Sanders For Peace Tuesday.

By Jerry Alatalo

World Map1Alphabet Voters in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island can remember what Senator Bernie Sanders says in the following short video about the hidden costs of war before casting their votes on Tuesday. It might help clarify matters if at the same time they recall then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s jubilant “We came, we saw, he died!” in 2011, after Libyan leader Mohammar Gaddafi was killed.

Residents in the five states, whether aware of it or not, will be voting for war with Clinton and peace with Sanders. The Democratic party primaries held tomorrow in CT, DE, MD, PA and RI will help decide if humanity experiences an Earthly future of war or peace. Libya’s Gaddafi was leading a movement to establish a new currency for the people of the African continent, and, according to recently released Clinton emails, was possibly the main reason for his overthrow and assassination.

It wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs transcripts reference nations around the Earth whose leaders wish to remain or become independent of the U.S./western dollar-dominated financial system. Ms. Clinton, one can imagine, probably assured the people at Goldman Sachs that if she became President military action would be used to force independent-minded nations and their leaders to remain dependent on the dollar; preventing by any means necessary nations’ “breaking the chains”, becoming financially sovereign.

With the world transforming from a unipolar, U.S. dominated to multipolar as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance grows, more nations will, like Libya and nations of Africa, be looking to break away from the western-dominated global financial system, the “only game in town” before BRICS. Herein lies the extreme danger of Hillary Clinton becoming President (Commander-in-Chief) of the United States. The Libyan catastrophe proves she will not hesitate to initiate illegal war over monetary reforms considered by people anywhere on Earth, in particular reforms which result in a nation’s financial independence, its own currency, and sovereignty.

The Middle East region’s people have suffered from wars and violence for far too long. Enough is enough in 2016. Vote for Sanders.

(Thank you to Bernie 2016 at YouTube)

Advertisements

BRICS: Global Change, Peril And Promise.

by Jerry Alatalo

“But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.”

– 1 Timothy 5:9-10

World Map1Alphabet Some have attributed today’s wars and violence around the Earth in large part to the rise of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) international financial institutions. Listening to Brazil-born Paulo Nogueira Batista – an Executive Director for eight years at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – provides affirmation the analysis is most likely correct. The question which arises is can humanity prevent the outbreak of a possible major war over this historic change.

Mr. Batista’s last day of employment at the IMF is June 30, after which he will take the position of Vice President of BRICS new, ready-to-open development bank, marking the first time the IMF, World Bank and other major US/western dominated international financial institutions will have “competition”. The development of BRICS will result in a reduction in the role of the dollar as the world’s major currency. Analysts have concluded that the reason the US, Britain and other western nations invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein in 2003 was Hussein’s decision to sell oil for euros, instead of the dollar. Analysts believe Muammar Gaddafi and Libya became destroyed by NATO air-bombardment in 2011 because of Gaddafi’s plan for major monetary reform – creation of gold Dinars as the new currency for the continent of Africa.

In both cases, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011, false reasons – lies – were put forth to mould public perceptions in favor of military action to remove those nations’ leaders. The nations of Iraq and Libya, the men, women and children living in those countries, have suffered tremendously ever since those military attacks, and today both nations are in extremely difficult situations struggling to recover some semblance of peace, security and economic normalcy. Depending on the extent to which assertions that monetary choices in Iraq and Libya were the major factor leading to military action to protect the dollar are reflective of truth, one could come to view BRICS’ entry into international finance competition, potentially resulting in the US dollar’s decreased use in global transactions, as reason for concern over escalation of war and violence.

Any study of unsanitized, accurate records of history – such as “People’s History of the United States” by the late Howard Zinn, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins, “The Untold History of the United States” by filmmaker Oliver Stone, “The Secret of Oz” documentary by Bill Still, and many others – provides clear evidence that wars become fought for economic, financial, power/control reasons, and not for noble ideals of “democracy and freedom”. Years-long legal engineering of the secretive and massive trade agreements TPP, TTIP and TiSa could accurately be perceived as economic warfare in response to BRICS nations’ early beginnings, meetings and conferences, and continuing development.

The world is changing at a rapid pace, moving from unipolar to multipolar, and the most important consideration for men and women around the Earth is preventing those strongly opposed to this change from reacting through military force.

It is with the intention of providing greater understanding of the BRICS phenomenon and building awareness of both potential positive and negative consequences that Paulo Nogueira Batista’s (PNB) interview has been shared in this post. As the interview begins, host Oksana Boyko notes that Mr. Batista has been “very critical of some of the fund’s methods”.

PNB: “Sometimes the fund has success stories, sometimes the fund has failures… Often the fund makes mistakes or is misguided in its interventions.”

“There are good reasons and bad reasons for delay in going to the fund. Countries are very reluctant to give up part of their sovereignty, part of their autonomy, in terms of policy-making, and are reluctant to fall into the hands of international bureaucrats. Why? Because, among other reasons, these international bureaucrats, comfortably installed in Washington, visiting countries regularly or on a quarterly basis, are out-of-touch very often with political, social, and even economic realities in the countries that rely on the fund”.

“The international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, their governance is very skewed – very unequal. So, the North Atlantic countries are in control. And often these countries have a short-sighted view of how these institutions should act, in my opinion. So, you find that powerful countries, powerful stakeholders of the IMF or World Bank, subordinating the institutions to their short-term or medium-term political agendas”.

“The way to hell is paved with good intentions. It’s more than intentions, it’s a political issue. Countries often, not only the North Atlantic powers, but all countries in general, are prone to abuse power. So, you may find institutions that are supposed to be multilateral, or global, obey not the theory or even the rules that they work under but their interests – it’s not malevolence, I wouldn’t say malevolence… If you look at it from a historical perspective, Europeans and Americans have been used to rule the world, and they are adapting with difficulty to the fact that the world is changing very quickly”.

“I think Greece is one of the least successful episodes in IMF history. And there’s no end in sight to the economic crisis of the country. For a number of reasons, but if you look at the unemployment activity, fiscal policy, structural reforms, the political impasse that arose after Syriza’s victory – impasse between Greece and its creditors, the so-called Troika – has led to a deterioration in the situation, and things are coming to a head right now. As we speak, the situation is coming to a, one more cliffhanger, and its not clear at all whether this time you will be able to pull, not only Greece but Greece’s creditors, up from the cliffhanger”.

Host Oksana Boyko asked about the different IMF treatment of Ukraine and Greece.

PNB: “Ukraine can be seen as a second Greece. …Ukraine, the fund is trying to, let’s say learn, from the failure in Greece. Greece was too little, too late in terms of restructuring; that put an extra burden on the problem and the country itself. In the case of Ukraine, not as early as I would have liked. … 2015 – better late than never – and the program calls for restructuring, ironically, June 30. June 30 has become a fateful day both for Greece and Ukraine, as you know Greece has a major payment that’s been bundled for June 30. By the way, for me June 30 is another significant date because that’s my last day at the fund”.

“It’s very important to compare Greece with Ukraine. Are we facing double standards here? Is Ukraine getting better treatment than Greece because the fund has since learned, or is it because Ukraine, for political reasons, has a special treatment that is not granted to Greece? Then you have the political factors. What is the political nature of the government in Kyiv? What is the political nature of the government in Athens? All those questions are not explicitly there always, but they are of course in the background”.

The discussion turns to IMF reform…

PNB: “There’s a change in plateau in terms of cooperation of the BRICS since 2012. So I think that’s one factor. About the fund, I think there’s a sense of disappointment no doubt. For me, for example, I’ve been working so hard on IMF reform in the last eight years… We achieved some things, but much less than I would have expected, say, back in 2010. So I think the west has to decide, does it want to run the institutions that it controls into the ground by making them uncapable of adapting to a changing world in a quick manner, or do they want to realize that, no, the world is changing fast, we need to open space… One Chinese delegate once said, quite rightly, ‘You have a large, very large, and oversized share of a bad cake. Do you want to reduce your share, and have a smaller share of a better cake?’ And that’s the question they haven’t answered”.

“I think the United States did more than vote for reform in 2010. It actually played a very important role in putting forth reform. If you would have asked me five years ago ‘would it be possible for the United States to become the major blocking factor in the implementation of IMF reform?’ I would have answered quite confidently ‘No’. And I would have been wrong, because the US has since become the major blocking factor. Whether it’s a tactical consideration, to put the blame on Congress – ‘I want to do it, but Congress doesn’t allow me’ – I really wouldn’t know”.

Ms. Boyko points out that the US, without reform, has the “best of both worlds”, so why would they want to change?

PNB: “You touch on a very important point. It was a political agreement at the highest level in 2010, that the countries including the BRICS would provide borrowed resources to the fund as a bridge to the implementation of reforms. We did our part, we provided the resources that we pledged, but the reform did not come. So, it’s a matter of whether you want to have a… Does the United States, do the Europeans want to have a big influence on the multilateral world or are they content to just frustrate everyone? That’s the question they need to ask themselves. They have an incentive. The incentive is to keep the value for the international community – let’s put it this way – of institutions that they created, and where they have a controlling interest. If they don’t want to recognize this… Of course, there are internal divisions…”

IMF reform was/is apparently possible without the approval of the US Congress, but because such reforms would have lowered US voting power below the threshold where the US could assert veto power, it became opposed by the US.

Ms. Boyko talked about “western countries more assertive recently than developing countries”….

PNB: “The west is declining in relative terms but it still rules, and the rest of the world is increasing its weight, but it’s perhaps still not used to having a global view of matters. I think the BRICS are a partial exception to that, let me tell you. If I were to select from the non-west part of the planet – a part of the planet that introduces alternative ideas, that has a global view, I would say it’s the BRICS. It’s the BRICS. I think that one advantage that the BRICS have is that we have experienced what it is to be a developing country, relatively poor, debtor to the IMF… As you mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, not so long ago Brazil was under an IMF program. Russia was under IMF program not so long ago, I think in the 90’s. India in the early 90’s.”

“When someone comes to the board, Greece or Ukraine or whatever, we look at the issue and we have the memory. As a young official in the Brazilian government, I was involved in negotiations with the IMF in the 1980’s during the debt crisis. We have the experience so I think we need to use that experience to have an empathetic approach to the problems of other countries”.

Host Oksana Boyko: “…10 years ago 90% of world currency in the form of US dollar, now it’s 60%. If that trend intensifies, it will have significant social, economic, political consequences on the United States. The United States may become subjected to a new kind of experience. Doesn’t that guarantee that Washington will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the BRICS plans from being realized? … because it threatens its own well-being?”

PNB: “The United States can do a lot, but it can’t do everything. There are certain trends that the United States cannot deal with, although it might wish to. The United States has resisted any reduction of the role of the dollar, so this is a long-standing issue. It will continue well past my departure from this planet. I don’t think we will solve it, but I do think you’re right that we have signs already – especially with China’s rapid rise – that other currencies will become, including emerging market countries, increasingly important in the world”.

Ms. Boyko: “Do you think your expertise will be helpful in undermining the western dominance of the global financial institutions?”

PNB: “I don’t think that’s the way we see it. The way that the BRICS countries see those institutions – the bank in Shanghai and the monetary fund – is not ‘against’ anyone. They’re pro-BRICS and pro-developing countries, so we take a soft approach”.

****

(Thank you to WorldsApart RT at YouTube)

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Sign Of Major Global Change.

by Jerry Alatalo

cropped-suits-333.jpgAlphabet Like a small city which has had only one bank for decades then a new banking competitor comes to town and sets up operations, the global mega-banking institutions World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and others now have the newly created BRICS Development Bank and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to compete against.

According to John Perkins, author of the best-selling book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”, this is a good thing for humanity.

Despite critical opposition by the United States, 27 countries have officially signed on to AIIB, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and others, while Australia and South Korea are seen by analysts as close to joining. Most observers believe the U.S. is not likely to sign on.

Mr. Perkins, who worked as an economist arranging billion dollar World Bank, IMF, and similar large international institutions’ loans to developing nations in his self-described role as a “hit man”, feels that these institutions “blew it” after the fall of the former Soviet Union by taking advantage of their monopolistic, “take it or leave it”, and sometimes deadly business tactics (assassination) when dealing with elected leaders of nations.

The U.S. Congress has avoided approving a package of reforms to the IMF agreed upon in 2010 which would have given China and other emerging economies a greater say in decision-making. AIIB, along with Latin America focused BRICS Development Bank, allow the world’s elected leaders another option when financial resources are necessary for improving their economies.

In other words, because the World Bank, IMF and similar giant international financial institutions ignored the business world’s main maxim “the customer is always right”, top bank management opened the path for AIIB and BRICS to form and compete in the now-transformed market of multi-billion dollar development financing.

Just as the formerly competition-free small city bank’s managers now have to actually earn their potential customers’ business, trust and confidence after the competition set up operations, so, too, will the top management at World Bank, IMF, etc. Given the extreme “service” the world’s leaders and their citizens have endured for decades; that much harm has come to those nations’ populations when leaders signed the debt-crippling, austerity-generating loan contracts arranged by John Perkins and fellow economic hit men, people can find some reason for optimism with these new, world-consequence events.

And God knows the world’s people, after reading or watching their daily disheartening news reports, really wanted to hear some good, optimistic news for a change.

****

(Thank you to CCTV America at YouTube)

The Unreported BRICS Factor And World Events.

Posted on February 19, 2015

by Jerry Alatalo

gaswellPerhaps the most precise way to describe the years-long development of the new BRICS alliance of nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and others) is that it represents the beginning of the end of white supremacy in international affairs on Earth. In a very real sense, the BRICS alliance of nations and peoples could be perceived as the next large step forward on a historical continuum – what Martin Luther King Jr. called the “arc of history” – leading to the eventual creation of equality around the world.

BRICS is what it’s all about when analyzing today’s major world news events. The highly controversial, widely-debated (everywhere but the western mainstream media), and protest-generating Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) were born with BRICS’ potential (also never mentioned in western mainstream media) in mind. Both of the massive, secretive, trade deals were specifically designed to prevent the BRICS alliance from gaining momentum, size and power.

Nations in Asia and Europe which sign on to the “top-secret – classified” trade deals, if major opposition fails to stop them from becoming implemented, will effectively place themselves behind a “BRICS Wall” of legalese virtually guaranteeing their continuance in the pre-BRICS status-quo; essentially maintenance of profound wealth inequality. Corporate lawyers creating the trade deals in secret are trying to “freeze” human evolution. TPP and TTIP can rightly be looked at as “Trojan Horses” designed to forestall historic movements of people around the Earth opposed to the negative consequences of decades and centuries of living under systems which have resulted in billions of people living in either harsh austerity or outright, abject poverty.

The absolute source of contention with regard to BRICS’ emergence and historic potential boils down to power and who gets it. The issue of wealth inequality on Earth in 2015 has become widely disseminated and become the basis of a great deal of debate. Oxfam International has reported that 80 individuals (down from 85 in their 2014 estimate) own as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people on the planet, generating a tremendous amount of discussion from all regions about new, alternative, reformed, and more egalitarian/just economic and monetary models.

The developments undertaken by the BRICS group of nations marks the first time in history the so-called world “elites” have experienced real “pushback” over the ways global governance has become implemented in clearly less-than-idyllic realities for billions of men, women and children for generations. Wars, both military and economic/financial, are increasingly being strongly opposed by people around the Earth, and those same people are studying, advocating, and proposing new/alternative ways of living that reduce or eliminate problems of poverty, state-sponsored violence and war (military and financial, economic sanctions), environmental destruction, and oligarchies able to “buy” politicians and entire governments.

Nowhere is that last problem – billionaires literally able to buy governments – more visible than in America, where two brothers with the last name of Koch are planning on spending near one billion dollars on the 2016 campaign to choose the next president of the United States.

Purveyors of economic sanctions have as their most visible, destructive example recent measures taken by Saudi Arabia, colluding with others trying to slow or stop the BRICS movement, resulting in huge drops in the price of oil. The nations feeling the greatest negative impact of those oil price drops are Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other oil exporters. It seems clear that this has been real economic warfare, and that it had designs to foment instability in nations calling for more respect for their views in the arena of sovereign and global governance/international relations.

Potential 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush, whose father and brother both served as president of the United States, gave a foreign policy speech in Chicago recently. During the speech, Mr. Bush made some comments on recent developments regarding opening up of relations between the United States and Cuba. In Jeb Bush’s view, Barack Obama should have been a little more “patient” before announcing any movements by his administration toward normalizing U.S.-Cuba relations.

Mr. Bush pointed out that Venezuela has come to the aid of Cubans with generous subsidies on oil. In Jeb Bush’s mind, Barack Obama should have been more “patient” because with $45/barrel oil, and Venezuela overseeing perhaps the world’s largest, most lucrative oil reserves, America could have obtained a “better deal” with the Cubans. Now, where did Jeb Bush get the information which led to his confidant assertion that Mr. Obama’s Cuba announcement suffered from the absence of “patience”?

His use of the word “patience” suggests Mr. Bush is very well aware that Saudi Arabia’s actions to lower global oil prices were initiated precisely as economic warfare against Venezuela, Russia, Iran and other independent-thinking, oil-producing nations.

Some will remember late-night news coverage during the 2000 presidential election when poll results in Florida were eagerly anticipated because that state could decide whether George W. Bush or Al Gore became the next leader of the free world. Some will remember that Jeb Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, was the governor of Florida at that time. Certain TV news outlets that evening had decided and announced that Al Gore was the winner in Florida.

News cameras were in the hotel room of George W. Bush, and he spoke out that the Gore win announcements were premature because all the counties’ votes hadn’t been counted yet. Without explicitly saying it, George W. Bush was calling for more “patience”.

After the historic events of September 11, 2001, some 440 days passed before the George W. Bush administration relented in its stonewalling of emotional requests for an investigation from surviving family members of those who died on 9/11. Those surviving family members displayed enormous “patience” in the over 440 days that elapsed before the 9/11 Commission began its work.

Surviving family members have also exhibited great “patience” in waiting for the Obama administration to declassify/release the “28 Pages” left out of the official 9/11 Commission Report. Those 28 pages, according to the Washington lawmakers who’ve actually read the documents (but prohibited from divulging because it’s classified), points to Saudi Arabia ($45/barrel oil) as a financier of 9/11 terrorists.

It seems the world’s “elites” are somewhat inconsistent. In some situations, like Cuba and Venezuela, they wisely advocate for more patience. In other situations, such as the great global transformation from unipolar to multipolar – illustrated by efforts to slow or stop BRICS’ rise through destructive wars both military and economic, elite “patience” has grown disturbingly, harmfully, and dangerously thin.

Certain people walking this Earth need to display real moral, ethical and wise patience. For the health, safety and well-being of humanity.

****

(Thank you to RT America at YouTube)