Včerajšnji New York Times je objavil dober zapis o tem, kako so ZDA izgubile enega glavnih mehanizmov za discipliniranje ostalih držav. Podobno, kot sem pisal že sam pred letom in pol. Do izpred nekaj let je lahko Washington zgolj v nekaj potezah – s trgovinskimi (prepoved trgovanja) in s finančnimi sankcijami (z izključitvijo iz bančnega SWIFT sistema in / ali izločitvijo iz finančnih trgov) – neko državo izobčil in ji onemogočil normalen razvoj. Danes Washington tega praktično ne more več učinkovito narediti. Iz dveh razlogov. Prvič, ker so močnejše države (Rusija, Kitajska, Iran) razvile lastne sisteme na tehnološkem in finančnem področju in si zagotovile avtonomijo. In drugič, zaradi vzpona Kitajske. Kitajska je v vmesnem času postala globalna tovarna, ki proizvaja večino stvari za globalni trg in postala glavni trgovinski partner večine držav na svetu. Za to trgovanje Kitajski in partnericam ni treba uporabljati dolarjev, niti dolarskega  plačilnega prometa. In če bi Washington posledično kaznoval te partnerske države s sankcijami, se tem državam bolj splača trgovati s Kitajsko kot z ZDA. Še pred desetletjem države niso imele alternative, bile so odvisne od ZDA in s tem ranljive na ameriške sankcije. Danes pa imajo alternativo v Kitajski in jih sankcije ne morejo več bistveno destabilizirati.

Zaradi tega Washingtonu in njegovim podložnim državam ni uspelo sankcionirati Rusije po začetku agresije na Ukrajino. In zaradi tega si Washington danes ne upa sakncionirati Kitajske, saj bi s tem ohromil trgovino med Kitajsko in ZDA, posledično pa bi ameriška podjetja in potrošniki doživeli šok, saj bi ostali brez ključnih inputov oziroma potrošnih dobrin. In zaradi tega se je Indija požvižgala na Trumpove grožnje s sekundarnimi carinami, če bo še naprej kupovala ruske energente in jih preprodajala naprej. Ker ji Washington nič ne more in ker je Kitajska zanjo bolj pomemben trgovinski partner.

ZDA so postale brezzobi tiger. Ki se sicer glasno repenči, toda vsi vidijo, da nima več zob.

Spodaj je dober povzetek in komentar Nuryja Vitachija.

_____________

THE DUBIOUS ECONOMIC TOOL that the United States uses to control the world is losing power, the New York Times reported today.

Washington’s main weapon is global economic coercion, whitewashed with the term “secondary sanctions”—but it is no longer the all-powerful death ray it used to be.

Groups from mainland China, Hong Kong, the UEA, Russia, and elsewhere are finding ways to bypass direct and indirect American sanctions.

“For decades, companies feared being on the wrong side of U.S. sanctions,” the newspaper said in a report today. “That’s not always true anymore.”

U.S. SIDELINES THE U.N.

No kidding. The problem, explained simply, is this. Sanctions – restrictions on someone’s economic activity – are supposed to be imposed on countries, companies, or individuals by democratic agreements overseen by the United Nations.

However, since the 1960s, a single nation has used its wealth and power to gradually dominate the international sanctions system by itself. The U.S. did this by leveraging the fact that international finance transfers use U.S. dollars.

Anyone who stands up to Washington directly or indirectly can be, with a word, permanently prevented from interacting with any banks that use U.S. dollars—which is pretty much all the major financial institutions of the world. The result: the U.S. can cut anyone out of the global financial system at will.

SOME VICTIMS

Are you a Russian businesswoman selling medical equipment to Africa? Sanctioned.

Or a Hong Kong police officer who arrested an arsonist burning a British bank? Sanctioned.

Or an Iranian trader buying food from Europe? Sanctioned.

You can’t use the global financial system anymore – your bank accounts are immediately closed and you can never again use Visa or Mastercard.

It’s happened to people I know: good, decent hardworking people, innocent of any crime.

PLAYGROUND POLITICS

Unilateral sanctions are bad enough, but the US uses secondary sanctions, too.

This is basic playground politics. “Hey, you over there. If you stay friends with that kid, I won’t be your friend any more, and I’ll tell everyone else not to be your friend any more.”

When the rich kid says this, others obey, with the UK, EU and Australia first in line to say: Yes, sir.

Others are forced to comply. This week, a Singapore shipping company had to stop using a third of its ships, after links were found to an Iranian company, and the US doesn’t like Iran.

Last week, Kyrgyzstan found itself sanctioned by the US because it has a Stablecoin linked to the Russian Rouble. (The UK obediently copied Washington’s moves.)

WEAPONIZATION

The SWIFT system was set up to enable money transfers across the globe for everyone—but was then weaponized so that anyone Washington wanted to hurt could be cut out of the system.

When the French bank BNP Paribas did its job by processing international transactions, the U.S. fined it nearly US$9 billion, the New York Times reported. That’s because the transactions were for people the U.S. disliked: Sudanese, Iranian and Cuban entities.

The U.S. accused Standard Chartered, a British based in Asia, of money laundering and fined it nearly $1 billion in 2019, after which many “global banks… severed ties with entire countries deemed too risky”, the New York Times said.

HERE’S WHAT CHANGED

What has changed recently? The use of type of large-scale finance-based sanctions became less common during the Biden administration and the frequency of use has not risen under the Trump administration. (Trump prefers other kinds of threat, including tariffs and warnings of military action.)

At the same time, the world is finding ways to wriggle out of the stranglehold of Washington, as ultimate proof of the adage that necessity is the mother of invention.

For example, Russians who need to travel or make international transactions are using Chinese financial systems to survive. (China has its own payment systems, such as Alipay.)

India has refused to play ball, and the Americans have become too scared to confront China. Why is this?

Can the U.S. not sanction major Chinese banks? It cannot. That’s where things get interesting.

If the US sanctions major Chinese banks, “Many American companies would be unable to pay Chinese factories for goods or receive payments for their own exports,” the NYT report says. “Supply chains for everything from electronics to pharmaceuticals could freeze up, sending prices soaring for American consumers.”

It quotes Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, saying that this calculus has made Chinese banks nearly “unsanctionable”.

THE FUTURE

So that likely explains the drop in US sanctions of this nature. Policy wonks in Washington DC know that the more the U.S. lashes out at poorer countries, the more the victims will trade with each other instead.

And some of the targets are no longer weaklings, but smart operatives finding new ways to trade. India is less bully-able than it used to be, and China is positively scary.

This, ultimately, will weaken U.S. control over the world.

That’s bad for Washington. Remember, U.S. foreign policy is rooted in the goal specified in writing by Washington’s political godfather George Kennan: the ultimate purpose is to “maintain the disparity” between the rich west and poorer people elsewhere.

Kennan set that U.S. foreign policy goal in 1948. More than 70 years later, maintaining the west-east wealth disparity is becoming difficult.

There are many hardworking smart people in the east. And WeChat and Alipay work really well, for everyone — whether you are from Singapore, Russia, Hong Kong, India, or Kyrgyzstan.

Vir: Nury Vitachi