American Foreign policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty

It did not take long for the markets to react to rumors that Wiki leaks founder, Julian Assange, who released cables of diplomatic communications among American Embassy officials and Washington DC was about to release intricate business decisions taken by Bank of America, before the bank officials began to deny claims. Bank of American shares were falling like a yo-yo in early trading on the New York Stock exchange. The fear of opaque transactions in a prominent American Bank translated into fears among investors. The markets became bogged down by rumors that Mr. Julian Assange was about to call the shots on the way banking transaction across the globe were carried out. And, just as hell was about to break loose, some government officials both here and overseas were putting out interpol arrest warrant for the new internet crusader.

The thought of having deals manipulations between commercial banks' heavyweights made public the way the embassy officials communications were released in recent days, made some bank officials go into fit at the headquarters of the Bank of America. According to Bank of America, the probability that its institution’s records, including documents, emails databases and internal websites may have been compromised, is very remote. While the founder of Wiki leaks promised that his 5GB of Bank of America’s profile with his organization will expose an ecosystem of corruption and could take down a couple of banks, made this claim rather intimidating and would probably make doing businesses with banks and investors difficult. While officials at Bank of America are crossing their hands and hoping for the best, our blog today is looking at the implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty of the new development in the releases of private communications between institutions, government and banking.

By this afternoon, it was public knowledge that, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States had loaned money to commercial banks in Europe and probably some other countries in Asia and South America about two years ago, just about the time the whole global economy was precipitating into a free fall. The singular action by the Federal Reserve Bank brought a new dimension into the understanding of monetary integration and legal sovereignty. Commercial banks in foreign countries are known to conduct business independently with the support of their nation’s central bank, not with the central bank of other countries. However, with the step taken by the Feds to loan money to banks in foreign countries, it was becoming clear that monetary regimes are hardly as isolated as once thought; and, that a foreign commercial bank is beholden to the US Federal Reserve Bank, from that singular loan of about 50 billion dollars to say UBS, a Swiss Bank, it will be difficult to continue to ascertain national sovereignty with respect to monetary regimes. The issue of pride in national currency is probably now secondary, if the United State Federal Reserve Bank can have the back of a foreign commercial bank, in the middle of a global recession.

If most independent countries cannot continue to ascertain their nationality through management of currencies and commerce between or among financial entities within their boundaries, it hardly makes any sense to be talking about legal sovereignty. As defined by the 1999 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Robert Mundell, Legal Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to make its own laws without limitations imposed by any other outside authority. Could the Swiss government make laws that would impinge on the decision of his central bank officials to seek fund from the US Federal Reserve Bank? Probably yes, however, the commitment of funds from the United States Central Bank may make the Swiss government think twice, considering the implication for their national economy and currency. Here lies the joker: the implication of say UBS abandoning its national currency and bank to go seek financial help from the US Federal Reserve Banks, puts a damper on the crave for legal sovereignty; it also creates a difficult environment for the assertion of national sovereignty by the Swiss.

The reality that the United States Dollars has grown up from a national currency to an international medium of exchange with the status of truly being the number one currency of international transaction, now puts into the tanker the argument of the independence of national currencies. The integration of the world’s currencies is getting to be a reality and the de-facto argument of associated national sovereignty and independent currency is gradually becoming a thing of the past. With the US Federal Reserve Bank loaning money to the Lloyds of London, the United States Dollars is virtually becoming something of a profound commodity, being sought by every financial institutions all over the globe. Citizens of the world now depend on the United States’ Currency to dictate the pace of commerce, even within boundaries of countries far remote from the United States. With the Feds loaning money out, comes the landmark concession of national sovereignty with respect to monetary policy. Does this give a bragging right to Washington DC? Probably not, considering that the nature of this type of transaction may be available on tapes, emails and documents that can be released on the WEB by Wiki Leaks, today or tomorrow!

If European commercial Banks agree to seek money from the national bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank, this choice leaves room for monetary expansion policy implication within the European Union. Further, if the Lloyds of London can draw on a short-term Bank Note from the US Federal Reserve Bank, the question of a system of fixed currency exchange rates and the central control over the British Pound by No. 10 Downing Street or the Buckingham Palace, is probably about to become history. Since Britain and United states are not known to have a joint currency, the issue of independence and sovereignty of the nation state, United Kingdom, can be readily called to question. With the singular act of the feds loaning money to European Banks, the kind of legal tender power that is often associated with independent nation’s currency can now come into play, even within those nations boundaries. Since the Swedish bank, UBS, did not seek the replacement of its nation’s currency in its deal with the US Federal Reserve Bank, the implication of its transaction may have a political under tone. here again lies the challenge that Wiki Leaks can drop on the laps of European and American politicians. No wonder, France is out with a similar warrant to the United States for the founder of Wiki Leaks!

The potential that Wiki leaks may get its hand on tapes and documents of say Bank of America and probably the UBS or any other bank out there, may actually introduce a fatal weakness into the international banking system. Imagine that during the turbulent early period of the global recession two years ago, a bank official from UBS and another from the US Federal Reserve Bank had entered into a deal that may impinge on either nation’s monetary regime, then there is obviously a concern that such information is available to a third party like Mr. Assange. The fact that Assange can then turn around and make this type of transaction available on the WEB, can actually destabilize international banking system. Further, it may have an added destruction to the independence of a nation state and its ability to have control over transactions taking place within its borders. The national security implications of the new development in the cyberspace is now a thing that is best imagined than coming to reality. If Wiki Leaks make good on its promise to release the commercial banking transactions on the WEB, you can bet, more than hell will break loose!

It is possible for countries' embassy tape discussions to be made public. It is also admissible that such communications between embassy staff may be cause for alarm by the State Department or Washington DC. However, when the real backbone of many economies are probably going to be at stake, well your imagination is as good as mine. When European Commercial Banks interest are being beholden to the U.S. national Bank, what is the sense of talking about national currencies and pride. It's all about to go into the air: puff! The notion that bank officials are incompetent or cannot manage risk, becomes secondary at this point. The embarrassments for many more national government is the issue now at stake. As we continue to watch events unfold on the WEB, I can imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Paul Allen asking each other: what in the world did we let loose in New Mexico and California three decades ago?

American Foreign Relations has definitely taken a hit from the Wiki Leaks releases. The State Department is busy scrambling around to mend fences with foreign government and national security assets all over the world are probably being moved around and educated about new strategies of communication between their outpost and Washington DC. Unfortunately as one individual said early in the week, we have entered that era in which the facades are being removed from the face of the people: welcome to WEB 4.0! The collective impact of the Wiki Leaks releases on national governments and commercial bankings is probably good for those who have chosen to pursue this route for achieving fairness in the world; however, is this what we really need? I don't know, but what I realize from this new frontier, is that America must continue to look out for Americans and other nations, theirs. We are now in a time zone, where the word Armageddon, is taking a new interpretation in foreign and monetary policies implementation around the globe.

American Foreign policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: Embassy Safety and Exchanges with Washington DC

The theatrics on communications between American Embassy Officials and Washington DC on Wiki leak cable releases are painfully tragic for many veteran foreign policy officials. Many of them, who are familiar with the risks of working in a foreign land where the environment is often unfamiliar and the language different from English, makes the wiki leaks experience, even the more tragic. Many of them contemplate the risks they take in some of those lands across the world, where the basic necessities of life are sometimes unavailable and yet, they work harder to collect useful information that are being paraded on the WEB, as if they are fashion apparels at a Paris runway dig. We may want to remind those working along with Julian Assange, that many of them have never experienced embassy bombings, first hand; and probably have not shared in the experience of losing a colleague on the job. The careless sharing of information moving from those faraway lands to Washington DC on Wiki leaks and other accompanying organizations can lead to deaths of American Embassy officials. No one working for American Embassy is immune from the risk of losing their lives, just by being traced to be working in the interest of this nation. The blog today is looking at embassy officials safety and exchanges with Washington DC, in light of the current Wiki Leaks cables on the WEB.

For those who have forgotten the Embassy bombing experience in Nairobi, Kenya, it is important to remind them that not only were Americans injured, indigenes and locals in that country lost their lives. Nearly everyone in Nairobi on the night of the embassy bombing understood the difficulties of people working for American Embassy or the difficult conditions under which foreign officials work, including the risk of losing their lives while serving the interest of America. Still men and women continue to work for Uncle Sam. We saw the unstable political arrangements in Yemen and the anger and alienation that seem to consume those people in that country over America’s influence. The potential of shattering the peace in many areas of the world is now very obvious with the releases of Wiki Leaks cables.

Today, men and women working in the interest of American Embassies all over the world are wondering if any of their information exchanges with Washington DC are going to be released by Wiki Leaks, or whether they have already been released and would cause harm to them and their families. I once tried to get into Foreign Service employment in 1998 and at the interview debriefing of what foreign embassy staff are expected to do while away from the shores of America, made me think twice, if the job is worth the pay. I am raising this point here, because of many in the press who consider that the releases of the Wiki Leak cables are issue of the freedom of the press. It is more than that. It is all bloods and sweat by dedicated Americans, who see the diplomacy of America around the globe as essential to the stability of this nation and its partners. Has anyone imagined the role of U.S. alliances to the stability of NATO members? The strategy from the White House on Foreign policy is developed from information shared from American Embassies as to the status of current events and dismissive in those NATO member countries. Imagine having such information in the open on the WEB. Is that really what this is all about?

When our Presidents stand up on the podium and say, we are going to work together with our European partners, much inputs has gone into that statement from contribution of American Embassy staff. To discountenance the implication of the Wiki Leaks on the pretext of freedom of the Press or the right of the people to know, these people are being disingenuous to the essence of America’s freedom. People should not confuse the right to know to the high stake of sharing nation’s secrets on the WEB. Imagine what flames the release of the embassy communiqué on the WEB to the delivery of food and shelter to displaced peoples in Kosovo during Clinton's era. If embassy staff in countries in Europe were not up to their snuff, would America and NATO be able to help millions of people who were wallowing in genocide or a fear of it, in that conflict region? Is the freedom of information sharing of intricate efforts made by American Embassy staff to ensure that Washington DC has the appropriate status information to be able to help in that situation; or, to be able to make pronouncements based on the issues on the ground, an inalienable right of everyone in the world? America has done so many things around the world, peacefully, based on the information that Wiki leaks is sharing today on the WEB. Does Wiki Leaks expect us to fold our hands when nations call for our help in desperate times? What then is the purpose of these senseless releases?

When our nation reaffirm strong support for democratically elected governments, the issue of security and confidence in American military and the military of some of other nations around the world, are called to bear; this is the type of information that is being shared on the WEB like college classroom homeworks and assignments. Many who doubt that Wiki Leaks cable releases undermine the essence of our government efforts to ensure the safety of America and its allies must rethink again. Were these people asleep when Milosevic refused international military presence in Kosovo at the height of his atrocities? Who provided the credible assurance to the Serbians that the world was not at war with them but with the policies of the regime in Belgrade. Some of the back room discussions and strategy of handling this very delicate circumstance drew from America’s embassies communication with Washington DC. This same information about difficult circumstances around the globe is now being made available on the WEB, thanks to Wiki Leaks. These are treacherous decisions and someone has to be held accountable, pronto!