And what is perhaps lost amidst the sanctions frenzy of Washington is the possible emergence of what is known as the “Petro-Yuan” and the “international abandonment” of the dollar as a way of going around Washington’s ‘dollar hegemony,’ in addition to going around the weaponization of the dollar, given that the political will to do so is there in Eurasia. After all, the Inca built a thriving empire without any concept of money.
I have mentioned the potential for the emergence of a “Petro-Yuan” in previous blog posts. Now, Ukraine might actually be the short-run impetus for the emergence of a ‘Petro-Yuan’ as a means of exchange between states and societies in Eurasia who have common interests. Also, America’s blind support for Israel’s heavy-handed cruelty against the Palestinians will probably be the long-run impetus for the emergence of the ‘Petro-Yuan’ and the de-weaponization of the dollar. After all, one cannot overlook the political and social dimension of international affairs. And it is the political and social dimensions of international affairs which foster the divergence of interests between Washington and almost everyone else in the world. Whereas the dollar forces people to deal with one another and to put up a veneer of civility, the political dimension and social dimensions of international affairs bring out underlying political and social realities and thus the truth.
Moreover, if Russia, Iran, and Qatar – who together comprise of more than 50 percent of the world’s natural gas supply and whose supply power cannot be replaced by anyone else – end up combining their market leverage along with China’s market leverage, whose manufacturing power cannot be replaced in the international economy, then the ‘Petro-Yuan’ could become a reality, and the weaponization of the dollar can come to a long-awaited and unceremonious end.
As mentioned before, economics very much ties into political and social affairs. But the political and social dimensions of Washington’s relationship with many states and societies in Eurasia are very much adversarial in nature. For instance, Washington wants wars in order to sell weapons, given that about 50 percent of American exports are weapons, whereas the basic interests of people in Eurasia are peace and security. Also, Washington supports Israel, and this support for Israel angers and frustrates many Arabs on the “Arab Street” in addition to the Arabs who have to do business with Washington by virtue of “Gunboat Diplomacy.” World public opinion is also very much opposed to Washington’s blind support for Israel. Thus, the political and social dimensions of international affairs means that Washington’s interests diverge from the very basic interests of Eurasian peoples.
In turn, the divergence of basic interests between Washington and everyone else is at the heart of the various issues in international affairs at the moment. The crux of Washington’s attempt to remain relevant in international affairs is military hegemony. But military hegemony is unsustainable in the long run. Plus, the American strategy of military hegemony in order to remain relevant in international affairs is now causing problems for Europe, who is deeply intertwined in the economic, political, and social affairs of the Eurasian landmass. Thus, Washington is oscillating between military hegemony and isolationism, as has been the case for many decades. But the urgency of deciding where Washington stands amidst this oscillation is now greater than before.