One billion dollars has been plundered from Iraq's defence ministry in one of the largest thefts in history, The Independent can reveal, leaving the country's army to fight a savage insurgency with museum-piece weapons.
The money, intended to train and equip an Iraqi army capable of bringing security to a country shattered by the US-led invasion and prolonged rebellion, was instead siphoned abroad in cash and has disappeared.
"It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history," Ali Allawi, Iraq's Finance Minister, told The Independent.
"Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal."
The carefully planned theft has so weakened the army that it cannot hold Baghdad against insurgent attack without American military support, Iraqi officials say, making it difficult for the US to withdraw its 135,000- strong army from Iraq, as Washington says it wishes to do.
Most of the money was supposedly spent buying arms from Poland and Pakistan. The contracts were peculiar in four ways. According to Mr Allawi, they were awarded without bidding, and were signed with a Baghdad-based company, and not directly with the foreign supplier. The money was paid up front, and, surprisingly for Iraq, it was paid at great speed out of the ministry's account with the Central Bank. Military equipment purchased in Poland included 28-year-old Soviet-made helicopters. The manufacturers said they should have been scrapped after 25 years of service. Armoured cars purchased by Iraq turned out to be so poorly made that even a bullet from an elderly AK-47 machine-gun could penetrate their armour. A shipment of the latest MP5 American machine-guns, at a cost of $3,500 (£1,900) each, consisted in reality of Egyptian copies worth only $200 a gun. Other armoured cars leaked so much oil that they had to be abandoned. A deal was struck to buy 7.62mm machine-gun bullets for 16 cents each, although they should have cost between 4 and 6 cents.
Many Iraqi soldiers and police have died because they were not properly equipped. In Baghdad they often ride in civilian pick-up trucks vulnerable to gunfire, rocket- propelled grenades or roadside bombs. For months even men defusing bombs had no protection against blast because they worked without bullet-proof vests. These were often promised but never turned up.
The Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit says in a report to the Iraqi government that US-appointed Iraqi officials in the defence ministry allegedly presided over these dubious transactions.
Senior Iraqi officials now say they cannot understand how, if this is so, the disappearance of almost all the military procurement budget could have passed unnoticed by the US military in Baghdad and civilian advisers working in the defence ministry.
Government officials in Baghdad even suggest that the skill with which the robbery was organised suggests that the Iraqis involved were only front men, and "rogue elements" within the US military or intelligence services may have played a decisive role behind the scenes.
Given that building up an Iraqi army to replace American and British troops is a priority for Washington and London, the failure to notice that so much money was being siphoned off at the very least argues a high degree of negligence on the part of US officials and officers in Baghdad.
The report of the Board of Supreme Audit on the defence ministry contracts was presented to the office of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister, in May. But the extent of the losses has become apparent only gradually. The sum missing was first reported as $300m and then $500m, but in fact it is at least twice as large. "If you compare the amount that was allegedly stolen of about $1bn compared with the budget of the ministry of defence, it is nearly 100 per cent of the ministry's [procurement] budget that has gone Awol," said Mr Allawi.
The money missing from all ministries under the interim Iraqi government appointed by the US in June 2004 may turn out to be close to $2bn. Of a military procurement budget of $1.3bn, some $200m may have been spent on usable equipment, though this is a charitable view, say officials. As a result the Iraqi army has had to rely on cast-offs from the US military, and even these have been slow in coming.
Mr Allawi says a further $500m to $600m has allegedly disappeared from the electricity, transport, interior and other ministries. This helps to explain why the supply of electricity in Baghdad has been so poor since the fall of Saddam Hussein 29 months ago despite claims by the US and subsequent Iraqi governments that they are doing everything to improve power generation.
The sum missing over an eight-month period in 2004 and 2005 is the equivalent of the $1.8bn that Saddam allegedly received in kick- backs under the UN's oil-for-food programme between 1997 and 2003. The UN was pilloried for not stopping this corruption. The US military is likely to be criticised over the latest scandal because it was far better placed than the UN to monitor corruption.
The fraud took place between 28 June 2004 and 28 February this year under the government of Iyad Allawi, who was interim prime minister. His ministers were appointed by the US envoy Robert Blackwell and his UN counterpart, Lakhdar Brahimi.
Among those whom the US promoted was a man who was previously a small businessman in London before the war, called Hazem Shaalan, who became Defence Minister.
Mr Shalaan says that Paul Bremer, then US viceroy in Iraq, signed off the appointment of Ziyad Cattan as the defence ministry's procurement chief. Mr Cattan, of joint Polish-Iraqi nationality, spent 27 years in Europe, returning to Iraq two days before the war in 2003. He was hired by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority and became a district councillor before moving to the defence ministry.
For eight months the ministry spent money without restraint. Contracts worth more than $5m should have been reviewed by a cabinet committee, but Mr Shalaan asked for and received from the cabinet an exemption for the defence ministry. Missions abroad to acquire arms were generally led by Mr Cattan. Contracts for large sums were short scribbles on a single piece of paper. Auditors have had difficulty working out with whom Iraq has a contract in Pakistan.
Authorities in Baghdad have issued an arrest warrant for Mr Cattan. Neither he nor Mr Shalaan, both believed to be in Jordan, could be reached for further comment. Mr Bremer says he has never heard of Mr Cattan.
A week of violence in Iraq
* SUNDAY 11 SEPTEMBER
Gunmen killed a senior Iraqi judge, his brother and a Major General in the Iraq army. A British and a US soldier were killed in bomb attacks.
* MONDAY 12 SEPTEMBER
Gunmen killed nine civilians and two policemen in Baghdad and a roadside bomb killed six Iraqi soldiers in Fallujah.
* TUESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER
A car bomb killed five people and gunmen killed another four in the Mansour district of Baghdad Two civilians were killed by a suicide bomber on a bus in Hilla.
* WEDNESDAY 14 SEPTEMBER
At least 167 people were killed and 570 wounded in 14 bombings in Baghdad.
* THURSDAY 15 SEPTEMBER
Three suicide car bombers killed 28 policemen and eight civilians and gunmen killed four more people Baghdad.
* FRIDAY 16 SEPTEMBER
Two suicide car bombers killed 13 people, and gunmen shot dead eight more in Baghdad, including a local mayor in Iskanariya district and an imam in Sadr City.
* SATURDAY 17 SEPTEMBER
At least 52 people were killed or found dead throughout the country.
* SUNDAY 18 SEPTEMBER
At least three Iraqi soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb and an Iraqi MP and four others were shot dead by gunmen. Two dozen bodies of murder victims were found in the Tigris.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, 2 September 2007
Study shows London has taken over as the new centre of world commerce
An influential new report claims that London now tops a list of 50 cities as the world's centre of commerce - beating New York, Tokyo and Chicago.
The UK capital has overtaken New York in four of six areas including economic stability, the ease of doing business, volumes of financial flows and attributes as a business centre, according to the report by credit card company MasterCard.
The study is the latest to say New York lags behind London as a global commerce centre.
It follows in the footsteps of a report earlier this year by internationally renowned management consultants McKinsey, which stated that New York is losing its place to London as the world's leading financial centre.
And it follows a series of articles by newspapers and magazines that have celebrated London's global success.
In March, the respected American magazine New York admitted that London is 'shaping up to be the global capital of the 21st century'.
Two years before this, Newsweek said London's success means it is leaving other European cities behind.
In the latest report - MasterCard's first annual worldwide centres of commerce index - the authors state: 'Once considered the unchallenged financial capital of the world, New York cedes to London a key dimension measuring financial transactions primarily because bond market regulations in New York affect the volume of listed sales.' London has the biggest financial services network of all cities, with more banking, financial services and insurance companies based there than any other, said MasterCard.
London vs New York
London
Population - 7.5 million
By last year, a total of 419 international firms listed on London's Stock Exchange
318,000 people are employed in the financial district
New York
Population - 8.2 million
By last year, a total of 174 international firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq
328,000 employed in the financial district
The UK capital has overtaken New York in four of six areas including economic stability, the ease of doing business, volumes of financial flows and attributes as a business centre, according to the report by credit card company MasterCard.
The study is the latest to say New York lags behind London as a global commerce centre.
It follows in the footsteps of a report earlier this year by internationally renowned management consultants McKinsey, which stated that New York is losing its place to London as the world's leading financial centre.
And it follows a series of articles by newspapers and magazines that have celebrated London's global success.
In March, the respected American magazine New York admitted that London is 'shaping up to be the global capital of the 21st century'.
Two years before this, Newsweek said London's success means it is leaving other European cities behind.
In the latest report - MasterCard's first annual worldwide centres of commerce index - the authors state: 'Once considered the unchallenged financial capital of the world, New York cedes to London a key dimension measuring financial transactions primarily because bond market regulations in New York affect the volume of listed sales.' London has the biggest financial services network of all cities, with more banking, financial services and insurance companies based there than any other, said MasterCard.
London vs New York
London
Population - 7.5 million
By last year, a total of 419 international firms listed on London's Stock Exchange
318,000 people are employed in the financial district
New York
Population - 8.2 million
By last year, a total of 174 international firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq
328,000 employed in the financial district
We Need a NewWorld Financial Architecture
Dr. Sergei Glazyev, an economist and a member of Russia's State Duma (parliament), addressed the second panel of an EIR-sponsored seminar in Berlin on June 28. Glazyev has authored many books on economics, including Genocide: Russia and the New World Order, which was published by EIR in 2000.
First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. LaRouche for this initiative, which is very important, and to my mind has a crucial sense.
A few years ago, when he wrote a lot of articles about the collapse of the present financial system, very few people were thinking about that. Now this collapse is taking place. Each year, the crisis is going deeper and deeper, and now it's time to think about the new architecture of the world financial system. And this initiative, which was launched by Mr. LaRouche, is just in time. And nowadays, when unfortunately, heads of state, the heads of the central banks, and the heads of the largest financial corporations are trying to close their eyes to the growing problems, and imitate a good policy, we have a chance to sit here to discuss the future—which inevitably is coming in the nearest years—the future with a new, I am sure, financial architecture, which will emerge in any case, after the collapse of the present one.
I don't think that this collapse could be prevented. What we should think about, first of all, is how to—not to avoid the crisis, but how to minimize the costs of transition; and what could be the new, optimal, and sustainable system, financial system, which will give mankind an opportunity to continue economic development.
We really need a new architecture of the world financial system, because those which exist couldn't be improved. I don't think that the present dollar-based speculative financial system could be improved. It is going to collapse anyway, and the question is only, what will be the shortcomings of this collapse, and how we can minimize the costs.
I agree, that this financial crisis and collapse of the financial system is a disaster for the whole of mankind. And of course, all nations are trying to maintain the stability of the present financial system, and to avoid new risks. But the problem is that the risks are embodied in this system, and they are growing higher and higher.
What could we do, to save this system, which is based on injustice, on fraud, on unequal and imbalanced exchange in the world, and this imbalance is going higher and higher? In fact, the dollar-based financial system now, is what we call a "financial pyramid." It's just being maintained, due to the growth of financial speculations; and financial speculations determine the demand for the dollar; and the supply of dollars couldn't be really limited, because of the internal nature of the American financial system. They have to print more and more dollars to service the growing debts. And this is the endless process which finally leads to the collapse, as we see in the history of mankind: a lot of cases like that—of course, of much less scale—of the collapse of the financial pyramids.
Nowadays, this financial pyramid is supported by various financial speculations, including the speculations with raw materials, which we see in the growing oil prices, which are purely speculative. And the United States is trying to maintain the demand for dollars also with the help of wars, and trying to pressure various nations to keep their currency reserves in dollars. But this couldn't go on endlessly. Nowadays, the American Federal Reserve doesn't control dollar circulation: About 60% of the dollars which were created by the Federal Reserve System are circulated abroad, and they are out of the American jurisdiction entirely. At the same time, if you will look at the present structure of the dollar-based financial system, we shall see that the amount of dollars in circulation, together with Treasury bonds, is 25 times higher than the amount of the American gold and currency reserves. It means that there is nothing under the dollar, except the demand which is generated by growing speculative activity.
I don't think that somebody will push the American financial system into deep restructuring, which will balance this. How can we balance the reserves and the monetary base of the dollar, if the scale of difference is 25 times? It is completely impossible to decrease the amount of dollars by a factor of 25, except through massive devaluation.
We Need To Declare Bankruptcy
So, in order to improve the dollar-based system, trying to introduce some kind of New Bretton Woods principles, including fixed exchange rates, we need to, in fact, declare the bankruptcy of the Federal Reserve and bankruptcy of the dollar financial system. This is the only way to get rid of this surplus of 25 times, in comparison with the monetary base. But, if somebody does that, of course, it will create a huge panic in the world market, and everybody will run away from the dollar, which will inevitably lead to the devaluation of the dollar, not by 15 or 30%, but I think maybe by a factor of 10 or 30.
So, I don't think that anybody on Capitol Hill will have enough courage to take responsibility for restructuring on such a scale.
And it means, to my mind, that collapse will take place in spontaneous ways, and we should be ready for that. But, what could we do in this situation? At least I think we can try to elaborate some principles of the new world financial architecture. And, to my mind, at least we can discuss the following principles: First of all, no one country could privatize the creation of the world reserve currency. The weak point of the present financial system, is precisely that the United States privatized the function of the world reserve currency. In 1971, they pushed Western countries to take dollars instead of gold, and, in fact, privatized the right to creation of the world currency, and used this right for their own purposes, to finance the budget deficit and to finance the balance of payments deficits. So, America used its right to create the world currency, as a worldwide tax: Because those countries which used this currency as a reserve currency, in fact, paid a tax in the form of zero-interest-rate loans to the United States, in growing and growing quantities.
So, I think the first principle, from this lesson, should be that no one country could privatize the right to create the world currency.
The second principle is, that all countries which agree to participate in this new world financial architecture, should agree to keep a certain financial discipline in money creation and the structure of currency reserves. Maybe they should keep, also, some rules of determining interest rates and budget deficits. But at least, they should agree concerning the principles of money creation, the structure of currency reserves, and come to agreement concerning the basket of currencies which participate in this new financial architecture.
The third, I think quite elegant principle, is that in order to maintain stability in international exchange, you need some kind of international reserve: like, maybe, the IMF could play the role of this international reserve fund, which will work to stabilize currencies, which will come out of an agreement concerning the fixed rates, or some other proportions of world exchange. But we need to maintain stability, some kind of international reserve fund, which will work under multinational supervision.
To finance this international reserve fund, we can propose both financial contributions, in national currencies of countries which participate in this scheme, or—maybe, and—an additional source: the worldwide taxation of financial speculation, which was already mentioned today.
Who Will Create a New Financial System?
What countries could participate in this new financial architecture? I don't think that we can come to an agreement on the worldwide scale—under the United Nations, or some other international organizations. Perhaps only those countries which are ready to make steps in this direction, can take on the burden of the creation of the new financial architecture, not waiting for others. Because the time is limited, and the main players, namely the United States and Japan, in fact are not ready to limit their opportunities to create the world currency.
Both Japan and the United States create their currencies, not on the basis of their reserves, but on the basis of growing national debt. And these currencies, in fact, are pure national debts. And in order to go to the new financial architecture, the financial authorities of the United States and Japan should declare bankruptcy (I'm not sure about Europe), but this, to my mind, is quite evident, and, of course, these countries are not ready to do that.
What countries are ready, to my mind? Those countries who still keep control over their currency creation, money creation, and have enough reserves to protect their currencies from devaluation. Russia, for instance, has now currency reserves twice [the size] of the monetary base. So, each ruble has reserves—each ruble in circulation, which was created by the Central Bank, has reserves equal to two rubles. Of course, it is a crazy policy—I shouldn't comment on that now. But, at least it will give enough room for maneuver, for Russia to participate in any kind of new financial architecture based on fixed exchange, or other rules of currency exchange.
China and India are countries which are also ready to participate in the new financial architecture, because they are keeping control over their monetary system. And as you know, they were not affected by the financial crisis of 1997-98, exactly because they kept control over their monetary systems, and didn't liberalize them. For these reasons, having enough currency reserves and keeping control over money creation, these countries could easily participate in the new financial architecture.
The Arab countries could do the same, because of the large currency reserves which they have. I mean the Arab countries trading with oil.
So, at least we have a couple of countries, which are dominant, together, in the Eurasian continent. If the European Union joined this, it means that the whole Eurasian continent would be the platform to establish the new financial architecture.
I don't think the United States could participate in this new system, because their currency simply has no reserves. They have no reserves, and they have to limit their currency creation several-fold—and they're not ready to do that. And if you wait for the United States, I'm afraid that we shall go into collapse altogether.
So, my suggestion is, perhaps, we can elaborate some recommendations, at least for those countries which have opportunities, to start to think and negotiate about the new financial architecture.
Of course, it is not an easy question. And, for instance, I can tell you, that when I proposed to the Russian Central Bank and to the Russian President, to launch an initiative to switch to a new financial architecture, I didn't get any real answer. Because such steps, of course, will have immediate results. If at least two or three superpowers, in the Eurasian continent, will try to discuss together the new financial architecture, it could be a trigger for the financial crisis. So, it is a very delicate issue, but at least, I think we should think about that, and there is no other way than to push those who will be ready to make a first step—not wait for when the whole system will go into collapse.
First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. LaRouche for this initiative, which is very important, and to my mind has a crucial sense.
A few years ago, when he wrote a lot of articles about the collapse of the present financial system, very few people were thinking about that. Now this collapse is taking place. Each year, the crisis is going deeper and deeper, and now it's time to think about the new architecture of the world financial system. And this initiative, which was launched by Mr. LaRouche, is just in time. And nowadays, when unfortunately, heads of state, the heads of the central banks, and the heads of the largest financial corporations are trying to close their eyes to the growing problems, and imitate a good policy, we have a chance to sit here to discuss the future—which inevitably is coming in the nearest years—the future with a new, I am sure, financial architecture, which will emerge in any case, after the collapse of the present one.
I don't think that this collapse could be prevented. What we should think about, first of all, is how to—not to avoid the crisis, but how to minimize the costs of transition; and what could be the new, optimal, and sustainable system, financial system, which will give mankind an opportunity to continue economic development.
We really need a new architecture of the world financial system, because those which exist couldn't be improved. I don't think that the present dollar-based speculative financial system could be improved. It is going to collapse anyway, and the question is only, what will be the shortcomings of this collapse, and how we can minimize the costs.
I agree, that this financial crisis and collapse of the financial system is a disaster for the whole of mankind. And of course, all nations are trying to maintain the stability of the present financial system, and to avoid new risks. But the problem is that the risks are embodied in this system, and they are growing higher and higher.
What could we do, to save this system, which is based on injustice, on fraud, on unequal and imbalanced exchange in the world, and this imbalance is going higher and higher? In fact, the dollar-based financial system now, is what we call a "financial pyramid." It's just being maintained, due to the growth of financial speculations; and financial speculations determine the demand for the dollar; and the supply of dollars couldn't be really limited, because of the internal nature of the American financial system. They have to print more and more dollars to service the growing debts. And this is the endless process which finally leads to the collapse, as we see in the history of mankind: a lot of cases like that—of course, of much less scale—of the collapse of the financial pyramids.
Nowadays, this financial pyramid is supported by various financial speculations, including the speculations with raw materials, which we see in the growing oil prices, which are purely speculative. And the United States is trying to maintain the demand for dollars also with the help of wars, and trying to pressure various nations to keep their currency reserves in dollars. But this couldn't go on endlessly. Nowadays, the American Federal Reserve doesn't control dollar circulation: About 60% of the dollars which were created by the Federal Reserve System are circulated abroad, and they are out of the American jurisdiction entirely. At the same time, if you will look at the present structure of the dollar-based financial system, we shall see that the amount of dollars in circulation, together with Treasury bonds, is 25 times higher than the amount of the American gold and currency reserves. It means that there is nothing under the dollar, except the demand which is generated by growing speculative activity.
I don't think that somebody will push the American financial system into deep restructuring, which will balance this. How can we balance the reserves and the monetary base of the dollar, if the scale of difference is 25 times? It is completely impossible to decrease the amount of dollars by a factor of 25, except through massive devaluation.
We Need To Declare Bankruptcy
So, in order to improve the dollar-based system, trying to introduce some kind of New Bretton Woods principles, including fixed exchange rates, we need to, in fact, declare the bankruptcy of the Federal Reserve and bankruptcy of the dollar financial system. This is the only way to get rid of this surplus of 25 times, in comparison with the monetary base. But, if somebody does that, of course, it will create a huge panic in the world market, and everybody will run away from the dollar, which will inevitably lead to the devaluation of the dollar, not by 15 or 30%, but I think maybe by a factor of 10 or 30.
So, I don't think that anybody on Capitol Hill will have enough courage to take responsibility for restructuring on such a scale.
And it means, to my mind, that collapse will take place in spontaneous ways, and we should be ready for that. But, what could we do in this situation? At least I think we can try to elaborate some principles of the new world financial architecture. And, to my mind, at least we can discuss the following principles: First of all, no one country could privatize the creation of the world reserve currency. The weak point of the present financial system, is precisely that the United States privatized the function of the world reserve currency. In 1971, they pushed Western countries to take dollars instead of gold, and, in fact, privatized the right to creation of the world currency, and used this right for their own purposes, to finance the budget deficit and to finance the balance of payments deficits. So, America used its right to create the world currency, as a worldwide tax: Because those countries which used this currency as a reserve currency, in fact, paid a tax in the form of zero-interest-rate loans to the United States, in growing and growing quantities.
So, I think the first principle, from this lesson, should be that no one country could privatize the right to create the world currency.
The second principle is, that all countries which agree to participate in this new world financial architecture, should agree to keep a certain financial discipline in money creation and the structure of currency reserves. Maybe they should keep, also, some rules of determining interest rates and budget deficits. But at least, they should agree concerning the principles of money creation, the structure of currency reserves, and come to agreement concerning the basket of currencies which participate in this new financial architecture.
The third, I think quite elegant principle, is that in order to maintain stability in international exchange, you need some kind of international reserve: like, maybe, the IMF could play the role of this international reserve fund, which will work to stabilize currencies, which will come out of an agreement concerning the fixed rates, or some other proportions of world exchange. But we need to maintain stability, some kind of international reserve fund, which will work under multinational supervision.
To finance this international reserve fund, we can propose both financial contributions, in national currencies of countries which participate in this scheme, or—maybe, and—an additional source: the worldwide taxation of financial speculation, which was already mentioned today.
Who Will Create a New Financial System?
What countries could participate in this new financial architecture? I don't think that we can come to an agreement on the worldwide scale—under the United Nations, or some other international organizations. Perhaps only those countries which are ready to make steps in this direction, can take on the burden of the creation of the new financial architecture, not waiting for others. Because the time is limited, and the main players, namely the United States and Japan, in fact are not ready to limit their opportunities to create the world currency.
Both Japan and the United States create their currencies, not on the basis of their reserves, but on the basis of growing national debt. And these currencies, in fact, are pure national debts. And in order to go to the new financial architecture, the financial authorities of the United States and Japan should declare bankruptcy (I'm not sure about Europe), but this, to my mind, is quite evident, and, of course, these countries are not ready to do that.
What countries are ready, to my mind? Those countries who still keep control over their currency creation, money creation, and have enough reserves to protect their currencies from devaluation. Russia, for instance, has now currency reserves twice [the size] of the monetary base. So, each ruble has reserves—each ruble in circulation, which was created by the Central Bank, has reserves equal to two rubles. Of course, it is a crazy policy—I shouldn't comment on that now. But, at least it will give enough room for maneuver, for Russia to participate in any kind of new financial architecture based on fixed exchange, or other rules of currency exchange.
China and India are countries which are also ready to participate in the new financial architecture, because they are keeping control over their monetary system. And as you know, they were not affected by the financial crisis of 1997-98, exactly because they kept control over their monetary systems, and didn't liberalize them. For these reasons, having enough currency reserves and keeping control over money creation, these countries could easily participate in the new financial architecture.
The Arab countries could do the same, because of the large currency reserves which they have. I mean the Arab countries trading with oil.
So, at least we have a couple of countries, which are dominant, together, in the Eurasian continent. If the European Union joined this, it means that the whole Eurasian continent would be the platform to establish the new financial architecture.
I don't think the United States could participate in this new system, because their currency simply has no reserves. They have no reserves, and they have to limit their currency creation several-fold—and they're not ready to do that. And if you wait for the United States, I'm afraid that we shall go into collapse altogether.
So, my suggestion is, perhaps, we can elaborate some recommendations, at least for those countries which have opportunities, to start to think and negotiate about the new financial architecture.
Of course, it is not an easy question. And, for instance, I can tell you, that when I proposed to the Russian Central Bank and to the Russian President, to launch an initiative to switch to a new financial architecture, I didn't get any real answer. Because such steps, of course, will have immediate results. If at least two or three superpowers, in the Eurasian continent, will try to discuss together the new financial architecture, it could be a trigger for the financial crisis. So, it is a very delicate issue, but at least, I think we should think about that, and there is no other way than to push those who will be ready to make a first step—not wait for when the whole system will go into collapse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)