BRICS: Cable Geopolitics

In response the NSA spying scandals targeting Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff,  in October 2013, she announced the laying of a new cable infrastructure to bypass US control of communications .

   News of the laying of a BRICS-cable triggered public attention as news of laying telegraph cables did a century ago. The ‘cable rush’ by Britain, France and Germany – then major industrial and colonial powers – heralded the start of cable geopolitics which still exists today. Despite all the promises of the end of geography and Internet “virtually”, geography remains as important as ever.

 Invention of the Telegraph and Cable Geopolitics

The telegraph, for the first time in human history, effectively detached communication from transportation. Until the invention of the telegraph, the speed and reliability of communication depended on different means of transportation available at the time for example: foot messenger, horseman and ship.

 Like the Internet today, the telegraph developed very quickly, in a matter of a few decades. ITU statistics show that in 1868, 29 million messages were sent; this increased to 121 million in 1880 and 329 million by 1900.

 The first trans-Atlantic cable was laid in 1868. Great Britain was the first country to discover the economic potential of the telegraph and moved very early and quickly into wiring the world with telegraph cables. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain controlled most of the global telegraph network.

 With its dominant telegraph network, Britain could not only control the news and information (Information is power) , but spy on its allies and enemies. Other countries realized relatively late, both the importance of having a telegraph network, and the extent of British domination.

 The emergence of the US as a global political and economic power can be traced via the extent of its share in the global cable network. When the British tried to extend their cable monopoly to the Americas in the 1890s, the US reacted by developing its own network in the Americas.

 The history of telegraph geo-strategy reflected the complex geo-strategy of the European balance of power system. For example, the British cable system followed the “Rimland” line of Mackinder (Gibraltar-Malta Suez-Aden India). Germany and Russia tried to strengthen the “Heartland” (Euro-Asian continental area). Russia extending its cable network to Asia, and Germany to the Ottoman Empire. The use of the telegraph became part of international life and part of diplomatic tactics. 

Target – South Africa’s President Zuma

At the sixth BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, in July 2014, the heads of the 5 BRICS countries announced the formation of the two new international banks that would be in direct competition with the IMF and the World Bank.

   Not long after that, in South Africa, a local financial institution, African Bank, went bust. The two US credit ratings agencies, Moodys, and   Standard and Poor’s immediately downgraded the South African banking sector. Minutes later, Fitch – which is London-controlled, announced that the South African banking sector is “in good shape”.

 So, what gives? Normally these three ratings agencies act as one. The difference is the ownership structure of the South African banks. There are five major banking groups in South Africa. Of these, only one is tied to Wall Street. That is the country’s largest bank, Standard Bank. A major stake in Standard was purchased by David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan in the early 1950s. The other four banks are tied into London’s orbit. They are Absa, Nedbank, FNB, and Investec.

London did not want to harm itself, thus Fitch made a positive announcement. While this was going on, the CIA tried to destabilize Lesotho with a coup, and it failed.

 When both these options did not work out, Washington tried to smear President Zuma with current scandals, by increasing the spotlight on them through the controlled South African media. It was hyped to such an extent that the South African people read and saw on the TV nothing but negative news about their President Zuma. Zuma was first and foremost a nationalist, who placed priority on the national and strategic interests of his country, over and above the interests of either London or New York.

 That is the reason behind such negative opinion within the South African financier elite, who in one way or another, are beholden either to New York, or London – through its chief representative in South Africa – the super-wealthy Oppenheimer family. The South African financier elite control the media space. Why would they ever find praise for President Zuma, who is opposing their policies to continue bleeding this country dry?

The perception that “snow is black” is very, very strong in South Africa. A country with great future potential in 1994 has descended into a low growth economy, disappointing many of its people, especially the youth.

 A year later, in early December 2015, Chinese leader Xi Jinping was in South Africa, and signed various economic agreements with South Africa’s President Zuma.  A few days later, Russian and Chinese intelligence submitted a report to Zuma. The report mentioned that his Finance Minister, Nene, was trying to sabotage the nuclear deal between Russia and South Africa which was concluded a few months earlier.  In addition to hindering the latest deals between the two countries. Zuma confronted Nene with the evidence, and fired him on the spot.

 When Zuma appointed Van Rooyen as Nene’s replacement, London went berserk. Van Rooyen was slated to be the new head of the South African branch of the BRICS bank. He was absolutely a ‘no-no’ for London. Pressure was put onto Zuma, who eventually appointed Pravin Gordhan as the new finance minister. London could work with Gordhan.

The Asian Infrastructure Bank AIIB

 In October 2014, china announced it was creating a new international bank to finance major infrastructure projects across Asia. Many nations were invited to join before, or by the March 31, 2015 deadline.  The new AIIB threatens to rival the IMF and World Bank as a long-term creditor to attract capital to major infrastructure investments across Eurasia and beyond. The infrastructure gap across Asia and Eurasia is enough to spur global industrial growth for decades. Asia will need $8 trillion over the next decade for energy, transportation, telecommunication and water/sanitation. Now private investment in infrastructure runs a mere $13 billion a year, most in low-risk projects. Official development assistance adds another $11 billion a year. That means a shortfall exceeding $700 billion a year.

 Some 58 nations have signed on to become charter bank members, including most of Western Europe, along with Silk Road countries and Asian countries. There are 12 NATO countries among AIIB’s founding member states (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Portugal and Norway), along with Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. To the surprise of many, so is the IMF!

 The rush to get in the AIIB by all these countries is the realization that Asia and Eurasia is where the economic future of the planet will be made or broken. The US and Canadian economies are choking in unpayable debts, rotting infrastructure and rustbelt ghost towns. America is no longer the magnet that all others are drawn to for trade. Or a better lifestyle. The country is bust.

 It is a good bet that giant mining companies, such as Brazil’s Vale, that have seen their business fall to a 13-year low, are currently busy figuring how much steel goes into construction of a new high speed 13,000 kilometer railroad. If the project is successful, it could very well spark a boom across the entire depressed international mining, commodities, and construction sectors. Consider how many jobs could be created in a decades-long construction project that spans a huge region of the world. In practically every sector, the prospects are enormous for a revival of trade and commerce.

 The ancient Silk Road increased trade across the known world, but the Road also offered far more than trade. One of its least anticipated benefits was the widespread exchange of knowledge, learning, discovery, and culture.

 The absolute hocking surprise was the move by the Rothschild-allied countries to desert Washington, in order to join the AIIB. As related in the “Break-up”, there is now a total break between the two families. Only with this fact does the above make sense. The rats are deserting the sinking “petrodollar” ship. One is reminded of the statement by Britain’s Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, “England has no friends, only her interests.”

 The question is, “Will the AIIB be infected by Trojans like Britain and the IMF?” The answer could well shape the architecture of a new world in which the dollar and its bloated debt structures no longer dictate to the entire world what their economic policies shall be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Posts by Month