The investment bankers Goldman Sachs, Rothschild, Merrill Lynch, Chase, Citigroup, etc., do not owe prime loyalty to any super-power, nation or coalition of nations.
Their forefathers were bankers to empires for centuries, then just as conscientiously helped to scuttle the very notion of “empire” when it became economically redundant. If a China-led world economy offers better prospects for international investments than one led by the USA, rivalry over geopolitical interests in the South China Sea, or anywhere else, are not going to play anything other than a nuisance factor for global capital.
On the one hand, Russia participates, profiting from customs duties and the additional stimulus of new economic horizons—two of the three operational overland corridors of the Silk Road Economic Belt pass through Russian terrain, often utilizing Russian-run or invested dry ports and logistics zones.
On the other hand, Russia maintains policies that run counter to the “win-win” nature of Silk Road development, and have partially resisted China’s plan to lay a network of new economic corridors through Central Asia and Eastern Europe—regions they still perceive as their backyard.The oligarchs see a prize that they have sought since the earliest days of Bolshevism: the Russian Far East. China is the means by which the region can be opened up, occupied and incorporated into the “One Belt, One Road.” Obviously, Americans are no use for the purpose; Chinese are.
So far from Sino-Russian accord being seen as a threat to “the West” or the USA, by which is meant the financial interests in control, under Chinese leadership it is seen as the means by which Russia can be brought into the globalist fold, regardless of “American” interests, which are not intrinsic to the investment opportunities of Gold Sachs, et al.
The Russian Far East, like Tibet, has vast resources that China covets: As for the Far East of Russia, this region is well provided not only with many types of ‘basic’ minerals, but also by a number of those that provide the scientific and technological revolution.
He said his country was ready to make globalization work for everyone, and not just the few. They are excited to proceed with a symbiotic relationship with China, circumventing interference by Pentagon brass or populist politicians, while China is as willing to enter such a relationship with the architects of globalization. Again, there are those who both acclaim or condemn BRICS as rivalling U. hegemony and globalization. BRICS is seen as the nucleus for a bloc that can challenge the USA. The culture that is inherent in globalization is not going to be changed by China.
‘The people of all countries expect nothing less from us, and this is our unshirkable responsibility as leaders of our times.’“While certain factions influential in U. policy, such as the “neocon” lobbyists, and for contrary reasons, the recently galvanized populists, see China as a threat, geopolitically in the case of the former and economically in the case of the latter, there are other interests that, despite being headquartered in Wall Street, do not see China’s incursions in the South China Sea, or the dumping of Chinese goods on the U. Be that as it may, it does not present an alternative to globalization. The concept of BRIC was floated within Goldman Sachs in 2001 by Jim O’Neil, in his Global Economics Paper, “Building Better Global Economic BRICs”. The character of globalization needs “culture” to be a marketing strategy. Globalization under Chinese auspices rather than American, will still convey the cultural contaminants of Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and MTV.
He called it the “BRICs dream,” in a 2003 paper, “Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050.” BRICS goes well beyond other regional groupings established by international capital, such as the EU, “Pacific Rim,” and “Trilateralism.”The “new silk road,” not a single transit but a series of development projects linking Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and South East Asia, with China as the hub, is being promoted as the hope of the future. We will not be reaching for new heights of culture motivated by Confucius.
One enthusiast, the Australasian lawyer, James O’Neil wrote of the “new silk road” that it will “seriously affect the dollar’s previous dominance and with it the ability of the United States to exercise economic and political influence throughout the world.” Be that as it may, it remains globalization whether under U. Corporate global culture proceeds under economic globalization, regardless of the nation nominally at the head.