Welcome to the New Multipolar World Order - Part 2

Iain Davis
September 26, 2022

Read the original article here.

In Part 1, I discussed the nature of the "world order" and "global governance."

I learned about the critical difference between the Westphalian model of equal and sovereign nation-states (a mythical ideal that does not exist in reality) and the various attempts to imprint a world order upon it.

In particular, I examined how the UN is the primary organization promoting global governance and how its founding charter encourages the concentration of global power.
The UN has undergone a "quiet revolution" and transformed into a global public-private partnership (UN-G3P).

Recently, it is said that a multipolar world order is emerging to counter the hegemony of the UN, which was the predecessor to unipolarity. This new global governance model appears to be led by allies Russia and China, who are spearheading the multilateral partnership of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
The multipolar world order is predicated on the assumption that the G20 will play a more important role than the G7. This strengthens the status of Russia and China as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

While the existing unipolar world order established a system of global governance that allows UN-G3P oligarchs to influence the policy agendas of nations around the world, the
new multipolar world order is designed to further advance the power of those oligarchs and convert that influence into absolute control.
If you look at the Russian and Chinese governments, you can see that the marriage of politics and the corporate state is complete. I will discuss this in more detail in Part 4.

Who wants a multipolar world order?

Who wants a multipolar world order?

Simply put, "everyone."

The longer answer is everyone with enough power and influence to change global governance.

The multipolar model is not being promoted only by the governments of Russia and China, their oligarchs, and think tanks. It is also being promoted by the "leaders" who once presided over the unipolar world order.

Consider the remarks of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Chancellor Scholz's speech was delivered in the context of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine. While every member of the Western establishment is condemning it in front of the cameras, these were his remarks at the 2022 World Economic Forum (Davos).

I see a watershed global development. We are experiencing what it means to live in a multipolar world. The bipolarity of the Cold War era is a thing of the past, as is the relatively short period when the United States was the world's sole superpower [...] The important thing is how we can ensure that a multipolar world is a multilateral world [...] [I am convinced that if we explore new paths and areas of cooperation, it will be successful. [If we realize that our world is multipolar, it must drive us. More multilateralism! More international cooperation!".

Western central banks are also paying attention to multipolarity. At a roundtable held at the Bank of France in 2011, Christine Lagarde, then French Finance Minister, who later became head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and President of the European Central Bank (ECB), said the following.

Our starting point is to create the conditions to achieve two closely intertwined goals: on the one hand, robust, sustainable, and balanced growth, and on the other, an orderly transition to a multipolar world in economic and monetary terms. The G20 has agreed to facilitate an orderly transition from a world where a few economies and their currencies account for the majority of wealth and trade to a multipolar world where emerging economies and their currencies are, if not dominant, then increasingly significant.

In the same year, Mark Carney, then Governor of the Bank of Canada, gave a speech at the Canadian Club in Ottawa and stated the following.

We are in the midst of another major transformation today. It is happening faster than most people realize. The financial crisis has accelerated the shift in the center of gravity of the global economy. Emerging economies now account for nearly three-quarters of global economic growth. The weakness of developed countries and the strength of emerging countries are determining the outlook for the global economy. This transition to a multipolar world is fundamentally positive, but at the same time, it is disruptive.

In 2011, Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, a representative of the ECB Executive Board, gave his third speech highlighting the potential of a multipolar world order. Smaghi pointed out that moving toward a new world order requires economic, financial, and policy shifts. Lamenting the lack of progress in the financial and policy spheres, he proposed the following.

Economically, it is multipolar, but financially and policy-wise, it is not yet multipolar. How can we improve the functioning of the international monetary system? The first path is to begin building a new institutional framework [...] (which) must be designed for this new multipolar world. The second path is to implement policies in all their dimensions that are consistent with the transition to a more fully multipolar world. The G20 is destined to become a comprehensive group that can not only give specific tasks to institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, and the FSB, but also provide guidance on politically sensitive issues, as the G7 once did.

The World Economic Forum, which calls itself an international organization for public-private cooperation, has long advocated for the possibility of a multipolar world order. For example, in 2019, it published a paper by Nannette Hechler-Fayd'herbe, Global Head of Investment Strategy and Research at Credit Suisse, advocating for investment in "emerging markets."

Credit Suisse is one of the nine major global investment banks that collectively make up the "Bulge Bracket." The opinion of its head of strategic investment is noteworthy.

In 2018, it seemed that we were approaching a multipolar world, replacing the bipolar geopolitical regime of the US and Russia that emerged from the Cold War. China has emerged as a serious economic and geopolitical rival to the United States, becoming more assertive through programs like the "Belt and Road Initiative" and "Made in China 2025," and is increasing its influence on the world stage. From an investor's perspective, in the newly emerged multipolar world, national champions (companies in major powers with large domestic workforces in strategic sectors) and brands, including consumers in emerging markets, have come into focus.

Even the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), whose elite members are pro-NATO US foreign policy supremacists, hasaccepted the arrival of a multipolar world order. Stewart M. Patrick, a senior fellow at the CFR who defined the International Rules-Based Order (IRBO), wrote in 2021:

The Western-led order was already off-balance and turning on its heels well before Mr. Trump, due to intensifying geopolitical competition with China and Russia, the shrinking collective share of global GDP of high-income OECD member countries, and public disillusionment with globalization, especially after the financial crisis. These weaknesses remain. The Cornwall Summit (G7 Summit) is also an opportunity for observers to assess the G7's political cohesion and global relevance in an ideologically diverse, multipolar world.

Finally, here is an example. On March 21, 2022, at a White House business convention, US President Joe Biden said:

We are now at an inflection point in the global economy. A new world order is emerging, and we must lead it and unite other liberal nations.

What is going on?
Why would those who built a unipolar hegemony willingly accept being replaced by multipolarity and offer to help with the transition?
Why, everywhere you look, even in the most hawkish Western think tanks, is thereuniversal agreement on the emergence of a new multipolar world order?

It could be said that this is the only realistic view.

Still, the complete lack of resistance is striking. It suggests thatthere is more to this puzzling contradiction than meets the eye. In fact, these statements we have cited, and similar statements by otherWestern powers, reveal more than just acquiescence to a multipolar world; they reveal a clear rationale for building a "new world order."

In short, if the current world powers want to maintain control, a transition to a multipolar world order is necessary. They understand that multipolarity is a necessary next stage of unipolarity.

Dumping the dollar as a reserve currency

As if to hammer home the fact that the dollar-backed unipolar world order is over, US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated in April 2022:

The US federal budget is on an unsustainable path. This simply means that debt is growing significantly faster than the economy. And that, by definition, is unsustainable in the long run.

And he added a reassuring, but ultimately empty, caveat:

That the current level of debt is unsustainable is another matter. It is not. The current level of debt is very sustainable. The current level of debt is very sustainable, and for the time being, there is no question about our ability to repay and issue debt.

If the gods were in perfect harmony, geopolitics did not exist, universal peace and joy prevailed, and the world moved smoothly and predictably, Powell's sense of security would have been justified. But the world is not like that. And the "what ifs" Powell imagined do not provide a basis for a sound international reserve currency. The point Powell admitted is the important one.

The US government's debt-to-GDP ratio is currently estimated at 137.2%. The costs of COVID-19 countermeasures and Western sanctions against Russia's military actions in Ukraine (including the huge sums the US and some European countries have invested in the militarization of Ukraine) only make the situation worse.

The surge in government debt is much the same in other major Western economies. In the UK, it is 103.7% of GDP, and in the Eurozone, it will exceed 100% of GDP in 2021.

The economic, fiscal, and political foundations of unipolarity are rapidly evaporating.

Central bankers like Powell (US), Lagarde (EU), Andrew Bailey (UK), Elvira Nabiullina (Russia), Agustin Carstens (BIS), and all other key figures like Carney (UN) know, and there is every reason to question how long the US can service its debt, i.e., pay the bare minimum. The only option for America is to keep the money printing presses running.

As the American economy sinks, the global reserve currency becomes dominant, and apparently, the financial power of Western-style oligarchs is also falling. This looks like intentional self-destruction.

Just two days after Russia launched its so-called 'special military operation' in Ukraine, the governments of the US, UK, Canada, and the European Union (the core of the G7) announced their decision to freeze $630 billion in foreign exchange reserves of the Russian Central Bank. The US administration had done something like this before, to Afghanistan two weeks earlier. Seizing the wealth of a major developed nation and a fellow member of the UN Security Council sent a very clear signal to other countries.

There are many reasons why countries hold foreign exchange reserves, the most important of which is to hedge against the impact of various types of crises on their economies. For example, if a country's currency is devalued, holding stable foreign currency reserves can help maintain the level of international trade in the short term. In markets such as the global oil market, transactions are overwhelmingly conducted in the US dollar, the current primary reserve currency.

Since there is no overarching framework of 'international law' to judge a reserve currency, if the concept of a 'rules-based international order' is to be applied, it would be an agreement on the role the US dollar should play as the world's reserve currency. Regardless of the morality or human cost of the Russian government's military actions, by seizingRussia's foreign exchange reserves based purely on foreign policy disagreements, the Western unipolar cabal declared to the world that their IRBO is completely meaningless.

The only reason a nation-state would agree to hold aglobal reserve currencybeyond its own economic power is to trust in the stability of that currency. Ifthat currency could be seized at any time for the convenience of the issuing country, it would be as unstable as possible and lose its credibility as a valid reserve currency.

Contrary to the claims of Western politicians and their mainstream media (MSM) propagandists, the entire world is not united in condemning Russia's military actions in Ukraine. Beyond North America, Europe, and Australia, the absence of condemnation is notable.
By seizing Russia's foreign exchange reserves, the so-called IRBO more or less openly declared to the world that the US dollar as the global reserve currency is dead.

Vladimir Putin's observations seem to have been correct.

The sanctions are a logical continuation and distillation of the irresponsible and short-sighted policies of the governments and central banks of the US and EU countries. The global economy and global trade have been hit hard, and the credibility of the US dollar as a reserve currency has also collapsed. The illegal freezing of a portion of the Bank of Russia's currency reserves marks the end of the reliability of so-called first-class assets. Now everyone knows that foreign exchange reserves can be easily stolen.

He also praised the efforts of Russian private companies toward 'sustainable development,' making what could be called a 'virtue signal'.

I would like to thank the business community and the teams of companies, banks, and organizations. They are not only responding effectively to the challenges associated with the sanctions, but are also laying the foundation for the sustainable development of our national economy.

The NATO member countries behind the sanctions have also decided to phase out the disconnection of Russian commercial banks from the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications) network. This is an international financial communication system that allows banks and financial institutions to notify each other of international fund transfers using standardized codes.

Russia and China are thinking of systems to replace SWIFT.Russia developed the SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages) in 2014, andChina developed the CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System) in 2015. According to the Central Bank of Russia (CBR), the SPFS has been expanding rapidly following the sanctions. Potentially, either system could replace the Western ones, but it seemsCIPS is the most likely to replace SWIFT.

The purpose of the sanctions claimed by the G7 was to cut off the Russian Federation's access to global markets, but the world is large. All the sanctions did was limit Russia's ability to trade key commodities such as energy, grain, and palladium, which is essential for semiconductor manufacturing, with Western countries. Mostly at the West's own expense.

Russia and China have long aimed to 'de-dollarize' their economies and have entered into numerous bilateral trade agreements outside the dollar system. With these sanctions, the West has handed the Russian Federation one of its main currency diplomacy goals on a silver platter
. A strange kind of punishment.

This year, the IMF reported that countries around the world have increasingly diversified their foreign exchange reserves over the past 20 years. In the final quarter of 2021, the dollar's share of global reserve currencies had already fallen below 59%.The sanctions against the Russian Federation have significantly boosted the ambitions of Russia and China to reset the global reserve currency for the benefit of their own economies.

In June 2022, after the sanctions, the BRICS nations announced plans to create a new form of global reserve currency based on a BRICS currency basket. This is a direct challenge to the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) that the IMF allocates to nations. Based on its underlying value, a basket currency, like other assets, can be exchanged for goods, services, and commodities, or converted into currency.

Multipolar global governance is different, and there is a reason for that

It is easy to think, as some do, that Western oligarchs are in danger of losing their power base. Many who hold this view argue that the current world order is controlled by these oligarchs.
One cannot help but wonder what the globalist oligarchs will do with their power and authority. Are they just going to sit idly by and watch the world change around them?

In reality, they are not idle at all. As seen in their statements and actions, they have been preparing for a transition to a new multipolar system for decades.

In 2009, global investor, currency speculator, and oligarch George Soros said the following in the Financial Times:

We need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, a financial world order. I think that to create a new world order, China also needs to be a part of it, and China needs to buy into it. For example, just as the United States owns the current order, the Washington Consensus, China must also own it. As long as the yuan is pegged to the dollar, I don't think the dollar's decline will go too far. [...] [...] [...] An orderly decline of the dollar is actually desirable. China will emerge as a motor to replace the American consumer, China will become the engine that drives (the global economy) forward, and the United States will actually be pulled along by the gradual decline in the value of the dollar.

According to representatives of the Russian and Chinese governments, the multipolar world order they are expected to lead will give the G20, not the G7, the authority to manage 'global economic governance'. There is no surprise there.

Furthermore, the goal is said to be to revive a 'world order based on international law' and to strengthen 'true multipolarity through the UN'. The UN Security Council will continue to play a 'central and coordinating role' with the aim of promoting 'democratic international relations' and 'sustainable development for the world as a whole'.

This global agenda is almost indistinguishable from the agenda promoted by the unipolar IRBO.
The difference is that Russia and China will lead a multipolar order centered on BRICS, and it is more than just lip service to international law and multilateral agreements. The multipolar model is said to adhere to international law and focus on collective decision-making.

The belated backlash from some U.S. states against BlackRock's investment strategy for U.S. pension funds is merely a minor annoyance for the global corporate giant. While they are pushing for the 'decarbonization' of the U.S. economy, they are not taking the same approach with China.

BlackRock and the Western oligarchs who invest through it have decided to make massive investments in China's 'state-owned' hydrocarbon giant PetroChina.. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is one of the world's largest 'fossil fuel' energy companies. It deals in both gas and oil, and PetroChina is its publicly traded company.

In 2021, BlackRock became the first foreign company to receive 'permission' from the Chinese government as they launched an investment trust in China aimed at 'long-term capital growth' for Chinese investors. This capital growth comes from BlackRock's commitment to 'sustainable development.' This was
touted by the Western MSM and disgruntled oligarch George Soros as a major blunder,, adding the following:

BlackRock is a threat to the national security of the United States and other democracies.

China's authoritarian-style technocratic government suits BlackRock. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, speaking to Bloomberg's Erik Schatzker in 2011, infamously said:

Markets don't like uncertainty. Markets hate uncertainty. Markets like totalitarian governments that understand what is there. Through the democratization of countries. And, democracy, as you know in the United States, is very messy.

This statement follows George Soros's 2010 remark that 'today's China is not only economically vibrant, but its government is also functioning better than America's.' So, a little spat with BlackRock might be surprising.

As mentioned in Part 1, oligarchs are not a group of automatons who all think in unison. They have long-term goals, but they often disagree on how to achieve them.

BlackRock investors seem to see Chinese technological innovation as advantageous, while Soros is always thinking about collapsing states from within through various revolutionary means and building the system he wants with their wealth.. Supporting violent riots in Hong Kong and committing financial crimes against Chinese companies have not endeared him to the Chinese oligarchy.

However, upsetting the other party is no reason to lose sight of the long term. Soros, who openly criticized the Chinese government in 2019 by calling Xi Jinping the 'most dangerous enemy' of democracy, had NGOs such as the Sunrise Movement and ActionAid USA send an open letter to the U.S. administration in 2021, urging deeper cooperation with China on the oligarchs' shared ambition of sustainable development.

After Russia's war in Ukraine and Western sanctions, BlackRock's investment in PetroChina doesn't look like such a major mistake now. The surge in crude oil prices has brought huge profits to PetroChina, just as it has to almost every other oil and gas company. However, BlackRock's China investment strategy is wise for other reasons as well.

As energy flows shift rapidly from West to East, moves such as the hundreds of billions of dollars in deals between Russia's "state-owned" Gazprom and China's "state-owned" CNPC will further improve BlackRock's earnings will be the result.

Driven by sanctions, Gazprom and CNPC will conduct business in rubles and yuan. As a result, the support for both currencies will strengthen the BRICS plan to challenge the dollar's dominance as the reserve currency.
Investors in BlackRock, which manages Chinese mutual funds, will not only profit from the deal with PetroChina, but will also be able to capitalize on potential changes to the International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS).

BlackRock seems to possess almost magical foresight.

There is no sign that the multipolar world order will address the excessive power of the private oligarchs who dominate the UN's Global Public-Private Partnership (UN-G3P).
Neither they nor their investment portfolios are bound by national borders. Any nation can be an investment target, and international relations are merely part of their strategic financial planning.

The network of global mechanisms and partnerships that "act as force multipliers" for globalist oligarchs remains unthreatened.
From the perspective of global governance, for the oligarchs, "the transition to a multipolar model is just a change in middle management".

In a $4 quadrillion carbon-neutral IMFS, the oligarchs' policy agenda, which includes the creation of a new world economy based on debt-based sustainable development and natural asset classes, including the oligarchs' policy agenda, remains on track.
The multipolar world order is not a threat, but rather, it is crucial. Without it, the looting of natural resources and the capitalization of nature cannot proceed.

Larry Fink, who recently spoke at a Clinton Foundation Global Initiative seminar, stated the following:

If we are to change the world, there is not enough capital being invested in emerging markets. To change the world, we must change the charters of the IMF and the World Bank. There are huge pools of capital, but that capital is not equipped [...] [...] It is up to the shareholders, and basically the G20 must have the desire to do this. If that can be done, the amount of capital entering emerging markets, for example Africa, will be extraordinary. And there will be a seismic shift not just in developed countries, but across the entire world.

Perhaps Larry is thinking of reforms like those proposed by BRICS in 2021 using the pseudo-pandemic. BRICS has collectively expressed as priorities for IMF and World Bank reform " innovative and inclusive solutions, including digital technology tools to promote sustainable development" and " strengthening the capacity of countries to address issues related to terrorism, money laundering, (cyber domain, information manipulation, fake news)".

The masters of the multipolar world order wish to 'reform' the UN Security Council by increasing the number of 'representatives of developing countries' such as Brazil, India, and South Africa,therebyattempting to shift the balance of power in favor of the BRICS.Furthermore, they also recognized that 'the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a comprehensive, indivisible, far-reaching, and people-centered set of universal and transformative goals.'All of these are supposed to improve the 'system of global governance.'

The only difference is thatthe BRICS 'emphasized the urgency of revitalizing the UN General Assembly in order to enhance its role and authority.'As I mentioned before, the General Assembly has no 'authority' under the UN Charter. However, the General Assembly reform envisioned by the BRICS is 'in accordance with the UN Charter.' If the BRICS statement makes no sense, it is because it is meaningless.

It is clear that BlackRock and the BRICS are on the same page,but that aside, thisnew model of global governance led by China and Russia is the same as the existing model,but I think it will probably be better because the oligarchs of Russia, China, and India are nicer people than those in the West. This hypothesis will be tested in Part 4.

Like the IRBO, the multipolar world order has shown a willingness to maintain a censorship agenda.The commitment to IMF and World Bank reform is based on an unwavering commitment to 'sustainable development' and Agenda 2030—that is, Agenda 21—which is perfectly aligned with BlackRock, Vanguard, and other global public-private partnerships.

For this new 'global governance' model based on the G20 to have teeth, not just bark,a global tax system is necessary.To that end,in December 2021, the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) finalized the 'Two Pillar Solution To Address Tax Challenges.'It is supposedly to prevent tax avoidance by multinational enterprises (MNEs), but that is not possible. The driving force behind this new global tax system is largely due to the G20.

Naturally, the BRICS, which form the core of the multipolar world order,have signed on to the first coordinated effort to legislate a single, unified global tax system.The New World Order, as all empires do, seems tofund its survival by taxing its citizens.

Changing the region

The debt-ridden, Western-dominated unipolar world order is economically and fiscally bankrupt, and its expiration date is approaching for the UN G3P.
The current IMFS, first established by the Bretton Woods Agreement and subsequently maintained by the petrodollar scheme, is coming to an end.
It finally pegged out during the 2008 global financial collapse. Since then, it has been kept on life support by printing trillions of dollars in digital terms.

That money hardly enters the real economy where we live.Most of it is being siphoned off to support financial markets as the transition to a multipolar system progresses.

Currently, the oversupply of the US dollar, the world's primary reserve currency, will continue to lower its value and eventually destroy it. As a result, the current US economy, along with much of the Western economic order, will deteriorate. As BlackRock points out,the existing drivers of financial exploitation are exhausted.Now that growth in Western economies has reached its limit, a new source of global economic stimulus is needed.

Neither Russia nor China became a global growth engine by accident. China is energy-poor, and Russia is energy-rich. China leads the world in military technology, and China leads the world in manufacturing, while Russia is happy to supply oil, gas, and coal. Despite past hostilities, the leaders of both countries not only recognized the mutual benefits of a closer partnership but built one.

Every country with the capability engages in industrial espionage. It would be foolish to claim that Russia and China do not. Equally foolish was the statement made by former US National Security Agency (NSA) Director and then-head of US Cyber Command, Keith Alexander, at a 2015 US Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when discussing China's technological development:

What they are doing is stealing everything they can to grow their economy. It is intellectual property, and it is our future. I think this is the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

Taxes and inflation are the greatest transfer of wealth in history.However, former President Alexander's blunder does not end there. Contrary to his claims,Western public-private partnerships have done everything possible for China's development.

In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinskipublished 'Between Two Ages: America's Role In The Technetronic Era.' Recognizing that the power of private corporations already exceeded that of governments, he believed thatin an emerging world dominated by digital technology, a merger of political and corporate states is the logical path.

The nation-state as the basic unit of organized human life has ceased to be the primary creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in ways that far transcend the political concepts of the nation-state.

In 1973, Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission(a think tank) with Rockefeller.Their goal was to revitalize development in the East, centered on China, with an eye toward dominance through US-led public-private partnerships.Regarding their initial goals and subsequent developments, the Commission states:

[It was felt that the United States was no longer in the singular leadership position it had been in the early post-World War II period. And it was felt that a more shared form of leadership would be needed for the international system to successfully navigate the major challenges of the coming years [...] The lasting effects of the financial crisis that began in 2008 were felt in every country and region. The financial crisis fundamentally shook confidence in the entire international system. In these unprecedented circumstances, the Commission believes that there is a stronger need for common thinking and leadership among the three countries of Japan, China, and South Korea.

In 2009, government representatives from China and India joined the Trilateral Commission's Pacific Asia Group.Therefore, in the same year, trilateralist George Soros promoted the expansion of China's involvement in building a 'New World Order'.

As the 1980s began, the movement to shift the center of global power to the East gained momentum. Guided by the policy trajectories advised by the Trilateral Commission and other globalist think tanks, Western nations significantly intensified their efforts to strengthen China's economic, financial, and technological development.

Between 1983 and 1991, Western foreign direct investment (FDI) into China increased from $920 million to $4.37 billion. In 1994, China ranked 30th in U.S. overseas investment. As Western multinational corporations quadrupled their FDI into China between 1994 and 2001, it reached 11th place by 2000. By 2019, it had exceeded $2.1 trillion.

During the pseudo-pandemic, global FDI initially slowed by 42%, but China did not; instead, it increased by another 4%As a result, China surpassed the U.S. to temporarily become the world's number one recipient of foreign direct investment. While the private sector drove the modernization of the Chinese economy, the Western public sector encouraged China to increase its global political presence.

In 1979, the U.S. fully diplomatically recognized China, reaffirmed that commitment in the Third Joint Communiqué in 1982, and in 1984, Beijing was permitted to purchase U.S. military hardware. In 1994, the Clinton White House intervened to abolish the Cold War embargo on 'sensitive technology' exports to China (and Russia). In 2000, President Clinton, a member of the Trilateral Commission, signed the U.S.-China Relations Act, establishing further improvements in trade relations. In 2003, the U.S. supported China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and shortly thereafter, the Bush administration established Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. In 2005, then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick also called on China to take a position as a 'responsible stakeholder'.

The 2019 World Bank report, 'Innovate China: New Drivers of Growth,' pointed to the depth of the Western G3P commitment to China's development.

Other high-income country governments have supported specific technologies and industries, particularly targeting research and development (R&D).
In the U.S., government agencies such as the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Institutes of Health have provided critical funding for key technologies. In addition to these policies, support for key technologies and industries such as space, defense, automotive, and steel is being provided through various funds, including the European Structural and Investment Funds (over 450 billion euros across 5 funds) and Horizon 2020 (77 billion euros from 2014-20).

Carrying enthusiasm for a multipolar world order, then-Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, now the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, gave a speech at the G7 Central Bankers Symposium held in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in August 2019. This high-profile speech, which was shocking to those who believe politicians are running the world, more or less indicated where the world order is heading.

Unstable asymmetries are growing at the heart of the IMFS. While the global economy is being restructured, the U.S. dollar remains as important as it was when Bretton Woods collapsed [omitted]. In the medium term, policymakers need to reshuffle the deck. In other words, the current structure of the IMFS needs to be improved. In the long term, we need to change the game. Any unipolar system is ill-suited for a multipolar world. In the new world order, relying solely on keeping one's own house in order is no longer enough. Neighbors must also change. For a multipolar global economy to reach its full potential, a new IMFS is needed. That will not be easy. Transitions between global reserve currencies are rare events. It is an open question whether such a new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC) is best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies. An SHC might be able to smooth the transition that the IMFS needs. The flaws in the IMFS are becoming increasingly powerful. Even a little knowledge of monetary history shows that this center cannot hold. [...] Let us end the benign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse and multipolar global economy that is emerging.

According to Carney, in a nutshell, the global economy is being restructured, the dollar is only important in the short term, we (the G7 central bankers) must change the 'game' to suit a 'multipolar world' because a unipolar system is not suitable, and we must improve the IMFS. To realize the potential of a multipolar IMFS, we must change our 'neighbors' (the globe). To do this, we need to change the 'global reserve currency' into some kind of 'Synthetic Hegemonic Currency,' perhaps based on 'Central Bank Digital Currencies' (CBDCs).

China, with some Western assistance, is leading the world's developed nations in CBDC technology. It began full-scale testing of CBDCs in 2014 and began deploying them in cities such as Shenzhen, Chengdu, and Suzhou in 2020. This year, China expanded the use of the digital yuan, called e-CNY, and took the lead in the race to become the first cashless major economy.

Russia is also following suit. Russia's 12 largest banks began technical trials in 2021, ahead of the official introduction of the digital ruble on February 15, 2022. Olga Skorobogatova, First Deputy Governor of the CBR, stated the following:

The digital ruble platform is a new opportunity for citizens, businesses, and the state. We plan to make digital ruble transfers for citizens free and available in any region of the country [...] The state will also receive new tools for targeted payments and the management of budget payments.

Beyond that, adopting CBDCs in a cashless society where other payment methods are 'not allowed' will enslave all citizens to the state. CBDCs are programmable money as well as central bank liabilities. They are always the central bank's, never the user's, and they can be programmed to function exactly as they wish.

Russia has already put in place the legal framework to make this happen.

In 2019, Vladimir Putin announced amendments to Russian federal law that would allow the Russian state to outlaw the use of cryptocurrencies. In a 'cashless society,' these could become a form of alternative currency. For now, this legal amendment has had little effect. However, if Russia moves to a cashless control grid, the regulatory platform is ready and waiting.

According to the Atlantic Council, a NATO think tank, 105 countries, accounting for 95% of global GDP, are exploring CBDCs, and the G7 economies, the U.S., and the U.K. are the furthest behind in CBDC development. It feels strange that the unipolar IRBO is clearly lagging significantly behind again. Especially considering that some of the key 'thinkers' want to see a 'network of central bank digital currencies'.

Still, for IRBO leaders exploring a Synthetic Hegemonic Currency, it may be some comfort that, as the Atlantic Council points out, 'many countries are exploring alternative international payment systems' and 'the proliferation of different CBDC models is bringing new urgency to international standard-setting'.

While it is clear that China is in the lead, the IRBO and the Central Bank of Russia may be able to take some comfort in the NATO think tank's assessment.

This trend may accelerate following financial sanctions against Russia.

The neighbors are indeed changing.

Building a New IMFS

Russia is the world's third-largest oil producer, behind the United States and Saudi Arabia, and the second-largest natural gas producer, behind the United States. However, because US domestic energy consumption is significantly higher than Russia's, Russia is the world's second-largest oil exporter, behind Saudi Arabia, and the world's largest natural gas exporter. Russia also holds the largest gas reserves on the planet.

In 2018, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange launched crude oil futures trading denominated in Chinese Yuan (CNY).For the Yuan to become a full-fledged petroyuan, it was necessary for crude oil exporters to widely accept the Yuan as a payment currency. China has been paying for crude oil from Russia and Iran in Yuan since 2012, but this year's sanctions have further enhanced the credibility of the petroyuan.

Russia has not only massively increased its oil exports to China, becoming a leading oil supplier to the country, but has also begun to accept payments in Renminbi (RMB). CNY is the accounting unit for the Renminbi. Globally, as a direct result of Western sanctions, the petroyuan is becoming a reality. Venezuela has also already agreed to accept the petroyuan.If the likelihood of Saudi Arabia accepting the petroyuan increases, the Renminbi could also potentially gain dominance as a global reserve currency.

It is perhaps merely a coincidence that, through the pseudo-pandemic and the war in Ukraine, nations around the world have committed to policies that precisely facilitate the transition to a multipolar world order.
That these world-changing eventshappened to align exactly with what the global parasite class desiresin terms ofshuffling the deckis,to say the least,certainly eerie, if not entirely unbelievable.

Nevertheless, as the center of power shifts to the East, the new world order may ultimately realize the promise that some claim, namely thatRussia and China are truly standing up against the insidious Great Reset.Is that true?
We live in hope.

Despite the fact that Western public-private partnerships played a crucial and intentional role in this polarity shift,perhaps the governments of Russia and China are, as some commentators suggest, determined to create a better world order for us all.

A higher geopolitical reality is emerging, which, if left undisturbed, will more generally bring great benefits to humanity. A beautiful future brought about by a rediscovery of the spirit of the Silk Road is about to be painted before our eyes.

As we move on to Part 3, we may find that the mysterious vision of a "beautiful future" led by China and Russia is a realistic prospect.

Related Articles

1 Welcome to the New Multipolar World Order - TOPIC 3

Reference Articles

1 BlackRock is the world's largest asset manager, holding $10 trillion, and there is currently about $40 trillion in circulation worldwide; BlackRock manages one-quarter of the world's money.

How did BlackRock become the world's largest asset manager, and what does it mean for the current and future global economy?

2 Credit Suisse strategist says, "Witnessing the birth of a new world currency order"

3 BRICS to develop a new reserve currency

4 Here are some points on how the current Russia-Ukraine conflict is the next catalyst for the World Economic Forum's "Great Reset" agenda, facilitated by a diffuse network of global stakeholder interconnections and public-private partnerships.

4 What is the "Great Reset" we hear about now?

In a nutshell, the "Great Reset" is a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance.