Fall of Saudi Arabia to End Dollar Reserve System?
Friday, January 28, 2011 – http://www.thedailybell.com
There is a social media revolution in Saudi Arabia ... Ten million Saudis are online, 3 million belong to Facebook, and Twitter feeds are up more than 400 percent. Recently, many tweets and posts have been focused on the uprising in Tunisia. In fact, Saudi's social media activists spread videos and news updates at the peak of the street protests — and the interest has stayed high ever since. And, now, Saudi bloggers have added the unrest in Cairo to the topics receiving much attention. Will the Saudi government clamp down on this free-wheeling speech after Tunisia's social media movement helped to bring down a government? It's one of the big questions ahead for Saudi Arabia. How this authoritarian regime will live with the freedom and chaos that the Internet represents. ... The Internet poses a challenge for this conservative, mostly religious society. – National Public Radio
Dominant Social Theme: The Jasmine revolution spread unexpectedly.
Free-Market Analysis: The civil unrest in Egypt is growing fiercer. Electronic communications have been shut down throughout Egypt and massive demonstrations have been planned for today. A changing of the guard in Egypt would be a massive political shift indeed, but what if the disturbances don't stop there? What if they ultimately spread to Saudi Arabia and end up bringing down the dollar reserve system?
We suggest this possibility because we believe there are larger forces at work in the Middle East. Could it be that the power elite itself is inciting these disturbances? Is the idea, eventually, to crash the dollar and set up a global currency in its place?The dollar reserve system is propped up by Saudi Arabia's willingness to restrict the purchase of oil to dollars, a system that has been in place since US President Richard Nixon abrogated what remained of the gold standard in 1971. But the PE is notoriously unsentimental. The Saudi elite has grown enormously wealthy from its relationship with the US and now, perhaps, for the good of a new world order, it is time for them to go.
Sure it's a tenuous hypothesis; but we are merely attempting a logical extrapolation, trying out different scenarios. We don't put anything past the power elite anymore. Not since it occurred to us that the NASA moon landings might have been faked; not since we discovered the CIA carried out operations to foment communist radicalism in Europe via Operation Gladio 40 years ago; or that through Project Mockingbird, the CIA enlisted the help of America's major media to propagate Cold War paranoia. The goal is always world domination by a tiny, Anglo-American elite. In a previous article, we wrote the following:
We've already reported suspicions that the Tunisia unrest was likely aided by CIA; we've suggested that the idea is to construct a Muslim enemy that the West can generally agitate against. One hundred Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are not doing the trick. The Pentagon's budget is in danger of being cut – and hard. A more formidable enemy is called for. And now the Middle East is ablaze.
We believed that in Tunisia, sooner or later there would be a militant Muslim outpouring even if Tunisia is generally secular. No sooner had we suggested this, then there were reports that the Tunisian Islamic leader Rachid Ghannouchi was prepared to return home from Britain where he had lived for 20 years. "He is preparing to revive his Islamic party formally, even though he denies any political ambitions himself," we wrote. You can see it here:
In this article, we'll examine the unrest and how it may aid the Western power elites in their quest for ever-closer global governance. We have already hypothesized that these manipulated revolutions (if they are fully realized) will give rise to Islamic states. Now we will further explore the idea that the West is hoping to install a variety of "democratic" regimes – many of them perhaps "national unity governments," with Islamic overtones. These overthrows might accomplish numerous purposes, including the furtherance of elite globalism.
The power elite has always had an affection for national unity governments and there is one in Britain today. In America, on and off, there is much chatter about Democratic and Republican unity. The idea is that by reasoning together, opponents can build better and more efficient governments – that do more things for more people. Thus, we can argue that the national unity governments being discussed in the Middle East (and implemented in Tunisia) may be meant to serve as a template for other countries as dictators are inevitably deposed.
As a blog dedicated to analyzing the elite's dominant social themes, we understand that almost every promotion is likely related to another. Thus the global warming fraud was supposed to kick off a food and water shortage. In fact, these scarcity promotions are underway, but since the global warming meme has all-but-collapsed, nothing is really supporting them. This is the power of the Internet; its truth telling is wreaking havoc with elite story-telling. It is hard to build a one-world government when each of your fear-based promotions comes under intense scrutiny and exposure.
What's going on in the Middle Eastern is a mélange of elite promotions. The one that stands out the most is WikiLeaks. There was a determined effort to place WikiLeaks at the front of the Tunisian unrest by claiming that its exposure of strongman Ben Ali's corruption had pushed the Tunisians to rebel. Not only is this a patronizing perspective, it is one that has been rebutted in various places on the ‘Net. The Tunisian revolution may have been encouraged by Western intel, but Tunisians needed no outside information to explain the corruption of their country to them.
The WikiLeaks sub dominant theme seems to have been dropped. But the Jasmine revolution is spreading. The website Popdecoy sums it up for us as follows: "The protests in Tunisia that led to toppling of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali have inspired demonstrators from Morocco to Yemen. The Tunisian who tipped events off, Bouazizi, was an unemployed university graduate who doused himself with petrol and set himself alight in the city of Sidi Bouzid on December 17. He was protesting official harassment of his street-side produce business, but his act quickly came to symbolize government abuse and the absence of economic opportunity. Thereafter, clashes broke out in Algeria [and many other countries]."
It's uncanny how Western powers first predicted the unrest; and it's surprising how they seemingly abetted it. Way back on January 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finished a four-nation tour of the Middle East and then gave a "rousing speech" in Doha. The New York Post reported she told Arab leaders that they "can expect to face growing unrest, extremism and even rebellion if they fail to quickly address depleting oil and water reserves and to enact real economic and political reform."
At the Forum for the Future Conference in Doha, Qatar's capital, Clinton pointed out that many Middle East regimes were "sinking in the sand" and that change was absolutely necessary. "The new and dynamic Middle East needs firmer ground if it is to take root and grow everywhere." She also asserted, the Post noted, that economic and political space must be made for the Arab world's women, minorities and exploding youth population.
A few days later, protests struck Tunisia and Ben Ali fled to Britain. A national unity government came together suddenly and various concrete steps were taken to install "real" democracy in Tunisia. As part of the evolution of this process, the Tunisian army has kept the peace but not interfered with politics. The police have been progressively less aggressive, to the point of taking the side of the protestors in some cases.
This would seem to suit the West; in fact Western leaders have ever-more emphatically been warning established Middle East leaders that they ought not to merely suppress protest but should tolerate them and even seek to accommodate the goals stated by protestors. This was Hillary Clinton's point, but it is not hers alone.
According to CBC news, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed the protests in the Middle East with Moroccan Prime Minister Abbas el Fassi in Rabat, Morocco, on Wednesday and "offered support on Thursday for democratic protests taking place in the Middle East." Harper added, "We want to see democratic development in [Egypt] as well. We're very supportive of that ... We support the democratic development that is taking place there and obviously want to see that proceed positively," Harper said. Harper also stressed that members of the former regime of Ben Ali are not welcome in Canada.
Britain chimed in too. In an article entitled, "Britain Foreign Secretary Calls for Reform in Middle East" the BBC reported that Foreign Secretary William Hague urged the Egyptian government "to move towards political reform in order to calm growing unrest." In an interview on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Egyptian government should heed demands for change. "I do think that it is important in this situation to respond positively to legitimate demands for reform, to move towards openness and transparency and greater political freedom and that would be my advice to Egyptian leaders and to many others around the Arab world."
Ah, there's that word again ... "Transparency." We've identified it as a special word that seems to have unusual Import. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is interested in a more transparent world – and especially more transparency in government. So is William Hague. And doubtless Hillary Clinton. You can read the articles on transparency here:
All these revolutions coming at once are almost too good to be true. And perhaps they are. There is some violence – especially in Egypt – but it seems like the dictator has forgotten how to be merciless. (Or at least has taken some time to work himself up to a fever pitch.) Are these regimes being pressured? Is it possible after 30 years that the West wants to make a clean sweep of its puppet states in the Middle East?
All this is speculation. We are meme watchers not mind readers and Egypt and other countries in the Middle East may or may not topple old regimes. But we do keep in mind the goals of the Western power elite and try to analyze their influences and promotions around the world. It is not merely a hypothetical exercise. The Egyptian stock market is down sharply and one may make profitable investments by betting on either the current regime's survival or its disappearance.
Conclusion: If the revolution reaches all the way to Saudi Arabia – and if this is the elite's intention (to blow up the price of oil while fatally wounding the dollar) – then heaven-help the world's commodity prices. Isolate the memes of the elite within a free-market context, determine the potential for success or failure and then make corresponding, judicious bets. As always we recommend (to your attention) gold and silver.
Hillary Clinton at noon EST: "We support the universal rights of the Egyptian people including the right to expression ... There are deep grievances and the Egyptian government needs to understand that violence will not make these grievances go away ... Reform is absolutely critical to the well-being of Egypt ... We continue to raise with the Egyptian government the imperative for reform to provide a better future for all ... We want to partner with the Egyptian people to live in a Democratic society ... The people of the Middle East are seeking a chance to contribute. As I said in Doha, leaders need to respond to these aspirations. They need to view civil society as their partner not as a threat."
------------------------------------------------------
Israel Fears Regime Change in Egypt
Spiegel 30 Gennaio 2011
Israel is watching developments in Egypt with concern. The government is standing by autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, out of fear that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood could take power and start supplying arms to Hamas.
Israel is usually a country where politicians have an opinion on any topic, and vociferously so. But in recent days, Israel's leadership has been unusually silent on a certain question. No one, it seems, is willing to make an official comment on the ongoing unrest in Egypt, where protesters have been holding anti-government rallies. It's not because Israel does not care about the riots ravaging its southern neighbor — on the contrary, Israeli news channels, normally prone to parochialism, have been closely following recent events in the Arab world, from Tunisia to Lebanon.
Radio, television and newspapers constantly report the courage of the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, not only relishing the historic spectacle, but openly expressing sympathy with Egypt's struggle for democracy.
But the Israeli government is keeping quiet. "We are closely monitoring the events, but we do not interfere in the internal affairs of a neighboring state," was the curt answer from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to requests for comments.
So for journalists looking for quotes, it is a happy coincidence that Israel's former Industry and Trade Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer resigned from the Israeli cabinet last week and can now freely express his opinions as a member of the opposition Labor Party. "I don't think it is possible (for there to be a revolution in Egypt)," Ben-Eliezer told Israeli Army Radio. "I see things calming down soon." The Iraqi-born former minister is a renowned expert on Israeli-Arab relations and is a friend of the Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.
Ben Eliezer's statement is consistent with the assessment of members of Israel's intelligence community and Middle East experts, who point to the strength of Egypt's army. In his remarks to Army Radio, Ben-Eliezer also explained Israel's position on the protests. "Israel cannot do anything about what is happening there," he said. "All we can do is express our support for (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak and hope the riots pass quietly." He added that Egypt was Israel's most important ally in the region.
Uneasy Peace
Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, in 1979, but the relationship between the neighboring countries remains delicate. Good relations are limited to government circles. The regime in Cairo attempts to curtail the establishment of closer links between the countries' civil societies. The professional associations of doctors, engineers or lawyers, for example, require their members to declare that they will not contribute to normalizing relations with Israel.
Even 30 years after the peace agreement, annual trade between the neighboring countries only amounts to a value of $150 million (€110 million). (For comparison, Israel's trade with the European Union was worth around €20 billion in 2009.)
A recent incident involving the vice governor of the Sinai Peninsula reveals how many Egyptians think about Israel. After a shark attack off the coast, the official said that it could not be ruled out that the deadly fish had been released by Israeli intelligence to harm Egypt's tourism industry. After the bloody attack on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1, a spokesman for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood speculated that Israel could be responsible for the attack, with the intention of sowing discord between Christians and Muslims.
Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the main reasons why official Israel seems to support Mubarak so keenly. It is considered the most popular political movement in Egypt, and its position regarding the peace treaty with Israel is clear: They want it revoked immediately. "Democracy is something beautiful," said Eli Shaked, who was Israel's ambassador to Cairo from 2003 to 2005, in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Nevertheless, it is very much in the interests of Israel, the United States and Europe that Mubarak remains in power."
For Israel, more is at stake than the current so-called "cold" peace with Egypt and a few tens of millions of dollars in trade. "Never before have Israel's strategic interests been so closely aligned with those of the Sunni states as today," says Shaked, referring to Arab countries whose populations are mainly Sunni Muslim, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The recent publication of the US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks showed what he means: Much of the Arab world, and especially Mubarak, sees Shiite Iran and its allies, such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as an existential threat, just as Israel does.
Potential Serious Danger
"If regime change occurs in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would take the helm, and that would have incalculable consequences for the region," says Shaked. The Israeli government has noted with concern the fact that, even after 30 years of peace, Egypt's army is still equipped and trained mainly with a possible war against Israel in mind.
A cancellation of the peace treaty would open up a new front with the 11th largest army in the world, which is equipped with modern American weapons. But what Israel fears more than a — somewhat unlikely — armed conflict with Egypt is an alliance between an Islamist regime in Cairo and Hamas, which considers itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Today the Egyptian army tries to stop — albeit hesitantly — weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, the main supply route for Hamas. An Egyptian regime that opened the border with Gaza for arms deliveries would pose a serious danger to Israel.
Shaked considers the West's demands for more openness and democracy in Egypt to be a fatal mistake. "It is an illusion to believe that the dictator Mubarak could be replaced by a democracy," he says. "Egypt is still not capable of democracy," he adds, pointing out that the illiteracy rate is over 20 percent, to give just one example. The Muslim Brotherhood is the only real alternative, he opines, which would have devastating consequences for the West. "They will not change their anti-Western attitude when they come to power. That has not happened (with Islamist movements) anywhere: neither in Sudan, Iran nor Afghanistan."
Ultimately the choice is between a pro- or an anti-Western dictatorship, says Shaked. "It is in our interest that someone from Mubarak's inner circle takes over his legacy, at any cost." In the process, it is not possible to rule out massive bloodshed in the short term, he says. "It would not be the first time that riots in Egypt were brutally crushed."
By Gil Yaron in Jerusalem
Source > Spiegel
Spiegel 30 Gennaio 2011
Israel is watching developments in Egypt with concern. The government is standing by autocratic Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, out of fear that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood could take power and start supplying arms to Hamas.
Israel is usually a country where politicians have an opinion on any topic, and vociferously so. But in recent days, Israel's leadership has been unusually silent on a certain question. No one, it seems, is willing to make an official comment on the ongoing unrest in Egypt, where protesters have been holding anti-government rallies. It's not because Israel does not care about the riots ravaging its southern neighbor — on the contrary, Israeli news channels, normally prone to parochialism, have been closely following recent events in the Arab world, from Tunisia to Lebanon.
Radio, television and newspapers constantly report the courage of the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, not only relishing the historic spectacle, but openly expressing sympathy with Egypt's struggle for democracy.
But the Israeli government is keeping quiet. "We are closely monitoring the events, but we do not interfere in the internal affairs of a neighboring state," was the curt answer from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to requests for comments.
So for journalists looking for quotes, it is a happy coincidence that Israel's former Industry and Trade Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer resigned from the Israeli cabinet last week and can now freely express his opinions as a member of the opposition Labor Party. "I don't think it is possible (for there to be a revolution in Egypt)," Ben-Eliezer told Israeli Army Radio. "I see things calming down soon." The Iraqi-born former minister is a renowned expert on Israeli-Arab relations and is a friend of the Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman.
Ben Eliezer's statement is consistent with the assessment of members of Israel's intelligence community and Middle East experts, who point to the strength of Egypt's army. In his remarks to Army Radio, Ben-Eliezer also explained Israel's position on the protests. "Israel cannot do anything about what is happening there," he said. "All we can do is express our support for (Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak and hope the riots pass quietly." He added that Egypt was Israel's most important ally in the region.
Uneasy Peace
Egypt was the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, in 1979, but the relationship between the neighboring countries remains delicate. Good relations are limited to government circles. The regime in Cairo attempts to curtail the establishment of closer links between the countries' civil societies. The professional associations of doctors, engineers or lawyers, for example, require their members to declare that they will not contribute to normalizing relations with Israel.
Even 30 years after the peace agreement, annual trade between the neighboring countries only amounts to a value of $150 million (€110 million). (For comparison, Israel's trade with the European Union was worth around €20 billion in 2009.)
A recent incident involving the vice governor of the Sinai Peninsula reveals how many Egyptians think about Israel. After a shark attack off the coast, the official said that it could not be ruled out that the deadly fish had been released by Israeli intelligence to harm Egypt's tourism industry. After the bloody attack on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1, a spokesman for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood speculated that Israel could be responsible for the attack, with the intention of sowing discord between Christians and Muslims.
Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the main reasons why official Israel seems to support Mubarak so keenly. It is considered the most popular political movement in Egypt, and its position regarding the peace treaty with Israel is clear: They want it revoked immediately. "Democracy is something beautiful," said Eli Shaked, who was Israel's ambassador to Cairo from 2003 to 2005, in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Nevertheless, it is very much in the interests of Israel, the United States and Europe that Mubarak remains in power."
For Israel, more is at stake than the current so-called "cold" peace with Egypt and a few tens of millions of dollars in trade. "Never before have Israel's strategic interests been so closely aligned with those of the Sunni states as today," says Shaked, referring to Arab countries whose populations are mainly Sunni Muslim, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The recent publication of the US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks showed what he means: Much of the Arab world, and especially Mubarak, sees Shiite Iran and its allies, such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as an existential threat, just as Israel does.
Potential Serious Danger
"If regime change occurs in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would take the helm, and that would have incalculable consequences for the region," says Shaked. The Israeli government has noted with concern the fact that, even after 30 years of peace, Egypt's army is still equipped and trained mainly with a possible war against Israel in mind.
A cancellation of the peace treaty would open up a new front with the 11th largest army in the world, which is equipped with modern American weapons. But what Israel fears more than a — somewhat unlikely — armed conflict with Egypt is an alliance between an Islamist regime in Cairo and Hamas, which considers itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Today the Egyptian army tries to stop — albeit hesitantly — weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, the main supply route for Hamas. An Egyptian regime that opened the border with Gaza for arms deliveries would pose a serious danger to Israel.
Shaked considers the West's demands for more openness and democracy in Egypt to be a fatal mistake. "It is an illusion to believe that the dictator Mubarak could be replaced by a democracy," he says. "Egypt is still not capable of democracy," he adds, pointing out that the illiteracy rate is over 20 percent, to give just one example. The Muslim Brotherhood is the only real alternative, he opines, which would have devastating consequences for the West. "They will not change their anti-Western attitude when they come to power. That has not happened (with Islamist movements) anywhere: neither in Sudan, Iran nor Afghanistan."
Ultimately the choice is between a pro- or an anti-Western dictatorship, says Shaked. "It is in our interest that someone from Mubarak's inner circle takes over his legacy, at any cost." In the process, it is not possible to rule out massive bloodshed in the short term, he says. "It would not be the first time that riots in Egypt were brutally crushed."
By Gil Yaron in Jerusalem
Source > Spiegel
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου