Author: admin

Authored by Tom Luongo,

“Brace Yourself Arthur as Corporate America  tries to sell us its wretched things!” (Turns on TV)
— The Tick

Bitcoin has been on fire since April began. It’s been an impressive move so far. And no one has a good reason why.

So I’m asking a simple question. Is Bitcoin’s rally part of the post-Fed safe haven rally we’ve seen across asset classes? Or is it just an overdue long probe mixed with some short-covering?

At Money and Markets I make the argument that is was simply time for a rally which was set up by a strong Q1 close.

Bitcoin and the rest of the cryptocurrency market have been mired in a bear market for fifteen months now since the spectacular bubble of 2017 burst. And that’s enough time for the market to become unbalanced enough that it needed a counter-trend correction. 

All it was looking for was a catalyst.

To me, political turmoil is creeping up around the world. So, the idea of people quietly accumulating Bitcoin below $4000 doesn’t seem outrageous given how much our financial lives are now tracked.

With all of the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, an imploding German economy, U.S. foreign policy insanity and upcoming European Parliamentary elections, there has to be a political component to Bitcoin’s big pop since it drifted higher over the weekend.

Looking at the daily chart it’s obvious that there was a big spurt of activity on the breakout days which pushed the price through $4100 and up close to $5300.

And now we’re looking at a low-volume meander higher as bulls won’t give up the dream.

But back to the broader question. We’ve seen a titanic set of moves in all safe-havenassets. German Bunds carry negative yield out to 10 years. (10 YEARS!). President Trump has nominated an outsider and personal friend, Herman Cain, to the FOMC board, nominally to frighten the Fed into cutting rates at the next meeting.

He wants more QE and lower rates, mistakenly thinking this will be inflationary and good for his “Best Economy Evahr!”

But it won’t be.  QE is deflationary.  It signals a frightened central bank that doesn’t believe credit markets are healthy enough to operate without support.  

Markets are already struggling with valuations. It’s why we’re seeing multi-sigma moves in the Dow, U.S. Treasuries and major currencies while the central banks try to keep a lid on volatility.

Brexit threatens to upend the smooth flow of capital between Europe and the City of London. If no deal is reached by Friday and the U.K. leaves the EU on WTO terms there will be retaliation by the EU for that outcome.

They will trash the pound. They will impose the harshest tariffs they can and deny travelers, supplies and the rest.

There will be a reckoning.

It’s a bluff in the long run, but a very real threat in the short run. Their economies are too linked to separate violently. And Germany is too weak to keep it all from coming unglued.

What the EU fears is having to react to new market forces. A U.K. trading on WTO terms would pressure them to lower tariffs.

It would rather subsume everyone else than reform itself.

Hence, no movement on trade talks with the U.S. Harsh treatment of the U.K. over Brexit, if not outright assault. No reform possible for Italy. More TARGET 2 imbalances, Bail-in rules for banks, Article 7 censuring of Hungary and Poland.

The list goes on.

When you look at it that way smart people preparing for chaos simply makes sense.

We have precedence for this. A lot of the Bitcoin’s transactional volume during the 2017 bull market came from Europe. Capital controls have been inhibiting cross-border flows since the 2011 debt crisis.

Gold and bonds are confiscated across borders within the EU.

Oh the tragic irony, people can move freely but not money.

Bitcoin’s very nature invites this behavior. In times of extreme stress Bitcoin functions as a safe haven asset. And it doesn’t take much to move the price.

So, one big European whale could set off a 25% relief rally during the chaos surrounding Brexit. And once he’s done buying, the natural rhythms of markets take over.

I’m not convinced this move is anything more than that, however. I don’t think this is the new bull market.

The real test is this week and the strength of any push towards $6000. If that fizzles, then we’ll see Bitcoin relax back towards $4000.

And a lot of that will depend on what happens this week with Brexit.

*  *  *

To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 235 Patrons on Patreon and see if I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going slowly mad. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2FZKBL9 Tyler Durden

Over 130,000 people in the UK and abroad are being monitored by an artificial intelligence system known as Isaak – which scrutinizes staff behavior minute-to-minute, according to The Guardian. 

Dozens of UK businesses are using the “Isaak” system which analyzes tasks such as who’s email who, and when, how workers are collaborating, and which staff are “influencers” or “change-makers,” according to the report.

Designed by London-based company Status Today, the system can pinpoint “certain individuals within a network” to better allocate workloads and responsibilities, “ultimately improving the overall workplace environment and reducing stress and overworking.” Thus far, Isaak has gathered data on more than a billion actions. 

The computer can compare activity data with qualitative assessments of workers from personnel files or sales performance figures to give managers a detailed picture of how behaviour affects output.

Users so far include five law firms, a training company called Smarter Not Harder and a London estate agency, JBrown, according to Status Today, which promises “real-time insights into each employee and their position within the organisational network”. Workers do not automatically have a right to see the data, which is controlled by the employer. –The Guardian

Critics say workers will be under mind-numbing pressure to constantly perform for fear of being singled out by the AI. 

“If performance targets are being fine-tuned by AI and your progress towards them being measured by AI, that will only multiply the pressure,” said labor and globalization professor Ursula Huws of the University of Hertfordshire. “People are deemed not to be working if they take their hands off the keyboard for five minutes. But they could be thinking, and that doesn’t get measured. What is this doing for innovation, which needs creative workers?”

Huws says that people’s mental health is at risk if they don’t take occasional breaks for recreational activities such as browsing social media or playing a game (somehow everyone stayed sane before computers, but we digress).

According to a survey released last week, UK workers tend to procrastinate for around three hours per day. 

Iaak is part of what experts have labeled the “precision economy,” in which every action of an individual is measured and analyzed for peak efficiency. 

The Royal Society of Artspredicts that in the next 15 years, life insurance premiums will be set with data from wearable monitors and workers in retail and hospitality will be tracked for time spent inactive. As gig economy working spreads, people will qualify for the best jobs only with performance and empathy metrics that pass a high threshold. Those with lower scores will have access to only the most menial and sometimes miserable tasks such as content moderation on social media, the RSA has predicted. –The Guardian

Status Today CEO Ankur Modi says that his system is aimed at providing a “wellbeing analysis” that can detect when people are overworked. He admitted, however, “there’s always a risk that it might be misused” by companies only looking to boost productivity without addressing employee wellbeing. 

“If one salesperson is performing well and you can see overwork and another isn’t performing well and isn’t overworked, that could be enough to start a conversation,” said Modi – who also argued that the system could help employers reduce or eliminate bias and discrimination by removing subjectivity from management decisions. 

AI ideas that are being developed elsewhere have included the use of facial recognition software and mood monitoring at work, recording a worker’s location on wearable devices and the monitoring of keyboard strokes. A survey by the Trades Union Congress last year found that a majority of workers were opposed to all of these. –The Guardian

According to Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O’Grady: “Workers want to be trusted to do their jobs. But this kind of high-tech snooping creates fear and distrust. And by undermining morale, it could do businesses more harm than good. Employers should only introduce surveillance technologies after negotiation and agreement with the workforce, including union representatives. There should always be a workplace agreement in place that clarifies where the line is drawn for legitimate use, and that protects the privacy of working people.“

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2U712ue Tyler Durden

Authored by Eric Margolis,

Algeria has long been the forgotten nation of North Africa. But now, it is bursting into the news as the latest example of popular revolution in the woefully misgoverned Arab world.

After seven weeks of mass street protests, Algeria’s ruler for the past two decades, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, finally faced the inevitable and resigned after a big shove from the army and the governing elite, known as ‘le pouvoir’ (the power).

Algeria is an important nation in spite of its recent semi-obscurity. At the center of North Africa, bordered by the Mediterranean and great Sahara Desert, Algeria has over 42 million people, with an important ethnic Berber minority in the mountains and uplands of the interior. Algeria is a major, world class producer of oil and gas, most of which is exported to Europe. In fact, 90% of government revenue comes from energy exports.

I have a particular interest in Algeria because I nearly went there as a guerilla fighter during its long, bloody war for independence from France (1954-1962). Algerian independence from brutal, exploitive French rule was then a noble cause that inspired many young men and women. Over one million people, mostly Algerians, died in the struggle. Torture and murder were rampant.

I led student demonstrations in Europe calling for free Algeria. As a result, I received my first death threats from La Main Rouge, a supposedly independent organization that murdered supporters of Algerian independence. Later, it was revealed to be a false flag branch of French foreign intelligence.

After independence, the victorious FLN (National Liberation Front) leadership set about killing one another. The revolution devoured its own. So much for youthful idealism and hope.

Post-war Algeria was run by the FLN hierarchy and military until gas and oil prices dropped in 1991 and the regime did not know what to do. It was decided to actually allow a free vote in local elections, one of the first in the Arab word. The moderate Islamic Salvation Front (FIS in French) won a landslide. The dictators, king and soldiers who ran the Arab world under US, British and French tutelage were horrified. The FIS was banned, its leaders jailed, and martial law imposed over Algeria.

A national uprising erupted against military rule. The army fought back with extreme cruelty, using torture, beheadings and executions that far exceeded the cruelties inflicted by former colonial ruler, France.
Over 200,000 Algerians died in this butchery.

Most FIS leaders were killed or murdered. But some escaped to Morocco, Libya and the Sahara to create a new militant fighting group, GIA, which still operates today in the Sahara, notably Mali, Cameroon, Chad and Togo. Leaders of the Islamic State took their cues from FIS/GIA.

A young, bright, personable former army officer, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, was named foreign minister. He eventually became president because the regime’s bigwigs (le pouvoir) could not agree on who was to become leader. Bouteflika became the compromise candidate and occupied this role for twenty years – at least until he suffered a severe stroke that left him crippled and mute. He kept ruling from a wheelchair.

Algerians, half of whom are under thirty years old, poured into the streets to demand democracy and free votes. Even army chief Ahmed Salah could not withstand these demands for a new Arab spring. The last one in 1991 turned into a disaster as reactionary forces in the Arab word and their US, French ad British backers reimposed autocratic rule on the long-suffering Arab world.

But Algeria might spark a new wave of revolution, notably in war-torn Libya, Tunisia and medieval Morocco. Egypt, a virtual US-Saudi colonial dictatorship, would also be threatened by a democratic Algeria. The Saharan region would seek real independence from foreign rule.

As of now, we wait to see what will happen in Algiers. It would be good to see Algeria’s military step back and give up its unproductive role in politics. Algeria urgently needs to develop its civilian economy away from oil and gas. When they run out, Algeria will be forced to rely on agriculture and fishing.

Most important, Algeria’s army must ensure a peaceful transition to civilian government and fair elections. This would be the real second Algerian revolution for which so many have died. As we used to chant long ago, ‘long live free Algeria.’

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VwzEY7 Tyler Durden

Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan once again affirmed “everything is done” regarding Turkey’s moving forward with its purchase of the Russian S-400 air defense system, despite persistent condemnations and threats from Washington. 

Echoing similar statements of the past weeks in the face of US ultimatums related to blocking orders of Lockheed’s F-35 stealth fighter, Erdogan said, “those who ask or suggest we backtrack don’t know us,” and told reporters further  after meeting with Putin, “If we sign a deal on an issue, that’s a done deal. This is our sovereign right, no one can ask us to back down.’’

It appears the long running controversy will end in US defense planners’ worst fears come true: in place of strained and worsening ties with Washington, Turkey is fast moving into Moscow’s orbit. The two leaders have already met multiple times this year, which doesn’t bode well for Vice President Mike Pence’s ultimatum last week of “Turkey must choose.” 

This began at first slowly over the past 2 years after the Pentagon began closely backing Syrian Kurdish forces that Ankara sees as a “terrorist” extension of the outlawed PKK, but began in earnest last summer surrounding the Pastor Andrew Brunson detention, and as congressional leaders began discussing blocking transfer of the F-35. 

But now, as Bloomberg, reports of Monday’s Putin-Erdogan meeting, the military relationship between NATO’s easternmost member and Russia is set to deepen:

Russia’s ready to consider deepening defense cooperation with Turkey through “joint development and joint production of high-tech weaponry,” Putin said. While they discussed implementing the S-400 contract, there are also other “promising projects,” he said.

However, Syria policy remains the chief distinct obstacle to Russian-Turkish relations, as the Kremlin is eager to assist Damascus in reclaiming all of Idlib province from al-Qaeda occupation. 

Putin called the impasse over Idlib “solvable” despite Turkey supporting factions still at war with the Syria state, and who claim Syrian territory with Ankara’s assistance. 

Monday’s talks ended without agreement on the issue, but Erdogan admitted, “There are terrorist groups” in Idlib, and said further according to Bloomberg, “Our Defense Ministry together with the Russian Defense Ministry are working on the issue and will continue doing so.”

The continued and deepening cooperation, combined with Erdogan’s so far unwavering commitment to seeing the S-400 deal all the way through, suggests Ankara is ready to play chicken with the White House.

Pence posed last week: “Does it [Turkey] want to remain a critical partner in the most successful military alliance or does it want to risk the security of that partnership by making such reckless decisions that undermine our NATO alliance?”

By July — the anticipated time the S-400 is set to be delivered — we could finally have the answer on which side is willing to back down first. 

* * *

The full joint press conference where the two leaders addressed reporters, per Ruptly:

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2UGL5iv Tyler Durden

Via AlMasdarNews.com

The Islamic Republic of Iran is looking for new ways to link their capital, Tehran, with Syria’s Damascus and Iraq’s Baghdad. One of the proposed actions they are taking to make this a reality is the construction of new highways and rail systems that would link Syria with Iran via Iraq.

Iran’s Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri in statements this week underlined his country’s determination to build new roads and railways in order to link the Persian Gulf states to Syria and the Mediterranean region.

“Iran which understands the political and economic conditions and developments believes that the necessary capacities for cooperation in transferring power and electricity, building roads and etc. will be provided and we hope that obstacles will be removed through the presence of the private sector,” Jahangiri said, addressing the joint Iran-Iraq economic-trade forum in Tehran on Sunday.

He noted that building the Shalamcheh-Basra railway was one of the agreements made during the recent visit by the Iraqi delegation to Iran.

Jahangiri stressed the importance of developing a cross border highway between the two countries in order to boost trade and commerce, while also protecting their interests in the region.

“We will connect the Persian Gulf from Iraq to Syria and Mediterranean via railway and road,” Jahangiri said.

The Shalamcheh-Basra railway project is said to cost around 2.22 billion rials and once implemented, it will link the Iranian railway to Syria through Iraq.

For years since the start of the war in Syria, analysts have speculated what the so-called “Shia land bridge” or Iran-Iraq-Syria corridor to the Mediterranean would look like:

Director General of the Railway and Technical Structures Department at the Islamic Republic of Iran Railways (RAI) Mohammad Moussavi said in December that Iran was to build a movable railway bridge over the Arvand River as part of the 35-kilometer Shalamcheh-Basra railway project for linking Iran-Iraq railway network.

In addition to their railway and highway projects, Iran is also rumored to be planning to build a naval base in Syria’s western coast.

While this is still rumor, the idea that Iran could have access to the Mediterranean could trigger more airstrikes from Israel.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WV3Kom Tyler Durden

Actress Helen Mirren has had enough of Netflis, and she’s letting the world know.

The actress, who is most famous for roles in in “The Queen” and “Gosford Park,” recently said on stage in Las Vegas: “I love Netflix, but fuck Netflix. There’s nothing like sitting in a cinema.” She recently spoke at an event to promote her new film “The Good Liar” at the CinemaCon conference. She was looking to rile up a relatively friendly crowd of theater owners who attend the conference.  

After Netflix’s “Roma” nearly won an Academy Award for best picture, the company has been in the crosshairs of industry traditionalists, who believe it undermines the industry’s longstanding practices. “Roma” was the first nominee that was a digital release. If it had won, Netflix would have been the first tech company to win the award.

The controversy stems from movies being put out on Netflix being considered for awards without traditional theater runs.

Mirren isn’t the first to speak out on the issue, either. Steven Spielberg has claimed that streaming movies shouldn’t be considered for Oscars unless they are shown in theaters. 

“Steven feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation,” a spokesperson from Amblin, Spielberg’s production company, told IndieWire earlier this month. Spielberg helps set policy for the organization as one of the three Academy governors of the directors branch. 

And what would any stupid and meaningless controversy be without the government’s involvement?

The DOJ weighed in to warn the Academy that if rule changes hurt Netflix, they may violate anti-competition laws. According to Bloomberg, Makan Delrahim, head of the agency’s antitrust division, sent a letter to Academy Chief Executive Officer Dawn Hudson on March 21, expressing concern about the way new award rules might be written.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Kkxfi0 Tyler Durden

Authored by Tim Kirby via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of NATO, but the question is, is this a happy birthday for a lively meaningful organization or time for us to pull the plug on a Cold War dreg that has lived well past its purpose?

After WWII it was inevitable that there would be a conflict between the Liberal Capitalist world and the growing Red Communist one. Perhaps if the Soviet Union would have resigned itself to being the only Communist nation rejecting any form of proselytization and rebranding itself as some kind of Democracy B as a mild alternative to the West’s Democracy A then the Cold War could have been avoided.

But this did not happen and was very unlikely to do so. The motto of the Soviet Union on its seal was “Workers of the World Unite!”. That was workers of the “world” not “only Russia”. So it is not surprising that the West took a preemptive move and formed NATO to gang up on the USSR.

However now the Soviet Union is dead and gone. NATO fulfilled its mission a little after turning 40. Sadly rather than phasing out and riding off into the sunset it had a midlife crisis, bought a Camaro and continued to not only exist but expand and bomb. But should it exist? Why is this organization still around at 70 years old posing as if we are still living in some sort of Cold War dynamic where if we don’t bomb Libya back to the stone age somehow Belgium and Greece will fall to evil ideologically different invaders.

NATO relies heavily on the idea that the weakest members benefit from being treated as “equals” in the security organization. Many tiny nations would be militarily helpless otherwise. At first this logic makes sense. Little nations need a boost to help them maintain a stable defense.

For example, the smaller nations who allied with Nazi Germany in/before WWII avoided their Deutsch wrath via submission. By NATO logic they were made vastly “stronger” by being part of the Axis/Tripartite Pact. The Nazis did have arguably the best military in the world at that time which would bump up weaker allies for sure. But in turn could weak Bulgaria and Romania really make any demands from Germany? Could Germany get their allies to do what the Reich wanted?

Weak members of an alliance are never equal members with a voice, they are merely submissive states who fear the whip of their masters who are more benevolent than some other potential master, and this is what we see in many NATO members today who have absolutely neither an economy nor military of any worth to offer allies.

Interestingly, NATO seems to acknowledge that some people might be baffled as to why it continues to exist and by making a video about the very topic they somewhat subconsciously confirm the doubters’ beliefs.

So NATO in its own PR declares that its current missions, which are too big for any one nation to handle, are the following…

• Protect against an “assertive” Russia.

• Deal with the “deteriorated” security situation in Africa and the Middle-East which cause migration and terror attacks.

• Promoting “international efforts” (whatever that means) to project stability and strengthen security outside of NATO territory.

• Dealing with WMD’s, Cyber Attacks, and threats to Energy Supplies and deal with Environmental Challenges with “security implications”.

So let’s evaluate these points to see if NATO should shoot for for an 80th birthday and beyond.

Protecting Against an Assertive Russia

During the 90’s Russia would have been willing to join NATO. Russia is very powerful but still a distant third on the world stage. Furthermore, in a world of mutually assured destruction, Russia is only capable of maybe retaking lost friendly territory that those in power in America cannot find on a map or helping foreign nations help themselves win wars like they did in Syria.

Russia as it is today is not very assertive and always plays a reactive role to the West. An assertive Russia would have taken the majority of the Ukraine which it considers to be an inherent and ancient part of Russia itself. Only being able to take the Crimea reveals that Russia still has far to go before becoming a “threat” to Europe again. In terms of the grand chessboard of the former USSR, Russia is usually spending its turns escaping from being in check.

The Deteriorated Security Situation in Africa and the Middle-East

This has been caused by NATO itself committing regime changes in stable nations. If NATO had disbanded in 1991 the security situation in these regions would be exponentially better.

Promoting International Efforts” to Project Stability and Strengthen Security Outside of NATO Territory.

Projecting Stability is just coded language for terrifying others into submission. This is a normal part of human history and NATO like all militaries should do this, however they should be more honest about it. If one is to act like the Romans or Mongols and put the fear of God into their enemies with the threat of war then they could at least do so boldly.

The key words here that raise eyebrows are “outside of NATO territory”. Meaning that an organization founded for the “defense” of its members must by its own officially stated objectives work outside of its own territory proving that their mission is not defense but a form of preemptive offense.

Dealing with WMD’s, Cyber Attacks, Threats to Energy Supplies and Environmental Challenges with “Security Implications”.

Every powerful military has WMD’s. If they mean getting them out of the hands of Non-State actors then NATO should try to not allow any of its members to sell weapons to non-member entities. Why does defense against cyber attacks require NATO? Threats to energy supplies is coded language for wars for oil. Dealing with the environment militarily is just stupid but it sounds trendy and caring, so why not?

As you can see none of the official arguments for the continued existence of NATO is particularly convincing. By their own logic NATO exists to deal with the problems it causes by itself, fight against an assertive enemy that backs down from fighting it, terrify foreigners outside its borders into submission as a form of collective defense and deal with vague issues and security threats to the environment vaguely.

These arguments are not convincing to anyone, and probably not even to the member states of NATO themselves. As we blow out the 70 candles on the NATO cake everyone knows that this organization is a farce living on via historical inertia alone. The only real purpose it has is to keep much of Europe under the Washington yoke which means that in all likelihood it will outlive us all. Happy Birthday!

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2KidJTj Tyler Durden

Spotlight Zimbabwe has reported that China is preparing to station elite special forces in Zimbabwe, as Beijing increases military cooperation with Harare, amid concerns that the Asian powerhouse is set to construct a secret underground military base in the country.

The new report comes one year after Spotlight Zimbabwe revealed that China installed next-generation surface-to-air missiles (SAM) in the country, the same ones that are deployed to the South China Sea on Woody Island.

China’s new military base is set to protect its large diamond claims and gold mines across the country, where some of its SAM launchers are already located.

According to a former minister of ex-leader President Robert Mugabe’s administration, China has been planning on sending their special forces to the country since 2014 “to offer technical assistance and support” to the Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA). However, Mugabe called off the plan several years ago, after accusing the Chinese of corruption, and the plunder of natural resources in Marange.

“They (China) have been itching to set a permanent military presence in this country, to protect their vast economic interests here but Mugabe was resisting the overtures,” said the former cabinet minister. “Although the cover argument was around offering technical assistance and support to our armed forces, it later became clear that Mnangagwa had his own agreement and arrangements with China. This infuriated Mugabe, and it was also during the same period Mnangagwa had first traveled to China as vice president, holding high-level meetings which his boss had not fully been briefed on. The incident increased Mugabe’s political mistrust for Mnangagwa, whom he suspected was presenting himself to President Xi Jinping, as the best political actor to secure China’s investments in Zimbabwe after he steps down. The rest is history. Mnangagwa has since invited China back to mine diamonds in Marange, and their special force has received the greenlight from vice president Rtd General, Constatino Chiwenga, to find a station in the country. Now there is every reason to believe that Mugabe’s November 2017 ouster, could have been a result of China viewing his stay in power as a threat to their economic investments, especially after having stripped them of diamond mining rights.”

Zimbabwe has seen billions of dollars of Chinese investments over the last few years, mainly in critical economic sectors of mining, agriculture, and telecommunications. The investments are part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an ambitious effort to improve regional economies on a trans-continental scale. It aims to strengthen infrastructure, trade, and investment between China and 65 other countries that collectively account for 30% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 62% of world population and 75% of known global energy reserves.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa said last month that BRI is a significant improvement of the old Silk Road.

“In the past, there was the Silk Road, and that to a greater extent did not embrace the entire continent. Zimbabwe was only lucky to the extent that 800 to 1000 years ago there was trade between the Munhumutapa Kingdom and China when we imported porcelain and silk from here and in turn you got our ivory.

“But today the Road and Belt Initiative has taken everybody on board so that our economies can talk to each other, so that our economies can help each other modernize and mechanize. We are getting connected and benefiting from each other.

“If you look at the current FOCAC meeting, there are 10 issues that we are going to deal with and these issues are really primary issues that show developing countries like Zimbabwe.

“The issue of transportation, the issue of infrastructure development in our countries . . . we believe that with this relationship under FOCAC where the rest of Africa is making conversations with China, and China helping Zimbabwe and Africa to go up. And when that happens it creates the integration of marketing in China and Africa so we are happy that we are part of this global vision,” he said.

China has indicated that it will invest in Africa with the Agenda 2063 of the African Union, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations, as well as the development strategies of individual African countries.

However, in Zimbabwe’s case, Chinese BRI investments have been followed by a permanent military presence. Now, allegedly, a secret underground military base for special forces is set to be constructed, a move that will certainly anger Washington.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VwBXKz Tyler Durden

Authored by James Durso, op-ed via The Hill,

America’s designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group is an example of taking a good idea — sanctioning Iranian entities for malign behavior — one step too far.

A former State Department counterterrorism official said of the designation, “The future ramifications of this decision will be profound.” He’s right about that, but “profound” may cut both ways.

In 2007, the U.S. designated the Guard’s overseas operations arm, the Quds Force, for support of terrorist organizations, so the new sanctions will hit the parent organization which is already under sanctions for ballistic missile development and supporting the Bashar Assad regime in Syria.

An Iranian lawmaker responded to the news by saying Iran would regard the U.S. military as no different than the Islamic State, echoing the 2017 statement by the commander of the Guards, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, that the Guards would “consider the American army to be like Islamic State all around the world.”

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the CIA reportedly opposed the move, and no wonder: Officials at the National Security Council and the Treasury Department are safe in Washington, D.C., State Department officers in Baghdad labor under restrictive security rules which limit their movements, which leaves the U.S. military and CIA officers exposed.

DOD has opposed this idea for a long time. When it was considered in 2007, the representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told his civilian counterparts, “The United States has always carefully avoided declaring military officers engaged in activities sanctioned by their governments as terrorists to avoid the same being done to us.” It could be applied to American special forces officers, who frequently operate clandestinely and have provided military assistance and training to insurgents.

Encounters between the American and Iranian military and security services can go one of three ways:

• Proxy war: Iraqi militias supported by Iran killed at least 608 American servicemen.

• Let’s-get-this-over-with: Iran quickly released the U.S. Navy crews who were captured by the IRGC Navy when they wandered into Iranian waters in early 2016.

• The Beirut option: In the 1980s, the CIA’s Beirut station chief William Buckley and U.S. Marine colonel William Higgins were kidnapped by Iran’s Lebanese Hezbollah allies and died under interrogation. Former FBI agent – and CIA contractor – Robert Levinson disappeared in Iran in 2007, and the FBI, then led by Robert Mueller, was reduced to asking Vladimir Putin’s most loyal oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, to fund his (unsuccessful) rescue.

And the designation won’t just discomfit Americans; Iraqi officials regularly encounter Guards officers whether they want to or not. Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani regularly visits Iraq, and the last three Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad have been Quds Force officers, so Iraqi officials can expect to be put on notice by the Americans to avoid “terrorists.” Iran is active economically in Iraq, so the designation may be bad for Iraq’s economy. One near-term effect may be to scuttle an effort to import electricity from Iran, badly needed as the country still suffers from power shortages.

America’s timing is bad, as Iran’s “resistance economy” is dragging, and the government has been criticized for its lackluster response to the recent widespread, deadly flooding. These sanctions will just give the mullahs an excuse for their economic mismanagement.

Given the Guard’s penetration of Iran’s economy, new sanctions might enrich it even more. If the economy becomes radioactive to outside investors because the due diligence is too hard, the IRGC could buy the remaining assets at cut-rate prices. If, in the future, the Guard is neutered and sanctions are relaxed, unwinding the sanctioned businesses will take years and will require the approval of the U.S., which will move at the speed of government. This will hobble the post-mullah regime which will be under pressure to improve the lives of newly-free Iranians.

The current U.S. practice of targeting specific people and economic entities for sanctions allows the U.S. to fine-tune its actions and tells the Iranians the U.S. knows who is doing what. Given the Guards economic ubiquity, the terrorist designation is a blanket sanction with unknown consequences, though one might be increased power for the Guards.

The last time a military formation of a sovereign state was declared a criminal organization was when Nazi Germany’s Waffen-SS was condemned for its involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Designating the IRGC a terrorist entity may sound great after that third beer, but is IRGC commander Major General Jafari as bad as Himmler? No.

Terrorism sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards promise something for everyone, all of it bad: More American hostages, and more money for the Guards. The Americans should ignore the bright, shiny object of terrorism sanctions and remember firm, consistent pressure is the way to win the contest with Iran.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2D4FVTL Tyler Durden