Thursday, March 14, 2013

BRICS; A Rising Coalition against Western Hegemony

BRICS; A Rising Coalition against Western Hegemony
During the Cold War era following the Allied powers victory in WWII, the Atlantic nations (& Japan, reluctantly after industrialisation,when French president Gen de Gaulle had to receive the Japanese PM at Palace du Elysee, Paris, he complained that he had to meet with a transistor salesman) were collectively known as the first world (like Brahmins and high castes in India) in international pecking order. Non-communist world was described as the 2nd world if not evil empire i.e. OBCs .India and other poor nations in Asia and rest of the world was condemned as the third world aka underdeveloped nations i.e. like Dalits in India.
Now the situations has been changing fast , rather very fast , especially during the last 15 years with the coming end of the US century and fast decline of its hegemony . The new appointments of secretary of state and defence secretary by re-elected president Obama, to wind down US's destructive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not out of love for the people of these two terribly damaged states and its people but is a result of historic military over reach and its consequences as happened to the British and other European empires, Ottomans, the Arabs, the Roman/Byzantine and Persian empires. USSR collapsed as apart from other causes it could not match USA in military expenditure like previous empires in the past .Say, the collapse of the Roman/Byzantine and Persian empires following centuries of warfare , leading to the rise of the Bedouins from the sands of Arabia as a new world power .Like USSR, now it is the turn of the US Empire to decline.
USA, a paper tiger
Barring Germany and perhaps France (now the stupid chase for imperial glory in Mali), the Atlantic nations are bankrupt. USA has become a paper tiger .It is economic viability rests on the paper (US securities with declining values, held by China, GCC petro-states, Japan etc by virtue of US$ being still a reserve currency) In 1960s at the height of US Chinese tensions, Beijing used to describe USA a paper tiger .Now it is coming true .Yes, tiger even a paper tiger will take some time to bend, fold and collapse.
I had circulated earlier a piece
Brics Bank; First Nail in US Dollar Coffin!
Below is another piece by Amb Bhadrakumar on the Brics summit at Durban, South Africa.
Finally at the end is a piece from Russian TV on how China is taking the lead in strengthening the new coalition of non-Atlantic nations; Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Watch this space for more good news.
K. Gajendra Singh 13 March 2013.Mayur Vihar, Delhi
Happy landing for BRICS at Durban
March 12, 2013 M K Bhadrakumar
The BRICS' splashy 'arrival' in the African continent is bound to arouse disquiet in the western capitals.
South Africa is taking very seriously its onerous responsibility to host the BRICS summit meeting in Durban on March 26-27. The invitation extended to the African Union [AU] and African economies to the BRICS summit sets a new chapter in the grouping's 5-year long chronicle.
The decision to spread wings is a trendsetter, no doubt. Why it didn't occur to India to invite SAARC to last year's summit in New Delhi, I do not know, but it would have been good to do that.
South Africa's invitation to Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi to attend the Durban summit is even more important. The big question is whether Egypt would have a permanent berth in the BRICS tent. But then, how long can Egypt are kept out if Morsi makes a pitch for it? Egypt is a pivotal state.
Undeterred by the fact that it takes many summers to put together a BRICS development bank, South Africa remains optimistic that the Durban summit will take a firm decision. It has begun pitching for basing the proposed bank in South Africa. Conceivably, China would favour the idea, as a Xinhua report might suggest.
How many of the BRICS member countries have thought of establishing an exclusive BRICS 'think tank'? Well, again, South Africa has. The South African government has entrusted the Human Sciences Research Council with the task of functioning as 'incubator' for a South Africa BRICS think tank.
Perhaps, the most fascinating idea that the South African hosts have come up with is the holding of a 'defence seminar' on the sidelines of the Durban summit. South African defence delegations have visited Brazil and Russia in the run-up to the Durban summit. One may visit New Delhi too shortly, according to indications.
Of course, South Africa's defence cooperation with Brazil and Russia has gained appreciable ground. South Africa can expect full-throttle support from Moscow for revving up the BRICS process.
 An expert study released in Moscow over the weekend has made some far reaching recommendations such as setting up a permanent BRICS secretariat, offer to host the BRICS development bank, creations of a $240 billion 'anti-crisis fund', strengthening of joint work in the security area and so on. The report was commissioned by the Russian government with a view to counter the tendencies in the West to view the BRICS as a 'rival'.
Africa is becoming a playground of big power rivalries. The BRICS' splashy 'arrival' in the African continent is bound to arouse disquiet in the western capitals. In South Africa it there is a strong lobby that seeks to debunk the BRICS process.
The fact that China is looming large as an economic presence in Africa and is offering an alternative partnership of development to the regional states upsets the West, which has been dominating the continent as its exclusive preserve for sourcing raw materials and as market for exports. The visits to various African countries by China's new leader and incoming president Xi Jinping in his first official tour abroad will surely raise hackles in the West, especially in the United States.
All in all, therefore, South Africa will run into air pockets in the coming period, but for the present the weather looks fine and the BRICS jet is coasting happily toward the Durban summit for a good landing. 

"China is focused on building industries, increasing development and improving administrative and well as physical infrastructure . The propagation of force, which one would historically associate with a colonizer, is entirely absent from China's approach".

New Chinese President Xi aims to paint Africa red

Nile Bowie is a political analyst and photographer currently residing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Published time: March 12, 2013 10:51
China's Communist Party Chief Xi Jinping (Reuters/Jason Lee)
China's Communist Party Chief Xi Jinping (Reuters/Jason Lee)
The fact that China's incoming president, Xi Jinping, is set to visit Africa on his first foreign trip is a strong indication of where Sino-African relations are headed. But as Beijing focuses on building African industry, Washington has other plans.
At a recently held meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing, China's leaders unveiled a dramatic long-term plan to integrate some 400 million countryside dwellers into urban environments, by concentrating growth-promoting development in small- and medium-sized cities. In stark contrast to the neglected emphasis on infrastructure development in the United States and Europe, China spends around $500 billion annually on infrastructural projects, with $6.4 trillion set aside for its 10-year mass urbanization scheme, making it the largest rural-to-urban migration project in human history.
China's leaders have mega-development in focus, and realizing such epic undertakings not only requires the utilization of time-efficient high-volume production methods, but also resources – lots and lots of resources. It should come as no surprise that incoming Chinese president Xi Jinping's first trip as head of state will take him to Africa, to deepen the mutually beneficial trade and energy relationships maintained throughout the continent that have long irked policy makers in Washington.
The new guy in charge – who some analysts have suggested could be a populist reformer that empathizes with the poor – will visit several African nations with whom China has expressed a desire to expand ties with, the most prominent being South Africa. Since establishing relations in 1998, bilateral trade between the two jumped from $1.5 billion to $16 billion as of 2012. Following a relationship that has consisted predominately of economic exchanges, China and South Africa have now announced plans to enhance military ties in a show of increasing political and security cooperation.
During 2012's Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, incumbent President Hu Jintao served up $20 billion in loans to African countries, which were designated for the construction of vital infrastructure such as new roads, railways and ports to enable higher volumes of trade and export. In his address to the forum, South African President Jacob Zuma spoke of the long-term unsustainability of the current model of Sino-African trade, in which raw materials are sent out and manufactured commodities are sent in.
This picture taken on June 12, 2012 shows the managing editor of China Central Television (CCTV) Africa Pang Xinhua (L) talking to local journalist as he shows them how the organization has expanded in different parts of Africa, in the premises of the television in Nairobi. (AFP Photo/Simon Maina)
This picture taken on June 12, 2012 shows the managing editor of China Central Television (CCTV) Africa Pang Xinhua (L) talking to local journalist as he shows them how the organization has expanded in different parts of Africa, in the premises of the television in Nairobi. (AFP Photo/Simon Maina)
"Africa's past economic experience with Europe dictates a need to be cautious when entering into partnerships with other economies," Zuma said. "We certainly are convinced that China's intention is different to that of Europe, which to date continues to attempt to influence African countries for their sole benefit."
Xi's visit highlights the importance China attaches to Sino-African ties, and during his stay, he will attend the fifth meeting of the BRICS, the first summit held on the African continent to accommodate leaders of the world's most prominent emerging economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS group, which accounts for around 43% of the world's population and 17% of global trade, is set to increase investments in Africa's industrial sector threefold, from $150 billion in 2010 to $530 billion in 2015, under the theme 'BRICS and Africa: Partnership for development, integration, and industrialization.'
With focus shifting toward building up the continent's industrial sector, South Africa is no doubt seen as a springboard into Africa and a key development partner on the continent for other BRICS members. Analysts have likened the BRICS group to represent yet another significant step away from a unipolar global economic order, and it comes as no surprise. As eurozone countries languish amidst austerity, record unemployment and major demand contraction, the European Union has declined as a share of South Africa's total trade from 36% in 2005 to 26.5% in 2011, while the BRICS countries' total trade increased from 10% in 2005 to 18.6% in 2011.
The value and significance of the BRICS platform is its ability to proliferate South-South political and economic ties, and one should expect the reduction of trade barriers and the gradual adoption of economic exchanges using local currencies. China's ICBC paid $5.5 billion for a 20% stake in Standard Bank of South Africa in 2007, and the move has played out well for Beijing – Standard has over 500 branches across 17 African countries, which has drastically increased availability of the Chinese currency, offering yuan accounts to expatriate traders.
It looks like the love story that has become of China and Africa will gradually begin shifting its emphasis toward building up a viable large-scale industrial base. Surveys out of Beijing cite 1,600 companies tapping into the use of Africa as an industrial base, with manufacturing's share of total Chinese investment (22%) fast gaining on the mining sector's (29%).
Gavin du Venage, writing for the Asia Times Online, highlights how Beijing's policy toward Africa aims to be mutually beneficial and growth-promoting: "Chinese energy firm Sinopec teamed up with South African counterpart PetroSA to explore building a US$11 billion oil refinery on the country's west coast. Refineries are notoriously unprofitable, with razor-thin margins. Since South Africa has no significant oil or proven gas reserves itself, the proposed plant would depend on imports, and would have to serve the local market to be viable. The plant will therefore serve the South African market and not be used to process exports to China. This is only the latest of such investments that demonstrate a willingness by Chinese investors to put down roots and infrastructure in Africa. It also shows that China's dragon safari is about more than just sourcing commodities for export."
Indeed, and Beijing's dragon safari is loaded with a packed itinerary, with Mao-bucks flying everywhere from Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Nigeria and Angola. Xi Jinping will also grace the Angolan capital of Luanda, where China has provided the oil-rich nation with some $4.5 billion in loans since 2002. Following Angola's 27-year civil war that began in 1975, Beijing played a major role in the country's reconstruction process, with 50 large-scale and state-owned companies and over 400 private companies operating in the country; it has since become China's largest trading partner in Africa with a bilateral trade volume at some $20 billion dollars annually. Chinese Ambassador Zhang Bolun was quoted as saying how he saw great potential in further developing Sino-Angolan relations and assisting the nation in reducing its dependence on oil revenues while giving priority to the development of farming, service industries, renewable energies, transport and other basic infrastructure.
Chinese commercial activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have significantly increased not only in the mining sector, but also considerably in the telecommunications field. In 2000, the Chinese ZTE Corporation finalized a $12.6-million deal with the Congolese government to establish the first Sino-Congolese telecommunications company, while Kinshasa exported $1.4-billion worth of cobalt to Beijing between 2007 and 2008.
The majority of Congolese raw materials like cobalt, copper ore and a variety of hard woods are exported to China for further processing, and 90% of the processing plants in resource-rich southeastern Katanga province are owned by Chinese nationals. In 2008, a consortium of Chinese companies were granted the rights to mining operations in Katanga in exchange for $6 billion in infrastructure investments, including the construction of two hospitals, four universities and a hydroelectric power project; the International Monetary Fund intervened and blocked the deal, arguing that the agreement violated the foreign debt relief program for so-called HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) nations.
China has made significant investments in manufacturing zones in non-resource-rich economies such as Zambia and Tanzani, and as Africa's largest trading partner China imports 1.5 million barrels of oil from Africa per day, accounting for approximately 30 percent of its total imports. In Ghana, China has invested in Ghanaian national airlines that primarily serve domestic routes, in addition to partnering with the Ghanaian government on a major infrastructural project to build the Bui Hydroelectric Dam. China-Africa trade rose from $10.6 billion in 2000 to $106.8 billion in 2008, at an annual growth rate of over 30 percent.
By the end of 2009, China had canceled out more than 300 zero-interest loans owed by 35 heavily indebted needy countries and the least developed countries in Africa. China is by far the largest financier on the entire continent, and Beijing's economic influence in Africa is nowhere more apparent than the $200 million African Union headquarters situated in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – which was funded solely by China.
Barack Obama and Xi Jinping speak during meetings in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 14, 2012.  (AFP Photo/Saul Loeb)
Barack Obama and Xi Jinping speak during meetings in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 14, 2012. (AFP Photo/Saul Loeb)
China's deepening economic engagement in Africa and its crucial role in developing the mineral sector, telecommunications industry and much-needed infrastructural projects is creating "deep nervousness" in the West, according to David Shinn, the former US ambassador to Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. During a diplomatic tour of Africa in 2011, former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton insinuated China's guilt in perpetuating a creeping "new colonialism." When it comes to Africa, the significant differences in these two powers' key economic, foreign policy strategies and worldviews are nowhere more apparent. Washington has evidently launched efforts to counter China's influence throughout the African continent, and where Beijing focuses on economic development, the United States has sought to legitimize its presence through counterterrorism operations and the expansion of the United States Africa Command, better known as AFRICOM – an outpost of the US Military designated solely for operations on the African continent.
During a visit to AFRICOM in 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller cited AFRICOM's stated mission of protecting "the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market," before emphasizing how the increasing presence of China is a major challenge to US interests in the region. Washington recently announced that US Army teams will be deployed to as many as 35 African countries in early 2013 for training programs and other operations, as part of an increased Pentagon role in Africa – primarily in countries with groups allegedly linked to Al-Qaeda.
Given President Obama's proclivity toward the proliferation of UAV drone technology, one could imagine these moves as laying the groundwork for future US military interventions using such technology in Africa on a wider scale than that already seen in Somalia and Mali. Here lies the deep hypocrisy in accusations of Beijing's purported 'new colonialism' – China is focused on building industries, increasing development and improving administrative and well as physical infrastructure . The propagation of force, which one would historically associate with a colonizer, is entirely absent from China's approach.
Obviously, the same cannot be said of the United States, whose firepower-heavy tactics have in recent times enabled militancy and lawlessness, as seen in the fallout of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 2011 bombing campaign in Libya, with notable civilian causalities. As Xi Jingping positions himself in power over a nation undertaking some of the grandest development projects the world has ever known, Beijing's relationship with the African continent will be a crucial one. While everything looks good on paper, Xi's administration must earn the trust of their African constituents by keeping a closer eye on operations happening on the ground.
The incoming administration must do more to scrutinize the conduct of Chinese conglomerates and business practices with a genuine focus on adhering to local environmental regulations, safety standards and sound construction methods. The current trajectory China has set itself upon will do much to enable mutually beneficial economic development, in addition to bolstering an independent Global South – a little less red then how Mao wanted it, but close enough.

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Is Chavez, another CIA assassination victim?

Is Chavez, another CIA assassination victim?
Killing enemies and opponents by all means is a historical tradition and legacy but within certain rules and laws, even during wars .In ancient days as espoused in Arthashashtra of Kautilya, some kings used to bring up beautiful young girls who were administered small doses of poison since childhood. When grown up they were gifted to enemy Kings who after physical congress and cohabitation got slowly poisoned and died .Of course the attempt to poison food of Kings and others is still prevalent and the food is carefully tested before being served to them.
King Mithradates VI of Pontus (Mithradates meaning "gift of the Aryan god Mithra"), a common name among Anatolian rulers, had contested Imperial Rome's hegemony in Asia Minor. After many ups and downs, Pompey completely defeated both Mithradates and his son-in-law Tigranes, the ruler of Armenia. Mithradates escaped to Crimea .When cornered on an island in the Black Sea he wanted to commit suicide so as not be caught as POW and humiliated. A powerful man, Mithradates would not die by poisoning himself, since he had made himself immune by taking small doses of poison .So he had to order a slave to kill him.
It was after a victory in  78BC in a battle lasting barely four hours over Pharnaces II, son of Mithradates VI at a town called Zile ( visited many times) , 300 kilometers northeast of Ankara, that Julius Caesar said  Veni, vidi, vici ("I came, I saw, I conquered") .
So after the brutal public assassination of Libyan President Moamar Qaddafi by Washington and NATO supported goons, Muslim extremists and other killers at West  behest and instigation ,Mme Hilary Clinton crowed ;' "We came , we saw , he died." Soon after a few from the same loony crowd killed US Ambassador Stevens and 4 other operatives in Benghazi .Libya, a prosperous country lies destroyed ,divided and in chaos with over hundred thousand dead since it 'liberation' .Yes, US and EU countries are pumping away Libyan gas and oil .
An Air India Boeing 707 on a regular Bombay to New York flight crashed near the summit of Mont Blanc in the Alps in 1966 killing 117 people on the aircraft as it prepared to land at Geneva airport in Switzerland. Homi J. Bhabha, India's brilliant physicist who was the first head of its Department of Atomic Energy, and the founder of the structure and cadres for nuclear technology and later the bomb was the main objective for the crash according to an interview of Robert Trumbull Crowley (1924 - 2000), who was second in command of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, which was in charge of covert operations.
Vikram Sarabhai (12 August 1919 – 30 December 1971) an Indian Scientist, considered to be the "Father of the Indian space program." died suddenly on 30 December 1971 at Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. He was there to attend the foundation stone laying ceremony of the Thumba railway station being built to service the newly created Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station. Was his sudden and untimely death natural! Sarabahi had picked out Dr Abul Kalam , father of Indian missile system and groomed him. Read Times of India report on Sarabhai's death.
US's CIA and other agencies have organized and continue to organize deaths of US perceived enemies and rivals. US ally Israel's Mossad does illegal killings regularly .A recent example is the poisoning of Yasser Arafat by Mossad. It has organized killings of Iranian scientists inside Iran itself .Sometimes; it has been outsmarted by Mukhabarat (intelligence agencies) of some Arab states.
'Official' (old!) US policy on assassinations!
In theory, pursuing with intent to kill violates a long-standing US policy banning political assassination. It was President Ford who had put a ban on assassinations in a 1976 executive order. It was reinforced by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and made no distinction between wartime and peacetime. There are no loop holes. However bad the leader might be, he could not be targeted by US directly or by a hired gun. But winking at assassination or murder seems to have become a normal policy when it suits Washington.
The ban was placed after a Senate committee had disclosed a series of US assassination attempts abroad for many years, and not all successful .There were as many as eight attempts on the life of Cuban president Fidel Castro. Patrice Lumumba of the Congo in 1961 and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in 1963 were both assassinated, with suspicions about the hand of US agencies. There are many other examples .Assassination was also a weapon of retaliation, like against Libya when its agents allegedly killed US soldiers in a disco in Germany in 1986 and the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 in which 270 persons, mostly American, were killed.
When asked if the 1986 bombing of Moammar Gadhafi's residence in 1986 was an effort to kill him, President Reagan said,"I don't think any of us would have shed tears if that had happened," Recent U.S. assassination attempts included Osama bin Laden (openly successful ), former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic among others.
Abraham Sofaer, a former State Department legal adviser theorized that, "If a leader ... is responsible for killing Americans, and is planning to kill more Americans ... it would be perfectly proper to kill him rather than to wait until more Americans were killed." Never mind that a White House spokesman had said just before the war on Iraq, "There's an executive order that prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and that remains in place." Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which kept some kind of check on US illegal activities, Washington has since then ushered in the law of the jungle. But blowback and retribution shall follow.
It is an established fact that the US led invasion of Iraq, against the will of the majority of members of United Nations, was clearly illegal. Even the fig leaf of the causes belli of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's alleged links with Al Qaida were never proved so where is the international law? After coming into office, George W. Bush tore up more international treaties and disregarded more UN conventions than the rest of the world in past 20 years.
The list is familiar, including but not limited to the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, failure to ratify the Rio Pact on biodiversity, withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the pursuit of National Missile Defense. It appears ready to violate the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It opposed the ban on land mines and has sought to immobilize the UN convention against torture so that it could keep foreign observers out of its prison camp in Guantanamo Bay and hide its treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners.
It has sabotaged the small-arms treaty and is opposed to new provisions of the biological-warfare convention. It experiments with biological weapons of its own and has refused chemical-weapons inspector's full access to its laboratories. It is opposed to the International Criminal Court and coerced other countries to sign separate agreements not to charge US citizens. It has permitted CIA hit squads to continue covert operations of the kind that included, in the past, the assassination of foreign heads of state. Even its threat to go to war with Iraq without a mandate from the UN Security Council is a defiance of international law. 
Recent US administration's foreign policies have undermined the fragile structure of international law and conventions built up during the past three centuries, to which the United States made important contributions. The latest innovation is US drone war against almost all comers.
Reproduced below is an article by Dr Kevin Barrett which appeared on Iran's presstv .
Dr. Kevin Barrett, the author (below) after reading my articles on US war on Iraq etc telephoned me a few times and persuaded to have me on his Radio program lasting almost an hour (15 minutes break for ads) but when I asked him for the transcripts, he said that I must pay for it .He had not paid me .I was not amused.
Chavez: Another CIA assassination victim?
6 March 13=The Venezuelan president himself, before he died yesterday, wondered aloud whether the US government - or the banksters who own it - gave him, and its other leading Latin American enemies, cancer.

A little over a year ago, Chavez went on Venezuelan national radio and said: "I don't know but… it is very odd that we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was a candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina… It is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It's at the very least strange, very strange." 

Strange indeed… so strange that if you think Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Paraguayan Fernando Lugo, and former Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva - Latin America's top anti-US empire leaders - all just happened to contract cancer around the same time by sheer chance, you must be some kind of crazy coincidence theorist. 

Am I 100% certain that the CIA killed Hugo Chavez? Absolutely not. 

It could have been non-governmental assassins working for the bankers. 

But any way you slice it, the masters of the US Empire are undoubtedly responsible for giving Chavez and other Latin American leader's cancer. How do we know that? Just examine the Empire's track record. 
Fidel Castro's bodyguard, Fabian Escalante, estimates that the CIA attempted to kill the Cuban president an astonishing 638 times. The CIA's methods included exploding cigars, biological warfare agents painted on Castro's diving suit, deadly pills, toxic bacteria in coffee, an exploding speaker's podium, snipers, poison-wielding female friends, and explosive underwater sea shells.

The CIA's assassination attempts against Castro were like a Tom and Jerry cartoon, with the CIA as the murderously inept cat, and the Cuban president as a clever and very lucky mouse. Some might even argue that Castro's survival, in the face of 638 assassination attempts by the world's greatest power, is evidence that El Presidente's communist atheism was incorrect, and that God, or at least a guardian angel, must have been watching over "Infidel Castro" all along. 

Theology aside, the CIA's endless attempts on Castro's life provide ample evidence that US authorities will stop at nothing in their efforts to murder their Latin American enemies. 

John Perkins, in his bestselling book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, supplies more evidence that the bankers that own the US government routinely murder heads of state, using private assassins as well as CIA killers. 

Perkins, during his career as an "economic hit man," gained first-hand knowledge about how the big international bankers maintain their empire in Latin America and elsewhere. Perkins' job was to visit leaders of foreign countries and convince them to accept loans that could never be paid back. Why? The bankers want to force these nations into debt slavery. When the country goes bankrupt, the bankers seize the nation's natural resources and establish complete control over its government and economy. 

Perkins would meet with a targeted nation's leader and say: "I have a fist-full of hundred dollar bills in one hand, and a bullet in the other. Which do you want?" If the leader accepted the loans, thereby enslaving his country, he got the payoff. If he angrily chased Perkins out of his office, the bankers would call in the "asteroids" to assassinate the uncooperative head of state. 
The "asteroids" are the world's most expensive and accomplished professional killers. They work on contract - sometimes to the CIA, sometimes to the bankers, and sometimes to wealthy private individuals. And though their specialty is causing plane crashes, they are capable of killing people, including heads of state, in any number of ways.

This isn't just speculation. John Perkins actually knows some of these CIA-linked professional killers personally. And he has testified about their murders of Latin American leaders.Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is dedicated to Perkins' murdered friends Gen. Torrijos of Panama and President Jaime Roldos of Ecuador. Both were killed by CIA-linked "asteroids" in engineered plane crashes. 
Do CIA-linked killers sometimes induce cancer in their victims? Apparently they do. One notable victim: Jack Ruby (née Jack Rubenstein), a mobster who was himself a professional killer, and whose last hit was the choreographed murder of JFK-assassination patsy Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Department. Ruby begged to be taken to Washington to tell the real story of the JFK murder, but instead died in prison, of a sudden and mysterious cancer, before he could reveal what he knew.

Have the CIA-bankster "asteroids" ever tried to kill Latin American leaders with cancer? The answer is an unequivocal "yes." 

Edward Haslam's book Dr. Mary's Monkey proves what JFK assassination prosecutor Jim Garrison had earlier alleged: Child-molesting CIA agent David Ferrie, one of President Kennedy's killers, had experimented extensively with cancer-causing viruses for the CIA in his huge home laboratory. The purpose: To give Fidel Castro and other Latin American leaders cancer. (Ferrie himself was killed by the CIA shortly before he was scheduled to testify in court about his role in the JFK assassination.) 

To summarize: We know that the bankers who own the US government routinely try to kill any Latin American leader who refuses to be their puppet. We know that they have mounted thousands of assassination attempts against Latin American leaders, including more than 600 against Castro alone. We know that they have been experimenting with cancer viruses, and killing people with cancer, since the 1960s. 

So if you think Hugo Chavez died a natural death, I am afraid that you are terminally naïve. 

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 big lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009). His website is

Friday, March 1, 2013

Brics Bank; First Nail in US Dollar Coffin!

Brics Bank; First Nail in US Dollar Coffin!
According to Global Times of 26 Feb 2013, the establishment of a BRICS development bank has been a major subject of discussions in the build-up for the 5th BRICS Summit to be held in Durban on 26-27 March. It is widely expected that the summit would provide a long-awaited institutional underpinning to the grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

South African Standard Bank's Simon Freemantle, Senior Analyst in the African Political Economy Unit, and Jeremy Stevens, an international economist based in Beijing, said in their latest report in Africa Macro that the BRICS development bank is an agenda item which is sure to feature strongly at the Durban summit, guided by the theme "BRICS and Africa -- partnerships for integration and industrialization".
According to Xinhua, the details around the BRICS bank are expected to emerge clearly. The main objective of the bank will be to direct development in a manner that reflects the BRICS priorities and competencies. Such as, infrastructure development, project preparation and feasibility studies. Later, a working group will be asked to get the necessary technical commitments and governance structures.
China has become the top trading nation in Africa as well .Seen against the background of flourishing BRICS trade with Africa as the pivot, there is diplomatic and commercial momentum to which the bank can add an institutional foundation. "The proposed bank contributes constructively to the development of more robust and inter-dependent ties between the BRICS members," the report states. The member states are expected to dig deep into their pockets to make the bank work.

According to Financial times blog , even though key decisions have yet to be made – such as where it would be based and what exactly it would do – some elements are emerging from the discussions, notably the bank's possible capital – $50bn.

The bank is not a counterweight to multilateral development banks—notably the World Bank. Yes, the dominance of the US and Europe in Bretton Woods Institutions is a source of contention for BRICS. However, on this specific score, the envisioned BRICS bank is an auxiliary funding institution—albeit more aligned to BRICS' development agenda. Nor will the new bank try to compete with the domestic development banks in the Brics.

The BRICS bank's relevance will depend on its effectiveness and specialisation. Rather than posture as a common denominator or create overlapping agendas with other development finance institutions and BRICS state policy banks, including Brazil Development Bank (BNDES), China Development Bank (CDB), and Export-Import Bank of India, the Bank will need flesh on its bones before we shift from cautious optimism.
As made evident in India's 2013-14 budget, Delhi needs massive investments in infrastructure .The Brics bank with China's surplus funds, expertise and experience in enlarging its infrastructure specially railways, can provide a multilateral platform to iron out doubts and suspicions in this sorely needed sector, only if US proxies and pimps will stop creating differences between the two Asian giants .Look how China and Russia are cooperating in energy and other sectors for mutual benefit. Asia needs peace for development and to rise up its masses from poverty and misery.

The Standard Bank quarried, "a host of pragmatic issues require resolution." These include funding sources (very important for bank, you might think), types of project for financing, and bank headquarters – always contentious as the founders of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development discovered 20 years ago before they settled on London.
Standard expects each of the five member states to initially contribute $10bn in seed capital to the bank, with further funds raised from the markets as necessary. That sounds very egalitarian. But it will clearly put a greater financial strain on the modest South African economy and public purse than on China's. Inevitably, Beijing, with a bigger GDP than all the other Brics put together, will be in a position to make its voice heard, whatever the rules and regulations of the planned institution.
Or as the Standard Bank said that skewed economic might may lead to skewed problems.

While China, India, Russia etc are trading and investing in Africa , old colonial powers like now socialist France, UK and the big daddy of all , USA are destroying states and want to loot their gold and natural resources as in 19 and 20 century. I had circulated a week ago a note on
Manipulations and Mystery about Gold Reserves
An ounce in hand is better than two with US Federal Reserve
The article below makes almost a surrealistic reading about gold reserves and its manipulations by the usual suspects i.e. The Wall Street and the City, London Bankers and financiers. What info is available makes for a scary reading and how the so called international Financial System is nothing but a house of cards aka perhaps open chicanery, roguery and worse .After all US went on its word of giving an ounce of gold for US$ 35 in 1971, as agreed to at Bretton Woods which accorded Dollar the status of reserve currency

IMF Information Leaks: Central Banks Gold Manipulations

Valentin KATASONOV | 07.02.2013 |
Below is an article on the Brics Bank by John Fraser from Asia Times .
K. Gajendra Singh  28 March , 2013.
China key to BRICS bank
By John Fraser   Asia Times ;28 Feb2013

MR Fraser writes that the emerging market leaders want their Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa club to be taken seriously, and in March they are expected to make a decisive move towards setting up a development bank to give it real substance and credibility. 

"There is no doubt that the BRICS Development Bank will be a welcome development," Sandile Zungu, the Secretary of South Africa's Black Business Council, told IPS. 

"The need for the bank is fairly obvious if you look at the growing trade among the BRICS countries and the frustrations these countries have had with existing development financing institutions like the World Bank and the IMF," he said. 

Zungu particularly pointed to existing bureaucracy, the criteria for lending, the conditions attached to loans and the slow pace in processing applications. 

"Then there's the fact these countries have such massive infrastructure roll-out programmes, which gives all the more reason to create this bank - the need is there." 

Infrastructure financing within BRICS will indeed be a key focus of the bank, along with alternative models of cooperation to finance such projects, according to Hannah Edinger, head of Research and Strategy at emerging-markets consultancy group Frontier Advisory. 

South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan earlier this week told parliament that the the bank's establishment is "intended to mobilize domestic savings" to co-fund these infrastructure projects in developing regions. 

For full article