.
April 5, 2011
SouthAmerica: Reply to BlackBison
I am sorry to say, but you have not grasped as yet what is happening in economic and geopolitical terms.
If you have been reading my postings here on the Elite Trader Economics Forum, or on Brazzil magazine, or on the comments section of the Charlie Rose Show, on Facebook, and on other forums on the web â I have been saying for a while that the US economic and financial system is collapsing just like the Soviet Union â and the only reason the collapse and meltdown is moving in slow motion is because the US dollar has the special status of being the major foreign reserve currency â If wasn't for that the collapse of the US economy already would be in a very advanced stage just like the final days of the Soviet Union.
Today for the first time I saw someone else writing on this subject besides myself. The Financial Times (UK) published an article âIt's 1989, but we are the Russians.â
Finally, the major financial newspapers started catching up and grasping what is underway.
The party is over!!!
Here is what the Financial Time article said:
âItâs 1989, but we are the Russiansâ
By Gideon Rachman
Financial Times (UK)
Published: April 4 2011
For the western world, the âArab springâ threatens to be a classic case of good news and bad news. The good news is that this is the Arab 1989. The bad news is that we are the Soviet Union.
An exaggeration? Certainly. But there is enough truth in the analogy to explain why both the US and the European Union are uneasy about revolutions that â on one level â promote core western values, such as democracy and individual rights.
Much of the corrupt and autocratic order that is wobbling so badly in the Middle East was western-backed. The sponsorship was nowhere near as brutal or as overt as the Soviet repression of eastern Europe. And there have always been anti-western regimes, such as Iran and Syria, existing alongside the pro-western governments in the Middle East.
But there is no doubting that rulers such as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia have been key western allies. In the classic formulation of the cold war, they were âour sons-of-bitchesâ. Or, as a writer in The Washington Times lamented last week: âMr Mubarak may have been a tinpot dictator, but he supported America.â
Earlier this year, the Obama administration made it clear to Mr Mubarak that the US would not accept the violent suppression of the Egyptian uprising; just as in 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union, told the East German leadership that he would not support the murder of peaceful demonstrators in Leipzig. In both cases â Egypt and East Germany â the withdrawal of superpower support helped to tip the regimes over the edge, and to spread turmoil across a whole region.
Like the USSR in 1989, the US chose the honourable option in refusing to let its regional ally stay in power through force. But, like the Russians, the US now has to worry that it will sacrifice power in a traditional sphere of influence. American officials know that they risk losing friends and endangering economic and security interests in an emerging Middle East that they barely understand. After the fall of Mr Mubarak, a senior US official was heard to lament: âBut we do everything with Egypt. Who do we work with now?â
The Europeans have a similar dilemma. The French and British eagerness to intervene in Libya reflected a desire to put themselves on the âright side of historyâ â and to bury an embarrassing record of co-operation with the old regimes in Tunisia and Libya. But backing the democratic uprisings in north Africa was a relatively easy call for the western powers, compared with the strategic and economic dilemmas thrown up in the Gulf, which is the most important oil-producing region in the world and a key base for al-Qaeda.
America has been noticeably reticent about supporting challenges to the ruling regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen. It has called on the government of Bahrain to reform; but the US barely protested when Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to help repress an uprising there. Robert Gates, US defence secretary, has said that his top priority in Yemen is the âwar on terrorâ and praised Mr Saleh for his co-operation with America. Only after months of demonstrations, and bloodshed on the streets of Yemen, has the US apparently concluded that Mr Saleh is another old ally who will have to go.
Saudi Arabia itself represents the ultimate dilemma. More than 30 years ago, the US made clear that it would regard a threat to oil supplies from the Gulf as justification for military intervention. The âCarter doctrineâ, announced in January 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, proclaimed that: âAn attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.â A peaceful transition to a more liberal political system in Saudi Arabia would clearly not breach the Carter doctrine. But something more chaotic and violent that opened the way to increased influence for al-Qaeda or Iran? Who knows?
The fact that the Iranian government in Tehran and the leadership of al-Qaeda in Pakistan are also trying to influence events in the Arab world underlines that the US is not the only external actor with much at stake. The Iranians will see opportunities in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia â but will be very anxious about unrest at home and about the threat to the government of Syria, a key regional ally.
Iranian anxiety illustrates that the geopolitics of the Arab spring are still far from settled...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/202b56b0-5eea-11e0-a2d7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IfcHW0jU
.
