Does Globalization Spell Our Doom?
View PDF | Print View
by: normandoi
Total views: 11
Word Count: 1138
Globalization means that we are in an interconnected world where our goods and services can be marketed on a global scale. Worldwide economies are now dependent on one another as money and investments from foreign investors are seen as a critical need if one is to compete in the global marketplace. However, this influx of money comes with pitfalls and sometimes undue influence and motivations that may have more than just economic gains in mind.
Here are some examples that may question where our priorities are:
• Senator Jim Webb of Virginia points out that Saudi Prince Walid Bin Talal, who holds a 3.9% stake in Citibank.
• Saudi Prince Walid Bin Talal also owns over 5% of News Corporation, which in turns owns Fox News, is a personal friend of Rupert Murdoch.
• Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, owned by the royal family of the Abu Dhabi Emirate in the country of United Arab Emirates, has purchased a 4.9% stake for 7.5 billion dollars, making them Citibank's largest single investor.
• The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation invested 10 billion dollars which means that they now have over an 8% stake in UBS, a Swiss financial firm.
• China Investment Corporation (CIC), a company wholly owned by the communist regime, bought a $3 billion stake in Blackstone Group last year and a 9.9% stake of Morgan Stanley (worth $5 billion on December 19, 2007).
• Temasek Holdings, which is controlled by Singapore's Finance Ministry, bought up 5 billion dollars worth of stock at the end of last year.
U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur - Testimony before the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission:
• When I first arrived in Congress, I pointed out (and fought against, to no avail) the growing trend of foreign purchases of U.S. treasury securities. In 1983, the percentage of foreign-held debt was less than 17%. But by 2006, that figure rose to 54%.
• That bring to light my second concern-political motives. It is not just the rogue academics raising the alarm. In a cover story last month, the Economist reported that "China and South Korea want returns-and possibly access to markets, ideas and technology."
Testimony of Business Professor Peter Navarro before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, February 7, 2008:
• Even more provocatively, China has also firmly established the use of its foreign reserves as a political weapon. Whenever pressure builds in the U.S. to curb China's currency manipulation or other unfair trade practices, Chinese government officials threaten what they themselves refer to as the "financial nuclear option." They warn - sometimes directly, sometimes more subtly - that China will stop using its vast dollar-denominated foreign reserves to buy U.S. government bonds and begin dumping dollars on the international market. Such a financial nuclear strike would cause interest and mortgage rates to soar and the U.S. stock market to drop sharply while triggering a U.S. recession.
Testimony of Alan Tonelson Hearing on the Implications of Sovereign Wealth Fund for National Security February 7, 2008:
• Clearly, however, acquisitions by government-related investors from China or Russia - meaning any investors from those two countries, given the state's commanding role over the entire economy - raise a real danger of diverting sensitive products and technologies to potential adversaries, not to mention the implications of such lawless dictatorial governments gaining influence and even outright control over institutions vital to America's continued strength and prosperity.
Is there any undue influence?
Middle East investors now control 10% of Citibank.
Saudi Prince Walid Bin Talal was closely consulted in the ouster of Chuck Prince from Citibank as its C.E.O.
Saudi Prince Walid Bin Talal also made a personal call to Murdoch when Fox News was reporting on the Muslim riots in France and said:
• "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots," the prince reportedly said. "He [Murdoch] investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots.'"
Even though nearly every other media outlet was attributing the riots to France's Muslim population.
Remember this is the same Al-Walid who tried to donate $10 million to a September 11 relief fund. However, in a written statement circulated by his publicist during the visit, the prince declared:
• "At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause." In reaction, Giuliani angrily returned the donation. Days later, in an interview with a Saudi newspaper, Al-Walid blamed Giuliani's decision on "Jewish pressures".
CIC has already warned governments who are worried about their "national security" that if they use this as a reason to slow down their investments that it will boycott their countries. This type of economic blackmailing is the new tool of strategic influence that we should expect to see in the upcoming years.
China will be at the forefront of this type of Financial Warfare and they have already told us this with the publication of Unrestricted Warfare by Chinese Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Unrestricted Warfare was written by these two forward thinking soldiers who felt that if China ever engaged the United States in warfare they would have to use all means available to include terrorism, resource warfare and financial warfare. They dedicate a number of passages in the book to the topic of financial warfare including what they perceive as an attack on their economy caused by the financial crisis in Southeast Asia due to devaluation of the New Taiwan dollar. Here is a passage from their book:
• Non-state organizations, in this their first war without the use of military force, are using non-military means to engage sovereign nations. Thus, financial war is a form of non-military warfare which is just as terribly destructive as a bloody war, but in which no blood is actually shed. Financial warfare has now officially come to war's center stage--a stage that for thousands of years has been occupied only by soldiers and weapons, with blood and death everywhere. We believe that before long, "financial warfare" will undoubtedly be an entry in the various types of dictionaries of official military jargon. Moreover, when people revise the history books on twentieth-century warfare in the early 21st century, the section on financial warfare will command the reader's utmost attention.
Can we afford not to pay attention to the source of the money being invested and the "price" we have to pay for this money?
About the Author
Norman Lihou is the Director of Intelligence at the Non Governmental Intelligence Agency (NGIA) (www.thengia.org) and provides analysis about information he finds at the website Thinking Points (thinkingpoints.thengia.org). NGIA is committed to provide a pure analysis of current and ongoing situations in the world, while applying historical lessons learned for a comprehensive view of how that may impact our lives. This analysis is conducted without any political, administration, organization and/or agency bias, agenda, goals or gains. NGIA goes beyond the headlines and the sound bites to better educate and inform the public, business and government sectors on what they can do to recognize the threat and protect themselves.
HTML For Publishers
Please note: This article is free to reprint but all links must remain active.
Rating: Not yet rated
