De-dollarization

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from Weaponizing the dollar)
Jump to: navigation, search
Reserve currency.png

De-dollarization is the process of freeing countries from use of the dollar to denominate the values of goods and services exchanged. The use of the dollar means that all of the transactions pass through the American banking system, which means that the United States has a monopoly information flow of who is selling what to whom. This American domination and an exclusive commercial advantage is removed when trade is conducted in national currencies and do not go through the United States banking system. De-dollarization is a consequence of American abuse of the power of the dollar as the global reserve currency. It is the abuse of the global financial system by spendthrift Congresses and the Federal Reserve Board printing excess dollars and offering nothing of real value in terms of manufactured goods or services to back it up, thus robbing the rest of the planet.

BRICS group

Bessent 12-5-25.PNG Franklin 12-5-25.PNG

(Left): U.S. Treas. Sec. Scott Bessent tries to convince investors to buy U.S. Treasury debt to finance the deficit;[1] (right): an X follower responds.[2]

The BRICS group, led by Russia and China began building an international finance and trading system that does not rely on dollars, that uses countries’ local currencies, gold, oil, or other assets to trade.[3] The U.S. abuse of economic sanctions to blackmail and punish other countries that did not bend to America's will added to the impetus.[4] The rise of BRICS means that the US dollar will, at a minimum, lose its relative monopoly on oil and gas trades and sales.[5]

If the world favors a second, gold-based settlement system and opts out of the fiat money dollar, which is not backed by a tangible commodity with exchangeable value, this could lead to the end not only of dollar settlement, but also of the dollar imperium.[6] The US has so far been able to pay for its foreign trade with its freshly printed money that does not represent any increased production of goods and services at all, to the benefit of its own prosperity in exchange for “fiat money”.[7] If this were no longer possible, if the countries of the world no longer accepted worthless dollars, the USA would no longer be able to buy all the world's goods with them, to pay for $900 billion in military industrial complex expenditures and to cover its financial deficits.[8] Dollar dominance will inevitably fade and the dollar decline as the world's top reserve currency, though it will undoubtedly continue to survive in that capacity in parts of the world where the US continues to have considerable political and economic leverage, like Latin America.[9] In this respect, the financial boycott against Russia and a counter-reaction by the world could result in the collapse of the dollar empire.[10]

In Asia, history is not a distant archive but a living standard by which present and future are measured. A central lesson in the Middle Kingdom spans the centuries: when the political center weakens, chaos follows—civil war, collapse, millions of deaths. This historical awareness still shapes China's policies today. Gold reserves are hoarded, dependence on the dollar gradually reduced, risks broadly diversified. Behind this is no short-term pragmatism, but a deep instinct: stability means survival. Confidence in one's own currency, political cohesion, and strategic foresight—all stem from experience, not forgetfulness.[11]

Weaponization of the dollar

Countries that do not allow American interference in their social, political, and economic system are threatened with being labeled as human rights violators and economic sanctions.[12]

Elon Musk explained the process of de-dollarization succinctly: "The United States has overplayed its hand in weaponizing the dollar with sanctions...You're now seeing a lot of countries de-dollar their transactions because we’ve forced it...And this goes beyond even Russia, China, and Iran...Countries like Brazil or India still want to transact with Russia...They can’t do it with dollars, so we've forced them to de-dollarize their transactions, thus weakening the strength of the dollar in the world."[13]

Russian State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin observed on June 14, 2024, "The dollar has become toxic...Washington has totally undermined trust in the dollar as a global reserve currency by imposing illegal sanctions against our country’s financial institutions."[14]

Sanctions regime and the SWIFT network

Dedollarization.jpg

The SWIFT network is a Brussels-based global clearing office for communications between 12,000 banks worldwide in which they advise one another about incoming transfers.[15] It is an essential building block in international trade, and was abused by the United States, who pressured the independent managers of SWIFT to conform to economic sanctions imposed on certain countries not abiding by the so-called "rules based order" dictated by the U.S. State Department from Washington, D.C..[16] The "rules based order", also known as the Liberal world order, by-passes the historically recognized framework of the United Nations under international law as having sole authority to impose multilateral economic sanctions.[17]

The United States under the Biden regime moved to de facto steal USD $300 billion held in foreign banks that belongs to Russia via a scheme ostensibly meant to fund Ukraine aid.[18] Acts like these is what essentially drives the BRICS nations to pursue a new settlement and payment infrastructure that would bypass use of US dollars (USD) or euro, thus protecting the system's users from the United States and European Union using their currencies to blackmail other countries into compliance with the West's wishes.[19] For example, the United States routinely employs or threatens economic sanctions against countries if they do not de-criminalize homosexuality or legalize gay marriage, alleging those countries to be "human rights violators".[20] Even a change of administration in the United States cannot repair the loss of confidence and broken trust in the global financial system or assure such "rules based order" tactics would not occur again in the future to any party or nation participating in the SWIFT network.[21]

Bricks+ Reserve Fund

The Bricks+ Reserve Fund was created, a $150 billion pool capitalized by Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other nations wary of Western financial weaponization. The fund's purpose to provide liquidity and financial stability for countries that faced Western economic sanctions or asset freezes. It is sort of an alternative IMF for the sanctioned and the nervous. But the real innovation was the mechanism. The fund would accept sovereign assets for safekeeping. But these assets would be held in distributed custody across multiple non-Western jurisdictions. No single country could freeze them. No Western court could seize them. The assets were legally structured to be seizure proof.

China contributed $50 billion. Russia committed $30 billion. Saudi Arabia and UAE added $25 billion each. India, Iran, and others filled out the rest. This wasn't just about the money. This was about creating financial infrastructure that bypassed Western control entirely.

Countries looking at what happened to Russian reserves in Europe had to ask themselves, "Are our reserves safe in London, Frankfurt, or New York?" The answer increasingly was no. The capital flight began immediately. Saudi Arabia quietly began diversifying its reserves away from European assets, not selling everything, but reducing concentration. UAE moved portions of its sovereign wealth fund holdings from European bonds to Asian assets. China accelerated its dedollarization efforts and reduced Euro exposure. Even non-aligned countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Mexico began discussing reserve diversification strategies.

The amounts involved were staggering. Sovereign wealth funds and central banks hold Trillions in European assets. Even a 10% reduction represents hundreds of Billions in selling pressure. European bond markets felt the impact. Yields rose as demand decreased. Borrowing costs for European governments increased precisely when they needed to borrow more for Ukraine aid and energy transition spending. The European Central Bank faced an impossible choice. Intervene to support bond markets by buying government debt, reigniting inflation, or let yields rise and watch governments struggle with debt service costs. They chose a middle path that satisfied nobody. Limited intervention that prevented crisis, but didn't restore confidence.

References

  1. https://archive.is/H58cb
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUFN1ecch48
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brics.asp
  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/us-sanction-countries-work/
  5. How Would a New BRICS Currency Affect the US Dollar?, Melissa Pistilli, Mar. 18, 2025.
  6. https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/precious-metals/article-822549#google_vignette
  7. https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-foreign-trade-statistics/
  8. https://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/de-dollarization-what-happens-if-the-dollar-loses-reserve-status
  9. https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/currencies/de-dollarization
  10. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/economy/global-economic-impact-of-sanctions-on-russia.html
  11. https://forumgeopolitica.com/article/the-pattern-that-ends-empires-how-money-dies-before-nations-fall
  12. LGBT+ History Month: The use of sanctions against LGBT human rights abuses, 23 February 2022. Mishcon de Reya. "The EU made headlines in March 2021 with its decision to sanction two Russian individuals for their alleged human rights abuses, which included detaining LGBTQI+ individuals under the pretence that they opposed far right Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov. These measures came shortly after the EU sanctioned four other Russian individuals also involved with arbitrary arrests and the repression of freedom of expression. Ramzan Kadyrov, who is under sanctions for human rights abuses himself, denied the alleged purge of LGBTQI+ individuals in Chechnya on the basis that according to him, no such people exist there. Given the conflict of societal and legal norms between different states over LGBTQI+ rights, it is legitimate to question whether a punitive sanctions regime is an appropriate and effective response to such egregious conduct.... The US Council on Foreign Relations describes sanctions as "a lower-cost, lower-risk, middle course of action between diplomacy and war", as the foreign policy tool aims to ensure compliance with the interests of the state or international organisation imposing the measures in a more humane way than military intervention. Sanctions may come in the form of arms embargoes, asset freezes, travel bans or more general restrictions on trade, and are often grouped together in 'sanctions regimes' which are either thematic or geographic. Sanctions have long been used, and are an increasingly common response to illegal economic or military activity. However only more recently have sanctions been employed in response to human rights abuses, and more specifically LGBTQI+ discrimination....in February 2021, Joe Biden issued the ‘Memorandum on Advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Persons Around the World’. This directed US executive departments to enact financial sanctions and travel restrictions on countries and individuals that had a track record of abusive behaviour towards LGBTQI+ persons. Following this, the US House of Representatives approved the Global Respect Act in February 2022 which aims to prohibit those who have committed LGBTQI+ human rights abuses abroad from obtaining a visa to enter the US.... A comprehensive study from 2006 which reviewed 200 sanctions regimes concluded that the tool was only successful 33% of the time in the period spanning 1960-2006. Alongside this alarmingly low success rate, many commentators complain that sanctions harm the living standards and humanitarian situation of the population in the sanctioned state, and this negative impact has been found to effect women, minority communities and other marginalised groups to a greater extent. A 2017 study suggested that targeted sanctions on individuals had a lesser negative impact on the wider population...the same study found that targeted sanctions were less likely to work on those targeted individuals, who often found ways to circumvent the measures. The ineffectiveness and collateral damage associated with sanctions regimes invites critics to question whether viable alternatives exist. ... The US recorded a 933% increase in sanction designations since 2000, meaning that despite their shortcomings, it is likely sanctions are here to stay." www.mishcon.com
  13. Elon Musk: "We Are Sleepwalking Our Way Into World War Three," "Putting Civilization Itself At Risk", Posted By Tim Hains, October 25, 2023. www.realclearpolitics.com
  14. Vyacheslav Volodin: USD became toxic, June 14, 2024. duma.gov.ru
  15. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, encyclopedia.pub
  16. https://atlasinstitute.org/weaponized-finance-sanctions-swift-and-the-future-of-global-political-risk/
  17. Dugard J. The choice before us: International law or a ‘rules-based international order’? Leiden Journal of International Law. 2023;36(2):223-232. doi:10.1017/S0922156523000043
  18. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-eyes-using-300-russia-frozen-assets-help-ukraine-backfire-2023-12
  19. How America Wasted Its Most Powerful Economic Weapon, By Edward Fishman, The Atlantic, February 24, 2025.
  20. Ryan J. McElhose, Are Threats to Impose Financial Sanctions an Effective Approach for the United States to Protect LGBTQ Rights in Africa?, 37 1 (2023). Emory University School of Lasw Commons
  21. https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/02/15/rules-based-world-order-vs-international-law/

External links