Following is an article written by Pepe Escobar who is often ahead of the international “news train”––this time regarding the Russia-China trade alliances which are taking place alongside the showdown in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. I haven’t followed the jumble of trade acronyms listed below, but have come to respect Pepe’s insights and predictions.
His latest piece takes me back to the 90s and early 2000s when I urged Dick Gephardt, Newt Gingrich and other congress members, to drop the Jackson-Vanik Amendment trade restrictions regarding Russia. The rationale was simple: if Washington refused to become trade partners with Russia, her leaders would eventually be forced to seek China and other less desirable partners for trade alliances.
They didn’t heed––and the predictions have now come true. If even half of Pepe’s forecasts below materialize, we in the US will be the greatest international net losers. Nothing can be done now; it’s too late. Washington has literally forced these unintended trade agreements into being by refusing Russia’s attempts to partner.
Read the following and weep that our leaders have chosen to pursue American hegemony and power rather than cooperating with other rising economies at the end of the 20th century in order to create a stable, prosperous multipolar world order in the 21st century.
It remains to be seen how this plethora of global errors will work itself out; but consider the impact on our American way of life if the directions below materialize.
Sharon
On the Road to United Eurasia
Pepe Escobar
June 30, 2016
Whenever President Vladimir Putin stresses Russia’s all-embracing and strategic partnership with China, one can hear the proverbial howls of anger emanating from the neocon/neoliberalcon axis in the Beltway.
As he met Chinese president Xi Jinping in Beijng this past Saturday, Putin even allowed himself an understatement; To say we have a strategic cooperation is not enough anymore. This is why we have started talking about a comprehensive partnership and strategic collaboration. Comprehensive means that we work virtually on all major avenues; strategic means that we attach enormous inter-government importance to this work.
Why understatement? Because this really ventures way beyond a stream of business deals.