Next Phase of Syrian Invasion Begins — The Central Bank Connection

It is important to remember that, in the case of the latter country, the Anglo-Americans also funded terrorist death squads to cause a civil war inside the country, engaged in a propaganda campaign against Ghaddaffi’s government, and established “no-fly zones” inside Libya.

Although Assad has proven more capable than Ghaddaffi of withstanding the initial onslaught set in motion by the Anglo-Americans than Ghaddaffi and has demonstrated better political connections with other powerful nations, the fate of Libya awaits Syria if something is not done to derail this war machine.

Yet, while many have become aware of the fundamentalist and fanatical nature of the death squads which have run rampant in Syria over the last two years — and some are even aware of the nature of their funding — a very common question that confronts these observers is, simply, “why?”

When one analyzes past acts of conquest and aggression as well as current and future imperialist moves, it becomes clear that there is rarely only one reason for the implementation of any aspect of an agenda on any level.

Although Anglo-American imperialism, by no means, began on September 11, 2001, overt acts of aggression, destabilization, and invasion have increased both in frequency and intensity since that time. Ever since 9/11, however, the people of the Western world and the American public in particular have been provided with “reasons” for these military adventures and, thanks to the alternative media and a small minority of courageous researchers, activists, etc., they have also been provided with the “real” reasons.

Taking several of the targets into consideration, these reasons include vast oil reserves, oil pipelines,[1] opium fields, strategic positioning, no-bid contracts for the defense industry and military-industrial complex, and mineral deposits.

In the proper context of the specific nations being discussed, each and every one of the above-listed justifications are both valid and accurate.

Still, in the context of Syria, it is important to understand the impetus of invasion specific to the imperialist quest against the Middle Eastern nation.

While fuel for the military-industrial complex and no-bid contracts doled out to multi-billion dollar military defense firms to rebuild what was destroyed in the conflict is no doubt on the list of reasons for the destruction of Syria, it is well known that Syria represents a strategic stronghold for Russia in terms of influence in the region. Because a confrontation with both Russia and China appear to be in the cards of the Anglo-Americans, the weakening of a strategic position of Russia in the Middle East (with Iran to be the next target) would not only be considered quite the geopolitical coup, it is a virtual necessity if one is determined to engage a nation as powerful as Russia in the long run.

Yet there is one more underlying reason for Western military intervention in Syria that is rarely discussed publicly, even among many alternative media outlets – the goal of total domination by the private central banking system.

It is true that both debt and the control of currency is one of the most effective means of enslaving an entire population without their knowledge. Continually chasing financial freedom with no ability to pay off debt and save for the future ensures that a sizable majority of the population will not have the means, time, or energy to resist the totalitarian methods imposed upon them.

Likewise, it is true that by controlling a nation’s currency, one essentially controls the nation. Governments who are beholden to third parties and private banks for their money are not governments at all – they are receiverships existing solely at the pleasure of the controlling oligarchy. As Mayer Amschel Rothschild once stated, “Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”

Thus, when one takes a look at the worldwide banking system and, in particular, the amount of countries with government-owned, non-Rothschild affiliated central banks, one easily sees a monopolistic system coming into view. In addition, when one takes a closer look at those countries with government-owned central banks, independent of Rothschild and major financier control, it becomes even clearer that maintaining a government-mandated structure of currency and central banking places a nation on a very dangerous list.

Enter Syria.

Existing as one of the last nations on the face of the earth that has not allowed itself to become subservient to a privately-owned central bank, Syria now finds that national financial independence does not come without the price of presenting oneself as a preferred target for the banking cartels and the nations they control.

All in all, the Syrian banking system largely consists of four state-owned banks and fourteen private banks, mostly foreign banks providing services to the private sector inside Syria. For at least forty years, the state itself has maintained a total monopoly on the Syrian banking system. Even when that total monopoly was broken, it was not in the form of the privatization of the central bank, it was merely allowing private banks to operate commercially inside the country at all.

As CountryStudies.Us writes,

The primary legislation establishing a central bank and control of the banking system was passed in 1953, but the Central Bank was not formed until 1956. Its functions included issuing notes, controlling the money supply, acting as fiscal agent for the government, and controlling credit and commercial banks. It was also to act as the country’s development bank until specialized banks were established for various sectors. The Central Bank had considerable discretionary powers over the banking system but was itself responsible to and under the control of the Council on Money and Credit, a policy group of high-ranking officials.

Country Studies continues by stating that “The general philosophy was that the banking system should be an agent of government economic policy.” No doubt such a concept is a novel idea in 2013, perhaps even more so than it was in 1953.

Nevertheless, the process of government control over banks began in 1958 when the Syrian government began to “Arabize the commercial banking system.” In 1961, that process morphed into “limited nationalization.”

By 1966, the Syrian government completed its nationalization of the bank by merging all of the existing commercial banks into one entity which came to be known as the Commercial Bank of Syria. The government then created subsidiary banks of the Commercial Bank of Syria for the purposes of economic development such as the Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Industrial Bank, the Real Estate Bank, and the Popular Credit Bank.

Not surprisingly, international bankers have been vocal enough among their own circles regarding their disdain for Syria’s government-owned central bank. In fact, in 2006, the IMF actually published its annual Article IV Consultation Report regarding Syria’s economic developments. Among the recommendations made by the IMF in the report were suggestions of changes to the Syrian banking system. The report reads:

Progress toward this medium-term goal should start by having the central bank gain full control of existing direct instruments. The central bank should have the right to decide on credit ceilings and credit policies of banks with a view to ensuring a pace of credit and monetary expansion consistent with maintaining price stability while fostering economic activity and employment. Banks have to abide by all prudential regulations. Beyond this, the role and responsibilities of the central bank and the ministry of finance in exercising oversight on the banks should be clearly defined. While the government could play a lead role in choosing the board and the management of public banks, the CBS should have the authority to evaluate and approve banks’ policies, and procedures related to the credit and investment.

Clearly, if these are the responsibilities the IMF believes the Syrian Central Bank should have, then it logically follows that they are responsibilities it does not have currently. Thus, the Central Bank is at least kept in check by the refusal to allow it unbridled control over monetary policy as a private “independent” institution.

Thus, the Article IV Consultation Report and the suggestions contained therein provide a blueprint for turning Syria’s central bank from that of a government-owned entity which serves the government (and theoretically the people) into an entity which directs it.

If the CBS (Central Bank of Syria) is allowed to “have the authority to evaluate and approve banks’ policies, and procedures related to the credit and investment,” even if the government is able to choose the board and management, the CBS then becomes the sole independent force responsible for the extension (or refusal) of credit, inflation/deflation, bailouts, and the inevitable implementation of austerity measures. In other words, if the CBS is privatized from its current state, it will become the equivalent of the Syrian version of the U.S. Federal Reserve, a fate no nation should ever willingly inflict upon itself.

Nevertheless, Syria has not existed free and clear of economic distress simply because of the existence of a government-owned central bank. Over the years, the Middle Eastern nation has had to battle with inflation and high unemployment. However, dependency on imports, rationing systems, political unrest, rebellions, natural disasters, and war have all contributed greatly to Syria’s economic difficulties.

Most notably, the ridiculous sanctions imposed upon Syria by the Western world have acted as a major obstacle to true economic growth. These sanctions, while imposed recently, have been levied against Syria for some time with the United States sanctioning the Central Bank as far back as 2001 under the liberty-shredding PATRIOT ACT which ironically turned America into nothing more than a paranoid police state, even as it criticizes other nations for their human rights records.

Although a more stable environment would have produced a much greater possibility of successful implementation of economic programs and better management of the central banking system would have undoubtedly produced better economic results, the fact remains that the Syrian banking system, Central and Commercial, belong to the government and (theoretically) the people of Syria. These institutions are independent of the Rothschild international banking cartel. Thus, one may add yet another reason Syria has come under the fiery eye of the Empire.

Although currently facing the brunt of Anglo-American operations, Syria is not the only country to find itself in the crosshairs of destabilization and direct military confrontation with Western powers where the presence of a government-owned central bank may stand as a significant deciding factor for invasion. Cuba, North Korea, and, notably, Iran all maintain such government banking systems. Coincidentally, all three of these nations, particularly Iran, have become major targets of Western imperialism as of late.

While one may be tempted to ignore the presence of government-owned central banks as a contributing factor toward the decision to destabilize and/or invade sovereign nations, it is interesting to note that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan have all fallen victim to NATO-backed invasions, and/or destabilization campaigns ever since the push for the New American Century took off in 2001.

“Coincidentally,” these nations all held government-owned central banks prior to the intervention.

After the conflict had ended, or at least subsided, all of these nations were presented with a new banking system which was privately owned; another “strange coincidence” for those unwilling to acknowledge the existence of a pattern.

Thus it now appears that “Democracy” and “private central banking” stand as the only thing the West is capable of exporting.

[1] Griffin, David Ray. The New Pearl Harbor. Interlink Publishing Group. 2004.