported.  

Read more at www.southasiaanalysis.org

 

China Dumping USD @maddow @ezrakein

Why is this not in the major US media? This is HUGE news.

Clipped from www.zerohedge.com

China Proposes To Cut Two Thirds Of Its $3 Trillion In USD Holdings

All those who were hoping global stock markets would surge tomorrow based on a ridiculous rumor that China would revalue the CNY by 10% will have to wait. Instead, China has decided to serve the world another surprise. Following last week’s announcement by PBoC Governor Zhou (Where’s Waldo) Xiaochuan that the country’s excessive stockpile of USD reserves has to be urgently diversified, today we get a sense of just how big the upcoming Chinese defection from the “buy US debt” Nash equilibrium will be. Not surprisingly, China appears to be getting ready to cut its USD reserves by roughly the amount of dollars that was recently printed by the Fed, or $2 trilion or so. And to think that this comes just as news that the Japanese pension fund will soon be dumping who knows what. So, once again, how about that “end of QE” again?

Read more at www.zerohedge.com