Donald Trump is finished. He’s gone halfway to destroying the office of President of the United States. The “deep state” he swore he would eradicate, they’re massaging the shoulders of truth killer Joe Biden as if to ready him like a has-been boxer about to emerge from a sweaty arena tunnel of American politics. But nobody is talking about the 2020 endgame. If all the world is a great big geopolitical stage, what does the final act promise?

A lingering pandemic still grips the world. The economic knockout punch is still cocked back ready to be unleashed by a bruiser of a market equalizer. Meanwhile, gut-punched by with trillions more in public debt, a flabby, out of shape U.S. economy is revealed most strangely. Images of protests all over the nation, bloody streets, clouds of tear gas, and strangled persons of color are painted on a canvas that shows the poverty, despair, and hopelessness of the multitude previously hidden. CNN and Fox have been so focused on the Trump show, they’ve missed the medieval peons of America, the millions scratching out an existence while billionaires coddle the fat, careless, middle class. Anybody sitting ringside at this one can smell the coming defeat. Trump has already thrown the fight even before round one, and the bookmakers are about to collect.

In November Donald Trump will not even make it one minute before being smashed to the canvas by former Vice-President Joe Biden. The way this dog and pony show was meant to end was preordained before Donald Trump was inaugurated in 2016. Trump, weary of the White House and “almost” having to work for a living, will not even make the effort to dodge the mystery punch that takes him down. Biden won’t break a sweat, at least not until it’s his turn to be the heavyweight champion. Then, by New Year’s Eve 2021, the bookies standing behind the liberal order’s punch drunk slugger will collect. When America’s economic bubble bursts this time, the new president will blame Trump, then a redux of 2008 and the Great Recession will happen. Only this time they’ll create trillionaires instead of billionaires.

The world is about to be fleeced. Just in case you’re not a political-sports analyst who’s paying attention. Trump and Co. have been playing Tweet for profit in the market almost four years now, but the billions they’ve banked will seem like longshot bets when the banksters and hedge fund owners start taking over more than a million U.S. small businesses, what’s left of freehold private property, retail, manufacturing, and public sector contracts for everything from mail shipping to chicken farming to supply Walmart stores. I know, the fight prediction is starting to sound fantastical and impossible, but trust me, it’s get’s much worse. You can sense the scope of the coming carnage in this New York Times story about Trump’s Federal Reserve plan diversion, which pretends to help small businesses. Let me quote here from the report, to give you an idea of the scope of the coming scam:

“Publicly traded firms that employ about 8.1 million people — roughly 26 percent of all employment at tracked publicly traded companies — are all or mostly excluded from direct government relief, based on an analysis by Samuel Hanson, Jeremy Stein and Adi Sunderam of Harvard, along with Eric Zwick of the University of Chicago.”

Now, we begin to understand why the Trump administration has refused to give Congress and the people an accounting of who is on the receiving end of the government’s taxpayer-backed small-business assistance grants and lending, which is more than $500 billion. But, what’s interesting about this, and diabolical on a level never seen before, is what some of this money will be used for.

To better understand what is about to take place, all one has to do is think like a mafia kingpin for a moment. In modern business capital is protection. To create a protection racket, all any mafioso has to do is restrict the flow of capital. Or, in the case of the U.S. government’s PPP program, “protect” one business while at the same time killing another. Take, for example, the real estate investment trust (REIT) Ashford Hospitality Trust, which the Washington Post said received government assistance through loans that were, at the time, legal. Here’s where things get a little tricky because some of these loan recipients were required by law to return monies if they did not fall into the guidelines of the new regulations. But the Trump administration’s refusal to release PPP and other financial records, essentially covers up which companies got what.

For the sake of my report, Ashford Hospitality Trust is as good a case as any to prove my points. As anyone who can read or watch TV knows, the travel sector has been hit harder than almost any other by the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. And Ashford Hospitality Trust is into hotels. The trust’s biggest investors bear mentioning here, Vanguard Group, Renaissance Technologies, and BlackRock are notoriously greedy when it comes to running other people out of business. I won’t get into these funds and their histories, but Renaissance was a top contributor to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. This hints at my constant reference to “good cop and bad cop” politics in the U.S. But let’s get back to hotels and Ashford Hospitality.

According to this recent (PDF) Ashford Hospitality Trust portfolio report, the trust controls 24,842 rooms at various hotels/motels across the U.S. The list of hotels controlled ranges from the independents like the Residence Inn Phoenix Airport to the luxurious Ritz Carlton Atlanta. Now, let’s consider what happens if the Trump administration props up the businesses like Ashford Hospitality Trust (and by proxy Vanguard Group and others) while at the same time failing to help competing hotels. In a world of capitalist greed based on growth, can you visualize how the liberal order may be planning to extend its failed model? A takeover, worldwide, complete. This will buy another decade or two. And we will pay for our enslavement.

Out of the confusion, under the table, and even right in front of our eyes, the war for the last ingots of gold on planet Earth is being waged. I’ve said this many times, but I can honestly say I never truly believed it would happen. Or rather, I hoped and prayed it would not. Democracy, freedom, a peaceful prosperous world, these were the things all of us were taught to strive for. Now we see that there is no system in place for any of that to happen. Pirates and privateers sail every coast, and dirty fighters will sell out any contest, for the last drop of profit to be directed to those who have always ruled. Not even a revolution can solve the situation. Someone will figure out how to profit from that too. Our dismal failures are “home to roost” as the saying goes. On a longshot, maybe some candidate invests a few billion to become a write-in savior, but those with billions have their candidates already.

The Tulsa, Oklahoma Rally for Trump that there was so much fuss over, this was the bell sounding the opening and final round of the Trump versus Biden fake circus. Almost nobody showed, and the worst president ever was furious. “The Donald” will soon retire to his senior playboy lifestyle, only billions richer, while one of the destroyers of Ukraine takes up the title belt, to finally end democracy once and for all. The liberal order will go on, and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. Not even Putin. Gridlock is the legacy of humanity. The endless wars, financial or real, will go on until profit is impossible on a barren, used up rock spinning through space. The sad thing is, there’s not even a contender on the horizon. No one will put on the gloves to battle even pitiful aging politicians bought and paid for by soulless promoters. And that’s the final bell on COVID-19.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

I recently discovered Rock ‘n Roll – a relatively unknown stage play from 2006 by Tom Stoppard, an intellectual playwright. Set in the period between 1968-1990, it addresses the struggle with communism waged by students in Eastern Europe.

The play tells the story of brutal censorship in Stoppard’s native Czechoslovakia, where young people are fighting for the right to listen to the music of their choice, “Rock ‘n Roll”, against the wishes of the dictatorship, and of a pro-Marxist professor in England, who, in 1990, comes to understand that he has wasted his life believing and teaching a flawed doctrine.

With the music of The Rolling Stones as a backdrop, the play had a limited Broadway run in 2006-2007. A new production of the play, performed by a theatre group in Cedar Rapids, has now been videoed. In this, the cast and director Leslie Charipar describe their take on the play and the lessons learned from it.

The play itself is not my theme, but how both times and our expectations change. Once many people were in the same position, as those students struggling against communism, and are only now coming to that realisation. Now, much of the world is getting to understand that the forms of democracy and economics that they have known, real or perceived, are in a state of flux.

Economic and political systems long assumed to be the best available, have not delivered as promised. This is proving especially true in the agricultural sector in the age of globalization. We may not want to go back to collective farms, but the alternatives are simply a road to nowhere for many – which is why rural Bulgaria still solidly supports the successors to the Communists, fearful of what they have seen of “economic reforms.”

Some in the East claim they still remember what it means to lose freedom. But in the communist era, people looked outward for freedom, to the so-called West. Where can they look now?

Many in the East, and in developing countries also remember hunger and food shortages. As such, they can see more clearly than Americans what is happening there at this time. They are no longer seduced by the American Dream, of the stories of rags to riches and of capitalism being the cure for everything. They see Americans discovering an East European reality they never used to know.

As the poet Patrick Kavanagh once described it, “poverty has nothing to do with eating your fill today, it is anxiety about what is going to happen next week.” The old arguments about incentives may still convince Americans, but not those who dreamed of their own Utopia for seventy years, only to see it never existed when they were awake.

Capitalism and Globalization

Like former Soviet citizens, people are becoming aware that the freedom and security they have always taken for granted, because the system was supposed to guarantee it, is but fleeting. One just needs to wake up and look around, and ask, “Am I better off now than my parents’ generation was? What can I do should I lose my job or business? What contribution can I make in a world with a fragile supply chain?”

Many could argue that capitalism and globalization are models too flawed to survive, and are in their last days. This has been predicted many times before, often by socialists of some description, but the present situation has given new meaning to these claims – capitalism and globalization have not protected us, so it is not impossible that other systems could have done, and may in future.

Maybe we need to go back to a world of individual nations, where countries with an economy based on cooperation, rather than a common model, thrive. This would mean countries conducting one-on-one dealings, voiding such institutions as WTO, as they have left few able to participate meaningfully in developing a world that suits them, rather than joining the best options available.

For example, the Poles don’t need to be importing apples from Argentina, they have a surplus of them, and many of their own apples are left to rot on the tree. Polish farmers are not able to survive by growing apples retailing at .0.20 groszy/ per kilo, while American apples go for 1 dollar per kilo.

Countries must be able to at least feed and clothe their citizens and provide for their basic needs without having to depend on others. You can call this isolationism if you don’t like it, or self-sufficiency if you do. I prefer to call it both, as the semantic distinction does not matter. It is a matter of survival, and as the adage goes, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”

One crop spreads, and corporate agriculture, requiring large processing plants dependent on massive and concentrated labour forces, are proving failed models. They are too vulnerable to pandemics, sanctions, and labour disputes, especially when political winds are constantly shifting between states and countries.

Russian agriculture thrived under Western sanctions, giving its people more food independence and security. Farms and other suppliers flourish when consumers turn to home-grown products due to factors such as the spoiled relations over Ukraine. A country the size of Russia should never have become a net food importer.

The Suicide Economy of Corporate Globalization

American companies provide seeds to farmers across the globe. But if you want to use your own seeds from your own production to generate further production this is forbidden, and if you try anyway, you find many of those you were provided with are hybrids, and cannot be saved as they will not grow in the next generation.

Commercial seeds are now patented and must be bought by poor peasants every planting season.

What was once a free resource, available on-farm, has become a commodity that farmers are forced to buy every year, increasing both their poverty as well as their indebtedness. As debts increase and farmers cannot pay them, some turn to selling their kidneys, or even committing suicide.

And just because something is imported does not mean it is better. It can be better to pay a bit more for locally produced products. That is, if you can identify them.

In Poland, the whole concept of buying locally is misleading, as most food product companies which were once Polish are no longer owned by Poles. People think they are local companies because the original name has been maintained, but more often than not they are owned by foreign corporate bodies with foreign ownership.

Is it too radical to claim that every country should be food sufficient, at least for the essential products? Not only in terms of production but supply chains. Yet in many countries there is no local production, bar some tiny small producers, and these businesses are often closed down by others or have very limited markets. Even then they cannot compete on a level playing field, as they are disadvantaged cost and expense-wise, and also by regulations which favour the larger producer, or the most venal exploiter of letters of law.

Supermarkets can provide potatoes all year round by sourcing them from different parts of the world, from Morocco to Spain. It is shocking to find potatoes from France in the very north of Norway, or in Lapland. When this system works well, according to the principles of competitive advantage, everybody benefits from trade. But when it does not, we do not need to imagine the short and long term consequences, because our great grandparents lived through them, and hoped no one ever would again.

Farmers are mostly cheated out of receiving a real price for their goods, although a free market is supposed to ensure that they do. Everything is manipulated by the same people who preach “market forces,” and there are many horror stories of the human cost of such vertically integrated operations and business models.

Scaling Down Economies of Scale

Small countries should learn from the experience of others, especially in difficult times. The country of Georgia was once a food exporter, even for tobacco, but now imports both. And, with EU regulations and standards being introduced local products have a difficult time competing either at home or internationally, although this is supposed to be one of the benefits of reciprocal trade.

The only way to survive is to remain self-sustainable. Now there is a problem with imported frozen pork products, as frozen meat sales have drastically decreased in Georgia. Commercial outlets say that the closure of hotels, cafes, and restaurants has caused a drastic drop in sales, as they were the main segment of frozen meat consumers. Consequently, they cannot run a local supply chain, and the smaller amounts which are sold have to be imported.

It is good in some ways that the local currency, the GEL, has fallen against the EURO and USD, as this will make food imports more expensive. Locals are not able to easily afford imported products due to currency fluctuations and increased poverty. They will have to eat more local products, or grow their own—in their backyards and village plots.

But none of this is what we were all promised when we thought capitalism was the best alternative. People brought up under other systems turned against those because they didn’t work either, even when they were as intellectually convincing as Marxism.

Henry Kamens, columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/24/expectations-vs-reality-of-globalization-time-to-reflect-in-hard-times/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/23/situation-in-oceania-during-2020-global-crisis/ https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/23/situation-in-oceania-during-2020-global-crisis/#comments Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:59:20 +0000 https://journal-neo.org/?p=137922

Australia and Oceania, just as other regions of the planet, have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The first novel Coronavirus case was recorded in Australia (Melbourne) on January 25, 2020, and then the disease began to spread rapidly throughout the region. At the end of February, New Zealand reported its first infection. Numerous island nations of Oceania rushed to close their borders because healthcare systems in many of them are not well-developed, and infectious diseases can play havoc on isolated peoples’ immune systems, a fact that has been known for many centuries.

Restrictions on travel across and within their borders were imposed by Australia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, the Independent State of Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, the Federated States of Micronesia and also dependent territories of the United States, France and the UK in the region.

Perhaps owing to these measures, there have been no reported cases of COVID-19 on Australia’s Norfolk Island, Britain’s Pitcairn Islands, France’s Wallis and Futuna Islands, USA’s American Samoa, as well as Niue and the Cook Islands in free association with New Zealand and in its territory of Tokelau.

Still, by the end of April, cases had been recorded in independent island nations of Oceania, such as Vanuatu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, the Independent State of Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and the Federated States of Micronesia. SARS-CoV-2 also reached the shores of dependent territories, such as Chile’s Easter Island, France’s New Caledonia and French Polynesia, as well as United States’ Guam and Northern Mariana Islands and the US state of Hawaii. At the beginning of June 2020, there were also confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Republic of Fiji.

Fortunately, Oceania has reported comparatively few infections and most people who tested positive for the virus have since recovered. However, island nations of Oceania are in no hurry to lift numerous restrictions introduced in order to contain the pandemic.

By June 2020, New Zealand restarted key sectors of its economy but kept measures, such as social distancing, in place. The government also decided to extend restrictions on entry of foreign nationals into New Zealand until at least 2021. In other aforementioned countries and territories, similar measures remain in place.

All of this has had a serious impact on the economy of Oceania, especially on regions with well developed tourism industries that generate considerable earnings for them. Places affected include the US state of Hawaii, as well as France’s New Caledonia and French Polynesia. It is probably due to tourist inflows from all over the world that these regions reported some of the highest numbers of COVID-19 cases in Oceania. Hence, restrictions on entry of foreigners have had a substantial impact on their economies but have also proved to be very beneficial for keeping local populations safe.

Clearly, saving lives and protecting the health of individuals ought to be the key goal of any government. Hence, any measures taken to restrict travel are admittedly a reasonable step. Still, the negative economic impact has been substantial. For instance, world-famous resorts in Hawaii have sustained considerable losses. Travel to the state of Hawaii has not been banned completely, but due to reduction in flights and the suspension of cruise operations, the number of tourists arriving in the islands decreased by more than 50%. For instance, in March 2019, Hawaii’s tourism sector brought $1.5 billion in earnings, while in March 2020, the revenue amounted to only $720 million.

Still, dependent territories and states can expect to receive assistance from their mother countries – the United States, France, etc. Sovereign nations whose economies depend on tourist inflows are currently facing much more serious challenges than places like Hawaii. For example, earnings from the tourism sector account for approximately 40% of Fiji’s GDP. And the country has lost this revenue stream on account of the pandemic.

Still, the countries of Oceania introduced lockdowns and were prepared to keep the restrictions in place until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the beginning of April 2020, economic challenges faced by a number of island nations were further compounded by the havoc wreaked by powerful tropical cyclone Harold. Vanuatu, Tonga, Fiji and the Solomon Islands experienced hurricane-force winds, storms and floods. As a result, approximately 30 people died, thousands were forced to leave their homes, there were road closures and communication channels were severed. Overall, the estimated cost of the damage exceeded $123 million. In addition, in countries impacted by the cyclone, crops were damaged and water stores affected. This has put their food and water security at risk. Hence, the island nations needed to resort to foreign aid. Australia put together an entire financial aid package to assist the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. New Zealand helped Vanuatu with its rescue operations. In addition, the United States, the PRC, France and a number of other countries decided to provide support to the nations impacted by the tropical cyclone.

However, problems then arose, after all, allowing foreign rescue workers in and accepting external humanitarian aid meant violating restrictions put in place to protect locals from becoming infected with the novel Coronavirus. This made helping the affected countries that much harder. For instance, humanitarian aid packages arriving in Vanuatu had to be quarantined for a week before being sent to their intended destinations.

Fortunately, nowadays, money can be transferred by electronic means. Hence, financial aid can be received without breaching any lockdowns. The International Committee of the Red Cross gave Vanuatu approximately $53,000 in aid and Australia – $60,000. The United Nations and the World Bank decided to provide the country with more than $12 million in financial assistance. New Zealand sent over $1.5 million in aid to the Solomon Islands and promised Fiji $350,000.

At the end of May 2020, Australia’s government announced that it was planning to provide countries affected by tropical cyclone Harold and island nations experiencing economic downturns on account of the COVID-19 pandemic with a $100 million emergency financial relief package. Papua New Guinea is slated to receive $20.5 of it; Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands – $13 million each; Fiji, the Independent State of Samoa and Tonga – $10.5 per island nation; Kiribati and Nauru – $4.5 million each; Tuvalu – $3 million, and East Timor – $10 million. In addition, Australia will extend visas for any citizens of the aforementioned island nations working within its borders for a year.

Despite all the support provided to Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Tonga from all the corners of the globe, it will take these countries approximately a year to recover from the tropical cyclone. Fortunately, external donor nations and international organizations intend on continuing to assist the countries of Oceania.

It is well known that in the past decade, Oceania has been at the center of acute rivalry between Western countries (Australia, New Zealand and the United States) and China. And this time around, the financial aid provided by the PRC to island nations and dependent territories to assist them with problems they are facing as a result of the tropical cyclone and the COVID-19 pandemic turned out to be far lower than that given by Western nations. Hence, at the current stage of the competition, the West has emerged victorious.

We can only hope that the biggest challenges of year 2020, which has proved to be exceptionally eventful, are already behind Oceania.

Sofia Pale, PhD in History, Researcher at the Center for Southeast Asia, Australia and Oceania at the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

]]> https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/23/situation-in-oceania-during-2020-global-crisis/feed/ 0 https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/18/why-is-the-us-still-sanctioning-syria/ https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/18/why-is-the-us-still-sanctioning-syria/#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2020 17:19:38 +0000 https://journal-neo.org/?p=137768

Chinese media highlighted a recent plea by Beijing to the US to lift sanctions against Syria.

China’s CGTN in an article titled, “Chinese envoy asks US to lift unilateral sanctions on Syria,” would report:

A Chinese envoy on Tuesday asked the United States to immediately lift unilateral sanctions against Syria.

Years of economic blockade have caused tremendous hardships to the Syrian people, in particular women and children. The sufferings caused by the devaluation of the Syrian currency and soaring commodities prices, including food prices, fall heavily on civilians across the country, said Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations.

China’s attempts to aid Syria economically and challenge American sanctions aimed at Damascus follows Russia’s open opposition to the US-led proxy war against the Syrian government which included Moscow’s direct military involvement in the conflict and Russia’s leading role in liquidating US-armed militant groups across the country.
US sanctions against Syria have long since outlived the alleged motivation for America’s involvement in the conflict – claims of supporting the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people and opposing alleged human rights violations by the Syrian government.

It has been indisputably revealed that the US deliberately engineered the conflict – from organizing protests before 2011 to arming and deploying militants to the country to shift 2011 street protests into a destructive proxy war. It has also long been revealed that so-called “freedom fighters” were in fact extremists drawn from various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and its many franchises.

Since Syria’s security operations were in response to what is now revealed to have been US aggression-by-proxy and eventually direct US military aggression against the Syrian government – the sanctions themselves are revealed to be merely an economic component to US attempts to decimate the Syrian nation – not in any way aid or assist the Syrian people.

And of course US sanctions against Syria have complicated the lives of all Syrians – from the vast majority who remained in support of the Syrian government and lived in government-controlled areas of Syria throughout the conflict to even US-backed militants who eventually turn in their arms and surrender to government forces – they all collectively face economic hardship and a difficult road ahead in rebuilding their nation.

Thus the altruistic excuses the US used to first impose sanctions on Syria and its increasingly feeble excuses used to continue justifying them now are revealed as little more than propaganda and should be taken into consideration when questioning why the US has imposed sanctions on other nations.

The US engineered and executed what was a humanitarian catastrophe in Syria – one that it is still actively attempting to perpetuate for as long as possible and one now admittedly perpetuated to “make it a quagmire for the Russians.” Not only is Washington’s “humanitarian” justification for placing sanctions on Syria revealed as empty, but it is Washington itself who is guilty of trampling human rights in Syria.

China – and many others for that matter – have asked for these sanctions to be lifted. Washington – to no one’s surprise refuses – but the inability of so-called “international” institutions to hold Washington accountable or to alleviate Syria’s current crisis reveals that the “international order” these institutions serve is dysfunctional and that alternatives desperately need to be found.

China’s economic aid and efforts to reconstruct Syria will eventually be realized – it is only a matter of time and how China will get around US sanctions.

This will be done either by directly opposing them or creating global systems that are entirely independent of and insulated from American interference. Either way – if Washington insists on maintaining its current policies – a global system independent of and insulated from America is one in which America finds itself cutoff and withering – a prospect that benefits neither the American people nor even America’s ruling special interests.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Given the way the US-European alliance is falling apart rapidly, there is little to no denying that some tectonic changes of global level are likely to take place, paving the way for a kind of multipolar world order to emerge where the US ability to influence the world will decrease massively. A decreasing US influence on Europe and an equally increasing European assertiveness vis-à-vis the US unilateralism shows that Europe would not simply become a junior partner of a new super power i.e., China. Europe, as it seems, will become one major ‘polar’ in the new multipolar world. Accordingly, Europe is most likely to use China as a means to diversify its reliance on the US and use it as a leverage. China, on the contrary, is setting itself up already to fill the void US policies are creating and redefining its relationship with Europe. This, however, is unlikely to be a smooth process. Europe, as an emerging polar itself, would surely want to write terms of this new relationship in a way that allows it considerable leverage vis-à-vis the new global power in the post COVID-19 international system.

The recently held 10th annual Strategic Dialogue between China and the EU symbolises the broader contours of ‘big power diplomacy’ looking to redefine the world political, economic and financial system in the post COVID-19 world. This dialogue has also set the stage for EU-China summit to be held at a later date. The importance of these events can be gauged from the fact that these will take place on the ruins of the recently cancelled G7 summit due to the prevailing disagreements between the US and its allies—Europe and Canada.

With both the US and Europe devasted by the impact of COVID-19 and with China having already recovered a lot, the latter becomes a natural option for Europe to look towards to fill the deep economic wounds and help pave the long road to recovery. In the absence of US, Chinese investments in Europe might thus become the key element of Europe’s post COVID-19 life.

Europe is aware of this necessity and that is why its top diplomats can be seen increasingly emphasising the need to redefine their erstwhile uneasy relations with China. For them, China is ‘not a military threat’ for Europe. Josep Borrel, who was part of the China-EU strategic dialogue event, said that China is not a ‘threat’ to world peace. “They committed once again that they want to be present in the world and to play a global role but they don’t have military ambitions and they don’t want to use the force to participate in military conflicts,” he added.

This line of thinking is markedly different from the US national security strategy that defines China as a ‘revisionist power’ bent upon bringing ‘disorder’ to the US dominated world. Josep’s views put him at odds not just with the US but Japan and India and a hots of other countries in Asia as well, which are increasingly worried about China’s increasing military strength in the Himalayas and South China Sea.

For Europe, however, it was China that came to Italy’s aid when the latter was being devasted by the pandemic. The US, otherwise an ally, did not only not come to Europe’s aid, but chose to erect its own walls to, unsuccessfully though, insulate itself.

Unlike the US, Chinese leadership has been busy keeping itself deeply engaged with Europe. China’s Xi has already telephoned German chancellor four times in this year alone. As far as France is concerned, Xi and Macron have already spoken five times since the beginning of this year, indicating the extent and the depth to which China is cultivating its relations with Europe. The impact this ‘extent and depth’ is leaving is evident from Borrell’s remarks, whereby “China is without doubt one of the key global players. This is a fact, and China will increase its global role. We have to engage with China to achieve our global objectives, based on our interests and values.”

Moving increasingly towards an accommodationist mindset, the EU leaders are looking to downplay the significance of what some US leaders have called an ‘authoritarian’ Chinese political system. For Borrel, “It is clear that we do not have the same political system. It is clear that China defends its political system as we do with ours. It is clear that China has a global ambition. But, at the same time, I do not think that China is playing a role that can threaten world peace.”

At the same time, EU, being an emerging global player no longer subservient to the US, would aim for a relationship with China where it has a level playing field. It would be too early to say that China and EU have already found a magic formula to accommodate each other. While it is a fact that both EU and China have come closer in the wake of an aggressive US approach to both of them, a single ‘US factor’ is unlikely to integrate both entities in a long-term strategic partnership.

While certainly, EU-China relations are no longer ‘confrontational’ and are increasingly being grounded in realism, irritants—particularly those in the form of US resistance to Chinese influence in Europe—will continue to appear as in the case of Huawei and 5G technology. Europe, including Britain, has thus far successfully resisted US attempts at derailing Chinese projects, implying thereby that Europe will deal with China in its own way, following its own approach. What this approach looks like is already becoming sufficiently clear.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In recent days, the situation in the Mediterranean region’s eastern section has grown ever more tense. The discovery here of huge natural gas reserves has exacerbated not only simmering regional conflicts, but also the emergence of new ones, which could possibly entangle a number of NATO countries. Regional states such as Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt – even global oil and gas giants – have become embroiled in the struggle over the reserves. No one can dismiss concerns that the result of such confrontation could alter the balance of the global energy market and lead to a realignment of regional alliances.

The Tamar field, Israel’s first huge gas deposit in this region, with reserves of approximately 200 billion cubic meters (cbm), began operations in 2001. Then followed other, much larger reserves, the most significant of which proved to be Israel’s Leviathan field with gas reserves of up to 650 billion cbm, and Egypt’s Zohr field, with 850 billion cbm. In 2011, the Aphrodite field was located, the first, huge gas field on Cyprus’ continental shelf, with reserves estimated at 200 billion cbm. The Aphrodite field became one of many reserves of the Levantine Basin, a promising region for gas extraction, located near the vast European gas market

Syria also plans to begin extraction of gas on its continental shelf. Lebanon too joined the oil and gas race.

Despite countermeasures by Turkish authorities, the Italian oil and gas company, Eni, announced that it would continue drilling in the region near the island of Cyprus. The European Union and US were drawn into the ensuing scandal due to territorial claims by Turkey. The European Commission demanded that Ankara avoid making threats toward EU members. Through active participation, recently, in exploring and profiting from Cyprus’ gas wealth by involving American companies ExxonMobil and Noble Energy, the United States emphasized the need to respect the rights of Cyprus to extract useful natural resources. As a result, since March of 2018, two Exxon vessels started offshore works near Cyprus, along with the US Navy’s 6th Fleet, which includes the USS Iwo Jima’s amphibious assault group.

The December 2019 ratification by Turkey’s parliament of the so-called Memorandum of Understanding with Tripoli, regarding demarcation of maritime zones in the Mediterranean Sea, provoked yet another international scandal. If arrangements between Ankara and Tripoli are put into effect, accomplishing parts of oil and gas projects in the eastern Mediterranean will become problematic, since part of Greece’s exclusive economic zone will be pulled away to Turkey: the agreement directly affects the interests not only of Cyprus, Greece, and other countries of the eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan), but also of France and Italy. This circumstance prompted Macron’s government in February to dispatch to the eastern Mediterranean war frigates together with France’s carrier-based naval attack force, headed by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, with the clear intent by Paris to limit Turkey’s activities in the eastern Mediterranean.

As The Guardian notes, under the geopolitical doctrine “Blue Homeland,” Turkey is striving to strengthen its positions in the Mediterranean region, which includes intervening in regional conflicts. Ankara even went so far as to risk direct involvement in the war in Libya and, as recent events have demonstrated, this “reckless venture” is making itself worthwhile

At the same time, besides the gas and oil deposits themselves, another key part of the eastern Mediterranean conflict is the 2200 kilometer, $7 billion underwater gas pipeline project “EastMed”, which Israel, Greece, and Cyprus agreed to build to transport Israeli gas to Europe. The EastMed pipeline will gain access to Italy along the coastlines of Cyprus and Crete, and also through the exclusive economic zones of Egypt and Libya, bypassing Turkey. Of course, that variant does not sit well with Ankara and, as a result, President Ergodan has been blackmailing Athens: either Greece, Cyprus, and Israel include a section of the pipeline to pass through Turkish waters, or else Turkey will begin explorations in the waters of Greece and Cyprus. Concurrently, Ankara is betting that Brussels will be unable to respond harshly and effectively to Turkey’s provocations. The leaders of Israel, Greece, and Cyprus will discuss the above-mentioned aggressive behavior of Turkey, and formulate solutions, at a separate meeting in June, in Israel, for talks on the EastMed pipeline’s construction.

And for now, relations between Ankara and Athens continue to escalate for the worse. Furthermore, they’re worsening to such a degree that Greece’s Minister of Defense, Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos, stated in a recent TV interview that Greece is prepared for anything, including a military conflict with the Turks, if they continue their provocations. In addition, Greece’s Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, sent a letterto the European Union, which described the approaching crisis in relations between Turkey and Europe. With regard to the European Union, it may take Greece’s side, which will lead to an escalation of the conflict between the parties.

Additionally, Cairo views as a threat to its national security Ankara’s ever larger intervention in Libya’s internal affairs, and Turkey’s increasing military assistance to the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya. A few days ago, the chairman of Egypt’s parliament, Ali Abdel Aal, declared that Turkey was a direct threat to Arab national security. The severity of tension between Egypt and Turkey increased significantly after the overthrow of Egypt’s president Mohammed Morsi, who was supported by the extremist organization “Muslim Brotherhood” (banned in Russia – ed.), in collaboration with Ankara. In light of these circumstances, Cairo has been following with special attention Ankara’s latest activities in transforming the country’s naval forces, in particular, completing construction of a new Turkish, light aircraft carrier, the TCG Anadolu, which will allow Turkey’s armed forces to conduct cross-border military operations, including into neighboring Libya. Observers in Cairo recognize that the aircraft carrier TCG Anadolu will enhance significantly the clout of Turkey’s naval forces, which already contain the MILGELM frigates of domestic production, Type 214 air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarines, and a new class of submarines, MILDEN. Production is planned for a second assault ship, the TCG Trakya.

Cairo, therefore, is preparing for a possible armed clash in the region, and for its part, is also taking active steps to modernize its national armed forces, which number 448 thousand personnel, 8 submarines, 2 Mistral-class helicopter carriers, 7 frigates, 7 corvettes, and also 45 missile and torpedo cutters. Given its numbers, equipment, and combat experience, Egypt’s armed forces today constitute one of the strongest armies in the Middle East.

In the plan to modernize its army, Cairo places particular emphasis on developing military partnerships, not only with the US, Germany, and France, but also with Italy, with whom it signed an agreement to deliver to Egypt a huge shipment of the latest weaponry, including aircraft and military vessels. In particular, Egypt should receive from Italy in the nearest future 6 Bergamini-class frigates, 4 of which will be built specially for Egypt, and 2 that will be transferred from Italy’s fleet. In addition to military vessels, Italy is prepared to deliver 24 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes, as many Airmake M-346 training aircraft, and 20 missile launchers. Additionally, at the Ras El Tin naval base in Alexandria, Egypt launched the ENS Luxor (986), its third Gowind 2500 class corvette that it built domestically in conjunction with France’s Naval Group.

Everything mentioned above attests vividly to the rather volatile situation that is unfolding in the eastern Mediterranean, whose only acceptable instrument for resolution can be the process of negotiations.

Valery Kulikov, political analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

On May 8, US leader Donald Trump announced that the US economy was “transitioning to greatness”. According to the President, the Unites States is at the start of this process.

His statement about “transitioning to greatness” must have been referring to a recent study, conducted by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies’ Program for Inequality (IPS), which found that US billionaires (whose ranks include Donald Trump himself and many members of USA’s current political elites) considerably increased their power and wealth during the Coronavirus pandemic. From March 18 to May 19, “the total net worth of the 600-plus US billionaires jumped by $434 billion”. Moreover, “in March there were 614 billionaires on the Forbes list, and 630” in May.

In the meantime, the suffering felt by the American populace is far from diminishing. At the time the study showing just how well the US VIPs were doing was released, CNN published a list of companies in the USA that had recently reported they were “under extreme stress as a result of the Coronavirus shutdowns”. According to the CNN article, these businesses were “undergoing massive layoffs, posting record losses, and in some cases, filing for bankruptcy”.

In an interview on CBS on May 10, Kevin Hassett, a Senior Economic Advisor in the Trump administration, said that the unemployment rate could surpass 20% by the following month. According to ABC News, as of May 14, more than 1 in 5 workers (or over 36 million Americans) filed for unemployment in the past two months. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (or ADP), a US provider of human resources management software and services, reported that “private-sector employment decreased by 20,236,000 from March to April”. On May 7, BBC News published an article stating that “the total number of jobless claims” in the United States since mid-March had reached 33.3 million.

The lack of employment opportunities has had a very negative impact on finances of millions of average American families. Many of the households may never get back on their feet. The worst part is that the economy could take 2 to 4 years to fully recover. And the unemployment rate could still remain high while the nation rebuilds its economy. The economic downturn stemming from the Coronavirus pandemic has already started causing significant changes in lives of tens of millions of US residents, who were not prepared for the economic Armageddon before the COVID-19 outbreak.

According to a press release from the US Federal Reserve, “total industrial production fell 11.2 percent in April for its largest monthly drop in the 101-year history of the index” (i.e. even in comparison to the economic collapse of 1929 and 2008). The indexes for mining, utilities, construction, materials, final products, business equipment, etc. all declined. Based on its survey of 64 economists, The Wall Street Journal reported that USA’s GDP (gross domestic product) would “contract at an annual rate of 32% in the second quarter” of this year.

Still, somehow market and US treasury indexes have been rallying since March.

On May 15, the US Department of the Treasury released Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for March 2020. It showed that total foreign ownership of Treasuries dropped by $256.6 billion to $6.81 trillion.

During the so-called period of “transitioning to greatness”, Governor of Nevada Steve Sisolak declared a state of fiscal emergency on May 12. Nevada, however, was not “alone in its struggles”. Government officials from the Western States Pact (comprising Nevada, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington) “sent a letter to Congressional leadership requesting $1 trillion in relief for the COVID-19 pandemic”. But in fact, as recently as the end of March, the US Senate approved the $2 trillion economic stabilization package. And on April 24, US President Donald Trump signed a nearly $500 billion Coronavirus relief bill into law.

According to an article published in Forbes magazine on April 21, “the Coronavirus pandemic and subsequent lockdowns to contain it” prompted “the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve to pump more than $6 trillion” (an unprecedented amount) into the economy. The printing of money has seemingly become the basis of USA’s post-industrial economy.

But are the current US political elites really pumping funds into the economy? In reality, have the rich and the powerful, in fact, become, under various pretexts, the recipients of a substantial portion of these funds, as the study on the growing wealth of US billionaires by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies has shown? And are theories, previously proposed by several commentators, perhaps turning into reality nowadays? Could the elites, as suggested by these observers, have been behind the pandemic and the deep crisis aimed at reallocating not only USA’s but the world’s riches?

In this context, an article from the Editorial Board, published by The New York Times, is particularly noteworthy. The editorial is bitterly honest and talks about “the erosion of the American dream”, the strain on the US system of democracy “as those with wealth increasingly shape the course of policymaking”, and the dire need to reinforce “the nation’s tattered social safety net”. According to the authors, “over the past half century, the fabric of American democracy has been stretched thin. The nation has countenanced debilitating decay in its public institutions and a concentration of economic power not seen since the 1920s. While many Americans live without financial security or opportunity, a relative handful of families holds much of the nation’s wealth. Over the past decade, the wealth of the top 1 percent of households has surpassed the combined wealth of the bottom 80 percent.” The article states that “hundreds of thousands of Americans do not have homes”, and “lacking private places, they must sleep in public spaces. Las Vegas painted rectangles on an asphalt parking lot to remind homeless residents to sleep six feet apart — an act that might as well have been a grim piece of performance art titled ‘The Least We Can Do’.”

Nowadays, according to the editors, the United States “is a nation in which enduring racial inequalities, in wealth and in health, are reflected in the pandemic’s death toll”. In Michigan, for instance, where the Coronavirus struck early and hard, although African Americans account for only 14% of the total population in the state, 40% of deaths attributed to the Coronavirus were among this ethnic group.

There had been social issues in the United States long before the Coronavirus reached its shores. There is a huge divide between wealthy Americans, who are able to benefit from all the riches the wealthiest country on Earth has to offer, and the growing part of the population, whose life lacks stability and prospects.

Even some Americans have already stopped using the concept of the “American dream” and “US democracy” as role models for others to follow. Hence, in the current climate, it is doubly surprising that Puerto Rico or the Free Associated State of Puerto Rico (governed by US Congress) is still planning on having a referendum in November to decide whether it should be admitted to the US as the 51st state, thus potentially joining the ranks of “disenchanted Americans”.

Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The Kingdom of Thailand plays a central role in the Southeast Asian ASEAN economic bloc. It has a population of nearly 70 million, the second largest economy in the region and hosts a key leg of China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative including high speed rail that will connect China (via Laos) to Malaysia and beyond.

Thus, regional recovery in the wake of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends on central nations like Thailand’s quick and orderly recovery.

COVID-19’s Impact

For Thailand, the impact of COVID-19 has been mostly socioeconomic. The disease itself had a minimum health impact with health services easily accommodating the approximately 3,000 cases with less than 60 resulting in deaths. The deaths themselves were linked to serious pre-existing chronic illnesses and advanced age.

Regardless, the government took quick action, instating curfews, lockdowns and restricting both internal travel and international arrivals. Coupled with measures taken by China to restrict departures of tour groups, Thailand’s tourist industry took a particularly hard hit considering arrivals from China make up the vast majority of Thailand’s tourism business.

Thai businesses big and small also depend heavily on Chinese manufacturing for both components and for retailing. The temporary closure of Chinese factories created the first of two major setbacks for Thai businesses hitting supply, while lockdowns and curfews hit demand.

However, Thailand possesses a massive “informal economy” with myriad small independent businesses which have proven over the years to be exceptionally agile even in times of crisis. The use of modern telecommunication and IT technology (particularly online shopping and delivery apps) together with delivery services allowed to continue operating by the government during lockdown, many food, beverage and retail businesses continued operating, allowing many Thais to continue making a living despite restrictions.

Recovery

The Thai government is investing heavily in breathing life back into the Thai economy, having already provided several programmes to aid those temporarily unemployed during the lockdown now being lifted incrementally across the country.

This includes a stimulus package aimed at helping businesses recover from the extended period of shuttered or partially shuttered business. State enterprises are also being restructured to prevent massive disruptions and losses in the event something like COVID-19 occurs again.

Because Thailand has strong economic fundamentals including a strong agricultural and manufacturing base as well as strong trade ties within both Southeast Asia and wider Asia including China who is itself on its way to recovery, Thailand will likely succeed in restoring economic stability and the return to normality in short order.

Thailand is also looking into ways of heading off similar disruptions in the future by looking for ways to bolster domestic economic activity in the event that foreign trade and tourism is ever cut off again.

Complications

While the majority of Thailand is eager to get back to business there is a small but loud minority eager to seize upon the crisis to compound Thailand’s situation. This includes the US-backed political opposition led by the now defunct “Future Forward Party” (FFP) disbanded for blatant election law violations.

Despite being cast out of politics, FFP’s leader, nepotist billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit continues to fund and organise disruptive street activities mirroring efforts in nearby Hong Kong to complicate and corrode stability in China. He does so with extensive support from the US and European media as well as US-European funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations.

“Student” protesters have vowed to resume street protests despite the party they support having already run in and lost elections in 2019, with FFP coming in distant 3rd with some 2 million fewer votes than the currently ruling Palang Pracharath Party.

But just as is done elsewhere by the US, struggling opposition groups with minimal prospects of ever coming to power on their own are searched out and built up either to seize power and serve as a client regime or to create enough instability to exact concessions from a nation’s ruling government.

In Thailand’s case the US seeks to place a divide between it and China, complicating China’s OBOR ambitions and removing from China’s foreign trade ties a large and constructive economic partner. Thailand’s recent military acquisitions have also been largely from China which has been followed by growing Thai-Chinese military cooperation, replacing Thai-US cooperation that had been cultivated by Washington since the Vietnam War.

For all of these reasons and more, the US and the opposition it funds and backs in Thailand are bent on complicating Thailand’s return to normal in the wake of COVID-19 to in turn complicate China’s recovery and in a much longer-term effort, complicate China’s rise as a global power.

While Thailand and other nations around the globe work both on their own and in cooperation with each other to return stability and prosperity to their respective societies, the United States and its partners are determined to draw out the damage as long as possible and in the hopes of leveraging it to their advantage.

This more than anything else helps reveal what is behind supposed “pro-democracy” protests who seem to have endless resources and time even as the rest of society struggles to return to work and make a living.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

For those wondering what will come after the COVID-19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.

On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.

The Great Reset

On June 3 WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.

Interesting is that WEF spokespeople frame the “reset” of the world economy in the context of the coronavirus and the ensuing collapse of the world industrial economy. The WEF website states, “There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” So the Great Reset of the global economy flows from covid19 and the “opportunity” it presents.

In announcing the 2021 theme, WEF founder Schwab then said, cleverly shifting the agenda: “We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind.” The implication is that climate change is the underlying reason for the coronavirus pandemic catastrophe.

To underscore their green “sustainable” agenda, WEF then has an appearance by the would-be King of England, Prince Charles. Referring to the global covid19 catastrophe, the Prince of Wales says, “If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.” On board with Schwab and the Prince is the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He states, “We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.” Note his talk of “sustainable economies and societies”—more on that later. The new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also endorsed The Great Reset. Other WEF resetters included Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.

Make no mistake, the Great Reset is no spur-of-the moment idea of Schwab and friends. The WEF website states, “COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.” The WEF sponsors have big plans:”…the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” This is big stuff.

Radical changes

Schwab reveals more of the coming agenda: “…one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.” These are supposed to be silver linings?

He suggests that those radical changes be extended: “The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination… and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy…” It would include “changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.”

The second component of the Great Reset agenda would ensure that, “investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.” Here the WEF head states that the recent huge economic stimulus budgets from the EU, USA, China and elsewhere be used to create a new economy, “more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building ‘green’ urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”

Finally the third leg of this Great Reset will be implementing one of Schwab’s pet projects, the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.” The Fourth Industrial Revolution includes gene-editing biotech, 5G telecommunications, Artificial Intelligence and the like.

UN Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset

If we compare the details of the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 with the WEF Great Reset we find both dovetail very neatly. The theme of Agenda2030 is a “sustainable world” which is defined as one with income equality, gender equality, vaccines for all under the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) which was launched in 2017 by the WEF along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2015 the UN issued a document, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The Obama Administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification knowing it would fail. Yet it is being advanced globally. It includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, extending an earlier Agenda21. The 17 include “to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions… to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change…“ It calls for sustainable economic growth, sustainable agriculture (GMO), sustainable and modern energy (wind, solar), sustainable cities, sustainable industrialization… The word sustainable is the key word. If we dig deeper it is clear it is code-word for a reorganization of world wealth via means such as punitive carbon taxes that will dramatically reduce air and vehicle travel. The less-developed world will not rise to the developed, rather the other way, the advanced civilizations must go down in their living standards to become “sustainable.”

Maurice Strong

To understand the double-speak use of sustainable, we need to go back to Maurice Strong, a billionaire Canadian oilman and close friend of David Rockefeller, the man who played a central role back in the 1970s for the idea that man-made CO2 emissions were making the world unsustainable. Strong created the UN Environment Program, and in 1988, the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) to exclusively study manmade CO2.

In 1992 Strong stated, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” At the Rio Earth Summit Strong that same year he added, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

The decision to demonize CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, human and plant, is not random. As Prof. Richard Lindzen an MIT atmospheric physicist puts it, “CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

Lest we forget, the curiously well-timed New York pandemic exercise, Event 201 on October 18, 2019 was co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. It was based on the idea that, ”it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.” The Event201 Scenario posited, “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”

The declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030 “sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of the covid19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far more sinister world after the covid19 pandemic fades.

As expected, the Indian government announced what will be the fifth phase of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on the last day of the phase four (18 – 31 May), which is going to last until the end of June. No matter how much people are yearning for India to be unlocked completely, with all restrictions put in place to curb the spread of the coronavirus lifted, the latest statistics suggest that this would be a very unwise move.

The curve plotting the daily rate of infection with the number of new confirmed cases slowed for a few days in mid-May (at approximately 3500 new cases) but jumped up again, with almost 8400 new cases recorded on May 31.  This means that all of the measures to unlock the country and revive its economy will not only be implemented before India has managed to flatten the famous curve, the number of new confirmed cases will in fact even be accelerating.

However, one of India’s most effective weapons to combat the spread of the epidemic was its complete shutdown of public transport, but it is now being reopened. Transport links will now gradually begin operating again, both within states and between them, reconnecting the entire country. Suspending public transport for any longer could bode a systemic disaster in the country.

India is clearly tired of living in fear of SARS-CoV-2. This is evident in a series of tweets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the first anniversary of his party’s victory in the general elections, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured a second term, who have now been in power since 2014. The Indian leader reaffirmed the need to build a “New India” in these tweets, which he emphasized again on May 12 when the guidelines for Lockdown 4.0 were announced. In a tweet on May 30, he shared his vision to boost “four key sectors” in the country, placing them in the following order: agriculture, defense, health and education.

However, India is facing a new threat, swarms of locusts, which is by no means a less serious plague than SARS-CoV-2 that could make it difficult to implement any of these plans, even in the short term. Note that the word “locust” tends to have negative associations with biblical wrath. These associations are particularly conjured up when combined with the other plagues that humanity has been stricken by.

The locusts which thrive after periods of heavy rainfall are believed to have come from the Arabian Peninsula, which received a prolonged bout of exceptionally wet weather including several rare cyclones last spring, allowing them to breed rapidly. So far, they are mainly migrating along the Arabian Peninsula and to the south of it. Reports have highlighted how the locusts have wreaked havoc swarming through parts of East Africa, arriving in Kenya.

The swarm clouds of insects crossed the Arabian sea, spreading east to Asia, and have already caused untold damage to agricultural fields in Pakistan. To the north, the locusts have appeared in the southern provinces of Iran.

As for India, sightings in the northern states on the border with Pakistan were reported back in April, but they did not seem to see much cause for concern. However, by the end of May it was already being described as the “the worst attack in 26 years”, with locusts ravaging India’s crops. Swarms have even been seen in the Mumbai area. And this is far from India’s northern borderlands. Mumbai-based airlines were even warned against resuming flights through locust swarms by the Director General of Civil Aviation.

The situation in the eastern Indian interior is also far from quiet. The greatest concern is still due to another painful blister which is swelling up on the border with China. Let’s not forget that there were a couple of misunderstandings between Indian and Chinese border patrols in two parts of India’s mountainous border region at the beginning of May this year, which also led to a certain amount of additional troops being detached to both sides of the border for support.

What is alarming is that one of these sites is near the Doklam Plateau, where the two Asian giants were on the verge of a direct military confrontation two and a half years ago in a standoff which lasted for almost three months. That previous standoff immediately began resurfacing in comments about the current misunderstandings.

The border standoff was a wake-up call for the leaders of both countries to look for ways to ease tensions and move their bilateral relations in a positive direction. In this context, the informal meeting of leaders Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi in the now infamous city of Wuhan, held six months after the Doklam Plateau standoff, was a milestone.

A second and also informal meeting held between XI Jinping and Narendra Modi in October last year in the Indian resort city of Mamallapuram seemed to offer more hope that the two countries were on course to continue the progress made in Wuhan.

However, the problems in their bilateral relations have not gone away. There are both visible problems and (far more importantly) those that are hidden beneath the surface. The direct reason given for the most recent flare-up in tensions along the Sino-Indian border is only a superficial one, due to the nature of the border itself, which still has no legal or official status. The sum of territorial and border disputes between the two countries amounts to an estimated 120,000 square kilometers.

While the situation may have apparently been quickly and safely resolved at one of these sites of misunderstanding, also in the Himalayan region of the Doklam Plateau, tensions remain at the second site on the Ladakh Plateau, despite the reassurances from both sides. This was made clear when new military units were transferred to the area where conflict could potentially break out (located at an altitude of about 4.5 km).

On May 25, an Indian military source spoke about the threat of the situation escalating into a conflict on a similar scale to that seen on the Doklam Plateau. On the next day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a meeting with National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, Chief of Defense Staff General Bipin Rawat and the three service chiefs.

On the same day, the Chinese Embassy in India issued a press release refuting the “irresponsible speculation” of “some Indian media outlets” about the “voluntary” repatriation operation that it had begun a week earlier to return Chinese citizens who are willing to travel home but are stuck in India due to the country’s nationwide coronavirus lockdown.

US President Donald Trump tweeted an offer to mediate in what he calls their “raging border dispute” on May 27, which goes to show just how serious the situation is. Two comments need to be made on this.

First of all, it would be extremely surprising to hear something like this coming from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is probably one of the most prominent hawks in American politics. It is Mike Pompeo who has recently adopted a fiercely anti-Chinese stance. According to some reports, Pompeo also disagrees with the US President’s policy to reduce America’s military presence abroad, and he was particularly opposed to the recent the US-Taliban deal.

Secondly, the American President’s offer was not only politely refused by Beijing, which was fairly predictable, whose spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang said that “the two sides have the ability to communicate and solve relevant issues through the established border-related mechanisms and diplomatic channels,” but the offer was also rather significantly turned down by Delhi. Although India maintains quite a firm pro-American stance in its foreign policy, this response has clearly shown that the country is following its own independent course on the world stage, perhaps more confidently than ever before.

What can be gleaned from the latest reports is that talks are currently underway between India and China “at diplomatic and military levels” to resolve the tense Ladakh border standoff. However, these negotiations are tough if the remarks made by Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh are anything to go by.

Finally, the situation in India should be viewed within the wider context, as it is by no means the only country facing seriously testing times. On the contrary, to paraphrase a line spoken by Marcellus in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “something is rotten in the entire global kingdom.”

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on issues in the Asia-Pacific Region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.