500x100

Welcome to Laigle's Forum!

Sign Up to Receive Alerts and Newsletters from Laigle's Forum

Latest Posts:

Chinese monetary policy expert spills the beans, but not to the West

December 21st, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Banking and Finance, Economics | No Comments »

Warning from top Chinese monetary policy maker

My translation of a report in Economic Daily (Jingji Ribao) on the July 20, 2014 interview with Chen Yulu re. RMB internationalization follows below.

Note: RMB is the acronym for China’s national currency, the renminbi, also known as the yuan (not to be confused with the Japanese yen). Renmin means “the People” in Chinese, while “bi” means currency – hence, the People’s currency.

Background: As of 2013, the RMB has been convertible in current accounts (but not capital accounts). Until then, if you wanted to convert the RMB into one of the non-dollar currencies, you generally had to first convert your RMB into dollars, a cumbersome process that discouraged investors from making many transactions.

Why I decided to translate this article:

I first found this article in a Japanese language translation and decided to find the original, linked below.

Not at all surprisingly, I found no translation of it into English anywhere (except for an atrocious machine rendition that does not merit the descriptor “translation”). Why no surprise? I had already had experience with the huge black holes in the Western financial press, as reported here (the term “dedollarization” in that report is for all intents and purposes synonymous with “RMB internationalization”as used hereinbelow).

Why this article was not run in the Western press:

While many of the facts cited by Mr. Chen are to be found in the Western press and also in English language articles posted in China (for example, by the Bank of China), the time frames of Mr. Chen’s predictions of the RMB’s internationalization growth differ shockingly even from those reported in Chinese publications posted in English. Obviously, the Chinese don’t dare tell us the truth and I can’t blame them.

Mr. Chen tells his Asian audience that the RMB internationalization index (RII) will exceed that of all currencies except the US dollar and the euro within anywhere from 3 to 5 years, whereas other forecasts in English language journals estimate that time frame at 15 or more years. The idea seems to mitigate what most will see as bad news and to avoid any counter-measures from the Western central bankers (although it could be that they are also in on the plot). It strikes me that if Mr. Chen were just spouting hype to sell the rmb, then he and the rest of the economic bosses, eg, at the Bank of China, would post these things in English. But since they post them only in Chinese (and also allowed on Japanese site to post a translation of this interview), it seems that the West is being kept in the dark. The fact that rmb clearing centers are opening all over Europe is also an important, and ominous clue as to what is happening behind the curtain. One could make the case that the vast majority of our ‘allies’ are in fact quietly sabotaging the dollar. And if you were a European and your finances had been wrecked by the US derivatives bubble, you  would understand the sentiment behind that. In fact, the sanctions against Russia also dealt Europe a dangerous blow, and yet, their governments don’t dare defy Washington and go their own way. Think about it. France’s BNP Paribas was fined by the US for a misdemeanor that is perfectly legal in Europe and they lost 9 billion dollars to an increasingly ruthless hegemon. Who today is truly sympathetic to the US government?

The World Bank had estimated in 2013 that China’s economy “will become the [world’s] largest by 2030.” Well, that happened last week. Can you see that we are being kept in the dark? 

This article was translated by an ordinary citizen (who happens to be a professional translator) free of charge, for both investors and ordinary middle class citizens who will need to be prepared for a collapse of the dollar sooner than most would expect, at least if we trust the media that are being paid good money to prepare us but refuse to do so or are perhaps also hapless victims of normalcy bias.

Finally, while Mr. Chen says the RMB is not intended to challenge the dollar, now that the Chinese economy exceeds ours, guess what will happen to the dollar once the RMB internationalization index surpasses the dollar’s.

Hint: the main ingredient in the value of any currency is trust. Western monetary policy aims at 2% annual inflation and cheekily calls that “stabilization,” routinely causes bubbles in various markets and fosters the creation of essentially worthless derivatives denominated in the US dollar. Chinese policy has, so far at least, not fallen into anything resembling this kind of irresponsible behavior. European markets were hit hard by this corrupt US monetary policy and they are not happy. This is, in my judgment, why the RMB clearing centers have been established all over Europe (as well as elsewhere) but not in the US, whose investors apparently want to go down with their own ship.

I am convinced that all or most of our allies have lost all trust in the US government and are quietly deserting the ship.

My only question is: what took them so long?

Don Hank

Author’s email: zoilandon@msn.com

http://finance.sina.com.cn/money/forex/20140722/054019778623.shtml

Internationalization of the RMB is not a challenge to other currencies

05:40, July 22, 2014 Economic Daily, I have something to say (11 participants)

Staff reporter: Zhang Wei Zhang Lichen

On July 20, the Renmin University of China issued the “2014 Renminbi (6.1546, 0.0044, 0.07%) internationalization report,” which shows that in 2013 the rmb internationalization index (RII) further accelerated. The report notes that the internationalization of the RMB is not intended to challenge the US dollar or other international currencies; the renminbi is taking on more international monetary functions, rooted in the internal demands of the international market.

Since the beginning of 2012, the People’s [Renmin] University of China has been releasing a series of annual research reports on the internationalization of the RMB, and has proposed an RMB internationalization Index (RII), which objectively describes of the extent of Chinese yuan use in overall international economic activities. The index not only tracks trends in 3 areas, namely, global renminbi-denominated trade, financial transactions and foreign exchange reserves, but enables a convenient horizontal comparison with other major international currencies. On July 20, upon release of the “2014 RMB internationalization Report,” Economic Daily reporters on issues relating to the internationalization of the RMB were granted an exclusive interview with Chen Yulu, a member of the Central bank Monetary Policy Committee and president of Renmin University of China.

According to data in a recently released report, by the end of 2013, the RII reached 1.69, as compared to 0.92 at the beginning of the year, a gain of 84%. What is the reason for this rapid growth?

Chen Yulu: The RMB internationalization Index (RII) accelerated further in 2012, due to high-growth, reaching 1.69 by the end of 2013. In contrast, over the same period the international status of the dollar remained stable, while the euro, and British pound rose only moderately, and the internationalization of the yen declined slightly.

This is because China is number one in global trade, and currently has the world’s second largest FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) inflows and the third largest direct investment outflows. In cross-border trade, more and more companies are using RMB settlement. In 2013 the share of trade in goods settled in RMB exceeded 10%. In terms of investment, foreign direct investment in RMB 448.13 was billion while overseas direct investment amounted to 85.61 billion RMB, the total reached 1.9 times over the same period last year. This is the main reason for the rapid growth in the RII.

According to the latest data, in 2014, the first and second quarter RII’s were 1.74 and 1.96, respectively. By the end of this year, based on a conservative estimate, the RII is expected to climb to 2.40. Following system reform and the release of dividend policy, RMB direct investment and credit in international markets will significantly increase. If the  BRICS Development Bank and the China Latin America Cooperation Forum proceed smoothly, an optimistic forecast for the RII by the end of 2014 might be in excess of three. Barring any major adverse events, the international use of the renminbi will exceed the levels of the yen and the British pound in anywhere from 3 to 5 years, with the RMB becoming the world’s third largest currency after the dollar and the euro.

The accelerated process of RMB internationalization seems to suggest a challenge to the status of dollar, the euro and other international currencies. What do you think?

Chen Yulu: The internationalization of the RMB is not going to challenge the dollar or other international currencies. In fact, the RMB is assuming more international monetary functions as a result of internal demand in the international market. In particular, the international financial crisis in 2008 demonstrated that there are significant contradictions in the current international monetary and financial landscape. For example, the United States accounts for 20% of the global total economy, but supplies 52% of international currency as a public good. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. In the last two years, a number of international financial centers in Europe have been actively showing intensive demand for RMB-traded products, and have signed RMB clearing agreements with China. This shows that the RMB internationalization is a phenomenon that has developed in response to adjustments in international economic and trade patterns, with the chief motivation coming from international market demand. China’s push can be seen as an echo of this demand.

Secondly, China has become the world’s second largest economy, and this entails a greater responsibility and obligation to provide global public goods, including the response to the global liquidity shortage. Thus it has become the lender of last resort, participating in global currency market rate pricing, establishment of a stable international currency exchange rates system and so on. Due to China’s own increased economic strength, this is the default option for creating a stable monetary and financial environment for global economic development.

We also need to note that the yuan is far from becoming a core international currency, and does not pose a threat to the status of the dollar or the euro. Therefore, we need to consider the larger pattern and see the internationalization of the RMB as a natural response to adjustments in the international economic and financial situation, without assigning it too many other interpretations.

Currently, the establishment of offshore markets is the main thrust of the RMB internationalization process. Can you give us an overview of the global offshore RMB market? How will it impact the development of Chinese enterprises and financial institutions

Chen Yulu: Hong Kong is still the world’s largest offshore yuan market, where we find not only the most important clearing platform of cross-border trade in RMB, but also the largest pool of offshore renminbi funds. The central government has expressed clear support for entering a new stage of domestic development following the construction of offshore financial centers in Hong Kong. Elsewhere in Asia, in addition to Singapore and Taiwan and Macau, Seoul has followed suit with the signing of an RMB clearing agreement.

A number of international financial centers in Europe, such as London, Frankfurt, Luxembourg, Paris and Zurich are actively expressing the desire to establish offshore financial centers. This year, China signed RMB clearing agreements with Germany, Britain, France, Luxembourg and other countries. This is likely to cause a reversal, with the size of the European market lagging significantly behind Asia. In addition, almost all international financial centers are being established on fears of falling behind in the offshore renminbi business. This means that in addition to Asian high yield and European new markets, the RMB offshore market development will be a fast-growing trend in the global situation.

From a domestic perspective, the offshore market provides domestic enterprises new financing channels, and allows companies to take advantage of low-cost funds in overseas markets, solving difficult financing problems; at the same time, it also provides a financing platform for enterprises “going offshore,” and is conducive to fostering international competitiveness in local multinational companies. In addition, the offshore market can encourage Chinese financial institutions to accept otherwise-daunting international competition, improve service levels and innovation capacity as quickly as possible, and for China’s benefit, create favorable conditions for carrying forward capital account reform.

What challenges is the establishment of current offshore yuan markets facing?

Chen Yulu: Right.  Although the establishment of offshore renminbi markets is accelerating, some of the main obstacles must be overcome as quickly as possible. First, we  lack an efficient, secure and cost-effective offshore renminbi clearing system. This affects the willingness of domestic and foreign enterprises and financial institutions to use the renminbi and restricts the scope of offshore renminbi transactions. We need to set up a global offshore RMB clearing system of international scope as soon as possible, transforming it into a gross settlement system functioning in real time corresponding to the operating time.

Second, the current legal framework for offshore RMB market system has not yet been established. The establishment of the offshore RMB market must tackle conflicts in the field of international law, improving as soon as possible the terms of confidentiality, and implementing strict anti-money laundering procedures to curb the use of offshore financial centers to achieve illicit transfer of funds abroad. We also need to strengthen tax collection of international taxes on Chinese territory, to combat tax evasion and prevent loss of tax revenue.

Third, the offshore renminbi financial product chain and financial service capabilities of financial institutions are not yet ideal. The offshore business of Chinese financial institutions in general is still restricted to the traditional deposits, loans and international settlement business. There is an urgent need to achieve breakthrough innovation in financial product development. In addition to requiring more Chinese financial institutions to take on added functions, we must also encourage foreign financial institutions to develop businesses and innovative products.

Fourth, once the offshore financial market reaches a certain size, it will impact on the mechanism of onshore market interest rate and exchange rate formation, which may weaken the effectiveness of monetary policy, creating new challenges for the domestic financial regulatory system. Offshore renminbi market transactions will make interest rate and exchange rate determining mechanism more complex, and even affect yuan pricing. This requires the combination of two-rate marketizing reform, and the application of the scientific method in research and in the regulation of the monetary policy system. Establishment of a new macro-prudential financial regulation mode, accommodation of the offshore market within the monitoring range, strengthening international cooperation in financial supervision, and ensuring a smooth-running offshore RMB markets, and rapid, sound development.

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

TO SECURE WORLD PEACE, KOSOVO MUST RETURN TO SERBIA!

November 23rd, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, Global governance, World Affairs | No Comments »

TO SECURE WORLD PEACE KOSOVO MUST RETURN TO SERBIA !

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

Specialist in Public and International law

General Secretary of « Alliance pour la Souveraineté de la France ».

By its decision of 22nd July 2010, the International Court of Justice in the Hague (ICJ) ruled on the conformity of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) with international law. It is now necessary to consider the actual legal impact on Kosovo.

By ten votes against four, the ICJ concluded July 22, 2010: “The declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not violate international law or Resolution 1244 (1999) of the Security Council (1) or the constitutional framework. Accordingly, the adoption of that declaration did not violate any applicable rule of international law.”

This is far from the noisily urbi et orbi conclusive statements of the socialist former High Representative of the General Secretary of the UN in Kosovo, French Foreign Minister and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner, proclaiming that: “This statement confirms that Kosovo’s independence is irreversible.”

In doing so, he broadens for his own purposes the conclusion of the ICJ, obscuring fundamental issues regarding the status of Kosovo, to twist international opinion by camouflage, as usual.

Indeed Mr. Hisashi Owada, President of the ICJ stated “the Court was not instructed by the question to determine whether international law gave to Kosovo a positive right to declare independence unilaterally and “The Court is not instructed to decide whether Kosovo has gained statehood.”

This is absolutely essential for the present and for the future. It allowed, rightly I say, and I will demonstrate herein, that Serbia could declare “never under any circumstances to recognize Kosovo’s independence”.

In this case, the conclusion of the ICJ is not a surprise, because it has long been settled that no principle of international law can oppose the right of peoples to self-determination.

Here we are at the heart of the question: is it part of the Serbian people in Kosovo which seceded? Of course not, since in fact the so-called “international community” that is to say, the United States and the EU, have added their huge military arsenals by supporting the so-called “Kosovo Liberation Army” (UCK) of Ibrahim Ruigova, underhandedly supplying weapons, military training  and financing.

In its usual unsavory manner, the “international community” practiced spreading outright lies so to manipulate international public opinion into consenting to the dumping of tons of depleted depleted uranium munitions over Serbia by the US and the EU.

Of course, this same “international community” says nothing about the realities of war crimes committed during and after the conflict and the abduction by the Albanians of Serbian civilians, men, women and children to collect some of their organs and route them to foreign clinics before killing  them all (2).

The ICJ has therefore been cautious in his conclusion. Besides, how could it do otherwise than to invalidate the first unilateral declaration of independence in history, that of of the United States of America on July 4th 1776?

Here are the reasons :

–          is it the Serbian people living in Kosovo, who declared independence?

The answer is no!

–          is it a democratically elected assembly representing the will of the Serbian people of Kosovo who declared independence?

The answer is no!

–          is this Declaration of Independence the expression of the Serbian Kosovars’ right to self-determination?

The answer is no!

–          is this statement the demonstration of the Serbian people’s will to establish the internal and external sovereignty of Kosovo?

The answer is no!

–           does this creates a sovereign state in the hands of the Serbian people?

The answer is no!

–          were the borders of the new state agreed upon with Serbia by treaty as required by the Vienna Convention and the principle of uti possidetis juris?

The answer is no!

All these reasons demonstrate that this secession does not meet the criteria of international law. Obviously, it is therefore not a secession of part of the Serbian people, but an invasion by the Albanian population in the Serbian province of Kosovo, with the military support of the “international community” (ie the USA and the EU).

Of course, if sometimes the invasion of part of a state, whatever it could be, by a foreign population was recognized as legal, and if this invading population proclaimed the independence of the annexed part of the State, international law would be stood on its head and the door would be wide open for all possible conflicts throughout the world.

It is no doubt for this reason, and to respect their signing of international treaties, that 123 UN member states (including Russia) out of 192 have not recognized the independence of Kosovo.

On the other hand, the judgment of the ICJ is a precedent in favor of legalizing a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) of the people of Quebec to free from the control of the Canadian federation and a UDI of the French people to break free from the European Union EU.

The ICJ judgment confirms that, as in the case of the United States of America, a Declaration of Independence, except in rare cases, is never upheld by institutions of the predecessor State.

That is why, to secure world peace, Kosovo must return to Serbia!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

(1)   The resolution 1244 (1999) suspended the sovereignty of Serbia on Kosovo.

(2) To protect the interests of high-ranking political figures, curiously, the international community was very quick to stifle this case by destroying evidence.

 

Bibliography :

 

–          « France qu’ont-ils fait de ta liberté ! » by Jean Foyer  (Former Minister of Justice of General de Gaulle) – François Xavier de Guibert Publisher.

–          Judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague (Netherlands). Press Release No. 2010/75 of 22nd July 2010.

–          “Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 22 July 2010 on the legality of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence of Kosovo a precedent for secessionist entities?”  by Alexandra Chauvin, Law Degree at the University Paris X Nanterre.

–          « Srebrenica : mythe ou réalité d’un génocide ? » by Edward S. Herman.

–          « Kosovo assiégé, une bombe à retardement » by Philippe-Xavier PAULY. L’âge d’Homme Publisher.

 

Translation edited by Don Hank

Editor’s notes :

Carlos Ponte accuses leaders of Washington’s protégé state of Kosovo of trafficking in human organs :

Original French language version:

http://laiglesforum.com/pour-garantir-la-paix-du-monde-le-kosovo-doit-redevenir-serbe

To the point

http://www.srbijadanas.net/serbian-kosovo-and-metohija-by-william-dorich/

 

Serbian KOSOVO and METOHIJA, by William Dorich

The magnitude of Kosovo reverberates across the centuries. It has survived 609 years and throughout the succeeding generations Kosovo has become the inspiration of an entire nation. And through its grandeur and its religious example it has influenced other nations to seek freedom. Kosovo permanently changed the face of Europe and altered history. Kosovo, 100 years before Columbus sailed for the New World, was a statement for religious freedom and the belief that no man had a right to rule another. Rather than to consent to become slaves to tyranny, the Serbs willingly gave their lives for their religious belief. Seldom in history have we witnessed such a commitment. The Serbs on the Kosovo Field not only paid with the staggering loss of 77,000 lives in one day of battle, but the Serbian nation suffered 500 years of Ottoman slavery as the consequence. Historians have never spoken of Kosovo as though it were an event in the past that will never happen again. Through the centuries, Serbian sacrifice and Kosovo have become synonymous.

The Serbian people have continually assumed that in every century they would again find it necessary to defend their rights to their land, self-determination, and freedom of worship. History in the Balkans continuously repeats itself! In 1690, more than 180,000 Serbs were forced from Kosovo and, again, an equal number were exiled in 1737. After the Congress of Berlin, in 1878, another 150,000 Serbs were expelled. This ongoing trend took on tragic proportions following the war in Crete between Turkey and Greece in 1897. Diplomatic efforts to stem the tide of atrocities against Serbs were useless, but documentation remains to testify to the crimes committed against the Serbian population. The Balkan war of 1912 was fought not only by Serbs but by Montenegrins, Bulgarians, and Greeks to liberate their people from centuries of uninterrupted Islamic aggression. The situation is little changed today.

To understand Kosovo, the American people need to compare the current Balkan crisis with its own American Civil War in which just 4% of the population lost their lives compared to Serbia who lost 52% of her adult male population in WWI and another 26% of her overall population in WWII. Readers of this forum need reminding that during the American Civil War it was the loyal Virginia citizens who refused to secede from the union and formed the state of West Virginia in 1863. Certainly Serbs deserve the same rights to remain in their union, a union which was internationally recognized as a nation in 1878 at the Congress of Berlin.

Not a single head of state, nor any American president, senator, or humanitarian group raised their voices as 200,000 Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” from Kosovo in the last 2 decades. People should be asking, why are the Serbs destined to suffer and be persecuted?

In September 1992, Jehoshua Porat, reporting in the Israeli daily Ha’Aretz, claimed: “It seems we have caught the same syndrome as the Russians — fear that we shall lose billions of dollars from the United States and the West if we say something good about Serbs.” Serbs are perplexed when the media proclaims Kosovo as Serbian territory, then encourages the Albanians who comprise a majority in just the last 40 years, to secede and seek self-determination while denying the Serbs that same right in Croatia in 1991 in areas where Serbs were the majority and in Bosnia in 1992 where Serbs represented 31% of the population and owned 62% of the land. It was arrogant that the world awarded the Bosnian Muslims for gaining their majority population through their genocide of the Serbs in WWII. Awarding the Albanians for the same disgusting deeds in Kosovo would make a mockery of democratic principles.

During King Milutin’s reign of 40 years (1281-1321), he built 40 churches in Kosovo. There are more than 140 Serbian churches and monasteries in Kosovo, a significant number having been built before 1459. More than 75 were built after 1459. There are also more than 80 church ruins that date prior to 1459. The actual seat of the Serbian Orthodox Church was first established in Kosovo at the Pec Patriarchate in 1346 (pictured at the top of this page). The Patriarchate remained in Pec until 1939, when in fear of WWII it was moved to Belgrade. The surviving Monasteries of Pec, Decani, The Virgin of Ljeviska, and Gracanica are monuments to the Serbian people, their dedication to their faith, and a testimony to their cultural achievements.

The time has come for a more balanced and fair assessment of the situation and a review of the facts, not hysterical propaganda. As the Very Rev. Mateja Matejic has observed, “Serbs were the first to anticipate the grave peril coming at one time from Islam and then from Nazism and finally Communism. They were the first to resist … making the victories of others possible, even if they themselves were defeated.”

The following pages of this forum are intended to provide the discerning American reader with historical facts unethically withheld from them by the partisan press and American politicians with a hidden agenda in the Balkans.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Are you wasting money on one of those “specialized” news sites?

October 9th, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in International, World Affairs | No Comments »

Are you wasting money on one of those “specialized” news sites?

 

Don Hank

 

I recently had a complaint about a comment of mine on my private forum (applicants may apply at zoilandon@msn.com) regarding Stratfor, which I said was a propaganda outlet. A reader was very upset and said that he had worked with companies that paid money to subscribe to Stratfor for information that helped them plan economic strategy. The implication was that they could not be a propaganda outlet if serious companies paid them for hard to find information. I do want to point out that the msm are also charged with being a propaganda arm of the US government. This does not mean they are literally paid hard cash for government-favorable reporting. It goes much deeper than that. What I call “propaganda” is what we call the oficialista viewpoint here in Latin America, for example. It is a viewpoint that is inhaled with the air that people, especially journalists, breathe. Anyone expressing a contrarian viewpoint is persona non grata in government circles and risks not getting invited to official press conferences – or worse. Thus there is a constant inflow and outflow of the officialist viewpoint at outlets like Stratfor. No one has to bribe or pay them to parrot the official party line. It is in their blood stream.

The Stratfor article I was commenting on was one in which the author was fretting that Latvia had a pro-Russian political party that was rapidly growing, raising “concerns” as to what Russia might eventually do.

Of course, the real concern for those who like democratic systems would be that some tyrannical outsider might try to force Latvia to remain aligned with the West despite its desire not to – just as the East of Ukraine is being forced to go along with the wishes of Western Ukraine and the EU-US-NATO bloc. (And yet, Scotland gets to hold a referendum and no one in the Western world accuses them of illegal behavior for breaking away from a sovereign country, ie, the UK).

The Western press, whether a for-profit geopolitical analysis site like Stratfor or the msm, never misses a chance to focus on what evil deed Russia may do but almost never focuses on what might make an EU member like Latvia want spontaneously to align with Russia and eventually drop out of the EU. The real issue, left unmentioned, is not what Russia will do but the domino effect of countries like Latvia harboring anti-EU Russia-friendly parties which are growing in leaps and bounds. These include the UK, Holland and France, countries that if they should drop out – or I should say when they drop out, will completely sink the entire EU grand projet. (Don’t worry, though. Your favorite pay-to-read site will never annoy you with that piece of trivia). Once the EU falls, as it must, that will not be Russia’s fault. If Russia fills the trade vacuum, that is hardly an act of war. It is what we used to call the free market back when there was one.

But the folks at Stratfor think that the Latvian development is about Russian misbehavior.

And you know what irks me no end?

In stark contrast to the very localized development in Latvia, which is none of our business, there is a worldwide development that is about Russia – and also about China and eventually the rest of the BRICS countries – a development that is our business and the business of Stratfor subscribers, like it or not, and that development is dedollarization, which if the msm is doing its job of blacking it out properly, you probably have never heard of.

Dedollarization, the movement that could destroy the US economy, is well underway and includes not only the 5 BRICS members but also Japan, some African countries and some European countries, like France (see my sampler of foreign press articles below). Why France? Because a French bank was soaked a world record fine a while back for trading with some US-blacklisted countries and they are getting fed up with the bullying.

Hey, Stratfor, want something to warn your subscribers about?

How about warning them about dedollarization and the US’s suicidal practice of imposing gargantuan fines on foreign banks at the whim of the US government? Or the practice of provoking Russia by siding with known fascists in former COMECON countries that they still want to trade with. Dedollarization is the chickens coming home to roost. Oh, but that’s embarrassing for the US elites who implement these suicidal policies.

Besides, Russophobia, a popular form of racism, is all the rage in Washington, and Russia is the whipping boy du jour. More to the point, in a country where Russophobia is the official fare, it would be embarrassing to admit that Putin turned the tables on the dull witted Western elites with a brilliant answer to the sanctions against Russia, namely, dedollarization of international trade – the use of currencies other than the dollar to transact.

It is vital for you to know something that the msm will never tell you: there are 2 reasons that the USD is still worth money:

1. Since the Bretton Woods agreement, the world is obliged to use the USD in international trade; and

2. The US military.

Dedollarization is the start of a process that will slowly erode these 2 factors.

With all this in mind, I went to the Stratfor site to see how many articles they had relating to dedollarization, a phenomenon poised to kill the USD and hence bring hyperinflation to the US. (Dear Stratfor readers: don’t you suppose a bankrupted USA full of hungry people might be just a wee bit more important than some folks in the mini-country of Latvia who prefer trading with a stable country like Russia – which has a capitalist economy without the impediment of Keynesianism and whose debt, unlike ours, is only a modest fraction of GDP?).

I can’t tell you how unsurprised I was to find the following using “dedollarization” as the search term at the Stratfor site:

 

Argentina, Brazil: Countries Plan To De-Dollarize Commerce

Argentina and Brazil plan to de-dollarize commerce in their countries in the first part of 2008 to…

 

That’s it. So if I am a Stratfor reader, I am led to believe that dedollarization is a South American phenomenon, confined to Argentina and Brazil. Meanwhile Europe is teetering on the brink of dedollarizaton, African countries are dedollarizing, and China, Japan and Russia have already taken that route in major international transactions. Now remember: Stratfor charges money to its subscribers for refusing to give them vital information that the long term investor can hardly be without!

But you are not alone, Stratfor. Guess how many articles the writer-for-hire Wall Street Journal had relating to dedollarization when I performed that search? Ready for this? Here ya go:

 

SEARCH

Advanced Search

Sorry, there are no results for your search query, please try another search.

ROFL! I love this stuff!

For good measure, I decided I might as well try the pay-to-read New York Times. Since they peddle these big thick wads that take whole forests for a week’s worth of news, why they would surely carry something about dedollarization, wouldn’t they?

Sure.

Here is what the internal search engine managed to dredge up:

 

Challenge for Peru: Shoring up sol

“Dedollarization has been a very slow process,” Peru’s central bank president, Oscar Dancourt, said. “But we’re making progress, we’re on the …

So if we trust Stratfor and NYT, dedollarization is only happening in South America. And if we trust WSJ, it doesn’t exist. Nothing to worry about. Certainly not the nail-biting that Latvia’s growing anti-EU party will cause those Stratfor subscribers, who apparently all hold mostly EU bonds in their portfolios and whose worst nightmare is a coup in Latvia. The Russkies are coming! The Russkies are coming!

Now, if you don’t like the word “propaganda,” don’t use it. In fact, you may, if you like, send me your suggestions for a word that better fits an international news analysis site that keeps vital information away from the reader while plying them with news about the internal politics of one of the smallest countries in the EU – and spinning even that tidbit to blame it on Russia, the whipping boy of the officialistas in Washington, DC. But just because our government is running a hate-Russia campaign does not mean that Stratfor is deliberately giving Washington what it wants, does it? Of course not. It could be just a remarkable coincidence. Yeah.

So omitting that harsh word “propaganda,” would you at least admit that the media, even the subscription-only media that soak you plenty for their gems of hard-to-find knowledge that is all over the internet for free, are at least keeping important news – and I’d have to say the most important news – safely away from your eyes?

Finally, for those who never heard of dedollarization (how would you know from the msm if even outlets specialized in international economic news don’t carry the story?), I will admit that my information on the subject originally came from sites like The Economic Collapse, FedUpUSA and Zero Hedge. I trust these sites because, for one thing, they quote sources, and for another, they don’t sound like a broken record cut in Washington. Nonetheless, for the hard core doubters, I was challenged to do my own search of the world press on dedollarization, just to make sure you wouldn’t think I make stuff up. Below is a list of links amounting to no more than about 1% of the dazzling array of foreign articles on dedollarization that I found in German, French, Spanish, English and Chinese – and I’m talking about the real dedollarization, not obscure events localized in South America but an economic freight train bearing down on you and me as I type. I skipped Russian this time even though that is one of my primary sources for this information. That’s because the American public is trained like Pavlov’s dogs to reject all things Russian and there is little point sending the reader to, say, Russia Direct or the like because, unlike our reliable msm, Russian news is pure “propaganda,” right, Sheeple?

Oh, and did I mention that, despite the fact that Stratfor charged readers for its “news” report on Latvia, that story was all over the internet, here, for example, and wouldn’t have cost the subscribers a dime to get all the details. Without the racist anti-Russian propaganda.

 

Germany:

I first searched the word for dedollarization, Entdollariserung.

My goal was to find sources that did not quote the usual US blogs on this subject because, while I personally have the highest regard for the 3 blogs mentioned above, the elites want us to believe that only “bona fide” sites like WSJ or NYT are worth quoting. So while some foreign sites run translations of Tyler Durden or Michael Snyder on this subject, I chose to skip those and picked sites like this one:

http://www.contra-magazin.com/2014/06/die-entdollarisierung-der-russischen-wirtschaft-schreitet-voran/

 

The below German language article cites ITAR-TASS quoting the Russian Central Bank office and also quoting Vladimir Putin in Shanghai following a talk with Xi Jinping announcing closer cooperation between the central banks of Russia and China. (I found references to this well-known conference in several languages).

http://freies-oesterreich.net/2014/08/10/russland-und-china-wollen-bilateralen-handel-kuenftig-nicht-mehr-ueber-dollar-abwickeln/#more-2513

 

How about a French site discussing how BRICS countries and France are weighing the possibility of dedollarizing due in part to the draconian fines imposed by the US on French banks (for doing things that are legal in France!)?

http://resistanceauthentique.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/laffaire-bnp-paribas-et-la-dedollarisation-du-monde/

 

Central Bank of the Congo is dedollarizing (report in French):

http://tsimokagasikara.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/rdc-un-pas-vers-la-dedollarisation-une-nouvelle-reglementation-de-change-a-la-bcc/

 

Angola bank is dedollarizing (report in English):

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/economia/2014/5/26/Reserve-bank-denies-report-foreign-currency-shortage,77c30ca5-8603-406c-b65d-d2e45b453b39.html

Quote: The official said that the economy is in a course of stability and there is a set of measures that have been taken aimed at the maintenance and sustainability of the framework which is the process of de-dollarisation of the economy, started four years ago.

 

El País, In Spanish, reporting directly on meetings of BRICS in Fortaleza, Brazil, where dedollarization was being planned:

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/economia/2014/5/26/Reserve-bank-denies-report-foreign-currency-shortage,77c30ca5-8603-406c-b65d-d2e45b453b39.html

 

BRICS countries “must continue dedollarization” (report in Portuguese)

http://www.efe.com/efe/noticias/brasil/economia/brics-paises-emergentes-devem-prosseguir-com-desdolariza-economia/3/2019/2269481

 

Japan, China, dedollarizing

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Kosuke-TAKAHASHI/3769

 

I think you can see the advantage of having access to the multilingual press. Monolingualism is a bit of a hindrance these days if you want to know what is going on in the rest of the world that might just affect you. Especially if you are a subscriber to “specialized” news sites like Stratfor, Wall Street Journal or New York Times, that seem to have trouble reading any language.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

October 5th, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Banking and Finance, Europe, european union, France, Freedom, Global governance, International, Islam, Politics, World Affairs | No Comments »

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

- On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

October 4th, 2014 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Europe, european union, Global governance, Government, Human Rights, International, Sovereignty | No Comments »

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

AddThis Social Bookmark Button