martes, 3 de diciembre de 2013

FALSE ALARM THE DROPPING OF A BOMBSHELL AGAINST THE US Dollar?



FALSE ALARM THE DROPPING OF A  BOMBSHELL AGAINST THE US Dollar?

Introduction by Hugo Adan.  Dec 3, 2013

How to explain the China decision on Nov 20 –13 to abandon the yuan fixed rate with the USD?.  
The 1st factor is the printing of dollars from the thin air (QEs),  that “forced China to abandon the yuan’s fixed rate of exchange and switch to a so-called «managed float» of the national currency’s exchange rate” as it happens with other BRICS countries (Russian case the most notorious).  

The 2nd fact is that the more globalized is the trade, the less  the need for the USD artificially inflated currency.

 The 3rd factor is the fastest trend in which China was moving to diversify their trade beyond the US. It is still dominant the trade with the US but it is moving fast to East countries, toward  the Pacific area (this is also why the US interest in kidnapping  their clients in the South with TPP deals. Of course most countries are signing it since they still have most of their Bank-reserves in dollars,  as they signed with China too. All depends now on who in practice offers more freedom and less conditions).  

The 4th factor is the buying of «green paper» by the central bank of China (one of the biggest economy in the World) became irrelevant , banal for their current business, buying this fiat money  contribute to artificially inflate the demand for US currency and that was far too costly for  China.  “The overwhelming majority of China’s dollar currency reserves were not serving the interests of China but of America, which receives virtually free credit from China”, said the article below. 

The 5th factor is the recent adoption of a new liberal policy by China in the PC Congress: to move toward to a free yuan. This doesn’t need a cheap currency in front of a dollar, it needs a strong one, supported by gold so as other countries can use the yuan as prime bank-reserve currency.   “A completely free yuan does not need large reserves of dollars”, concluded the article below.  

So,  this was not a surprised dropping of a bombshell  against the dollar. It was instead a long process of policy-building that most scholars were aware of.  What Snyder did with the title of his article was pure “sensationalism”, nothing new.
----------  

NOTES: 



The original article of Snyder was CHINA ANNOUNCES THAT IT IS GOING TO STOP STOCKPILING U.S. DOLLARS. By Michael Snyder.  Nov 21st, 2013. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/china-announces-that-it-is-going-to-stop-stockpiling-u-s-dollars   “China just dropped an absolute bombshell, but it was almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media in the United States.”

On Nov 29-13,  Valentin KATASONOV published in The 4th Media News: China Announces That It’s Going to Stop Stockpiling US Dollars (Part I).  http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/11/29/on-the-bombshell-dropped-by-china-on-20-november-2013-i/

The sane day, Nov 29-13, Valentin KATASONOV published in www.strategic-culture.org On the «bombshell» dropped by China on 20 November 2013 (I).  



------------- 
CHINA ANNOUNCES THAT IT’S GOING TO STOP STOCKPILING US DOLLARS (PART I)
On the Bombshell Dropped by China on 20 November 2013
 
By Valentin KATASONOV 

Since 21 November, an article by well-known financial analyst and blogger Michael Snyder under the headline «China announces that it is going to stop stockpiling US dollars» has spread through the media like wildfire. (1)

MICHAEL SNYDER’S ARTICLE

We quote: «China just dropped an absolute bombshell, but it was almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media. The central bank of China has decided that it is ‘no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves’». Michael Snyder’s article predicts that China’s decision will have serious consequences for the United States. According to Snyder, even if this bombshell does not destroy America, it will still cause the country enormous damage. Can it all really be as the American analyst claims?

The bombshell itself, according to Snyder, was dropped on 20 November. It was dropped by a deputy governor at the People’s Bank of China in a speech at an economic forum being held at the Tsinghua University. «It’s no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves», writes Bloomberg, quoting the official’s speech. According to the official, the appreciation of the yuan benefits more people in China than it hurts.

It is curious that Snyder, who is an experienced blogger («The Economic Collapse» blog) and a shrewd analyst, interpreted the official’s statement so emotionally. In our opinion, there is nothing particularly sensational in his words.

Firstly, similar statements have been made in China before (always very cautiously), but they never lead anywhere. At the end of the 1970s, China’s foreign-exchange reserves grew continuously. It is possible to count on the fingers of one hand the short periods of time (months, sometimes quarters) during which China’s accumulation of reserves stopped momentarily.

Secondly, the latest statement sounds really very vague. There is no mention, for example, of when exactly the central bank of China is going to stop buying foreign-exchange reserves. And the phrase itself – «It’s no longer in China’s favor to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves» – seems to be intentionally rhetorical.

Thirdly, if the central banks and treasuries of some country or other stop buying US Treasury securities and even reduce their US currency reserves, they do not usually announce it so loudly.

For example, over the period from the end of January 2013 to the end of July, the Bank of Russia reduced its stockpile of US Treasury securities from USD 164.4 billion to USD 131.6 billion, which means that over the course of six months, it reduced its portfolio of US Treasury obligations by USD 32.8 billion, or by 20 percent. And you will notice that it was done without much fuss. 

CHINA IN THE IRON EMBRACE OF THE DOLLAR

There is no need to say that much about the fact that the enormous and constantly growing foreign-exchange reserves were becoming a headache for the central bank’s senior management and the Chinese government. According to the Bloomberg agency’s calculations, over the period from the end of 2004 to the end of 2012, China’s foreign-exchange reserves (FER) grew by 721 percent and reached USD 3.3 trillion.

While China’s share of the world’s FER stood at 14 percent at the end of 2004, by the end of 2012 this figure had increased to 30.2 percent. The agency estimates that at the end of 2012, US currency accounted for more than USD 2 trillion of China’s FER.

At the end of the third quarter of 2013, it amounted to USD 3.66 trillion, which exceeds the annual GDP of a country like Germany. China does not disclose the composition of its international reserves by currency.

However, from time to time the People’s Bank of China organises a leaking of information on the issue. The first such information appeared in September 2010. The country’s official financial publication, China Securities Journal, reported that as at the middle of 2010, two thirds of its reserves (65 percent) were held in US dollars, 26 percent in euros, 5 percent in pound sterling and 3 percent in Japanese yen.

At a later date, expert estimates emerged putting the share of US currency in Chinese reserves at approximately the 2010 level. At the same time, representatives of the European Central Bank (ECB) admitted that the share of the euro in China’s international reserves was extremely small.

It should be borne in mind that, to date, the People’s Bank of China has entered into currency swap agreements (the exchange of national currency units) with approximately 20 countries. And the currencies of these countries are in the reserves of the People’s Bank of China.

The dollar was, and still is, the main currency in China’s international reserves. The US is China’s main trading partner, and all Chinese-American trade is conducted in dollars. Since China has a steady surplus in trade with the United States, there has been a continuous accumulation of US currency in China’s foreign-exchange reserves.

CHINA’S DOLLAR CURRENCY RESERVES ARE NO MORE THAN US TREASURY NOTES, WHICH ARE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO REDEEM.

China is trying to do it, directing part of its reserves into special (sovereign) funds which can put money into Treasury securities and bank deposits, as well as into the stocks and shares of foreign companies in the real economic sector.

The US and other countries in the west, however, are preventing investments like these in every way possible and are introducing various restrictions and prohibitions for sovereign fund investments under the pretext of «protecting national security».

There are suspicions that China is trying to convert part of its international foreign exchange reserves into gold, and that these gold reserves do not amount to 1,000 tonnes (China’s official figures), but several times more. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of China’s dollar currency reserves are not serving the interests of China but of America, which receives virtually free credit from China.

ON CERTAIN «MINES» OF CHINESE MANUFACTURING

If we are talking about the bombshells that China has dropped, or is preparing to drop, as part of its opposition to the United States, then we are not talking about the statement made by a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China on 20 November this year. This statement could be compared to the explosion of the detonator. There have been quite a number of bombshells over the past three years, however. They have not yet exploded, but sooner or later they are going to explode. It would be more correct to call them delayed-action mines. Here are some of them:

1. The decision taken by the People’s Bank of China in the summer of 2010 to reinstate a «managed float» of the yuan.

2. The approval, in 2011, of the latest 12th Five Year Plan for China’s socio-economic development. The plan poses the problem of making the yuan an international currency, though it does not contain any kind of detailed explanation of what should be understood by the status of «international currency», or any algorithms for solving this problem.

3. The reaching of agreements between China and a number of other countries on a transition to the use of national currencies in mutual trade. Of these, China’s agreement with Japan, which stipulates the use of just the yuan and the yen in mutual payments, is particularly worth pointing out. Those involved are abandoning other currencies (including the US dollar). There is also an agreement on the mutual use of national currencies in payments between China and Russia.

4. The People’s Bank of China has also entered into currency swap agreements – i.e. the exchange of national currency units for the facilitation of mutual payments without using the US dollar – with a number of other countries (nearly 20 in total).

5. The agreement reached between China and Iran at the end of 2011-beginning of 2012 for the payment of oil supplied to China in yuan. There is a parallel agreement with Russia that such payments will be executed with the mediation of Russian banks.

6. Beijing’s appeal on 6 September 2012 to every country that supplies China with oil proposing that oil payments be made in yuan (China’s main oil suppliers are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Angola, Russia, Oman and the Sudan).

7. A statement by the central bank of Australia that it is planning on converting 5 percent of its international reserves into Chinese treasury bonds (this was preceded by talks between China and Australia).

8. The agreement reached in October 2013 between Beijing and London that currency trading between the yuan and pound sterling will begin at the Royal Exchange, as well as the permission given by the British authorities to Chinese banks, allowing them to open up branches in the City of London.The agreement between Britain and China virtually involves London’s transformation into a kind of offshore company for Chinese banks and financial companies. China previously entered into similar agreements with Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. 

9. The announcement in November 2013 by the President of the Shanghai Futures Exchange on the launch of a new financial instrument – a crude oil futures contract priced in yuan. It is assumed that this instrument will be used in the East Asia region.

10. The closed plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China held in November 2013, at which a plan was discussed for Chinese social and economic reforms for the period up to 2020. The outcome document, published after the plenum, says that one of the priorities of China’s economic policy is the transformation of the yuan into an international currency. An important tool for achieving this goal is called the rapid transition of the yuan to full currency convertibility.

In reality, each of the steps listed above are delayed-action mines. The explosions of these mines could change the world beyond recognition. Each of these steps are worthy of individual analysis. Take Beijing’s appeal to its oil suppliers with the suggestion that payments be made in yuan, for example, made on 6 September 2012. After discovering this secret information, Lindsey Williams called it the sensation of the 21st century.

In his opinion, 6 September 2012 can be interpreted as the day that China launched a nuclear strike against America and the Federal Reserve, and as the beginning of the end of the oil-dollar standard that has existed for almost 40 years. Of course Williams, just like Michael Snyder, is creating an artificial effect of sensation. Clearly, no nuclear strike took place against America and the Federal Reserve on 6 September 2012. It was nothing but the next delayed-action mine being laid down.

All of the steps listed above are aimed at liberating China from the iron embrace of the American dollar on the one hand, and converting the yuan into an international currency on the other. It is true that there are big differences of opinion in the Chinese government about how these aims should be achieved and what should be understood by an «international» yuan. It is exactly for this reason that the decision was taken to make the latest plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China a closed plenum.

Judging by a number of signs, it involved an extremely heated discussion, and the struggle between free marketeers and statists continued. The free marketeers are slowly but surely pulling the rope over to their side, although the statists are not laying down their arms. The wording of the outcome document is rather vague. Nevertheless, it is difficult not to notice the trend towards the future liberalisation of China’s economic policy.

THE LOGIC OF CHINESE LIBERALS

Let us return to the statement by a deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China on 20 November this year. Its meaning becomes a little clearer if it is compared with the statement made several days before by the governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan. He announced that the central bank would «mostly» abandon currency interventions.

So these kinds of statements by Chinese central bank officials were not made from the time when the yuan’s fixed rate was cancelled. You will recall that up until 2005, the yuan had a fixed rate of exchange against the US dollar and other freely convertible currencies. Moreover, the rate was clearly undervalued, which stimulated the export of Chinese goods to the global market, including to America.

It was this undervalued exchange rate for the yuan that became an important reason for China’s winning pace throughout the world it, and it caused an active surplus in the country’s balance of payments and trade. Under pressure from America and other rival countries, Beijing was forced to abandon the yuan’s fixed rate of exchange and switch to a so-called «managed float» of the national currency’s exchange rate.

Firstly, this regime stipulated that fluctuations in the yuan’s exchange rate should be minimal (so as not to throw national manufacturing and trade out of gear). Secondly, the yuan should continue to be a «cheap» currency as before. And for this, so-called currency interventions were needed.

These refer to the banal purchase of «green paper» by the central bank of China, or the creation of an artificially inflated demand for US currency, in other words. Hence the dollar’s inflated exchange rate and the yuan’s undervalued exchange rate. This is how the central banks of all the countries on the periphery of global capitalism act, however.

The logic of Chinese liberals is very simple: China does not need a stable and cheap yuan. It is far too costly for the country, since they have to concern themselves with the constant purchase of American currency and the accumulation of reserves. A completely free yuan does not need large reserves. Thus the headache that has been plaguing the country’s government for many years is disappearing, and the liberals would now like to put a lid on the matter.

(To be concluded…)

(1) Michael Snyder. China Announces That It Is Going To Stop Stockpiling US Dollars //  The Economic Collapse, November 21st, 2013

---------------- 

Source:  Valentin KATASONOV |  Originally published in Strategic Culture Foundation.
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/11/29/on-the-bombshell-dropped-by-china-on-20-november-2013-i.html
=========== 

Related articles: [no much related but readable]
============= 

lunes, 2 de diciembre de 2013

ACUERDO OCCIDENTE-IRÁN. EL YUAN EN LA MIRA



ACUERDO OCCIDENTE-IRÁN.  EL YUAN EN LA MIRA

Raúl Zibechi.  ALAI, América Latina en Movimiento.  2013-12-02

El acuerdo firmado con el mayor enemigo de Estados Unidos desde la caída de la Unión Soviética, identificado como el “eje del mal”, es un sacudón en la geopolítica mundial de incalculables consecuencias. Lo que está en juego, además de la paz, es la continuidad del petrodólar, o sea la hegemonía de la moneda estadounidense.

Hace unos meses parecía inalcanzable. Antes de la primavera árabe era imposible. Pero después del acuerdo que evitó una invasión a Siria, forzado por Rusia, todo parece posible en Medio Oriente y, tal vez, en otras partes del mundo. El entramado de alianzas que durante medio siglo mantuvo cierta estabilidad en la región se ha desvanecido. Los tres aliados tradicionales de Estados Unidos, Israel, Arabia Saudí y Egipto, van perfilando caminos divergentes respecto a la superpotencia, mientras Rusia ensaya su retorno y China aumenta su protagonismo en una región clave.


Como ya aceptan todos los analistas y buena parte de los medios, Washington ya no juega solo en el tablero global. Algunos asesores que siempre han jugado un papel determinante en las decisiones de la Casa Blanca, como el influyente Zbigniew Brzezinski, Consejero de Seguridad Nacional de Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), venían pregonando un acuerdo con Irán desde la llegada a la presidencia de Hassan Rohani, conocido por su pragmatismo. “El Congreso se está finalmente avergonzando de los esfuerzos de Netanyahu por dictar la política estadounidense”, escribió en su cuenta twitter días atrás (Eldiario.es, 15 de noviembre de 2013).


El acuerdo firmado entre los integrantes permanentes del Conejo de Seguridad de la ONU (China, Estados Unidos, Francia, Gran Bretaña y Rusia), más Alemania, con Irán, tiene una duración de seis meses y establece una reducción del alcance del programa nuclear iraní a cambio de suavizar el embargo internacional. Irán se compromete a rebajar a la mitad el uranio enriquecido al 20 por ciento, no enriquecer a más del 5 por ciento en el futuro, y a no aumentar la capacidad de enriquecimiento de la planta de uranio de Natanz ni de los reactores de Fordow y Araki, ni a construir nuevas instalaciones aceptando la supervisión de la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica.


Washington a su vez se compromete a suspender el boicot al petróleo iraní, desbloquear fondos de Teherán en el exterior, suspender las sanciones sobre la industria automotriz y a los servicios aéreos, además de permitir la compra por Irán de alimentos, medicamentos y equipos médicos.


El acuerdo alcanzado en la madrugada del domingo en Ginebra tiene varias ventajas para las partes: se asegura que Irán no desarrollará armas nucleares y preserva su derecho a desarrollar un programa de energía atómica con fines pacíficos. Podría ser el primer paso en 35 años para llegar a un entendimiento de largo plazo entre la República Islámica y Occidente, aunque persisten focos de tensión y desavenencias tanto en la región como a escala más global. Por diferentes motivos, los principales ganadores son Irán, Estados Unidos, Rusia y China, mientras los más perjudicados son Arabia Saudí e Israel. Francia procuró descarrilar las conversaciones, pero finalmente debió ceder.


EL REALISMO DE OBAMA


Comprender las dificultades de Washington es el tema clave, ya que es el actor que había construido el edificio de la gobernabilidad global que ahora se resquebraja. Intentar restaurar su influencia pasa por un acuerdo con Teherán, pero no por los motivos que se aducen. En efecto, es altamente improbable que Irán pueda construir un arma nuclear en un plazo breve. Todo indica que en el futuro inmediato seguirá habiendo sólo una potencia nuclear en la región, Israel. Por otro lado, Paquistán e India se convirtieron en potencias nucleares sin el consentimiento de Washington, pero el primero es ahora su aliado y coquetea con el segundo.


El problema para Obama está en otro lado: necesita un urgente reposicionamiento geopolítico. La creciente influencia de Rusia en la región y sobre todo de China en el mundo, llevaron al Pentágono a establecer la estrategia del “pivote Asia Pacífico” para contener al país que visualiza como su principal competidor. Todos sabemos que el futuro de la economía mundial pasa por Asia. Además, desde el comienzo de la primavera árabe en 2011 Washington perdió aliados vitales que antes eran incondicionales: Turquía, Israel, Arabia Saudí, Irak. Demasiada inestabilidad que le impide concentrarse en Asia. Por eso el analista Pepe Escobar escribe: “Washington quiere más influencia en el suroeste de Asia, y en toda Eurasia” (Russia Today, 15 de noviembre de 2013).


“Con el acuerdo temporal obtenido con Irán en Ginebra, Barack Obama acaricia el mayor éxito de política exterior de su presidencia y Estados Unidos la mejor oportunidad de un rediseño de la geopolítica mundial desde la caída del Muro de Berlín” (El País, 25 de noviembre de 2013). Si ese acuerdo no se obtuvo antes, fue porque el frente interno estadounidense no lo permitía. Si se consigue ahora, es por la necesidad de reposicionarse en una región a la que está atado de pies y manos. Tres años atrás, cuando Brasil y Turquía llegaron a un acuerdo para que Irán enriqueciera uranio fuera del país, “estaba haciendo una concesión que ahora no necesitó hacer”, destacó el ex canciller y actual ministro de Defensa Celso Amorim (Folha de São Paulo, 27 de noviembre de 2013).


Para Irán era urgente una tregua, sobre todo aliviar las sanciones que sacuden su economía. La inflación alcanzó el 30 por ciento, la desocupación el 20 por ciento. Las exportaciones de petróleo, que representan el 80 por ciento de los ingresos del gobierno, cayeron a la mitad. La moneda iraní, el rial, se devaluó el 100 por cien frente al dólar y los precios de los alimentos se duplicaron. Es cierto que Irán siguió exportando crudo a más de 30 países, entre ellos India y China, y que la mitad de su comercio con Beijing se realiza en yuanes, lo que afecta al dólar. Además el levantamiento de las sanciones aportará 8 mil millones de dólares a Teherán por el acceso a activos congelados en el exterior y la reanudación del comercio.


Si el acuerdo se consolida y avanza en los próximos seis meses, la Casa Blanca tendrá las manos más libres para dedicarse a lo que realmente le importa: cercar a China apoyándose en Japón, Corea del Sur y Australia. Y, por supuesto, en su flota de portaaviones y su red de bases militares.


LA NUEVA ALIANZA SAUDÍ-ISRAELÍ


La diplomacia china aseguró que el acuerdo firmado es “sólo el comienzo” y destacó que aún queda un largo camino por recorrer (Xinghua, 25 de noviembre de 2013). “China continuará facilitando las conversaciones y desempeñará un papel constructivo en este sentido”, dijo el portavoz de la cancillería.


China es probablemente el país más interesado en evitar una guerra en la región, que involucraría a varias potencias y llevaría al cierre del Estrecho de Ormuz en el Golfo Pérsico, por donde pasa el 20 por ciento del petróleo que se comercializa en el mundo. Si eso sucediera, el precio podría duplicarse y los flujos podrían interrumpirse afectando principalmente a los países asiáticos y a Europa. Por el contrario, Washington camina hacia la autosuficiencia energética y sus fuentes de abastecimiento se encuentran más diversificadas que las de su principal competidor.


Para Moscú es importante poner fin a la guerra en Siria y “cambiar el énfasis de derrocar a Bachar al Assad a combatir el terrorismo” (The Brics Post, 25 de noviembre de 2013). Algo similar sucede con el gobierno iraquí de Nouri al Maliki, que necesita superar la terrible polarización entre sunitas y chiítas que ha sumido al país en el caos, una década después de la invasión estadounidense. En ambos casos el papel de Teherán no es menor. Aliado de los presidentes de Irak y Siria, puede convertirse en pieza clave para bajar los decibeles, apoyándose en la cada vez más influyente diplomacia rusa.


Pero la cuestión clave es la nueva alianza entre Israel y Arabia Saudí. El primer ministro Benjamín Netanyahu regañó en conversación telefónica a Obama ya que considera “un error histórico” la firma del acuerdo con Irán, porque “el mundo se ha convertido en un lugar mucho más peligroso” (Russia Today, 26 de noviembre de 2013). Por su parte, la familia real saudí se mostró indignada con el acuerdo con Irán. Los saudíes sufrieron en poco tiempo la doble derrota de ver cómo se les escapó de las manos el esperado triunfo en Siria y ahora cómo su archienemigo Irán se convierte en interlocutor privilegiado de Washington, desafiando su liderazgo en la región.


Algunas fuentes sostienen que los servicios secretos israelíes y saudíes están trabajando juntos para preparar ataques en suelo iraní, mientras la BBC aseguró hace varias semanas que Arabia Saudí pretende conseguir armas nucleares a través de Pakistán, cuyo programa atómico apoyó en su momento. Más grave aún es que Riad está dispuesto a facilitar drones, aviones cisterna y helicópteros, además de su espacio aéreo, para un ataque israelí a Irán.


Lo más probable, empero, es que los nuevos aliados no ataquen directamente a Irán sino que intensifiquen el enfrentamiento en el frente sirio y, probablemente, en Líbano, donde la milicia chiíta Hezbolá sigue siendo un problema para Tel Aviv. Al parecer el ataque suicida contra la embajada de Irán en Líbano, que costó la vida a 23 personas hace dos semanas, sería parte de la escalada que se prepara en la región para intentar contrarrestar la nueva relación de fuerzas. El otro punto débil es la Franja de Gaza, donde el delegado de la ONU declaró que la crisis humanitaria como consecuencia del bloqueo israelí al gobierno de Hamas ha llegado a “todos los servicios esenciales, como hospitales, clínicas, estaciones de bombeo de aguas residuales” (Asia Times, 27 de noviembre de 2013).


Medio Oriente fue el nudo de la hegemonía estadounidense desde 1945. Ahora ya no lo es y su interés se desplaza gradualmente hacia Asia Pacífico. Pero en esta zona que sigue teniendo una importancia estratégica, la cosas se han complicada demasiado para Washington. Desde la caída de Hosni Mubarak durante la primavera árabe perdió el control de Egipto. Israel se ha convertido en un aliado problemático y Arabia Saudí está mirando hacia China. Las principales piezas del ajedrez estratégico se mueven cada una por su lado sin un mando central que las pueda regular. 


PETRÓLEO Y DÓLARES


El escenario sobre el que se mueven las principales potencias en Medio Oriente fue diagramado, durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, por Francia e Inglaterra a través del acuerdo secreto Sykes-Picot, el 16 de mayo de 1916, arbitrando sus respectivas áreas de influencia en la región cuando el petróleo adquirió importancia estratégica al sustituir al carbón como combustible de las marinas de guerra. En febrero de 1945, retornando de la Conferencia de Yalta, el presidente Franklin Roosevelt desembarcó en el Canal de Suez para reunirse con la autoridad saudita, Ibn Saud, consolidando una alianza por la cual la potencia victoriosa de la Segunda Guerra Mundial sustituyó el papel que había tenido Inglaterra.


La Casa de Saud se convirtió en el principal abastecedor de petróleo barato a la potencia que era responsable de casi la mitad del pib global. El reciente informe de la Agencia Internacional de Energía señala que gracias a las nuevas técnicas como la fractura hidráulica, Estados Unidos alcanzará y superará a Arabia Saudí como principal productor de petróleo. Y señala que eso se producirá en 2015. Como quien dice, un viraje que está a la vuelta de la esquina.


Para Estados Unidos es importante asegurar su autosuficiencia energética, toda vez que la dependencia de las importaciones ha sido uno de sus flancos más débiles. Pero el papel de Riad queda en el aire. A comienzos de 2012 China y Arabia Saudí firmaron un acuerdo para la construcción de una enorme refinería para producir 400 mil barriles diarios en 2014, en el puerto de Yanbu, en el mar Rojo. La estatal china Sinopec será propietaria de un 37,5 por ciento de la refinería junto con la saudí Aramco que tendrá el 62,5 por ciento.


El acuerdo representa “una asociación estratégica en la industria de la refinería entre uno de los principales productores energéticos de Arabia Saudí y uno de los principales consumidores del mundo”, afirmó el presidente de Aramco, Khalid Al-Falih (China Daily, 16 de enero de 2012). China importa el 56 por ciento del petróleo que consume; el reino saudita es el principal proveedor de petróleo de China y el mayor exportador de crudo del mundo. China participa en proyectos de construcción de infraestructuras en Arabia Saudí, incluyendo áreas como ferrocarriles, puertos, electricidad y telecomunicaciones. Lo que se está gestando es un viraje de larga duración en el área petrolera mundial y muy en concreto en la presencia china en una región, y en un país, que fue pilar de la hegemonía de Washington.


El año 2012 registró ese viraje: China desplazó a Estados Unidos como principal importador de crudo saudí. Pero el tema es más profundo: en 1972 Estados Unidos y Arabia Saudí acordaron que todo el petróleo vendido por la monarquía sería nominado en dólares estadounidenses. Así nació el petrodólar que fue adoptado por casi todos los países y se convirtió en el sostén de la economía de la superpotencia, otorgándole una ventaja que ningún otro país poseía.


En 1975, todos los países de la OPEP habían acordado fijar el precio de sus propias reservas de petróleo en dólares estadounidenses a cambio de armas y protección militar. Este sistema del petrodólar, más conocido como “petróleo por dólares”, crea una inmediata demanda artificial de dólares en todo el mundo. Al aumentar la demanda mundial de petróleo, también aumenta la demanda de dólares de Estados Unidos. De ese modo el dinero que gasta el mundo fluye a través de la Reserva Federal asegurando la financiación de la deuda estadounidense. Además, tiene el privilegio de hacerse con el petróleo del mundo gratuitamente, al imprimir los billetes con los que paga.


Si el petrodólar se derrumba, el dólar se termina como moneda de reserva lo que marcará el fin de la hegemonía estadounidense. Los países integrantes del brics empezaron a comerciar en sus propias monedas, en particular China y Rusia. La llave la tiene Arabia Saudí. El día que deje de vender su petróleo en dólares, el sistema financiero y Wall Street sentirán un impacto demoledor. Recordemos que la verdadera razón para la invasión a Irak fue que Saddam Hussein decidió vender su petróleo en euros.


El declive del dólar se acelera en los últimos años con acuerdos entre China y Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Brasil, Rusia y los brics entre ellos, pero también Japón y Australia, para utilizar sus propias monedas (Geab 72, febrero 2013). A comienzos de 2013 el Laboratorio Europeo de Anticipación Política señalaba que “levantar las sanciones a Irán es la primera etapa para el pago en euros del petróleo importado por Europa” y añadía que el viejo continente no debería hacerse cargo de la inestabilidad y la debilidad de la economía estadounidense”.


Esta tendencia choca de frente con la internacionalización del yuan, la moneda que más se ha apreciado frente al dólar. Síntoma de lo que se viene, es el vertiginoso aumento de las compras de oro por los bancos centrales en 2012, las mayores desde 1964 (CNBC, 14 de febrero de 2013). El Banco Popular de China acaba de informar que “el país ya no se beneficia con el aumento en sus tenencias de moneda extranjera”, por lo que puede frenar la compra de dólares (Bloomberg News, 21 de noviembre de 2013). China tiene reservas de 3,6 billones de dólares, el triple que cualquier otro país y más que el pib de Alemania.


Una característica de los tiempos de transición suele ser la aceleración de los cambios y, sobre todo, la tendencia a resolver los conflictos por la vía militar. El acuerdo con Irán aplaza una guerra en Medio Oriente, pero puede acelerar la tensión en Asia Pacífico.


=========== 
Raúl Zibechi, periodista uruguayo, escribe en Brecha y La Jornada y es colaborador de ALAI.

============== 

THE THAW SETS IN  (EL DESHIELO EMPEZO)
by Serge Halimi

Could an agreement opposed by Binyamin Netanyahu, the pro-Israel lobby which bends the US Congress to its will, Iran’s ultra-conservatives and Saudi Arabia be a bad thing? Is Israel really in the best position to give the Iranian regime lessons when it has the bomb, has never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has violated more UN resolutions than any other country?

Under the interim six-month agreement concluded on 24 November, Iran will not enrich uranium over 5%, in return for the partial suspension of sanctions. That’s the best news in the region since the Arab Spring.

But the power of the coalition opposing the new deal suggests the reprieve might not last. Already, the main protagonists are each presenting the compromise they have reached as a major concession by the other: Barack Obama claims Iran has given way by halting its military nuclear programme; Tehran says the US has accepted Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment. This battle of conflicting communiqués, less lethal than the other sort of battle, is keeping the hawks on both sides busy: American declarations of victory, immediately broadcast in Iran, get equally belligerent rejoinders, instantly commented on in Washington.

Yet after 30 years of confrontation, direct or through intermediaries, Iran and the US are preparing to normalize relations. The event recalls the historic meeting between US president Richard Nixon and China’s Mao Zedong in February 1972, at the height of the Vietnam war. That transformed the entire geopolitical scene. Economic relations followed. Beijing now finances the US debt and Apple iPhones are made in Shenzhen.

The thaw between Iran and the erstwhile “great Satan” could also help to settle conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan. Eleven years after George W Bush launched his “crusade” against the “axis of evil” (1), Iraq is in ruins, the Middle East is destabilized, Palestine is cut off and a swathe of Africa is plagued by jihadist military actions. But the Israeli government persists in pursuing its own destructive course, aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states that want Shia Iran to remain diplomatically isolated and excluded from the oil trade.

Throughout the negotiations with Iran, French president François Hollande and his foreign minister Laurent Fabius dragged their feet, and even tried to prevent a settlement (2). Netanyahu is a lost cause, but at least we can hope that, for the next, delicate, six months, Bush’s ghost won’t spellbind the Elysée.

==============  

If you want to know the Zionist opinion on this issue open:

THE IRANIAN DEAL: WHAT THE BIG SIX REALLY HAVE TO GAIN   By Marin Katusa.  http://www.financialsense.com/  11/27/2013


[HERE MI CRITICA A ESTE ARTICULO EN INGLES]

Brief Introduction by Hugo Adan.  Dec 1-13
There is a kind of xenophobic attitude against Iranians and Russian in this article, similar to those who blamed China of stealing American technology; this degrade the open-up of important venues to approach the deal with Iran.  Read these thoughts: 

1.“the Chinese are known for their deep pockets and willingness to acquire energy reserves regardless of the cost.”  So, to Chinese  “the end justify the means” [not to zionist-Americans?].  


 2. “Iran provides [to Europe] a better alternative to the heavy hand of Putin. ..  Because Iran just wants money for its product, but Putin wants control—both [benefit at]  political as well as economic [level]”. The fact is that Europe is the main beneficiary of this deal, they will get oil from Iran and will be less dependent on Russia for oil and gas. 

The anti-Russian attitude is just a typical necon-zionist attitude of the cold-war era, and this reductionist “cost-benefit” thinking comes like a fly on a soup. The fact is that PEACE is the key issue on this deal, without peace nobody benefit. 

3. The talking about bad  intentions, no facts, on Iran, Russia and China also degrade this analysis, if it was intended to be analysis.  To say that America is the victim of this deal because Iran will steal  technology and Russia-China too, has non-sense at all. They are in this business for long time, they do not depend on US Tech.   

Let’s read this Zionist opinion: “So, by inviting "the Great Satan" inside its borders, Iran will be able to acquire this valuable technology and begin to apply it. And once everything has been built, it would only take a flick of a pen to evict the American companies. The Russians would also be able to take this technology and apply it within their own borders… so that they can begin expanding their hydrocarbon empire beyond the boundaries of Europe.”   

Who is going to eat such crab?.. the servants of Monsant? , the zealots of AIPAC? or maybe the acolytes of the bomb-head Netanyahu?...  but not the rest of the world.
------------------ 
 
Related articles:

Check http://www.citizen.org on US foreign policies. Search google: Lori M Wallach on big Corporations.  And her recent article in http://mondediplo.com/ : The Corporation invasion. Check interviews with Lori at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_loriwallach.html  And Lori on TPP: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/svs/2013/08/29/lori-wallach-on-the-tpp

==========