Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Datum: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:01:57 +0200 Von: "'Lusi D.' [email protected] [GELORA45]" <[email protected]> An: Hsin Hui Lin <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Marco <[email protected]> Betreff: [GELORA45] Re: Re.: Washington's Global Economic Wars Bung Lin mengidap penyakit Han-Besarisme. Lusi.- These Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:49:13 +0530 schrieb Hsin Hui Lin <[email protected]>: > Bg Lusi, > Suatu arjtikel yg baik untuk direnungkan, bayangkan kalau tak ada > reformasi Deng, apakah TKK yg miskin kala itu bisa melahirkan AIIB, > ONE BELT ONE ROAD CONCEPT, BRICS dan concept GLOBAL VILLAGES....nah > inilah yg saya anggap perkembangan lanjut dr ML FMTT, masa perjuangan > bersenjata bagi rakyat yg tertindas ditingkatkan ke membangun ekonomi > negara2 dunia ketiga, mbuat negara2 itu bebas dr belengu > imperialisme, membuka jalur2, infrastucture, connectivity, transfer > of technology, , pendidikan, finance, culture, ini membangkitan > saling mengerti dan saling menghormati, sederajat, membantu, prinsip > gagasan win_win. meluaskan perdagangan dr tingkat pedesaan sampai > kota2 dan antar negara2 tetangga, negara lain sampai bisa langsung > kenegara dunia pertama, sepert Eropa, membatasi ambisi negara manapun > atau yg merasa mempunyai hak kedudukan istimewa, hegemoni > didunia...yaitu Amerika Serikat. Teori ML dan pentrap_kannya, > bukanlah teori mati yg mandek dijalan, tetapi adalah teori yg "hidup" > dan berkembang terus, ini adalah teori sosial mengenai masyarakat, > manusia hidup, dan perkembangan masyarakat. Lin > > On Oct 20, 2016 7:12 AM, "Marco 45665" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > *Good to read - important to know * > > > > * The more we read - The more We Know * > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: B.D > > Date: 20 October 2016 at 00:13 > > Subject: Re.: Washington's Global Economic Wars > > To: Marco > > > > > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/washingtons-global-economic-wars/5551800 > > > > October 19, 2016 > > Global Research > > > > Washington’s Global Economic Wars > > *By Prof. James Petras* > > > > > > *During most of the past two decades Washington has aggressively > > launched military and economic wars against at least nine > > countries, either directly or through its military aid to regional > > allies and proxies. US air and ground troops have bombed or > > invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen > > and Lebanon.* > > > > *More recently Washington has escalated its global economic war > > against major economic rivals as well as against weaker countries. > > The US no longer confines its aggressive impulses to peripheral > > economic countries in the Middle East, Latin America and Southern > > Asia: It has declared trade wars against world powers in Asia, > > Eastern and Central Europe and the Gulf states.* > > > > *The targets of the US economic aggression include economic > > powerhouses like Russia, China, Germany, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as > > well as Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba and the Donbas region of > > Ukraine.* > > > > <http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/James-Petras.gif> > > > > *There is an increasingly thinner distinction between military and > > economic warfare, as the US has frequently moved from one to the > > other, particularly when economic aggression has not resulted in > > ‘regime change’ – as in the case of the sanctions campaign against > > Iraq leading up to the devastating invasion and destruction.* > > > > In this essay, we propose to examine the strategies and tactics > > underlying Washington’s economic warfare, their successes and > > failures, and the political and economic consequences to target > > nations and to world stability. > > > > *Washington’s Economic Warfare and Global Power* > > > > The US has used different tactical weapons as it pursues its > > economic campaigns against targeted adversaries and even against > > its long-time allies. > > > > *Two supposed allies, Germany and Saudi Arabia, have been attacked > > by the Obama Administration and US Congress via ‘legal’ > > manipulations aimed at their financial systems and overseas > > holdings.* > > > > This level of aggression against sovereign powers is remarkable and > > reckless. In 2016 the US Justice Department slapped a $14 billion > > dollar penalty on Germany’s leading international bank, Deutsche > > Bank, throwing the German stock market into chaos, driving the > > bank’s shares down 40% and destabilizing Germany’s financial > > system. This unprecedented attack on an ally’s major bank was in > > direct retaliation for Germany’s support of the European > > Commission’s $13 billion tax levy against the US-tax evading Apple > > Corporation for its notorious financial shenanigans in Ireland. > > German political and business leaders immediately dismissed > > Washington’s legalistic rhetoric for what it was: the *Obama > > Administration’s retaliation in order to protect America’s tax > > evading and money laundering multinationals.* > > > > The chairman of the German parliament’s economic committee stated > > that the gross US attempt to extort Deutsche Bank had all the > > elements of an economic war. He noted that Washington had a > > “*long tradition of using every available opportunity to wage what > > amounted to a trade war if it benefits their own economy*” and the > > “*extortionate damages claim*” against Deutsche Bank were a > > punitive example. US economic sanctions against some of Germany’s > > major trade partners, like Russia, China and Iran, constitute > > another tactic to undermine Germany’s huge export economy. > > Ironically, Germany is still considered “*a valued ally*” when it > > comes to the US wars against Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, which > > have driven millions of refugees to Europe creating havoc with > > Germany’s political, economic and social system and threatening to > > overthrow the government of ‘ally’ Angela Merkel. > > > > The US Congress launched an economic-judicial war against its > > closest ally in the Gulf region when it approved legislation > > granting US victims of Islamist terrorism, especially related to > > the attacks on September 11, 2001, *the right to sue the > > government of Saudi Arabia and seize its overseas assets.* This > > included the Kingdom’s immense ‘sovereign funds’ and constitutes an > > arbitrary and blatant violation of Saudi sovereignty. This opens > > the Pandora’s Box of economic warfare by allowing victims to sue > > any government for sponsoring terrorism, including the United > > States! Saudi leaders immediately reacted by threatening to > > withdraw billions of dollars of assets in US Treasuries and > > investments. > > > > *The US economic sanctions against Russia are designed to > > strengthen its stranglehold on the economies of Europe which rely > > on trade with Russia.* These have especially weakened German and > > Polish trade relations with Russia, a major market for German > > industrial exports and Polish agriculture products. Originally, > > the US-imposed economic sanctions against Moscow were supposed to > > harm Russian consumers, provoke political unrest and lead to > > ‘regime change’. In reality, the unrest it provoked has been > > mainly among European exporters, whose contracts with Russia were > > shredded and billions of Euros were lost. Furthermore, *the > > political and diplomatic climate between Europe and Russia has > > deteriorated while Washington has ‘pivoted’ toward a more > > militaristic approach.* > > > > Results in Asia have been even more questionable: *Washington’s > > economic campaign against China* has moved awkwardly in two > > directions: *Prejudicial trade deals with Asian-Pacific countries > > and a growing US military encirclement of China’s maritime trade > > routes.* > > > > The Obama regime dispatched Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to promote > > the *Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP)* among a dozen regional > > governments, which would blatantly exclude China, Asia’s largest > > economic power. *In a slap to the outgoing Obama Administration, > > the US Congress rejected his showpiece economic weapon against > > China, the TPP.* > > > > Meanwhile, Obama ‘encouraged’ his erstwhile ‘allies’ in the > > Philippines and Vietnam to sue China for maritime violations over > > the disputed ‘Spratly Islands’ before the Permanent Court of > > Arbitration. Japan and Australia signed military pacts and base > > agreements with the Pentagon aimed at disrupting China’s trade > > routes. > > > > *Obama’s so-called ‘Pivot to Asia’ is a transparent campaign to > > block China from its markets and trading partners in Southeast Asia > > and Pacific countries of Latin American.* > > > > Washington’s flagrant economic warfare resulted in slapping harsh > > import tariffs on Chinese industrial exports, especially steel and > > tires. The US also sent a ‘beefed up’ air and sea armada for > > ‘joint exercises’ along China’s regional trade routes and its > > access to critical Persian Gulf oil, setting off a ‘war of tension’. > > > > In response to Washington’s ham-fisted aggression, the Chinese > > government deftly rolled out the *Asian Infrastructure Investment > > Bank (AIIB*) with over fifty countries eagerly signing on for > > lucrative trade and investment deals with Beijing. The AIIB’s > > startling success does not bode well for Obama’s ‘Pivot to Pacific > > Hegemony’. > > > > The so-called US-EU-Iran accord did not end Washington’s trade war > > against Teheran. Despite Iran’s agreement to dismantle its > > peaceful uranium enrichment and nuclear research programs, > > *Washington has blocked investors and tried to undermine trade > > relations, while still holding billions of dollars of Iranian state > > assets, frozen since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. * > > > > Nevertheless, a German trade mission signed on a three billion trade > > agreement with Iran in early October 2016 and called on the US to > > fulfill its side of the agreement with Teheran – so far to no avail. > > > > The US stands alone in sending its nuclear naval armada to the > > Persian Gulf and threatens commercial relations. Even the Kingdom > > of Saudi Arabia, the longstanding enemy of the Iranian Islamic > > Republic, has agreed to a cooperative oil production arrangement at > > a recent OPEC meeting. > > > > *Washington’s declaration of economic warfare against two of its > > most strategic powerful allies, Germany and Saudi Arabia and three > > rising competitor world powers, has eroded US economic > > competitiveness, undermined its access to lucrative markets and > > increased its reliance on aggressive military strategies over > > diplomacy.* > > > > What is striking and perplexing about Washington’s style of economic > > warfare is how costly this has been for the US economy and for US > > allies, with *so little concrete benefit.* > > > > US oil companies have lost billions in joint exploitation deals with > > Russia because of Obama’s sanctions. US bankers, agro-exporters, > > high-tech companies are missing out on lucrative sales just to > > ‘punish’ Russia over the incredibly corrupt and bankrupt US coup > > regime in Ukraine. > > > > US multi-national corporations, especially those involved in > > Pacific Coast transport and shipyards, Silicon Valley high tech > > industry and Washington State’s agro-export producers are > > threatened by the US trade agreements that exclude China. > > > > Iran’s billion dollar market is looking for everything from > > commercial airplanes to mining machinery. Huge trade deals have > > has been lost to US companies because Obama continues to impose de > > facto sanctions. Meanwhile, European and Asian competitors are > > signing contracts. > > > > Despite *Washington’s dependence on German technical knowhow and > > Saudi petro-dollar investments as key to its global ambitions, > > Obama’s irrational policies continue to undermine US trade.* > > > > Washington has engaged in economic warfare against ‘lesser economic > > powers’ that nevertheless play significant political roles in their > > regions. The US retains the economic boycott of Cuba; it wages > > economic aggression against Venezuela and imposes economic > > sanctions against Syria, Yemen and the Donbas region in eastern > > Ukraine. While these countries are not costly in terms of economic > > loss to US business interests, they exercise significant political > > and ideological influence in their regions, which undermine US > > ambitions. > > > > *Conclusion* > > > > *Washington’s resort to economic warfare complements its military > > fueled empire building.* > > > > But *economic and military warfare are losing propositions.* While > > the US may extract a few billion dollars from Deutsch Bank, it will > > have lost much more in long-term, large-scale relations with German > > industrialists, politicians and financiers. This is critical > > because Germany plays the key role in shaping economic policy in > > the European Union. The practice of US multi-national corporations > > seeking off-shore tax havens in the EU may come to a grinding halt > > when the European Commission finishes its current investigations. > > The Germans may not be too sympathetic to their American > > competitors. > > > > *Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has not only collapse, it > > has compelled China to open new avenues for trade and cooperation > > with Asian-Pacific nations – exactly the opposite of its original > > goal of isolating Beijing.* > > > > China’s Asia Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) has > > attracted 4 time more participants than Washington’s TPP and > > massive infrastructure projects are being financed to *further bind > > ASEAN countries to China.* > > > > China’s economic growth at 6.7% more than three times that of the > > US at 2%. Worse, for the Obama Administration, Washington has > > alienated its historically most reliable allies, as China, deepens > > economic ties and cooperation agreements with *Thailand, > > Philippines, Pakistan, Cambodia and Laos. **Iran,* despite US > > sanctions, is gaining markets and trade with Germany, Russia, > > Cap penyakit Han-besarisme.hina and the EU. > > > > The Saudi-US conflict has yet to play-out but any escalation of law > > suits against the kingdom will result in the flight of hundreds of > > billions of investment dollars from the US. > > > > *In effect, Obama’s campaign of economic warfare may lead to the > > infinitely more costly military warfare and the massive loss of > > jobs and profits for the US economy. Washington is increasingly > > isolated. The only allies supporting its campaign of economic > > sanctions are second and third rate powers, like Poland and current > > corrupt parasites in Ukraine.* > > > > As long as the Poles and Ukrainians can ‘mooch’ off of the IMF and > > grab EU and US ‘loans’, they will cheerlead Obama’s charge against > > Russia. *Israel, as long as it can gobble up an additional $38 > > billion dollars in ‘aid’ from Washington, remains the biggest > > advocate for war against Iran.* > > > > *Washington spends billions of US tax-payer dollars on its military > > bases in Japan, Philippines and Australia to maintain its hegemony > > in the Asia-Pacific region. Its allies, though, are salivating at > > the prospect for greater trade and infrastructure investment deals > > with China.* > > > > *Economic warfare doesn’t work for the Washington because the US > > economy cannot compete, especially when it attacks its own allies > > and traditional partners.* > > > > Its regional allies are keen to join the ‘forbidden’ markets and > > share in major investment projects funded by China. Asian leaders > > increasingly view Washington, with its ‘pivot to militarism’ as > > *politically unreliable, unstable and dangerous.* > > > > *After the Philippine government economic mission to China, expect > > more to ‘jump ship’.* > > > > Economic warfare against declared adversaries can only succeed if > > the US is committed to free trade with its allies, ends punitive > > sanctions and stops pushing for exclusive trade treaties that > > undermine its allies’ economies. > > > > Furthermore, Washington should stop catering to the whims of > > *special domestic interests.* > > > > Absent these changes, its losing campaign of economic warfare can > > only turn into military warfare – a prospect devastating to the US > > economy and to world peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|
Bung Lin mengidap penyakit Han-Besarisme. |
