The Silk Road to Globalisation

The Silk Road to Globalisation

For millennia imperial China was regarded by its denizens and as the centre of the world, and the emperor as the nexus between the Earthly and the Divine. Without the Chinese emperor performing rites there would be loss of balance in the universe. When the European colonial powers sent delegations to the Chinese court what they encountered was not an emperor in awe at the white man, but one who with some contempt said that the European kings must pay homage to him, and obey his laws, which were of celestial origin. The colonial powers would be obliged to kow-tow to him should they stand any chance of entry into China. The Chinese emperor was said to hold a mandate not from a parliament or anything else of mortal origin but – literally – from heaven. [1]
When Mao Tse-tung assumed command of China with a helping hand from the “running dogs of U.S. imperialism”, who stabbed General Chiang in the back in fairly typical U.S. manner, [2] he assumed the mantle of the Chinese emperors, despite the “Cultural Revolution’ that sought to obliterate traditional culture. The manner by which Stalin dealt with Mao was anything but “fraternal,” let alone as an equal partner. As Chang and Halliday show in their masterful biography, Mao lived even before assuming supreme authority, as a potentate of a most decadent type, contrary to the puritanism that was imposed on the masses.  He made a bid for the leadership of world Communism, and sought to restore China as the nexus of the universe through his leadership of Communism. Mao’s ambition failed. At the break with the USSR from 1960, when he refused to attend a world Communist meeting in Moscow, China denounced the USSR as “revisionist”. However, the only ally among the Western parties was the minuscule Communist Party of New Zealand, which factured when much of the membership left to form the Moscow-aligned Socialist Unity Party. The only Soviet bloc state to align with China was Albania. Maoism sought influence by supplying largesse to insurgents in Asia and Africa and sought to influence the “Non-Aligned Movement”. [3]
However, Western, and particularly U.S. oligarchy, had long dreamed of securing the resources, market and labour of China. “Communism” was not inherently averse to making deals. [4] While Russia pursued a course that made accommodation with Wall Street increasingly difficult at best, the oligarchy maintained long term plans for China. These were not interrupted by the advent of Mao, on whom the USA looked quite favourably, in comparison to Chiang. [5]
The Asia Society was founded in 1956 by the Rockefeller dynasty. The Trilateral Commission was established in 1973, originally to promote an economic bloc between Europe, North America and Japan but, one might contend, to also lay the groundwork for China’s entry into the global economy. The year previously Henry Kissinger, close to the Rockefeller dynasty throughout his career, had visited China to open up dialogue. In 1973, the year of the Trilateralist founding, David Rockefeller visited China, and came back with a euphoric picture of the Maoist state as a “social experiment” that was “one of the most successful and important” in history. The globalist think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, played a key role in Sino-American developments, which it had been subtlety promoting since the 1960s for the day when perceptions would have been adequately changed among public opinion. [6] After the initial opening up of China starting from 1973, events ensued rapidly, to the extent that historians Niall Ferguson Moritz Schularick called the Chinese and U.S. economies “symbiotic”, and coined the term “Chimerica”. [7]
In 2009 George Soros in The Financial Times predicted China would replace the USA as “the leader of the new world order”. [8] In 2017 Premier Xi declared, to acclaim, before the Davos economic summit China’s intention of assuming the leadership of “globalisation”. [9]
Why would “American” oligarchs promote China as the primary engine for a global economy? The answer is that oligarchy has no nationality.
It represents a species of its own, what the ethologist Konrad Lorenz referred to in zoological terms as “psedospeciation” when he was observing the cult of youth rebellion against tradition during the 1960 and 70s. [10] While Marx wrongly assumed that “the proletariat has no nationality” it is the oligarchy that has no nationality. They will change “citizenship” status as their business interests require. It does not matter to an oligarch headquartered in New York, The City of London or Paris, whether there is shadow-boxing between the military top brass of China and the USA, so long as such child’s play does not interfere with their economic interests. It does not matter whether globalisation proceeds under American or Chinese auspices. What matters is that the state in the role can proceed the most effectively. As Soros indicated in 2009 the oligarchs regard China as most suited for that role.

Russia Encircled and Subverted by Sino-Oligarchy

China and the New Silk Road are praised [11] as challenges to American hegemony and globalisation. Despite the initiatives by Russia in regard to BRICS and a wider vision of “Eurasia”, Russia seems to have become a junior partner and China has proceeded to subvert Russia’s traditional spheres of influence. The New Silk Road, also known as “One Belt, One Road”, continues this process while expanding China’s influence in a series of transits and projects across Asia, Africa and Europe.
The New Silk Road subverts the Eurasian Economic Union by encompassing Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and encircles Russia. The EEU is anathema to the globalists. [12] From a geopolitical perspective the real loser is Russia, not the USA. However, Putin has expressed interest in being part of the “New Silk Road,” and in 2015 Russia and China talked of integrating the EEU with the “New Silk Road.” [13]
Russia should strive to expand the EEU as the nucleus for a real alternative geopolitical bloc independent of both Washington and Beijing. Does Putin really see a Russian destiny linked to the “New Silk Road”, when China will be calling the shots with the backing of international finance? [14]
Oligarchy sees the possibility of Russia being subsumed by the new vision, but there is a dichotomy that has yet to be resolved; eliminating what is called Russia’s “reactionary” economic policies. In an informative article, journalist Wade Shepard writes from Asia:
Russia has always maintained a rather inconsistent position when it comes to the development of the New Silk Road and China’s Belt and Road initiative. 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.” [15]
One of the projects is for Chinese development of Russian Far East mining. [16] As will be seen, mining interests are a large factor in oligarchic involvement in the New Silk Road.
The Russian Far East, like Tibet, has vast resources that China, and others, covet: “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. The Far East of Russia has a high resource potential of rare, including rare-earth elements, which must be studied to create favorable investment conditions for the extraction and processing of their ores.” [17]
As in Tibet, one can expect Chinese migration – “labor resources” – in the name of “mutual” economic development: “If earlier China went to mineral-rich countries and regions exclusively for raw materials, now it brings its technology and equipment (and, if possible, labor resources) to resource projects.” [18]
China’s occupation of Tibet has proven very profitable for the international corporations. [19]
Included among the resources of the Russian Far East is gold. This year moves were initiated for China to start mining gold and other minerals in the Magadan Region, “as part of the one Belt, One Road strategy.” The world’s largest gold miner, Barrick Gold, entered into an agreement with China’s largest gold miner, Shandong Gold. [20] How such corporate alliances will play out with the “One Belt, One Road” should soon become evident. As noted below, John L. Thornton, head of Barrick Gold, is also head of the Silk Road Finance Corporation. Unlike the destruction of Serbia to secure the mineral wealth of Kosovo, albeit a bloody venture that has so far turned out to be an unprofitable shambles, or the need to maintain the military occupation of Tibet, the mineral wealth of the Russian Far East can be extracted by the peaceful invasion of Chinese migrant labour backed by investments from international capital.

The Character of Globalisation

So far from the New Silk road challenging globalisation, it is the most significant step yet devised for globalisation. Whether globalisation is under U.S. auspices or Chinese, it remains under the same oligarchic interests. Moreover it remains under the same cosmopolitan consumer culture that is inherent in economic globalisation. The culture of the New Silk Road era is still going to be that of Hollywood, Madison Avenue and MTV; because such culture-pathology is the means by which markets and consumers are shaped. It is not going to be either Confucius or Mao. China in order to “modernise” its economy has had to succumb to the culture-pathogens of the market like any market economy. The process will continue exponentially. The culture-pathogen infects the “modernised”, “globalised” state from top to bottom, and the global oligarchy eats, dresses, thinks, talks and acts much the same whether in New York, Beijing, Paris, Berlin or London; the pseudospeciation referred to previously. They are what financial journalist G. Pascal Zachary described as a new and superior class of technocrats and CEO’s not bound to any attachments other than commerce. [21] They are driven by money. They want the world in their image: consuming without barriers. That is globalisation.
Since Rockefeller interests opened up China, Goldman Sachs has become the leading player. “BRIC” was an idea first floated within Goldman Sachs. [22] Now they are a prime mover of the New Silk Road.
Wherever China pushes the New Silk Road international oligarchy will follow. Why does Russia assume that it will be a primary player? The Chinese leadership of globalisation is not going to dislodge the present oligarchy, but expand its scope. Chinese and U.S. oligarchs work at levels higher than those of shadow-boxing American and Chinese generals or a few U.S. Senators and Congressmen who raise objections to Chinse human rights or geopolitical manoeuvres, while in Russia oligarchs are purged, prosecuted, tamed or exiled. China is the means to retake Russia for international finance, and it is being done behind a contrary guise.

Silk Road Finance Corporation

The “One Belt, One Road” vision is being directed by oligarchs in conjunction with Chinese interests via the Silk Road Finance Corporation (SRFC). This states of its purpose: “We believe that China’s Belt and Road Initiative is an opportunity for greater cooperation between Chinese and international companies and markets. SRFC was created specifically to access investment opportunities opened up by the Belt and Road Initiative. … We are global in outlook, international in culture, and rooted in China. Our senior team is made up of leading financial industry veterans and international advisors with significant banking and investing experience.” [23]
The chairman of the board of the Silk Road Finance Corporation is John L. Thornton, executive chairman of the above-named Barrick Gold Corporation, a member of the board of the Ford Motor Company, non-executive chairman of Pinebridge Investments, and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Brookings Institution. He has also served on the boards of China Unicom, HSBC, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Intel and News Corporation. From 1980 to 2003, he was at Goldman Sachs, which included time as its Asia chairman and company president. “He was honoured with the Friendship Award of China in 2008, the highest honour accorded to a non-Chinese citizen. In 2007, he was named by Institutional Investor as one of 40 individuals who had the greatest influence in shaping global financial markets over the previous 40 years.” [24]
Barrick Gold has numerous allegations of unethical conduct against it, and has been convicted of chemical dumping, among other concerns. [25] Partnership with China, which acts as a corporate entity in a similar manner, would seem an apt partnership.
“International advisor” for the SRFC is Javier Solana, a former Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Secretary General of NATO, and formerly Spain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is presently head of ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics. This is a globalist think tank that is partnered with the Brookings Institute, among others. [26] Solana is a Distinguished Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, and a board member of the globalist think tanks, International Crisis Group (ICG) and the European Council on Foreign Relations. The trustees of the ICG include former NATO commander Wesley Clark, and George Soros and his son Alexander. [27]
Shan Li is a vice chairman of the Silk Road Planning Research Center and of the Chinese Financial Association of Hong Kong. He has been Chief International Business Advisor of the China Development Bank, Vice Chairman of UBS Investment Bank Asia, CEO of Bank of China International Holdings, Chief China Economist at Goldman Sachs, and is co-founder of SouFun, China’s leading real estate internet portal. [28]
Peter Wheeler, Silk Road corporation partner, worked from 1985 to 2001 for Goldman Sachs, and became a partner in 1994, leading the establishment of the firm’s investment banking business in Asia. “He led the Goldman Sachs team on many of the first wave of cross-border capital markets transactions for Chinese SOEs.” [29]
Joe Xiang, SRFC partner, was head of China Global Special Opportunities Group for JPMorgan, head of Investment Banking China, and of Real Estate Finance China for the Royal Bank of Scotland, and vice president and director of GE Capital Structured Finance Group. [30]
Carman Wong, SRFC managing director, was the chief operating officer, Investment Banking, for Nomura Asia ex Japan/Lehman Brothers Asia, previously with Goldman Sachs in New York, and in Hong Kong, chief of staff for Asia Pacific Investment Banking. [31]
Jianyong Zhang, SRFC managing director, was with Morgan Stanley and Citibank. [32]
Given that the head of the Corporation, John Thornton, is also head of the Brookings Institute, it is difficult to see how the New Silk Road offers any real alternative to the type of globalisation that has proceeded under U.S. auspices, other than to more effectively encircle Russia. Key funding for the institute is provided Thornton persoanlly, by media mogul and ultra-Zionist Haim Saban; Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, AT & T, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Visa USA, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, American Express Foundation, Bank of America Foundation, Boeing, Lockheed, Microsoft, Citigroup foundation, Dow Chemical, Merrill Lynch, and many others. [33]
In 2006 Thornton founded the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings. [34]
Globalisation proceeding under the auspices of China is no reason for celebration by opponents of the global oligarchy, on the assumption that it is a “defeat for the USA.” The same driving forces of globalisation will not only remain, but under “One Belt, One Road”, will be expanded and consolidated. It is the culmination, not the repudiation, of a process that was initiated decades ago by the Rockefeller dynasty through the Asia Society and the Trilateral Commission, and is being brought to fruition by Goldman Sachs, Barrick, and many others. Will Russia stand against outside oligarchs entering her homeland, like she has resisted her home-grown oligarchs, or will she succumb to oligarchy because it comes with a Chinese handshake?
1. E. Bakchouse and J. O. P. Bland, Annals and Memoirs of the Court of Peking from the 16th to the 20th Century, Houghton Mifflin, New York, 11914, passim. See chapter on “China,” in Bolton, The Decline and Fall of Civilisations, Black House Publishing, London, 2017, 260-269. Emperor Chi’en made it clear in his replies to King George III of Great Britain, who was the subordinate.
2. Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story, Jonathan Cape, London, 2005, 304-311.
3. Robert Service, Comrades: Communism: A World History, Pan Books, 2007, 360.
4. Richard B. Spence, Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925, Trine Day, Walterville, Or., 2017. It is significant that Professor Spence ends the first Soviet era with 1925, when he regards the ascendency of Stalin as having ended the Wall Street-revolutionist axis, which had largely focused around Trotsky.
5. Bolton, “”Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist Ideology and the Making of Modern Taiwan”, Thermidor,
6. Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific, Black House Publishing, London 2013; “Pro-China Bias of the U.S. Establishment”, 50-61. See also “CFR and Communist China” in Bolton, Revolution from Above, London, Arktos Media Ltd., 2011.
7. Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick, The Wall Street Journal, 5 November, 2013;
8. See: Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo Pacific, 58-59.
9. Bolton, “China’s Globalist Agenda”, Katehon,
10. Konrad Lorenz, Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1974, 64-65.
11. For example see: James O’Neil, “One Belt, One Road: The World’s Great Infrastructure Project – Opportunities and Challenges for Australia, New Dawn, Melbourne, July-August 2017, pp. 19-24.
12. “Clinton calls Eurasian Integration an Effort to ‘Re-Sovietize’”, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 7 December , 2012;
13. “New Silk Road: What to Expect from Russia’s Involvement in China’s Megaproject,” Sputnik News, 15 May, 2017;
14. Kenneth Rapoza, “China’s Silk Road Shows that Putin needs Xi Way more than Trump,” Forbes, 16 May, 2017;
15. Wade Shepard, “Russia is in a Unique Position to Either Make or Break the New Silk Road,” Forbes, 13 March, 2017;
16. “China Moves to Mine Gold in Russia’s Far East,” Sputnik International, 7 July 2017;
17. “Silk Road, New Incentives for the Mining Sector,” 16 August, 2017; EastRussia,
18. Ibid. Emphasis added.
19. Bolton, “The Tragedy of Tibet: A Saga of Betrayal, Colonization, and Exploitation,” Foreign Policy Journal, 25 June, 2010;
20. “Barrick Announces Strategic Agreement with Shandong Gold,” Barrick, 6 April, 2017;…)
21. G. Pascal Zachary, The Global Me, Allen & Unwin, 2000.
22. Bolton, “BRICS Development Bank an Instrument for Globalization”, Foreign Policy Journal, 14 July, 2015;
23. “About Us,” Silk Road Finance Corporation,
24. “Our Team,” Silk Road Finance Corp.,
26. ESADE, “About,”
28. “Our Team,” Silk Road Finance Corp., op. cit.
29. “Our Team,” Silk Road Finance Corp., ibid.
30. “Our Team,” Silk Road Finance Corp., ibid.
31. “Our Team,” Silk Road Finance Corp., ibid.
32. “Our Team,” Silk Road Finance Corp., ibid.

Gilgit-Baltistan Social Welfare Organization

Gilgit-Baltistan Social Welfare Organization® operates exclusively for the promotion of social welfare to further the common good and general interest of the indigenous communities of Gilgit-Baltistan to strengthen civil betterment and social improvement.

This Post Has One Comment

Comments are closed.