Michael KRIEGER Our Currency, Your Problem



Our Currency, Your Problem

„Unsere Währung, dein Problem!“

Verfasst von Michael Krieger über den Liberty Blitzkrieg Blog

Der Blog von GoldCore

8-10 Minuten


“Major movers” such as China, Russia and the European Union have a strong “motivation to de-dollarize,” said Korin, co-director at the energy and security think tank, on Wednesday. “We don’t know what’s going to come next, but what we do know is that the current situation is unsustainable.“ –  Anne Korin, Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. Irrespective…

Quelle: Our Currency, Your Problem

Full text: Our Currency, Your Problem! | Zero Hedge 20191104

Auf Deutsch:KRIEGER Unsere Währung, dein Problem 20191104

East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War | Zero Hedge

The narrative of a coming conflict between the East and the West has been boiling steadily as the U.S. election nears its end. Even the mainstream media is insinuating the potential for shots fired. Some believe the results of the election will determine the odds of war. There is a different position. It seems the rhetoric of East vs. West and nuclear exchange is being exploited as a distraction away from a different but almost equally catastrophic end game – the death of the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

Quelle: East Vs. West Division Is About The Dollar – Not Nuclear War | Zero Hedge

Michael HUDSON: The IMF Joins the New Cold War; COUNTERPUNCH, Dec 9, 2015

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 10.12.2015

On Tuesday „the IMF joined the New Cold War. It has been lending money to Ukraine despite the Fund’s rules blocking it from lending to countries with no visible chance of paying (the “No More Argentinas” rule from 2001).“
Hudson explains the message of this IMF/US-Empire-blow: “We only enforce debts owed in US dollars to US allies.” and his geopolitical scope: „…what was simmering as a Cold War against Russia has now turned into a full-blown division of the world into the Dollar Bloc (with its satellite Euro and other pro-U.S. currencies) and the BRICS or other countries not in the U.S. financial and military orbit.“ (further see attachment)

DECEMBER 9, 2015
The IMF Joins the New Cold War
… But on Tuesday, the IMF joined the New Cold War. It has been lending money to Ukraine despite the Fund’s rules blocking it from lending to countries with no visible chance of paying (the “No More Argentinas” rule from 2001). With IMF head Christine Lagarde made the last IMF loan to Ukraine in the spring, she expressed the hope that there would be peace. But President Porochenko immediately announced that he would use the proceeds to step up his nation’s civil war with the Russian-speaking population in the East – the Donbass.
That is the region where most IMF exports have been made – mainly to Russia. This market is now lost for the foreseeable future. It may be a long break, because the country is run by the U.S.-backed junta put in place after the right-wing coup of winter 2014. Ukraine has refused to pay not only private-sector bondholders, but the Russian Government as well.
This should have blocked Ukraine from receiving further IMF aid. Refusal to pay for Ukrainian military belligerence in its New Cold War against  Russia would have been a major step forcing peace, and also forcing a clean-up of the country’s endemic corruption.
Instead, the IMF is backing Ukrainian policy, its kleptocracy and its Right Sector leading the attacks that recently cut off Crimea’s electricity. The only condition on which the IMF insists is continued austerity. Ukraine’s currency, the hryvnia, has fallen by a third this years, pensions have been slashed (largely as a result of being inflated away), while corruption continues unabated.
Despite this the IMF announced its intention to extend new loans to finance Ukraine’s dependency and payoffs to the oligarchs who are in control of its parliament and justice departments to block any real cleanup of corruption.
For over half a year there was a semi-public discussion with U.S. Treasury advisors and Cold Warriors about how to stiff Russia on the $3 billion owed by Ukraine to Russia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund. There was some talk of declaring this an “odious debt,” but it was decided that this ploy might backfire against U.S. supported dictatorships.
In the end, the IMF simply lent Ukraine the money.
By doing so, it announced its new policy: the IMF joined the New Cold War. It has been lending money to Ukraine despite the Fund’s rules blocking it from lending to countries with no visible chance of paying (the “No More Argentinas” rule from 2001). This means that what was simmering as a Cold War against Russia has now turned into a full-blown division of the world into the Dollar Bloc (with its satellite Euro and other pro-U.S. currencies) and the BRICS or other countries not in the U.S. financial and military orbit.
What should Russia do? For that matter, what should China and other BRICS countries do? The IMF and U.S. neocons have sent the world a message: you don’t have to honor debts to countries outside of the dollar area and its satellites.
Why then should these non-dollarized countries remain in the IMF – or the World Bank, for that matter? The IMF move effectively splits the global system in half, between the BRICS and the US-European neoliberalized financial system.
Should Russia withdraw from the IMF? Should other countries?
The mirror-image response would be for the new Asian Development Bank to announce  that countries that joined the ruble-yuan area did not have to pay US dollar or euro-denominated debts. That is implicitly where the IMF’s break is leading.  —  emphasis, m.z.  –
More Articles by Michael HUDSON on CounterPunch  –  Jun – Dec 2015
October 5, 2015
September 29, 2015
September 28, 2015
August 31, 2015
July 8, 2015
July 6, 2015
July 1, 2015
June 29, 2015
June 26, 2015



Die Montagsgesellschaft diskutiert die Ukraine-Krise u.a. mit Dirk Müller und Willy Wimmer 05.11.2014


Veröffentlicht am 05.11.2014

produziert von Julia Jentsch, http://rasendereporterin.de für http://cashkurs.com
Die Montagsgesellschaft diskutiert die Ukraine-Krise u.a. mit Dirk Müller und Willy Wimmer

Am 3. November 2014 diskutierte die Montagsgesellschaft in Frankfurt mit hochrangigen Experten wie Willy Wimmer (ehemaliger verteidigungspolitischer Sprecher der CDU/CSU und Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär beim Bundesminister der Verteidigung), Professor Boris Saritsky (ehemaliger russischer Senior Konsul in Frankfurt und Botschaftsrat in Berlin) Dr. John C. Hulsman (US-amerikanischer Politikwissenschaftler und Politik-Experte) und Dirk Müller über den Ukraine-Konflikt und seine globale und geostrategische Bedeutung. Passend zum aktuellen Taschenbuch-Nachwort von Dirk Müller wird die geopolitische Vormachtstellung, eventuelle wirtschaftliche Interessen sowie der Einfluss des Konfliktes auf die derzeitige Lage der Finanzwelt und auf Gesamteuropa diskutiert.


http://www.cashkurs.com – Ihre unabhängige Finanzinformationsplattform zu den Themen Börse, Wirtschaft, Finanzmarkt von und mit Dirk Müller

Immanuel WALLERSTEIN: NATO: DANGER TO WORLD PEACE; I.W.-Commentaries, Nov 15, 2014



The official mythology is that between 1945 (or 1946) and 1989 (or 1991), the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR) confronted each other continuously – politically, militarily, and above all ideologically. This was called the “cold war.” If it was a war, the word to underline is “cold” since the two powers never engaged in any direct military action against each other throughout the entire period.
There were however several institutional reflections of this cold war, in each of which it was the United States, and not the USSR, that took the first step. In 1949, the three western countries occupying Germany combined their zones to create the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) as a state. The Soviet Union responded by restyling its zone as the German Democratic Republic (GDR).
In 1949, NATO was established by twelve nations. On May 5, 1955, the three western powers officially ended their occupation of the FRG, recognizing it as an independent state. Four days later, the FRG was admitted to membership in NATO. In response to this, the USSR established the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) and included the GDR as one of its members.
The treaty establishing NATO was supposed to apply only within Europe. One reason was that the western European countries still had colonies outside of Europe and did not wish to allow any agency to have the authority to interfere directly in their political decisions concerning these colonies. The moments of seemingly tense confrontation between the two sides – the Berlin blockade, the Cuban missile crisis – all ended with a status quo ante outcome. The most important invocation of the treaties to engage in military action was that of the USSR to act within its own zone against developments they deemed dangerous to the USSR – Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1981. The United States intervened politically under similar circumstances, such as the potential entry of the Italian Communist Party into the Italian government.
This brief account points to the real objective of the cold war. The cold war was not meant to transform the political realities of the other side (except in some moment very far into the future). The cold war was a mechanism for each side to keep its satellites under control, while maintaining the de facto agreement of the two powers for their long-term partition of the globe into two spheres, one-third to the USSR and two-thirds to the United States. Priority was given by each side to the guarantee on the non-utilization of military force (especially nuclear weapons) against each other. This came to be known as the guarantee against “mutually assured destruction.”
The collapse of the USSR in two stages – the withdrawal from eastern Europe in 1989 and the formal dissolution of the USSR in 1991 – should have meant in theory the end of any function for NATO. Indeed, it is well known that, when President Mikhail Gorbachev of the USSR agreed to the incorporation of the GDR into the FRG, he was given the promise that there would be no inclusion of the WTO states into NATO. This promise was violated. Instead, NATO took on a new role entirely.
After 1991, NATO bestowed on itself a role of world policeman for whatever it considered appropriate political solutions to world problems. The first major effort of this type occurred in the Kosovo/Serbia conflict, in which the U.S. government threw its weight behind the establishment of a Kosovo state and a change in regime in Serbia. This was followed by other such efforts – in Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban, in Iraq in 2003 to change regime in Baghdad, in 2014 to fight the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, and in 2013-2014 to support so-called pro-Western forces in Ukraine.
In point of fact, using NATO itself turned out to be difficult for the U.S. For one thing, there were various kinds of reluctances of NATO member states about the actions undertaken. For another thing, when NATO was formally involved, as in Kosovo, the U.S. military felt constrained by the slow political decision-making about military action.
So, why then the expansion of NATO instead of its dissolution? This had once again to do with intra-European politics, and the desire of the U.S. to control its presumed allies. It was in the Bush regime that the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talked of an “old” and a “new” Europe. By old Europe, he was referring especially to the French and German reluctance to agree with U.S. strategies. He saw the western European countries as moving away from their ties to the United States. His perception was in fact correct. In response, the U.S. hoped to clip the wings of the western Europeans by introducing eastern European states into NATO, which the U.S. considered more reliable allies.
The conflict over Ukraine illuminates the danger of NATO. The U.S. has sought to create new military structures, obviously aimed at Russia, under the guise that these were meant to counter a hypothetical Iranian threat. As the Ukrainian conflict played on, the language of the cold war was revived. The U.S. uses NATO to press western European countries to agree with anti-Russian actions. And within the U.S., President Barack Obama is under heavy pressure to move “forcefully” against the Russian so-called threat to the Ukraine. This combines with the large hostility in the U.S. Congress to any accord with the Iranians over nuclear development.
The forces in the United States and in western Europe who are seeking to avoid military folly risk being overtaken by what can only be called a war party.

NATO and what it symbolizes today represents a severe danger because it represents the claim of western countries to interfere everywhere in the name of western interpretations of geopolitical realities. This can only lead to further, highly dangerous, conflict.

Renouncing NATO as a structure would be a first step towards sanity and the world’s survival.
— emphasis, m.z. —

¥uan and Waterloo of Petro$ (II) orientalreview.org – 12.11.2014

¥uan and Waterloo of Petro$ (II)

Wed, Nov 12, 2014

China, Russia, United States, Video

By Ari RUSILA (Finland)

¥uan and Waterloo of Petro$ (II)

Part I


The BRICS met in 2013 in Durban, South Africa, to, among other steps, create their own credit rating agency, sidelining the “biased agendas” of the Moody’s/Standard & Poor’s variety. They endorsed plans to create a joint foreign exchange reserves pool. Initially it will include US$100 billion. It’s called a self-managed contingent reserve arrangement (CRA).

During the July (2014) BRICS Summit in Brazil the five members agreed to directly confront the West’s institutional economic dominance. The BRICS agreed to establish the New Development Bank (NDB) based in Shanghai , pushed especially by India and Brazil, a concrete alternative to the Western-dominated World Bank and the Bretton Woods system. With initial authorized capital of $100 billion, including $50 billion of equally shared initial subscribed capital, it will become one of the largest multilateral financial development institutions. Importantly, it will be open for other countries to join.

In addition, the creation of the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, or currency reserve pool, initially sized at $100 billion, will help protect the BRICS countries against short-term liquidity pressures and international financial shocks. Together with the NDB these new instruments will contribute to further co-operation on macroeconomic policies. According to Conn Hallinan – in his article Move Over, NATO and IMF: Eurasia Is Coming – the BRICS’ construction of a Contingent Reserve Arrangement will give its members emergency access to foreign currency, which might eventually dethrone the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The creation of a development bank will make it possible to bypass the IMF for balance-of-payment loans, thus avoiding the organization’s onerous austerity requirements. (…)


Petrodollar Panic? China Signs Currency Swap Deal With Qatar & Canada – Zerohedge – Nov 11, 2014

Petrodollar Panic? China Signs Currency Swap Deal With Qatar & Canada
The march of global de-dollarization continues. In the last few days, China has signed direct currency agreements with Canada becoming North America’s first offshore RMB hub, which CBC reports (1) analysts suggest „could double maybe even triple the level of Canadian trade between Canada and China,“ impacting the need for Dollars.But that is not the week’s biggest Petrodollar precariousness news, as The Examiner reports, a new chink in the petrodollar system was forged as China signed an agreement with Qatar to begin direct currency swaps between the two nations using the Yuan, and establishing the foundation for new direct trade with the OPEC nation in the very heart of the petro-dollar system. As Simon Black warns, „It’s happening… with increasing speed and frequency.“  (2)
Authorized by China’s central bank, the deal will allow direct business between the Canadian dollar and the Chinese yuan, cutting out the middle man – in most cases, the U.S. dollar.
Canadian exporters forced to use the American currency to do business in China are faced with higher currency exchange costs and longer waits to close deals.
„It’s something the prime minister has been talking about. He wants Canadian companies, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, doing more and more work in China, selling goods and services there,“ said CBC’s Catherine Cullen, reporting from Beijing.
It’s happening. With increasing speed and frequency. (3)
The People’s Bank of China and the Canadian Prime Minister’s office issued a statement on Saturday stating that Canada will establish North America’s first offshore renminbi trading center in Toronto.
China and Canada agreed on a number of measures to increase the use of renminbi in trade, business, and investment. And they further signed a 200-billion renminbi bilateral currency swap agreement.
Moreover, just today, hot off the presses, the central banks of China and Malaysia announced the establishment of renminbi clearing arrangements in Kuala Lumpur, which will further increase the use of renminbi in South-East Asia.
This comes just two weeks after Asia’s leading financial center, Singapore, became a major renminbi hub, with direct convertibility established between the Singapore dollar and the renminbi.
And as Black notes, everyone is in on the trend. All across the world, the renminbi is quickly becoming THE currency for trade, investment, and even savings.
Renminbi deposits in South Korea, for example, surged 55-times in one single year. It’s stunning.
The government of UK just issued a renminbi bond, becoming the first foreign government to issue debt in renminbi.
Even the European Central bank is debating to include renminbi in its official reserves, while politicians the world over are sounding not-so-subtle warnings that a new non-dollar monetary system is needed.  ….
Full text see attachment (pdf – 4p) and URL:  www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-10/petrodollar-panic-china-signs-currency-swap-deal-qatar-canada
Martin Zeis

Why Oil Is Plunging:The Other Part Of The „Secret Deal“ Between The US And Saudi Arabia

Why Oil Is Plunging:The Other Part Of The „Secret Deal“
Between The US And Saudi Arabia
Two weeks ago, we revealed one part of the „Secret Deal“ between the US and Saudi Arabia: (1) namely what the US ‚brought to the table‘ as part of its grand alliance strategy in the middle east, which proudly revealed Saudi Arabia to be „aligned“ with the US against ISIS, when in reality John Kerry was merely doing Saudi Arabia’s will when the WSJ reported (2) that „the process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh U.S. commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr. Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.“
What was not clear is what was the other part: what did the Saudis bring to the table, or said otherwise, how exactly it was that Saudi Arabia would compensate the US for bombing the Assad infrastructure until the hated Syrian leader was toppled, creating a power vacuum in his wake that would allow Syria, Qatar, Jordan and/or Turkey to divide the spoils of war as they saw fit.
A glimpse of the answer was provided earlier in the article „The Oil Weapon: A New Way To Wage War“ (3), because at the end of the day it is always about oil, and leverage.
The full answer comes courtesy of Anadolu Agency (4), which explains not only the big picture involving Saudi Arabia and its biggest asset, oil, but also the latest fracturing of OPEC (5) at the behest of Saudi Arabia…
Diagram  – OPEC’s Price Crunch – Estimated breakeven oil price for 2014 government budgets  (…)
… which however is merely using „the oil weapon“ to target the old slash new Cold War foe #1: Vladimir Putin.
To wit:
Saudi Arabia to pressure Russia, Iran with price of oil
Saudi Arabia will force the price of oil down, in an effort to put political pressure on Iran and Russia, according to the President of Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center.
Saudi Arabia plans to sell oil cheap for political reasons, one analyst says.
To pressure Iran to limit its nuclear program, and to change Russia’s position on Syria, Riyadh will sell oil below the average spot price at $50 to $60 per barrel in the Asian markets and North America, says Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center. The marked decrease in the price of oil in the last three months, to $92 from $115 per barrel, was caused by Saudi Arabia, according to Abanmy. 
With oil demand declining, the ostensible reason for the price drop is to attract new clients, Abanmy said, but the real reason is political. Saudi Arabia wants to get Iran to limit its nuclear energy expansion, and to make Russia change its position of support for the Assad Regime in Syria. Both countries depend heavily on petroleum exports for revenue, and a lower oil price means less money coming in, Abanmy pointed out. The Gulf states will be less affected by the price drop, he added.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is the technical arbiter of the price of oil for Saudi Arabia and the 11 other countries that make up the group, won’t be able to affect Saudi Arabia’s decision, Abanmy maintained.
The organization’s decisions are only recommendations and are not binding for the member oil producing countries, he explained.
Today’s Brent closing price: $90. Russia’s oil price budget for the period 2015-2017? $100 (6). Which means much more „forced Brent liquidation“ is in the cards in the coming weeks as America’s suddenly once again very strategic ally, Saudi Arabia, does everything in its power to break Putin.
—  Diagram  – „OPEC’s Price Crunch – Estimated breakeven oil price for 2014 government budgets“ – see attachment (pdf-file)  and URL of article – m.z.  —
(1)  A Look Inside The Secret Deal With Saudi Arabia That Unleashed The Syrian Bombing  —  zerohege, Sept 25, 2014 – URL:
(2)  Deal With Saudis Paved Way for Syrian Airstrikes — Talks With Saudi Arabia Were Linchpin in U.S. Efforts to Get Arab States Into Fight Against Islamic State – WSJ, Sept 24, 2014 – URL:
(4)  Saudi Arabia to pressure Russia, Iran with price of oil  – Saudi Arabia will force the price of oil down, in an effort to put political pressure on Iran and Russia, according to the President of Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center —  Anadolu Agency, Oct 10, 2014 – URL:
(5)  Oil-Price Slump Strains Budgets of Some OPEC Members – Oil-Producing Countries Face Steep Deficits If Price War Continues —  WSJ, Oct 10, 2014 – URL:
(6)  For Putin, Oil Decline Worse Than Obama’s Sanctions —  Forbes, Oct 9, 2014 – URL:
Martin Zeis
globalcrisis/globalchange News

Sand im Getriebe Nr. 112 mit Material und Themen zu TTIP etc. – attac.de

Hallo allerseits,

gerade noch rechtzeitig zum Aktionstag gegen TTIP,  TISA,CETA etc steht die neue SiG mit viel Material zu diesem Thema im Netz.
Die Linkliste von attac-Österreich ist diesmal noch nicht ferrtig, sie folgt.

Anbei erst einmal Vorwort und Inhaltsverzeichnis und darunter die letzte Meldung über unseren Teilerfolg.

Beste Grüße
Peter Strotmann


SiG112     „Den Angriff auf soziale und ökologische Standards und auf den globalen Süden STOPPEN
„Es gibt einen harten geopolitischen Zusammenhang hinter den beiden „kommerziellen“ Pakten:
Das transpazifische TPP schließt China aus und TTIP schließt Russland aus.  Sie bedeuten eine kaum verhüllte Verbindung zu einem zukünftigen Handelskrieg“ 
Pepe Escobar (http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175903/ )


Sind die geplanten Investitions- und Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP, CETA, TiSA und TPP ) „Partnerschaften“ oder eher Instrumente zur besseren Ausbeutung der Völker und zur Plünderung des Planeten, zur Abschottung gegen den Aufstieg der Schwellenländer  – also eine neue Form von Protektionismus, diesmal nicht nur mit dem Instrument der Zölle, sondern z.B. mit Investitionsschutz für große Konzerne, der die Handlungsfähigkeit demokratisch bestimmter Politik abbauen wird? Allerdings hat diese Offensive wie ein Weckruf gewirkt und gegen die Wirtschafts-NATO werden breite Bündnisse aufgebaut. Gewerkschaften werden nicht nur gegen TTIP, sondern auch gegen CETA und TiSA aktiv. Der englische Trade Union Congress forderte am 23.9.2014, dass die Gewerkschaften sich für einen Stopp der TTIP Verhandlungen einsetzen und eine deutliche Position gegen TTIP und andere Handelsabkommen einnehmen. Die selbstorganisierte Europäische Bürgerinitiative gegen TTIP und CETA hat begonnen. Rund 200 Organisationen weltweit weisen über den Aktionstag am 11. Oktober hinaus: „Wir möchten alle dazu ermuntern, in ihren jeweiligen Netzwerken die Durchführung eines weltweiten Aktionstags gegen den Freihandel im zweiten Quartal 2015 ins Auge zu fassen, unter anderem um das infame Schlichtungsverfahren für Streitigkeiten zwischen Investoren und Staaten zu Fall zu bringen und den Vorrang der Rechte der Bevölkerungen vor der ungeheuren Macht und der Straflosigkeit multinationaler Unternehmen zu bekräftigen.“ Hélène Cabioc’h (attac Frankreich) und Amélie Canonne (AITEC) zeigen auf, wie viele verschiedene Akteure sich gegen TTIP wenden. Sie erörtern, wie eine internationale Front gegen Investitions- und Freihandelsabkommen mit langem Atem aufgebaut werden könnte – auch gegen die Abkommen, die mit Ländern des Südens abgeschlossen wurden oder werden sollen.

Zur Festigung der Blockbildung gegen den Rest der Welt veranstalten die G7-Mächte (G8 ohne Rußland) im Juni 2015 ihren Gipfel im bayrischen Schloss Elmau. Sie müssen sich wohl – wie in Heiligendamm – auf Massenproteste gegen ihr neoliberales und kriegerisches Regime der Weltherrschaft gefasst machen. Die Friedensbewegung wird sich Anfang 2015 schon mal zu großen Protesten gegen die Münchener Un-Sicherheitskonferenz warmlaufen.

Walden Bello untersuchte in einem Vortrag auf der „Europäischen Sommerakademie“ in Paris die neuen Kriege und die Rolle von EU und USA in ihnen. „Die Förderung der Menschenrechte wurde verbogen und zur zentralen ethischen Säule humanitäre Interventionen.“ Man sollte allerdings „den Widerstand der Völker gegen die imperialistischen Interventione nicht unterschätzen. Sie wenden sich gegen die Bereitschaft der europäischen Staaten, sich als untergeordnete Ergänzung der USA missbrauchen zu lassen“. Mohssen Massarrat kommentiert das Vorgehen u.a. der USA gegen die IS-Faschisten: “Die Bekämpfung des sogenannten „Islamischen Staates“ liegt allein in der Hand der betroffenen Staaten“ und fordert eine regionale Friedenskonferenz ohne den Westen. Sabine Leidig berichtet aus den kurdischen Gebieten: Die Leute hier trauen dem türkischen Militär überhaupt nicht. Ihre Forderung ist eher, die kurdische Selbstverwaltung und die kurdischen Kämpfer zu stärken.“ Der indische Wissenschaftler Vijay Prashad meint, Präsident Obama sollte: „den Krieg in Syrien deeskalieren…und auf die Türkei Druck auszuüben, die Politik der offenen Tür für internationale Dschihadisten zu beenden“. Die IG Metall Stuttgart lehnt Rüstungsexporte und Rüstungsproduktion ab und will die Konversionsdebatte aktiv führen. „Die IG Metall ist Teil der Friedensbewegung“.

Gegen den Skandal der wachsenden Polarisierung innerhalb und zwischen unseren Gesellschaften gibt es immer mehr Kritik und Sehnsucht nach Gleichheit. Beigetragen dazu haben nicht nur die „Occupy Wallstreet“-Bewegung und die vielen Sozialbewegungen, sondern in ihrem Gefolge Thomas Piketty mit seinem epochalen Werk „Kapital im 21.Jahrhundert“. Piketty resumiert: „Wir haben keinen Grund zu der Annahme, dass Wachstum aus sich heraus Gleichgewicht schafft. Es ist höchste Zeit, die Frage der Ungleichheit wieder in den Fokus der Wirtschaftsanalyse zu rücken und die im 19. Jahrhundert offengebliebenen Fragen neu zu stellen. Die Frage der Vermögensverteilung wurde zu lange von den Ökonomen vernachlässigt.“ Rainer Rilling bedauert in einer Rezension Pikettys begrenzten Kapitalbegriff, begrüßt aber die neue Gerechtigkeitsdebatte unter dem Titel „Der Kapitalismus ist eine Ungleichheitsmaschine.“

Uli Brand fragt in seinem Bericht über die Leipziger Degrowth Konferenz: Ist das „Der Beginn einer Bewegung?“ . Fiebersenkende Maßnahmen für den Planeten fordert die Erklärung unzähliger Organisationen anläßlich der weltweiten Mobilisierung zum Klima-Gipfel in New York im September 2014.

Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, New Silk Roads and an Alternate Eurasian Century Posted by Pepe Escobar — October 5, 2014.

TomDispatch.com – A Regular Antidote to The Mainstream Media
Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, New Silk Roads and an Alternate Eurasian Century
Posted by Pepe Escobar  —   at 4:19pm, October 5, 2014.
During Iraq War II (2003-2011), I used to imagine that the Chinese leadership would gather weekly in the streets of the Forbidden City, singing and dancing to celebrate American idiocy.  Year after year, when the U.S. might have faced off against a rising China, as its leaders had long had the urge to do, it was thoroughly distracted by its disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.  I can’t help but think that, with a bombing campaign revving up in Iraq and now Syria, the boots of 1,600 military personnel ever closer to the ground, and talk of more to come, with Iraq War III (2014-date unknown) predicted to go on for years, they are once again rejoicing.  For all the talk in recent years about the Obama administration’s military “pivot” to Asia, there can be no question that its latest Middle Eastern campaign will put a crimp on its Pacific “containment” planning.
In the meantime, the mood in China has clearly been changing as well.  As Orville Schell wrote recently, after a contentious visit to Beijing by 90-year-old Jimmy Carter, the president who more than 30 years ago sponsored a full-scale American rapprochement with the new capitalist version of Communist China:
“In short, what used to be referred to as ‘the West’ now finds itself confronted by an increasingly intractable situation in which the power balance is changing, a fact that few have yet quite cared to acknowledge, much less to factor into new formulations for approaching China. We remain nostalgic for those quaint days when Chinese leaders still followed Deng [Xiaoping’s] admonition to his people to ‘hide our capacities and bide our time’ (taoguang yanghui). What he meant in using this ‘idiom’ (chengyu) was not that China should be eternally restrained but that the time to manifest its global ambition had not yet come. Now that it is stronger, however, its leaders appear to believe that their time has at last come and they are no longer willing even to press the comforting notion of ‘peaceful rise’ (heping jueqi).”
At the moment, of course, the Chinese have their own internal problems, ranging from an economy that might be bubblicious to an Islamic separatist movement in the backlands of Xinjiang Province and the latest Occupy movement making waves in that modernistic Asian financial hub Hong Kong.  Nonetheless, go to Beijing and the world looks like a different place.  Pepe Escobar, TomDispatch’s peripatetic wanderer on the Eurasian mainland, which he’s dubbed Pipelineistan, has done just that.  He’s also visited other spots along the future “new Silk Roads” that China wants to establish all the way to Western Europe.  He offers a vision of a different Eurasian world than the one reflected in news reports in this country.  If you want to understand the planet we may actually be living on in the near future, it couldn’t be more important to take it in. —  Tom
Can China and Russia Squeeze Washington Out of Eurasia?
The Future of a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin Alliance
By Pepe Escobar
A specter haunts the fast-aging “New American Century”: the possibility of a future Beijing-Moscow-Berlin strategic trade and commercial alliance. Let’s call it the BMB.
Its likelihood is being seriously discussed at the highest levels in Beijing and Moscow, and viewed with interest in Berlin, New Delhi, and Tehran. But don’t mention it inside Washington’s Beltway or at NATO headquarters in Brussels. There, the star of the show today and tomorrow is the new Osama bin Laden: Caliph Ibrahim, aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the elusive, self-appointed beheading prophet of a new mini-state and movement that has provided an acronym feast — ISIS/ISIL/IS — for hysterics in Washington and elsewhere.
No matter how often Washington remixes its Global War on Terror, however, the tectonic plates of Eurasian geopolitics continue to shift, and they’re not going to stop just because American elites refuse to accept that their historically brief “unipolar moment” is on the wane.  For them, the closing of the era of “full spectrum dominance,” as the Pentagon likes to call it, is inconceivable.  After all, the necessity for the indispensable nation to control all space — military, economic, cultural, cyber, and outer — is little short of a religious doctrine.  Exceptionalist missionaries don’t do equality. At best, they do “coalitions of the willing” like the one crammed with “over 40 countries” assembled to fight ISIS/ISIL/IS and either applauding (and plotting) from the sidelines or sending the odd plane or two toward Iraq or Syria.
Full text see attachment (pdf, 8p) and URL: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175903
Martin Zeis