OBOR China Globalization and the International Oligarchy

OBOR China Globalization and the International Oligarchy

What was once called “imperialism” is now “globalization”, and China taking a lead is no reason for celebration by opponents of the US’s Empire?

In estimating the significance of geopolitical maneuvering by the USA, EU, China, and Russia, more can be discerned by looking at the organ grinders rather than their monkeys. One might expect this to be axiomatic, but apparently not, and it can be readily dismissed as “conspiracy theory” by journalists, academics and other intellectually banal types; unless it is a Clintonesque conspiracy theory that is of a Russophobic character. I would still contend that when looking at Russia under Putin, it is usually that “what one sees is what one gets,” but not so the other major geopolitical world players. One must look beyond the public figures of the USA, China and EU, to get a fuller picture of what is transpiring on the world stage among these players. For example, while President Trump and the Pentagon brass might take the decades of shadow-boxing between the USA and China seriously, there is another power structure in the USA whose outlook might be at variance with a president and his military chiefs.

For several decades, one has been increasingly hearing the name Goldman Sachs, where one had long heard the names Rothschild and Rockefeller as the apex of international finance. While the Rockefeller banking and oil dynasty played a significant pioneering role in opening up China for global investment, working through think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations the Asia Society, and Trilateral Commission, the latter two being largely founded for the purpose.

Character of Globalization

Ironically, there are anti-globalists who see China, in its rivalry with the USA for geopolitical dominance, as a bulwark against globalization, to the extent of welcoming a “new Chinese century” as distinct from the “new American century” of the oddly named “neoconservatives”.Some might also see China’s geopolitical expansion as a drawback for Zionism insofar as China aligns itself with Middle Eastern states antagonistic towards Israel, Syria being the primary target of Zionist anathema. Yet again, how seriously should one take China’s shadow-boxing with Israel, while conveniently insinuating itself into the Middle East, when Israel remains a primary supplier of weapons to China, including the latest U.S. technology, and have from the founding of both Israel and the People’s Republic maintained cordial relations regardless of China’s posturing in the Middle East?

Globalization remains what it is whether its primary center is The City of London, New York, or Beijing. The investment bankers Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, Merrill Lynch, Chase, Citigroup, etc., do not owe prime loyalty to any super-power, nation or coalition of nations. Their forefathers were bankers to empires for centuries, then just as conscientiously helped to scuttle the very notion of “empire” when it became economically redundant. If a China-led world economy offers better prospects for international investments than one led by the USA, rivalry over geopolitical interests in the South China Sea, or anywhere else, are not going to play anything other than a nuisance factor for global capital.

China: Leader of Globalization

China sees itself as the leader of globalization, displacing the USA. So does George Soros, and the strategists at Goldman Sachs, et al. It makes no difference to Soros or the Goldman Sachs people where they happen to reside. Their balance sheets are not nationalistic, and nor are they. They have no attachments beyond capital, and that transcendent loyalty forms a new ethnos; what the zoologist Konrad Lorenz called specialization. Financial correspondent G. Pascal Zachary approvingly observed the emergence of a global elite that can move about the world, as rootless and cosmopolitan as the global corporations they serve.

Anna Bruce-Lockhart, editor for the World Economic Forum (WEF), wrote that President Xi went to the WEF at Davos in January 2017 and “told the Davos meeting that China was ready to assume nothing less than leadership of the world: In his opening address, Xi told a packed conference hall that the Chinese were ‘leaders of our times’. He said his country was ready to make globalization work for everyone, and not just the few. ‘The people of all countries expect nothing less from us, and this is our unshirkable responsibility as leaders of our times.

While certain factions influential in U.S. policy, such as the “neocon” lobbyists, and for contrary reasons, the recently galvanized populists, see China as a threat, geopolitically in the case of the former and economically in the case of the latter, there are other interests that, despite being headquartered in Wall Street, do not see China’s incursions in the South China Sea, or the dumping of Chinese goods on the U.S. home market, as threatening their investments. They are excited to proceed with a symbiotic relationship with China, circumventing interference by Pentagon brass or populist politicians, while China is as willing to enter such a relationship with the architects of globalization.

China has taken its cue from Goldman Sachs. Again, there are those who both acclaim or condemn BRICS as rivalling U.S. hegemony and globalization. BRICS is seen as the nucleus for a bloc that can challenge the USA. Be that as it may, it does not present an alternative to globalization. BRICS was conceived by Goldman Sachs. The concept of BRIC was floated within Goldman Sachs in 2001 by Jim O’Neil, in his Global Economics Paper, “Building Better Global Economic BRICs”. He called it the “BRICs dream,” in a 2003 paper, “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050.” BRICS goes well beyond other regional groupings established by international capital, such as the EU, “Pacific Rim,” and “Trilateralism.”

The “new silk road,” not a single transit but a series of development projects linking Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and South East Asia, with China as the hub, is being promoted as the hope of the future. One enthusiast, the Australasian lawyer, James O’Neil wrote of the “new silk road” that it will “seriously affect the dollar’s previous dominance and with it the ability of the United States to exercise economic and political influence throughout the world.”Be that as it may, it remains globalization whether under U.S. or Chinese auspices.

One of the primary aspects of U.S. directed globalization is what neocon ideologues such as Ralph Peters and Michael Ledeen laud as being the “toxic” character of America’s corporate culture with its ability to subvert and destroy nations and traditions that are a hindrance. China has succumbed to this corporate monoculture, which is concomitant with a global economy. The culture that is inherent in globalization is not going to be changed by China. The character of globalization needs “culture” to be a marketing strategy. China has not transcended this, and will not. Globalization under Chinese auspices rather than American, will still convey the cultural contaminants of Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and MTV. We will not be reaching for new heights of culture motivated by Confucius. Corporate global culture proceeds under economic globalization, regardless of the nation nominally at the head. New generations of Chinese are adopting the styles, mannerisms and consumer trends of their American and European counterparts.

Oligarchy remains

Moreover, the oligarchic interests will remain the same. Chinese leadership of globalization is not going to dislodge the present oligarchy, but expand its scope. The “One Belt, One Road” vision is being directed by oligarchs in conjunction with Chinese interests. Again, the relationship is symbiotic. The Silk Road Finance Corporation states of its purpose:

For More Click the Reference link:



Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of