Friday, October 9, 2009

Hubris, Hegemons and the Currency of Fascism



Hubris, Hegemons and the Currency of Fascism

"The extensive wars wherewith Louis XIV was burdened during his reign, while draining the State's treasury and exhausting the substance of the people, nonetheless contained the secret that led to the prosperity of a swarm of those bloodsuckers who are always on the watch for public calamities, which, instead of appeasing, they promote or invent so as, precisely, to be able to profit from them the more advantageously. The end of this so very sublime reign was perhaps one of the periods in the history of the French Empire when one saw the emergence of the greatest number for these mysterious fortunes whose origins are as obscure as the lust and debauchery that accompany them." - Marquis de Sade, 120 Days of Sodom

With the announcement in the autumn of 2008 of government plans for equity ownership in banks came obituaries on the death of capitalism and claims, invariably expressed as insults, that the United States has become a socialist regime. Karl Marx is cited with reference to the fifth proposal in the Communist Manifesto calling for a state monopoly on banks and credit. Looking past the mock funerals, however, one sees fasces-fasces being the Latin root of fascism-deeply etched into the granite and marble banks and government buildings, not the peeling remnants of posters bearing the hammer and cycle.

This is the conclusion of someone who lived in the Soviet Union for several years, where there was no equivalent to the extravagant wealth and consumption of the western financial elite-the private jets, villas and art collections, or the mistresses dripping with world-class jewelry and other luxuries that scarcely existed behind the Iron Curtain. The Communist Party's First Class didn't own gold-plated helicopters, much less sports teams or palatial homes and hideaways, as was the case with Allen Stanford, who pleaded ignorance as to how his allegedly fraudulent Caribbean financial operation was run and refused to comment on the accuracy of reports that he worked for the CIA. He would never be reduced, as was the case with Mikhail Gorbachev, to appearing in advertisements for Louis Vuitton and Pizza Hut to earn money for his foundation.

If Marquis de Sade were alive today, he would heap scorn on the notion that party functionaries and financial bureaucrats at their run-down resorts in the Black and Baltic seas would be compared to the oligarchs exemplified by the snake-loving skinhead Henry Paulson. After moving from Goldman Sachs, where he earned the nickname of The Hammer, to the Treasury Department, Paulson would execute the demise of his former rival, Lehman Brothers, force Bank of America to complete its acquisition of Merrill Lynch despite better judgment from the bank's chief executive officer, and orchestrate the greatest theft in world history with the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to bail out the financial sector-most notably his former firm-resorting even to the threat of martial law with recalcitrant legislators who were backed by an unprecedented constituent outcry.

While recognizing the necessary split entailed with giving fixed meaning to an ongoing crisis and the pitfalls of historical prognostication, recent and current snapshots allow for a fairly clear view of the horizon to be pieced together. The empire emanating from Red Square didn't unravel because of its financial sector's ability to purloin state funds, as eventually could be the case with the empire ostensibly centered in Washington but commandeered from New York and London. The Soviet Union, by the most reliable accounts, imploded in large part because of its Afghan war. While the United States and its allies now have their crippling campaign in that unforgiving country, the weakest links to the empire controlled by Wall Street and The Square Mile are formed by a quadrillion dollars in derivatives and a hundred trillion dollars of securitized debt. It is in these debt instruments that one finds the contemporary equivalent of Sade's allusion to the obscure origins of the mysterious fortunes enjoyed by the bankster elite.

Before going further, I should make it clear that this is not an apology for the Soviet Union; the Marxist authors closest to me hold that the Bolsheviks were the first fascists. Although I understand their point about the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime, I disagree. While fascists make populist, even revolutionary propaganda, on questions of class, they differ from socialists and are more inclined to work with and for the financial elite. In the case of Mussolini, he rewarded the financiers and industrialists who brought him to power and rescued their firms when they failed during the Depression, privatizing profits and socializing losses.

The response of party bureaucrats in Beijing to the crisis has been telling in this regard; they have instituted policies more in the interest of small businesses and the average citizen than the politicians and central bankers in Washington, who have been intent on protecting the financial elite by socializing losses after years of private profit from outsized risk. The elite that owns the government hails mostly, but not entirely, from the six banks that hold nearly all U.S. bank derivative positions: the Golden Circle formed by JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and HSBC USA.

If the assertions of well-informed protesters are not enough to make this point, we have former International Monetary Fund rescue expert Simon Johnson contending that "the finance industry has effectively captured our government" and comparing the situation with emerging-market crises in this regard. Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durban concurs, saying, "And the banks-hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created-are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

Goldman Sachs and AIG

Goldman Sachs (GS) sets the most lurid example. Paulson was recruited by Bush's chief of staff, who was a former GS executive; and another former GS chief executive officer, Robert Rubin, had the top slot at Treasury under Clinton. The chief of staff of the present treasury secretary is a former GS lobbyist, who is being replaced at Goldman by a top staffer from the House Financial Services Committee. Currently, GS alumni have landed at the head of the New York Federal Reserve, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the presidency of the World Bank, the governorship of the Bank of Canada and chief of the influential Financial Stability Forum associated with the Bank of International Settlements.

Lawrence Summers-the Clinton administration official who championed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking activity, and the official who did the most to prevent regulation of credit default swaps with his support of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000-is now an Obama presidential economic adviser. In April 2008 he took time off from peddling collateralized debt obligations for hedge fund D.E. Shaw to receive $135,000 for a one-day speaking visit at Goldman.

Another former GS executive, in addition to Paulson, was involved with the government takeover of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; and the TARP funds were managed, if that is the right word for what amounted to theft, by yet another GS man, despite the fact that the firm was a recipient of those funds.

When Paulson bailed out insurance giant American International Group (AIG), with whom GS and other money-center banks had written credit default swap contracts, invisibly traded pseudo-insurance on bond defaults, a former member of the GS board was chosen as the new chief executive. "During Paulson's reign at Goldman Sachs, his traders arranged risky bets with AIG's financial products unit in credit default swaps, and yet, it was Paulson, a few years later, acting as U.S. Treasury chief, who wound up protecting GS's $12.9 billion CDS trade with AIG from default," notes financial analyst and former commodities trader Gary Dorsch. "This colossal conflict of interest, plus $165 billion paid to Merrill Lynch traders, with U.S. taxpayer money, have all been quietly swept under the rug by the ruling elite."

At last count, the government has given $180 billion to AIG, which used its insurance policyholders' capital to make highly leveraged, over-the-counter trades against credit defaults with money center banks in the United States and abroad. One has to ask whether AIG and its counterparties didn't know better and, as a well-established U.S. intelligence operation for the Central Intelligence Agency, recognize in advance that it would be protected and its counterparties paid in full.

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen and his Asian sources have written extensively on these intelligence connections, which include data collection on foreign nationals using former Tiananmen dissidents, and leasing aircraft to known fronts such as Evergreen International and World Airways. None of this should come as a surprise to Obama, whose first job out of college was as a researcher and writer for Business International Corporation, a firm with deep ties to the CIA that eventually merged with the Economist Intelligence Unit, which is said to work closely with Britain's MI-6.

Was the Crisis Engineered?

With the lesson of 9/11 in mind-what was purported to be an intelligence failure was in fact a brilliant success-one must ask whether the same is the case for the current financial crisis. So far the central bank and U.S. government have committed $12.8 trillion dollars to the financial rescue effort, a sum that nears last year's gross domestic product of $14.2 trillion. The bailout will likely surpass the GDP once Treasury Secretary Geithner's Public-Private Investment Program goes into full swing, providing hedge funds 14/1 leverage with taxpayer money and no downside risk to buying toxic assets. Would this vast sum have been spent, lent or otherwise extended to financial institutions in the absence of a crisis? No. Was the crisis engineered? Quite possibly.

We know that on May 5, 2006, the same day that Porter Goss resigned as the director of the CIA, President Bush gave his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, the authority to excuse publicly traded companies from their accounting and securities disclosure obligations. This was the first time this authority has been delegated to someone outside of the Oval Office, giving Negroponte "the function of President" under the law in question. It was also in early 2006 that Wall Street's major firms agreed to standardize credit default swaps on collateralized debt obligations, enabling speculators to pay relatively small fees for what would prove to be huge rewards when these bonds began defaulting.

Greed motivated the general sequence of financial maneuvers at the epicenter of the crisis. Banks and the shadow banking system, including hedge funds, would issue commercial paper-short-term loans often provided by money market funds. Instead of investing directly in real estate or other assets, firms would invest in securities based on pools of those assets, commonly mortgages, in the form of collateralized mortgage obligations or CMOs. The financial engineers on Wall Street, notably Goldman Sachs, created these structured products with their many tranches, including the notorious super-senior tranches that would supposedly never default, not just out of mortgages but virtually any form of debt-student loans, car loans, credit card debt-packaging them into collateralized loan obligations or collateralized debt obligations.

So the bank or other firm that borrows via commercial paper for six weeks at 4 percent can invest for twenty years and capture a yield of 7.5 percent, making a profit on the net positive interest rate margin. It may not seem like much, but in finance circles this yield spread is highly profitable as the sums involved are quite large. Moreover, the risk involved could be explained away. If a money market fund refused to roll over the commercial paper, the bank could borrow from other banks as the first bank would have hedged this risk by opening lines of credit when it issued the paper. It was thought that the structured products would not default as they drew on mortgages or other forms of credit that were either highly rated or geographically dispersed.

In the summer of 2007, borrowers began to default on the debt behind these structured products and the products became virtually worthless. Officials such as Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke discovered that these products based on debt had been treated as assets and were themselves the collateral for more structured products-CDOs squared and cubed. They also discovered that vast sums of commercial paper were issued off firm's books in the form of Enron-style structured investment vehicles, hiding the extent of a given firm's liabilities and the risks it, in turn, posed to the system as a whole.

In the worldwide system of fiat-issued money, money is debt. The firms holding CDOs accounted for these debts as assets, and firms such as AIG that wrote credit default swap contracts on these CDOs created obligations for their counterparties to pay premiums every year, usually for five years, creating money out of thin air. These CDS contracts were written without holding reserves or collateral backing the underlining debt. "So what backed them?" asks blogger Hellasious on suddendebt. "Faith, pure and simple. That's as close as we have ever come to creating the absolute faith-based financial instrument."

As faith is vanishing for these under-collateralized wagers created with unlimited leverage, the CDS market is crumbling, exposing the insolvency of the CDS dealer banks and their counterparties. According to Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, Paulson and Geithner are using tax dollars to conceal the insolvency of not just AIG but of Citi and JPMorgan Chase as well as others. "The real issue," Whalen states, is "the bankrupt intellectual basis for the CDS contracts themselves."

He estimates that at least $15 trillion and likely more in CDS payouts will be required from governments worldwide as default rates rise. The problem is that because these contracts are made over the counter, they are invisible and no one knows the true size of the outstanding issues. Award winning documentary filmmaker Gary Null, commenting on interviews he has conducted with Wall Street insiders, says the net CDS liabilities of U.S. financial institutions could reach $100 trillion.

Much of this market comprises naked swaps in which the buyer has no material interest in the underling asset, unlike covered swaps, which are beginning to see some regulation and institutional clearing. So far, the plan has been for the U.S. government to make good on these gambling bets at par, indirectly bailing out the banks in the Golden Circle via AIG.

According to Weiss Research, the CDS market represents only 7.8 percent of the notional value of derivatives held by U.S. banks, with the interest-rate sector comprising 82 percent. "Especially alarming," writes Dr. Weiss, "is the fourth quarter OCC data demonstrating that record bank losses are spreading to interest-rate derivatives." Weiss named eight large banks at the risk of failure, including three of the nation's four largest, adding that the rescue of failing institutions would entail "unacceptable damage" to the borrowing power of the United States.

"There is not any playbook," Paulson famously said in characterizing how the administration responded to the crisis, which is hard to believe when one considers how, once the TARP funds were obtained, Paulson switched their allocation from the proposed acquisition of toxic assets to directly purchasing bank shares. This assertion by the former secretary also lacks credibility on the grounds that the premises of the credit crunch were more mythical than real.

In October 2008, researchers at the Minnesota Fed found interbank lending to be healthy, lending to nonfinancial institutions was unaffected by the crisis, and commercial paper issued to nonfinancial institutions was unchanged. It was, however, the reluctance of money market funds to roll over asset-backed commercial paper following the default of CDOs held by two Bear Stearns hedge funds that severely deepened the crisis in 2007. The researchers requested that lawmakers show the data upon which the lawmakers made their rescue decisions.

What if the real problem were a fraudulently engineered housing and debt bubble in which the debt was packaged into asset-backed securities such as collateralized debt obligations and sold around the world? These securities were then either insured or shorted by legitimate hedges or punters, as speculators are called in England and Australia, using the credit default swaps issued by the likes of AIG, Ambac and MBIA that had no reserves to cover them in the event of a default. This pseudo-insurance allowed banks to meet their capital requirements and increase leverage to buy still more CDOs, which, absurdly, could be CDOs squared and cubed and synthetic CDOs, i.e., CDOs of CDSs.

The financial industry was printing its own money with these hedge instruments on a scale that far exceeded that of the nation's central bank and its Federal Reserve Notes. Bernanke was reportedly furious when he learned that AIG's financial products unit had created so much debt with its credit default swap contracts. But how safe and sound are the other, much larger derivative markets? The U.S. banking system's total notional derivative exposure (comprising interest rate, currency and CDS derivatives) is estimated to be $200 trillion.

The worldwide notional value of outstanding derivatives is now estimated to be $1.405 quadrillion, up 22 percent from the 2008 level. DK Matai of the Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance notes that a conservative 10 percent default or decline could result in $100 trillion of payouts. Financial institutions, nation states, even blocs such as the European Union will be unable to fund these obligations, often owed to speculators by bankers that grossly mispriced risk.

These same bankers are grumbling at restrictions put on their salaries and bonuses by government rescue covenants. "Never trust someone with a bonus system to handle risk," Nassim Nicholas Taleb, a New York University professor of risk management, told this reporter, adding, they cannot do it because of the "free option" on their performance whereby they benefit from profits but do not suffer from losses. "The system as it is, is broken," he said, signaling out former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan for blame. The system is "surviving on novocaine," he said of the rescue, but it "needs a root canal."

Whereas it was once only obscure graffiti artists who would call for the public to "drain bankers' blood in the Potomac," the anger has spread as the crisis exposes the excesses of the financial elite: the French-made luxury jets and use of corporate credit cards for $2,000 per hour prostitutes; the use of methamphetamine while processing mortgage applications at Washington Mutual and cocaine at Goldman's corporate finance department; and the $10,000 bottles of wine, chauffeurs and country club memberships. Goldman's CEO made $54 million in 2008, for example, and the firm's top five executives received a total of $242 million, with the cost of leased cars and drivers running as high as $233,000 per executive, according to figures compiled by Associated Press.

One Chicago-based bank that was given bailout funds created a scandal by sponsoring a professional golf event during the course of which it rented a private hangar at the Santa Monica Airport for dinner and threw a private party in the entire House of Blues with a performance by Sheryl Crow. Wells Fargo canceled a Vegas junket for its top employees "in light of the current environment" and Morgan Stanley cancelled company trips to Monte Carlo and the Bahamas.

When meeting with top bank executives, Obama reportedly told them to be careful in their public statements, adding, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." With the president running interference for the financial elite, it will likely extend its empire by increasing taxpayer indebtedness until the derivative time blows up or history otherwise reasserts itself.

While it's very likely that workers and consumers will dig their own graves, as their skeletons are thrown into plastic caskets and buried without ceremony, or incinerated after being piled up for months at overwhelmed morgues, this is potentially a transformational period of time. The powers that be have acknowledged as much in a secret document that has circulated on Capitol Hill and several agencies. It cautions on the possibility for conflict with other nations should the U.S. default on its debt, or for revolution should taxes be raised to pay for the financial bailout.

Marquis de Sade was writing the work cited in the epigraph about private profit from public calamities when he yelled from Bastille drainpipe that prisoners were being killed, causing a riot. The storming of the prison twelve days later marked the beginning of the French Revolution.

Workers and consumers enslaved by the semi-autonomous system of production and consumption are learning how CEOs representing corporations engaged in financial speculation cashed out prior to the crisis to the tunes of tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Even the president has acknowledged that the anger is real. It remains to be seen whether the flames ignited by this financial crisis will leap out of control.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Warns of Future Crises


The Economic Recovery is an Illusion....?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15501


The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Warns of Future Crises


Global Research, October 3, 2009

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and Debt is Recovery

In light of the ever-present and unyieldingly persistent exclamations of ‘an end’ to the recession, a ‘solution’ to the crisis, and a ‘recovery’ of the economy; we must remember that we are being told this by the very same people and institutions which told us, in years past, that there was ‘nothing to worry about,’ that ‘the fundamentals are fine,’ and that there was ‘no danger’ of an economic crisis.

Why do we continue to believe the same people that have, in both statements and choices, been nothing but wrong? Who should we believe and turn to for more accurate information and analysis? Perhaps a useful source would be those at the epicenter of the crisis, in the heart of the shadowy world of central banking, at the global banking regulator, and the “most prestigious financial institution in the world,” which accurately predicted the crisis thus far: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This would be a good place to start.

The economic crisis is anything but over, the “solutions” have been akin to putting a band-aid on an amputated arm. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank to the world’s central banks, has warned and continues to warn against such misplaced hopes.

What is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)?

The BIS emerged from the Young Committee set up in 1929, which was created to handle the settlements of German reparations payments outlined in the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, President and CEO of General Electric, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, member of the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation and was Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As the main American delegate to the conference on German reparations, he was also accompanied by J.P. Morgan, Jr.[1] What emerged was the Young Plan for German reparations payments.

The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[2]

The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”[3]

Central bank members have bi-monthly meetings at the BIS where they discuss a variety of issues. It should be noted that most “of the transactions carried out by the BIS on behalf of central banks require the utmost secrecy,”[4] which is likely why most people have not even heard of it. The BIS can offer central banks “confidentiality and secrecy which is higher than a triple-A rated bank.”[5]

The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.”[6] As Carroll Quigley explained:

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.[7]

The BIS, is, without a doubt, the most important, powerful, and secretive financial institution in the world. It’s warnings should not be taken lightly, as it would be the one institution in the world that would be privy to such information more than any other.

Derivatives Crisis Ahead

In September of 2009, the BIS reported that, “The global market for derivatives rebounded to $426 trillion in the second quarter as risk appetite returned, but the system remains unstable and prone to crises.” The BIS quarterly report said that derivatives rose 16% “mostly due to a surge in futures and options contracts on three-month interest rates.” The Chief Economist of the BIS warned that the derivatives market poses “major systemic risks” in the international financial sector, and that, “The danger is that regulators will again fail to see that big institutions have taken far more exposure than they can handle in shock conditions.” The economist added that, “The use of derivatives by hedge funds and the like can create large, hidden exposures.”[8]

The day after the report by the BIS was published, the former Chief Economist of the BIS, William White, warned that, “The world has not tackled the problems at the heart of the economic downturn and is likely to slip back into recession,” and he further “warned that government actions to help the economy in the short run may be sowing the seeds for future crises.” He was quoted as warning of entering a double-dip recession, “Are we going into a W[-shaped recession]? Almost certainly. Are we going into an L? I would not be in the slightest bit surprised.” He added, “The only thing that would really surprise me is a rapid and sustainable recovery from the position we’re in.”

An article in the Financial Times explained that White’s comments are not to be taken lightly, as apart from heading the economic department at the BIS from 1995 to 2008, he had, “repeatedly warned of dangerous imbalances in the global financial system as far back as 2003 and – breaking a great taboo in central banking circles at the time – he dared to challenge Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, over his policy of persistent cheap money.”

The Financial Times continued:

Worldwide, central banks have pumped thousands of billions of dollars of new money into the financial system over the past two years in an effort to prevent a depression. Meanwhile, governments have gone to similar extremes, taking on vast sums of debt to prop up industries from banking to car making.

White warned that, “These measures may already be inflating a bubble in asset prices, from equities to commodities,” and that, “there was a small risk that inflation would get out of control over the medium term.” In a speech given in Hong Kong, White explained that, “the underlying problems in the global economy, such as unsustainable trade imbalances between the US, Europe and Asia, had not been resolved.”[9]

On September 20, 2009, the Financial Times reported that the BIS, “the head of the body that oversees global banking regulation,” while at the G20 meeting, “issued a stern warning that the world cannot afford to slip into a ‘complacent’ assumption that the financial sector has rebounded for good,” and that, “Jaime Caruana, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements and a former governor of Spain’s central bank, said the market rebound should not be misinterpreted.”[10]

This follows warnings from the BIS over the summer of 2009, regarding misplaced hope over the stimulus packages organized by various governments around the world. In late June, the BIS warned that, “fiscal stimulus packages may provide no more than a temporary boost to growth, and be followed by an extended period of economic stagnation.”

An article in the Australian reported that, “The only international body to correctly predict the financial crisis ... has warned the biggest risk is that governments might be forced by world bond investors to abandon their stimulus packages, and instead slash spending while lifting taxes and interest rates,” as the annual report of the BIS “has for the past three years been warning of the dangers of a repeat of the depression.” Further, “Its latest annual report warned that countries such as Australia faced the possibility of a run on the currency, which would force interest rates to rise.” The BIS warned that, “a temporary respite may make it more difficult for authorities to take the actions that are necessary, if unpopular, to restore the health of the financial system, and may thus ultimately prolong the period of slow growth.”

Further, “At the same time, government guarantees and asset insurance have exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses,” and explaining how fiscal packages posed significant risks, it said that, “There is a danger that fiscal policy-makers will exhaust their debt capacity before finishing the costly job of repairing the financial system,” and that, “There is the definite possibility that stimulus programs will drive up real interest rates and inflation expectations.” Inflation “would intensify as the downturn abated,” and the BIS “expressed doubt about the bank rescue package adopted in the US.”[11]

The BIS further warned of inflation, saying that, “The big and justifiable worry is that, before it can be reversed, the dramatic easing in monetary policy will translate into growth in the broader monetary and credit aggregates.” That will “lead to inflation that feeds inflation expectations or it may fuel yet another asset-price bubble, sowing the seeds of the next financial boom-bust cycle.”[12] With the latest report on the derivatives bubble being created, it has become painfully clear that this is exactly what has happened: the creation of another asset-price bubble. The problem with bubbles is that they burst.

The Financial Times reported that William White, former Chief Economist at the BIS, also “argued that after two years of government support for the financial system, we now have a set of banks that are even bigger - and more dangerous - than ever before,” which also, “has been argued by Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund,” who “says that the finance industry has in effect captured the US government,” and pointedly stated: “recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.”[13] [Emphasis added].

At the beginning of September 2009, central bankers met at the BIS, and it was reported that, “they had agreed on a package of measures to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the banking industry in the wake of the financial crisis,” and the chief of the European Central Bank was quoted as saying, “The agreements reached today among 27 major countries of the world are essential as they set the new standards for banking regulation and supervision at the global level.”[14]

Among the agreed measures, “lenders should raise the quality of their capital by including more stock,” and “Banks will also have to raise the amount and quality of the assets they keep in reserve and curb leverage.” One of the key decisions made at the Basel conference, which is named after the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, set up under the BIS, was that, “banks will need to raise the quality of their so-called Tier 1 capital base, which measures a bank’s ability to absorb sudden losses,” meaning that, “The majority of such reserves should be common shares and retained earnings and the holdings will be fully disclosed.”[15]

In mid-September, the BIS said that, “Central banks must coordinate global supervision of derivatives clearinghouses and consider offering them access to emergency funds to limit systemic risk.” In other words, “Regulators are pushing for much of the $592 trillion market in over-the-counter derivatives trades to be moved to clearinghouses which act as the buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer, reducing the risk to the financial system from defaults.” The report released by the BIS asked if clearing houses “should have access to central bank credit facilities and, if so, when?”[16]

A Coming Crisis

The derivatives market represents a massive threat to the stability of the global economy. However, it is one among many threats, all of which are related and intertwined; one will set off another. The big elephant in the room is the major financial bubble created from the bailouts and “stimulus” packages worldwide. This money has been used by major banks to consolidate the economy; buying up smaller banks and absorbing the real economy; productive industry. The money has also gone into speculation, feeding the derivatives bubble and leading to a rise in stock markets, a completely illusory and manufactured occurrence. The bailouts have, in effect, fed the derivatives bubble to dangerous new levels as well as inflating the stock market to an unsustainable position.

However, a massive threat looms in the cost of the bailouts and so-called “stimulus” packages. The economic crisis was created as a result of low interest rates and easy money: high-risk loans were being made, money was invested in anything and everything, the housing market inflated, the commercial real estate market inflated, derivatives trade soared to the hundreds of trillions per year, speculation ran rampant and dominated the global financial system. Hedge funds were the willing facilitators of the derivatives trade, and the large banks were the major participants and holders.

At the same time, governments spent money loosely, specifically the United States, paying for multi-trillion dollar wars and defense budgets, printing money out of thin air, courtesy of the global central banking system. All the money that was produced, in turn, produced debt. By 2007, the total debt – domestic, commercial and consumer debt – of the United States stood at a shocking $51 trillion.[17]

As if this debt burden was not enough, considering it would be impossible to ever pay back, the past two years has seen the most expansive and rapid debt expansion ever seen in world history – in the form of stimulus and bailout packages around the world. In July of 2009, it was reported that, “U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.”[18]

Bilderberg Plan in Action?

In May of 2009, I wrote an article covering the Bilderberg meeting of 2009, a highly secretive meeting of major elites from Europe and North America, who meet once a year behind closed doors. Bilderberg acts as an informal international think tank, and they do not release any information, so reports from the meetings are leaked and the sources cannot be verified. However, the information provided by Bilderberg trackers and journalists Daniel Estulin and Jim Tucker have proven surprisingly accurate in the past.

In May, the information that leaked from the meetings regarded the main topic of conversation being, unsurprisingly, the economic crisis. The big question was to undertake “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty ... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.”

Important to note, was that one major point on the agenda was to “continue to deceive millions of savers and investors who believe the hype about the supposed up-turn in the economy. They are about to be set up for massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead.”

Estulin reported on a leaked report he claimed to have received following the meeting, which reported that there were large disagreements among the participants, as “The hardliners are for dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression, but there are those who think that things have gone too far and that the fallout from the global economic cataclysm cannot be accurately calculated.” However, the consensus view was that the recession would get worse, and that recovery would be “relatively slow and protracted,” and to look for these terms in the press over the next weeks and months. Sure enough, these terms have appeared ad infinitum in the global media.

Estulin further reported, “that some leading European bankers faced with the specter of their own financial mortality are extremely concerned, calling this high wire act ‘unsustainable,’ and saying that US budget and trade deficits could result in the demise of the dollar.” One Bilderberger said that, “the banks themselves don't know the answer to when (the bottom will be hit).” Everyone appeared to agree, “that the level of capital needed for the American banks may be considerably higher than the US government suggested through their recent stress tests.” Further, “someone from the IMF pointed out that its own study on historical recessions suggests that the US is only a third of the way through this current one; therefore economies expecting to recover with resurgence in demand from the US will have a long wait.” One attendee stated that, “Equity losses in 2008 were worse than those of 1929,” and that, “The next phase of the economic decline will also be worse than the '30s, mostly because the US economy carries about $20 trillion of excess debt. Until that debt is eliminated, the idea of a healthy boom is a mirage.”[19]

Could the general perception of an economy in recovery be the manifestation of the Bilderberg plan in action? Well, to provide insight into attempting to answer that question, we must review who some of the key participants at the conference were.

Central Bankers

Many central bankers were present, as per usual. Among them, were the Governor of the National Bank of Greece, Governor of the Bank of Italy, President of the European Investment Bank; James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank; Nout Wellink, President of the Central Bank of the Netherlands and is on the board of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS); Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the European Central Bank was also present; the Vice Governor of the National Bank of Belgium; and a member of the Board of the Executive Directors of the Central Bank of Austria.

Finance Ministers and Media

Finance Ministers and officials also attended from many different countries. Among the countries with representatives present from the financial department were Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Spain. There were also many representatives present from major media enterprises around the world. These include the publisher and editor of Der Standard in Austria; the Chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Company; the Editor-in-Chief of the Economist; the Deputy Editor of Die Zeit in Germany; the CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Le Nouvel Observateur in France; the Associate Editor and Chief Economics Commentator of the Financial Times; as well as the Business Correspondent and the Business Editor of the Economist. So, these are some of the major financial publications in the world present at this meeting. Naturally, they have a large influence on public perceptions of the economy.

Bankers

Also of importance to note is the attendance of private bankers at the meeting, for it is the major international banks that own the shares of the world’s central banks, which in turn, control the shares of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Among the banks and financial companies represented at the meeting were Deutsche Bank AG, ING, Lazard Freres & Co., Morgan Stanley International, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland, and of importance to note is David Rockefeller,[20] former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan (now J.P. Morgan Chase), who can arguably be referred to as the current reigning ‘King of Capitalism.’

The Obama Administration

Heavy representation at the Bilderberg meeting also came from members of the Obama administration who are tasked with resolving the economic crisis. Among them were Timothy Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary and former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House's National Economic Council, former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, former President of Harvard University, and former Chief Economist of the World Bank; Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System and Chair of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board; Robert Zoellick, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs and current President of the World Bank.[21]

Unconfirmed were reports of the Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke being present. However, if the history and precedent of Bilderberg meetings is anything to go by, both the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are always present, so it would indeed be surprising if they were not present at the 2009 meeting. I contacted the New York Fed to ask if the President attended any organization or group meetings in Greece over the scheduled dates that Bilderberg met, and the response told me to ask the particular organization for a list of attendees. While not confirming his presence, they also did not deny it. However, it is still unverified.

Naturally, all of these key players to wield enough influence to alter public opinion and perception of the economic crisis. They also have the most to gain from it. However, whatever image they construct, it remains just that; an image. The illusion will tear apart soon enough, and the world will come to realize that the crisis we have gone through thus far is merely the introductory chapter to the economic crisis as it will be written in history books.

Conclusion

The warnings from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and its former Chief Economist, William White, must not be taken lightly. Both the warnings of the BIS and William White in the past have gone unheralded and have been proven accurate with time. Do not allow the media-driven hope of ‘economic recovery’ sideline the ‘economic reality.’ Though it can be depressing to acknowledge; it is a far greater thing to be aware of the ground on which you tread, even if it is strewn with dangers; than to be ignorant and run recklessly through a minefield. Ignorance is not bliss; ignorance is delayed catastrophe.

A doctor must first properly identify and diagnose the problem before he can offer any sort of prescription as a solution. If the diagnosis is inaccurate, the prescription won’t work, and could in fact, make things worse. The global economy has a large cancer in it: it has been properly diagnosed by some, yet the prescription it was given was to cure a cough. The economic tumor has been identified; the question is: do we accept this and try to address it, or do we pretend that the cough prescription will cure it? What do you think gives a stronger chance of survival? Now try accepting the idea that ‘ignorance is bliss.’

As Gandhi said, “There is no god higher than truth.”


For an overview of the coming financial crises, see: "Entering the Greatest Depression in History: More Bubbles Waiting to Burst," Global Research, August 7, 2009.


Endnotes

[1] Time, HEROES: Man-of-the-Year. Time Magazine: Jan 6, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738364-1,00.html

[2] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 2

[3] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 6

[4] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 148

[5] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 149

[6] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324-325

[7] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324

[8] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Derivatives still pose huge risk, says BIS. The Telegraph: September 13, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6184496/Derivatives-still-pose-huge-risk-says-BIS.html

[9] Robert Cookson and Sundeep Tucker, Economist warns of double-dip recession. The Financial Times: September 14, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6dd31f0-a133-11de-a88d-00144feabdc0.html

[10] Patrick Jenkins, BIS head worried by complacency. The Financial Times: September 20, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7a04972-a60c-11de-8c92-00144feabdc0.html

[11] David Uren. Bank for International Settlements warning over stimulus benefits. The Australian: June 30, 2009:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25710566-601,00.html

[12] Simone Meier, BIS Sees Risk Central Banks Will Raise Interest Rates Too Late. Bloomberg: June 29, 2009:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aOnSy9jXFKaY

[13] Robert Cookson and Victor Mallet, Societal soul-searching casts shadow over big banks. The Financial Times: September 18, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7721033c-a3ea-11de-9fed-00144feabdc0.html

[14] AFP, Top central banks agree to tougher bank regulation: BIS. AFP: September 6, 2009: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8G0ShkY-AdH3TNzKJEetGuScPiQ

[15] Simon Kennedy, Basel Group Agrees on Bank Standards to Avoid Repeat of Crisis. Bloomberg: September 7, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aETt8NZiLP38

[16] Abigail Moses, Central Banks Must Agree Global Clearing Supervision, BIS Says. Bloomberg: September 14, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5C6ARW_tSW0

[17] FIABIC, US home prices the most vital indicator for turnaround. FIABIC Asia Pacific: January 19, 2009: http://www.fiabci-asiapacific.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=133&Itemid=41

Alexander Green, The National Debt: The Biggest Threat to Your Financial Future. Investment U: August 25, 2008: http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html

John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff, Financial Implosion and Stagnation. Global Research: May 20, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13692

[18] Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge, U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion, Barofsky Says (Update3). Bloomberg: July 20, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM

[19] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy. Global Research: May 26, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va

[20] Maja Banck-Polderman, Official List of Participants for the 2009 Bilderberg Meeting. Public Intelligence: July 26, 2009: http://www.publicintelligence.net/official-list-of-participants-for-the-2009-bilderberg-meeting/

[21] Andrew Gavin Marshall, The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy. Global Research: May 26, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=13738&context=va


Friday, October 2, 2009

NABUCO, BTC, South Stream, it's a gas, gas, gas

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1815

http://newscentralasia.net/moreNews.php?nID=588

NABUCO, BTC, South Stream, it's a gas, gas, gas.....Video (9 min): After 9/11, Why Afghanistan? Investment Banker Karl Schwartz lays it out

1. The Caspian Sea Basin (Kazakstan, Turkmenistan etc.) holds between 11 and 12 TRILLION dollars in oil and gas resources

2. There are only three ways to get it out:

- East to China

- West through Iran, Russia, and Turkey to Europe

- South through Afghanistan and Pakistan

3. The Taliban who controlled Afghanistan before 9/11 made pipeline deals with non-US companies and refused to change them to give control of the region's resources to the US......

BRUSSELS - Oil and natural gas prices may be relatively low right now, but don't be fooled. The new great game of the 21st century is always over energy and it's taking place on an immense chessboard called Eurasia. Its squares are defined by the networks of pipelines being laid across the oil heartlands of the planet. Call it Pipelineistan. If, in Asia, the stakes in this game are already impossibly high, the same applies to the "Euro" part of the great Eurasian landmass - the richest industrial area on the planet. Think of this as the real political thriller of our time.

The movie of the week in Brussels is: When NATO Meets Pipelineistan. Though you won't find it in any headlines, at virtually every recent summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Washington has been maneuvering to involve reluctant Europeans
ever more deeply in the business of protecting Pipelineistan. This is already happening, of course, in Afghanistan, where a promised pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, the TAPI pipeline, has not even been built. And it's about to happen at the borders of Europe, again around pipelines that have not yet been built.

If you had to put that Euro part of Pipelineistan into a formula, you might do so this way: Nabucco (pushed by the US) versus South Stream (pushed by Russia). Be patient. You'll understand in a moment.

At the most basic level, it's a matter of the West yet again trying, in the energy sphere, to bypass Russia. For this to happen, however - and it wouldn't hurt if you opened the nearest atlas for a moment - Europe desperately needs to get a handle on Central Asian energy resources, which is easy to say but has proven surprisingly hard to do. No wonder the NATO secretary general's special representative, Robert Simmons, has been logging massive frequent-flyer miles to Central Asia over these last few years.

Just under the surface of an edgy entente cordiale between the European Union and Russia lurks the possibility of a no-holds-barred energy war - liquid war, as I call it. The EU and the US are pinning their hopes on a prospective 3,300-kilometer-long, US$10.7 billion pipeline dubbed Nabucco. Planning for it began way back in 2004 and construction is finally expected to start, if all goes well (and it may not), in 2010. So if you're a NATO optimist, you hope that natural gas from the Caspian Sea, maybe even from Iran (barring the usual American blockade), will begin flowing through it by 2015. The gas will be delivered to Erzurum in Turkey and then transported to Austria via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary.

Why, you might ask, is the pipeline meant to save Europe named for a Verdi opera? Well, Austrian and Turkish energy executives happened to see the opera together in Vienna in 2002 while discussing their energy dilemmas, and the biblical plight of the Jews exiled by King Nabucco (Nebuchadnezzar), a love story set amid a ferocious struggle for freedom and power, swept them away. Still, it's a stretch to turn aluminum tubes into dramatic characters.

Of course, the operatic theater here isn't really in the tubing, it's in the politics and strategic implications that surround the pipeline. In Eastern Europe, for instance, Nabucco is seen not as a European economic or energy project, but as a creature of Washington, just like the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey that president Bill Clinton and his crew backed so vigorously in the 1990s and which was finally finished in 2005. For those who have never believed the Cold War is over, the Eastern Europeans among them, once again it's the good guys (the West) against the commies ... sorry, the Russians ... at an energy-rich OK Corral.

The great borderless gas bazaar
Russia's answer to Nabucco is the 1,200-kilometer-long, $15 billion South Stream pipeline, also scheduled to be finished in 2015; it is slated to carry Siberian natural gas under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria. From Bulgaria, one branch of the pipeline would then run south through Greece to southern Italy while the other would run north through Serbia and Hungary towards northern Italy.

Now, add another pipeline to the picture, the $9.1 billion Nord Stream that will soon enough snake from Western Russia under the Baltic Sea to Germany, which already imports 41.5% of its natural gas from Russia. The giant Russian energy firm Gazprom holds a controlling 51% of Nord Stream stock; the rest belongs to German and Dutch companies. The chairman of the board is none other than former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

Put this all together and Russia, with its pipelines running in all directions and firmly embedded in Europe, spells trouble for Nabucco's future and frustration for Washington's New Great Game plans to contain the Russian energy juggernaut. And that's without even mentioning Ukhta which, chances are, you've never heard of. If you aren't in the energy business, why should you have? After all, it's a backwater village in Russia's autonomous republic of Komi, 350 kilometers from the Arctic Circle. Built by forced labor, it was once part of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag archipelago. By 2030, however, you'll know its name. By then, a pipeline from remote Ukhta will be flooding Europe with natural gas and the village will be one of Nord Stream's key transit nodes.
While Nabucco as well as South Stream remain virtual, Nord Stream is a Terminator on the run. By 2010, it will be tunneling under the Baltic Sea heading for Germany. By 2011, it should be delivering the goods and a second pipe - 12 meters wide, 100,000 tubes long - will be under construction to double its capacity by 2014. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller pulls no punches: this, he says, will be "the safest and most modern pipeline in the world."

How can Verdi lovers possibly compete? In the middle of a global recession, Gazprom is spending at least $20 billion to conquer Europe via Nord and South Stream. The strategy is a killer: pump gas under the sea directly to Europe, avoiding messy transit routes across troublesome countries like Ukraine. No wonder Gazprom, which today controls 26% of the European gas market, is expected to have a 33% share by 2020.

In other words, in many ways, the Nabucco versus South Stream energy war already looks settled. Nabucco is, at best, likely to be a secondary pipeline, incapable, as Washington once hoped, of breaking the EU away from energy dependence on Russia.

Brussels, predictably, is in its usual multilingual policy mess. Most bureaucrats at its monster, directive-churning body, the European Commission, publicly bemoan the "pipeline war". On the other hand, Ona Jukneviciene, chairwoman of the committees at the European Parliament dealing with Central Asia, admits that Nabucco cannot be the only option.

As for Reinhard Mitschek, managing director of the Nabucco consortium, he tries to put a brave face on things when he stresses, "we will transport Russian gas, Azeri gas, Iraqi gas". As for the top European official on energy matters, Andris Piebalgs, he can't help being a pragmatist: "We'll continue to work with Russia because Russia has energy resources."

From a business point of view, it's tough to argue with South Stream's selling points. Unlike Nabucco, it will offer cheaper, all-Russian natural gas that won't have to transit through potential war zones, and while Nabucco will always deliver limited amounts of Caspian natural gas to market, South Stream, given Russian resources, will have plenty of room to increase its output.

The fact is that, as of now, Nabucco still has no guaranteed sources of gas. In order for the gas to come from energy-rich Turkmenistan, to take but one example, the Turkmen leadership would have to break a deal they've already made with Russia, which now buys all of that country's export gas. There's no way that Moscow is likely to let one of the former Soviet Republics do that easily. In addition, both Russia and Iran could well be capable of blocking any pipeline straddling the floor of the Caspian Sea.

Gazprom will pay to build South Stream, and then distribute and sell gas it already controls to Europe; Nabucco, on the other hand, has to rely on a messy consortium of six countries (Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Germany) simply to finance one-third of its prospective costs, and then convince wary international bankers to shell out the rest.

The Pentagon does the Black Sea
So what does Washington want out of this mess? That's easy. Rewind to then-prospective Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation hearings on January 13, 2009. There, she decried Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas and issued an urgent call for "investments in the Trans-Caspian energy sector". Think of it as a signal: the new Obama administration would be as committed to Nabucco as the Bush administration had been.
What is never spelled out is why. Enter the Black Sea, that crucial geo-strategic stage where Europe meets the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Enter, thus, Bulgaria, home to a new Pentagon air base in Bezmer, one of six new strategic bases being built outside the US and as potentially important to Washington's future games as the stalwart air bases in Incirlik, Turkey, and Aviano, Italy have been in the past. (Aviano was the key US/NATO base for the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and the 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999.)

With the Pentagon's bases already creeping within a stone's throw of Southwest and Central Asia, it doesn't take a genius to imagine the role Bezmer might play in any future attack on Iran (something the Russian defense establishment has already taken careful note of). With both Romania and Bulgaria now part of NATO, Article 5 of the alliance's charter now applies. NATO can take action "in the event of crises which jeopardize Euro-Atlantic stability and could affect the security of Alliance members."

In this way, Pipelineistan meets the American Empire of Bases.

Young Turks and wily Russians
Why is everyone so damn hooked on Central Asian oil and gas? Elshad Nasirov, deputy chairman of the state-owned Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR, sums the addiction up succinctly enough: "This is the place where there is oil and gas in abundance. It is not Arab, not Persian, not Russian, and not OPEC."

It's the Caspian and, unfortunately for Europe, the region could, in energy terms, turn out to be not the caviar for which it's renowned but so many rotten fish eggs. No one knows, after all, whether the EU will ever be able to buy Iranian gas via Nabucco. No one knows whether the Central Asian "stans" have enough gas to supply Russia, China, and Turkey, not to mention India and Pakistan. No one knows whether any of their leaders will have the nerve to renege on their deals with Gazprom.

Ever since a 2008 British study determined that Turkmenistan may have natural gas reserves second only to Russia, the European Commission has been on a no-holds-barred tear to lure that country into delivering some of its future gas directly to Europe - and not through the Russian pipeline system either. Turkmenistan's inscrutable leader, the spectacularly named Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, just has to say the word, but despite the claims of EU officials that he has agreed to send some gas Europe-wards, he's never offered a public word of confirmation.

No wonder: with Nabucco unbuilt and a pipeline from his country to China still under construction, Turkmenistan can play Pipelineistan games only with Russia and Iran. In fact, Russia essentially controls the flow of Turkmen gas for the next 15 years.
Should Gurbanguly someday say the magic word - and assuming the Russians don't throw a monkey wrench into the works - he can marry Turkey, as the key transit country, with the EU and let them all sing Verdi till the sheep come home. In the meantime, angst is the name of the game in Europe (and so in Washington).

A declassified dossier from the FSB, the Russian heir to the KGB, is adamant: considering Nabucco's shortcomings, "Russia will remain the primary supplier of energy to Europe for the foreseeable future." Call it a matter of having your gas and processing it, too. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been making the point for years. If Europe tries to snub it, Russia will simply build its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, to facilitate storage and transport, and sell its LNG all over the world.

Anyway, it's worth paying attention to what the St Petersburg State Mining Institute (where Putin earned his doctorate) has to say. According to the institute, Russia has only 20 years' worth of its own natural gas reserves left. Since Russia plans to sell up to 40% of its gas abroad, "Russian" gas may in the future actually mean Central Asian gas. All the more reason for the Russians to make sure that those massive Turkmen and other reserves flow north, not west.

Whatever Washington thinks, the Europeans know that energy independence from Russia is, in reality, inconceivable. Bottom line when it comes to natural gas: Europe needs everything - Nord Stream, South Stream, and Nabucco. The bulk of the natural gas in this Pipelineistan maze may well turn out to be Central Asian anyway and a substantial part could be Iranian, if the Obama administration ever normalizes relations with Iran.

That, then, is the current state of play in the European wing of Pipelineistan. Russia seems to have virtually guaranteed its status as the top gas supplier to Europe for the foreseeable future. But that brings us to Turkey, a key regional power for both the US and the EU. As President Obama has recognized, Turkey is both a real and a metaphorical bridge between the Christian and Muslim worlds. It is also an ideal transit country for carrying non-Russian gas to Europe and is now playing its own suitably complex Pipelineistan game.

Chances are that, like Ukhta in far off Siberia, you've never heard of Yumurtalik either. It's a fishing port squeezed between the Mediterranean Sea and the Taurus mountains, very close to Ceyhan, the Turkish terminal for two key nodes of Pipelineistan: the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline from Iraq and the monster BTC pipeline. Turkey wants to turn Yumurtalik-Ceyhan into nothing less than the Rotterdam of the Mediterranean.

Even as it dreams of future EU membership, however, Turkey worries about antagonizing Moscow. And yet, being aboard the Nabucco Express and already fully committed to the functioning BTC pipeline puts the country on a potential collision course with Russia, its largest trading partner. Of course, this does not displease Washington.

On the other hand, the Turkish leadership draws ever closer to Iran, which provides 38% of Turkey's oil and 25% of its natural gas. Ankara and Tehran also have geopolitical affinities (especially in fighting Kurdish separatism). Together, they offer the best alternative to the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia) in terms of supplying Europe with Iranian natural gas. All this, of course, drives Washington nuts.

Needless to say, the Nabucco consortium itself would kill to have Iran as a gas supplier for the pipeline. They are also familiar with realpolitik: this could happen only with a Washington-blessed solution to the Iranian nuclear dossier. Iran, for its part, knows well how to seduce Europe. Mohammad-Reza Nematzadeh, managing director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), has insisted Iran is Europe's "sole option" for the success of Nabucco.

Is Russia just watching all this gas go by? Of course not. In October 2007, Putin signed a key agreement with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad: If Iran cannot sell its gas to Nabucco - a likelihood given the turbulence of American domestic politics and its foreign policy - Russia will buy it. Translation: Iranian gas could end up, like Central Asian gas, heading for Europe as more "Russian" gas. With its European and Iranian policies at cross-purposes, Washington will not be amused.

When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to "rethink Nabucco" if the tricky negotiations for Turkey to enter the EU drag on forever, EU leaders got the message (as much as France and Germany may be against a "Europe without borders"). Pragmatically, most EU leaders know very well that they need excellent relations with Turkey to one day have access to the Big Prize, Iranian gas; and that puts Europe's energy and EU membership inclinations at loggerheads.

Last July in Ankara, Nabucco was formally launched by an inter-governmental agreement. The representatives of Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were there. Obama's special Eurasian envoy, Richard Morningstar (a veteran of the BTC adventure), was there as well. The Central Asian stans were not there.

But crucially, Gurbanguly, ever the showman, finally made an entrance without ever leaving Turkmenistan, (almost) uttering the magic words in a meeting with his ministers in the capital, Ashgabat, on July 10: "Turkmenistan, staying committed to the principles of diversification of supply of its energy resources to the world markets, is going to use all available opportunities to participate in major international projects - such as, for example, [the] Nabucco project."

At the Vienna headquarters of Nabucco the mantra remains: this is "no anti-Russian project". Still, everyone knows that Russia's leaders are eager to kill it, and not a soul from Brussels to Vienna, Washington to Ashgabat, knows how to link Central Asia to Europe via a non-Russian pipeline, at the cost of more than $10 billion, without some assurance that Turkmeni, Kazakh, Azerbaijani, and/or Iranian natural gas will be fully (or even partially) on board. Who would be foolish enough to invest that kind of money without some guarantee that hundreds of miles of aluminum tubes won't remain empty? You don't need Verdi to tell you this is one hell of a quirky plot for a global opera.