BRICS + 6: A Global Plan B

    During the three decades since American global pre-eminence culminated in the break-up of the Soviet Union, there have been examples of dominance - the first Gulf War; the killing of Osama bin Laden; the defeat of ISIS - and indications of decline - the Iraq War; the Afghanistan exit; repeated Russian expansion efforts; Chinese ascendency.  An institutional evolution is also working against American dominance. 

    The network of international organizations is complex: the United Nations; military alliances such as NATO; regional forums such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or the Economic Community of West African States.  Some have been central to American economic and political dominance - the G-7 (the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and the European Union); the expanded G-20 (a less formal discussion group which also includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey)  the World Bank which provides loans and grants to the governments of low and middle income countries for the purpose of pursuing capital projects; and the International  Monetary Fund which provides loans and other financial aid to its 190 member countries, offers technical training and financial advice to enable sustainable growth, and brings discipline to wayward regimes. Most rely on American funding and support the US dollar as the favored international reserve currency. 

    Nature abhors monopolies. Plan B began in 2001 with a Goldman Sachs investment manager identifying Brazil, Russia, India, and China as the emerging economies (and investment opportunities) of the 21st century. Spurred by Russia, the leaders of the BRICS countries started meeting in 2009 to provide a platform for its members to challenge a world order dominated by the United States and its Western allies.  South Africa joined in 2010.  The leaders meet annually, established a New Development Bank in 2014, and have attracted much attention from developing countries who chafe at American financial control and resented the hoarding of Covid vaccines by the rich countries of the G-7. 

    This week's meeting in South Africa represents a milestone for the BRICS with China's desire for rapid expansion largely overcoming a more cautious stance of India and Brazil who are more concerned about offending the United States. The result - the addition of Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia - reflects a major set-back for American foreign policy: 

       -  Iran is celebrating the failure of the longstanding American isolation policy; 

        - While President Putin could not attend in person (since host South Africa would have been obligated to arrest him under World Court charges as a war criminal), there was little complaint about the Ukraine War or his grain embargo; 

        - The inclusion of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran threatens to isolate Israel in the Middle East. It also establishes a coalition of oil and gas producing countries - along with Russia - who have no interest in the G-7 obsession with climate change. 

        - At this point the BRICS have rejected China's call for an international currency to replace the dollar in global trade, instead calling for greater exchange of member currencies. 

    Reflective of our internal politics, the two hours of Wednesday's Republican debate had no mention of BRICS or the risk of default on US bonds caused by Congressional disfunction, and only passing references to the implications of our $32 trillion debt and our emerging trade war with China.  At some point the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and a politician or two will ask "What happened to the world that the "Greatest Generation" bequeathed to us?"

                                                                                                                         -----

bill bowen - 8/24/2023 

 


Cleaning the Augean Stables

    The president who takes the oath of office in January of 2025 will face a task as great as Hercules' requirement to clean up the 30 year mess left by King Augeas' 3000 oxen.  Today's problem is not only the corruption of the party leaders, it is the bi-partisan acceptance of the corruption in the face of compelling evidence. 

Trump

    1. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's blatantly political and six-years late prosecution of Trump for "hush money" payment to Stormy Daniels causes hardly a ripple. 

    2. The Mar-a-Lago documents retention case is based on irrefutable facts, and should offend all citizens concerned about national security and the safety of intelligence sources. 

    3. The Georgia election case contains clear direct pressure on the Georgia Secretary of State to violate his oath of office by changing election outcomes. 

    4. The broader January 6 case contains clear efforts by Trump and his advisors to subvert the Electoral College; Trump 's incitement of the crowd at the capitol may have contained enough legal protection to avoid conviction, but his refusal to accept the election result should be disqualifying to voters.

Biden

    1. James Comer's House Oversight Committee and Senator Chuck Grassley have been persistent and successful in unravelling Biden family corruption: Hunter Biden was put on the Burisma board to protect the company and its owner from the Ukrainian prosecutor who Vice President Biden got fired; Vice President Biden was regularly engaged in phone conversations with Hunter Biden's business associates; Chinese Communist Party-affiliated businesses paid Hunter millions, which were run through myriad shell companies to avoid detection and taxation, and distributed to numerous family members. 

  2. Biden also illegally retained classified documents at multiple locations. 

The Justice Department/FBI/CIA

    1. The "Russia Collusion" investigation which consumed much of President Trump's first two years in office was a sham, with direct complicity of key FBI leaders. 

   2. The CIA solicited signers for a false letter released just before the 2020 election claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop appeared to be "Russian Disinformation".  Social media were encouraged to restrict contrary interpretations. 

   3. The investigation of Hunter Biden has been managed to protect Joe Biden from the beginning, with denials of the validity of his abandoned laptop, the expiration of the statute of limitations on some  offenses, and an attempt to craft a friendly plea arrangement which would have precluded further investigation of Hunter's dealings in Ukraine, China, or elsewhere. (The lead prosecutor who agreed to the deal has since been named special council, with broader authority, but unchanged allegiances.) 

Congress

  1. Speaker Pelosi led an impeachment - which succeeded in the House, but failed in the Senate - based on President Trump's request of the Ukrainian president to help investigate Hunter Biden's role at Burisma. The irony is extreme - in a just world President Biden would be impeached for demanding that the Ukrainian prosecutor be fired. 

2. Congressman Adam Schiff spent four years as chair of the House Intelligence Committee repeatedly making unfounded claims that he had evidence which would prove that President Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and leading the 2019 impeachment. 

    From this observer's perspective there is a difference between the Trump corruption and the Democrat corruption: in the case of Trump there is little dispute about the facts, the defense is legalistic; in the case of Biden and the Justice Department it has taken persistence of a Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee and a few quality conservative publications such as Molly Hemingway's The Federalist to unearth facts which are usually ignored or debunked in the mainstream media. 

    At this point it takes an act of deliberate ignorance for the citizen to not understand the disqualifying behavior of both President Trump and President Biden. Sociologists will some day identify what went wrong with the public in the teens and the twenties - maybe Covid was a factor; maybe it was the charisma of a malevolent showman and the response of a biased media; maybe our expectations of leaders have dropped and the citizens  are still OK; maybe a reformation or spiritual revival is required. In any case, a change on the part of the voters is urgently required. 

    There are several criteria for selecting a presidential candidate to support - policy positions; experience; philosophical alignment. In 2024, the top criteria should be commitment to cleaning the stables - and in the primaries, the ability to knock out the two corrupt party leaders. 

                                                                                                                                ----

bill bowen - 8/17/2023