Continue....
As regimes globally sense that US imperialism may be weakening, there is a ripple effect in diverse areas. In the first place, it has called into question the utility of the dollar, the viability of which has obviated the necessity of making the tough decisions on fiscal matters that this nations debt and deficits would ordinarily mandate. For example, in 2006 the United Arab Emirates, which had accumulated a treasure trove of dollars, announced that it has moved 10 percent of its $29 billion in foreign exchange reserves into euros, the common currency of the European Union, the erstwhile ally cum competitor of US imperialism, which has dreams of global domination all its own. Certainly the controversy in March 2006 when Dubai Ports World was blocked from taking over the interests in the US of another foreign entity, Britains P&O, soured many Arabs on the reliability of US imperialism.
Other sober analysts transnationally are weighing a flight from the dollar as well, which if implemented could have disastrous consequences for US imperialism. In August 2006, China and Japan, Asias two economic giants and rivals, developed what was termed an unusual consensus in support of an ACU or an Asian currency unit to as noted in the Financial Times reduce their reliance on a weakening dollar. Speaking in Australia, Fan Gang, a leading Chinese economic theorist, called for a sharp devaluation of the dollar as a way to bring health to the global economy. Of course, this could mean a sharp rise in prices for all manner of US imports including toys, automobiles, clothes, consumer electronics, and the like. The ACU has many hurdles to overcome before becoming reality, but the fact that Tokyo and Beijing could agree on its importance is suggestive of the crisis of US imperialism.
Even sectors of the US ruling class are now joining with progressives in calling for the ouster of the Bush regime. Calling for the ouster of this criminal regime and actually accomplishing this task are two different matters. For like the towering government debt and deficits that have accumulated under his watch, Bush has left many land mines behind, which will be bedeviling this nation for decades to come and are quite susceptible of exploding at any moment. There are many examples of this but what quickly comes to mind is the fact that the overstretched US military, pressed for recruits, has allowed the infiltration of their ranks by neo-Nazis. Such is the conclusion of the well-respected Southern Poverty Law Center, which has reported the disturbing news that Aryan Nations graffiti can now be found in Baghdad, along with numerous soldiers with fascist tattoos. As the neo-Nazis see it, joining the military allows them to gain military training, which could be critical in coming years. Moreover, it allows them to legally slaughter those not of European descent. Purging the military of this vermin and scum has to be seen by progressives as a top priority.
Certainly their presence does little to halt the desperate belligerence that today characterizes US imperialism and increasingly this hostility is targeting China which is both non-European and ruled by a Communist Party, thus attaining the daily double of right-wing hate politics. It is true that a number of Fortune 500 corporations have invested heavily in China, which serves as a restraint on the bellicosity of US imperialism toward Beijing. But it should not be forgotten that as I write a roiling and fierce debate is unfolding in the ranks of the elite National Association of Manufacturers over trade with China. The split in their ranks pits smaller US manufacturers who are being hammered as they see it by Chinese factories against their larger counterparts, some of whom are benefiting from what is seen as an undervalued Chinese currency. China is waging a mercantile war, claimed M. Brian OShaugnessy, President of Revere Cooper Products, Inc. of Rome, New York, and were being pacifists. These smaller corporations are threatening to leave the NAM unless it takes a tougher stance against Beijing; of course, though these smaller companies make up 74 percent of the NAM membership, they only contribute 23 percent of the dues so the whales are expected to prevail over the guppies. Still, one cannot easily expect these forces to go silently into the night if they are defeated.
A weakened US imperialism inevitably will be seeking scapegoats for the decline of the self-proclaimed sole remaining superpower in Beijing, e.g. accusations about Chinas currency manipulations already have gained traction and, of late, led to serious debate in the Congress about slapping an astonishing 27.5 percent duty on their exports to this country. Moreover, Chinas relations with Iran and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea), the remaining members of the so-called axis of evil, are already the cause for anguished commentary in Washington.
Beijing has strengthened its relations with Tehran significantly, for example, signing several long-term energy exploration production and delivery contracts since 2004 with Iran worth more than $100 billion. In 2006 China invested in Irans domestic oil-refining industry, agreeing to expand the countrys gasoline output significantly.
China and the DPRK have long been close allies. Recall, for example, the latter stages of US imperialisms bloodthirsty invasion of the Korean peninsula in the 1950s, when it was common wisdom that these two Asian nations were as close as lips and teeth. Concerns about the DPRKs attempt to develop nuclear energy have caused Washington to try cajoling China into pressuring its ally. The fact that South Korea is lukewarm at best about sanctioning its northern neighbor is suggestive of the point that Koreans from north to south are looking forward to reunification and have little interest in bending to the intimidation of Washington.
China and Syria also have strong commercial ties, as Beijing has invested substantially in the development of this Arab states transportation infrastructure, as well as in energy exploration and production. China is also a key supplier of military equipment to Syria.
China has become a major investor in Venezuelas energy sector and is also investing in this nations transportation infrastructure, including railroads, ports and crude oil tankers, not to mention telecommunications, mining and agriculture. Caracas is directing more and more of its oil exports to China, which has not made Washington happy. In 2004 this figure amounted to 12,000 barrels of oil per day to China but by 2006 this figure had jumped to 200,000 and is slated to rise to 500,000 by 2009. China also has supported the attempt by Venezuela to obtain a coveted seat on the UN Security Council.
China has invested heavily in US Treasury securities and other US assets to the tune of about $800 billion. It is also true that if China were to devalue its currency as some in Washington are demanding this could reduce the value of Chinas foreign assets by a hefty $200 billion. Why should China the creditor yield to the demands of the US, the debtor?
Drunk with national and racial chauvinism, there are those in Washington who have yet to understand fully the comparative decline of US imperialism and its inability to impose its diktat. There seems to be little realization that China possesses countermeasures of its own. Beijing could liquidate its massive holdings of US Treasury securities, pushing US interest rates higher and the value of the dollar much lower against other major currencies. This could mean higher taxes or dramatic slashes in government programs.
What is striking about this developing relationship between Beijing and Washington is that, in some ways, it is coming to mirror the cold war. Increasingly Washington is taking umbrage at the fact that the worlds most populous nation is developing interests globally. Washington seems to be particularly concerned with Beijings incursions in Africa, which the US and Western Europe alike have long seen as its own private preserve and has long been a major petroleum supplier to both. Of late, this tendency has been manifested in overheated press coverage in the US about Chinas role in Africa. Typical was an August 2006 New York Times article which spoke wondrously of Dakar, Senegal, long a bastion of French influence, but which now is home to Chinese merchants who sell shoes, electronics, plastic jewelry and toys. China, it seems, is suddenly everywhere in Africa, not just in oil-rich states. Trade between Africa and China has almost quadrupled since 2001 and last year reached almost $40 billion in Sierra Leone Chinese companies have built and renovated hotels and restaurants. In Mozambique, Chinese companies are investing in soybean processing and prawn production. At the African Union summit meeting in Banjul, Gambia last month, the Chinese delegation dwarfed the ones sent by France, Britain and the United States.
This reference to oil rich states was not coincidental since Nigeria, Gabon and Angola are among the major petroleum producers globally. Also, not coincidentally, the Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, General James Jones announced in May 2003 that in the future US naval forces under his command would spend much less time in the Mediterranean. Instead, he predicted: I will bet they will spend half the time going down the West Coast of Africa. That same year, a senior Pentagon official was quoted as saying that a key mission for US forces [in Africa] would be to ensure that Nigerias oilfields, which in the future would account for as much as 25 percent of all US oil imports, are secure.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62799652/5ge.0.jpg)