Empires are very expensive business. They also make a lot
of money for a lot of people involved. But overall they drain the founding
nation of resources, money, men and eventually leave it a broken husk of its
former glory. There have been no exceptions to this in history, and Revelation
18 in the Scriptures shows that this will even be the fate of the
final global empire.
The fate of the United State's empire was sealed in recent
years, when because of their financial aggression against the country of
Russia, they created a reason for many other growing economies to start binding
together to ensure their ability to continue to trade if America decided to
turn on them. This is the BRICS trade alliance, prompted by the American sanctions
against Russia. One of the biggest consequences of the United States war
against Russia is that many nations have now started to trade for oil in their
own currencies, rather than using the Petro-dollar. The Petro-dollar required
all nations to trade for oil in US dollars, which enabled the United States to find
the money for its expensive wars, domination of many other nations, give it the
power to cripple potential rivals or even just smaller countries seeking to break from its
power, and gave the US many other financial advantages over the rest of the world.
But that power is now broken, and many people do not realize how this has sealed
the fate of the end of the United States as the dominant global power.
This illustration from Byzantine history might help
show why this is a devastating development for the United States. The Byzantine
Empire stood as the dominant power in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black
sea region for centuries. Part of the reason they were so dominant was because
of their dominance over all trade in the region. Oman writes,
“The reign of Alexius might
have been counted a period of success and prosperity if it had not been for two
considerations. The first was the rapid decline of Constantinople as a
commercial centre, which was brought about by the Crusades. When the Genoese
and Venetians succeeded in establishing themselves in the seaports of Syria,
they began to visit Constantinople far less than before. It paid them much
better to conduct their business at Acre or Tyre than on the Bosphorus. The
king of Jerusalem, the weakest of feudal sovereigns, could be more easily
bullied and defrauded than the powerful ruler of Constantinople. In his own
seaports he possessed hardly a shadow of authority: the Italians traded there
on such conditions as they chose. Hence the commerce of the West with Persia,
Egypt, Syria, and India, ceased to pass through the Bosphorus. Genoa and Venice
became the marts at which France, Italy, and Germany, sought their Eastern
goods. It is probable that the trade of Constantinople fell off by a third or
even a half in the fifty years that followed the first Crusade. The effect of
this decline on the coffers of the state was deplorable, for it was ultimately
on its commercial wealth that the Byzantine state based its prosperity. All
through the reigns of Alexius and his two successors the complaints about the
rapid fall in the imperial revenue grew more and more noticeable.”[1]
The Byzantine empire had faced many setbacks in the
region, from the invasions of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Magyars, Bulgars, Persian, and
more. But it had always been able to use its ability to quickly rebuild wealth
to reassert itself in the region. But when their hold on trade in the region
was broken, significantly, this advantage was ripped away. The result was
devastating.
Oman writes again about the situation less than a couple of centuries later
“The three able emperors who
reigned at Nicaea, though they had preserved their independence against Turk
and Frank, had utterly failed in restoring administrative efficiency in their
provinces. John Vatatzes, himself a thrifty monarch, who could even condescend
to poultry-farming to fill his modest exchequer, found that all his efforts to
protect native industry could not cause the dried-up springs of prosperity to
flow again. The whole fiscal and administrative machinery of government had
been thrown hopelessly out of gear.
It was the commercial
decline of the empire that made a reform of the administration so hopeless. The
Paleologi were never able to reassert the old dominion over the seas which had
made their predecessors the arbiters of the trade of Christendom. The wealth of
the elder Byzantine Empire had arisen from the fact that Constantinople was the
central emporium of the trade of the civilized world. All the caravan routes
from Syria and Persia converged thither. Thither, too, had come by sea the
commodities of Egypt and the Euxine. All the Eastern products which Europe
might require had to be sought in the storehouses of Constantinople, and for
centuries the nations of the West had been contented to go thither for them.
But the Crusades had shaken this monopoly, when they taught the Italians to
seek the hitherto unknown parts of Syria and Egypt, and buy their Eastern
merchandize from the producer and not from the middleman.”[2]
After their dominance on the trade in Eastern Europe, and beyond, was
broken, Byzantium was no longer able to reform and replenish its bureaucracies and its armies after wars and invasions like it had always done. Even when the Saracens had taken Egypt, the granaries
of Rome, and Syria-Palestine from the Emperor Heraclius, Byzantium had still
been able to gather the resources it needed not only to survive, but thrive and
eventually even reassert itself over the Saracens in many areas of what we
today call the Middle East, or Turkey. Their dominance of the trade in the
region made them incredibly wealthy and powerful, beyond what they were capable
of producing naturally in their own cities and provinces. They held the keys to early medieval wealth and prosperity in many ways.
But once this advantage was taken away, Byzantium just
became another regional port, and it quickly faded in power and was eventually
conquered by the Ottomans. It lost the ability to replenish itself, like it has
always been able to do. It’s hold on the trade routes, and the seas had given it
this ability.
The United States has ruled over a larger segment of the world than any other empire in history and its navy is still the most formidable in the world. But it no longer has the trade dominance it once had. Nations can now very easily bypass it in trading for vital commodities and more, something that was not so easy before the US brought its sanctions on Russia. This strategy had worked so many times against other powers, but this time the nation they sought to strangle was prepared and judo flipped the sanctions back on the US economy. The dominance in trade the US once had is now quickly fading.
Without this dominance it will not be able to continue to replenish itself, and rearm itself like it has in the past. It no longer has the manufacturing advantage it once had either. And it can no longer bully other economies so easily, at least those willing to be apart of BRICS. This is the significance of losing this economic dominance, this is what it means for the US to lose its near monopoly of international trade advantages with the Petro-dollar. Just as Byzantium did not last in its former glory long after it lost its trade advantage, neither will the US. It will not fade overnight, Byzantium lasted a few more centuries in decreasing glory, but it faded, and so too will the power and dominance of the US. Considering how short its reign at the top was, it's likely their fall will be quicker than Byzantium's. Especially as most of the world production capacity and wealth is now centred on the Asian landmass, a region the US is disconnected from and historically aggressive towards.
The current wars we see in Russia, the Middle East, and building in South China Sea and Taiwan all stem from one original source: the US and its allies are seeking to either maintain US dominance, or take advantage of US dominance while it lasts. But no empire lasts forever. We are watching something like the fall of Rome and Byzantium in our day.
List of References
[1] Oman,
Charles. The History of the Byzantine Empire: From Its Glory to Its Downfall
(p. 134). e-artnow. Kindle Edition.
[2] Oman,
Charles. The History of the Byzantine Empire: From Its Glory to Its Downfall
(pp. 151-152). e-artnow. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment