• US shirking responsibility on African debt, hindering relief on the continent - China
• Sustainable Debt Slavery

Debt is specifically identified as a key component of SDG implementation, particularly in the developing world. In a 2018 paper written by a joint World Bank-IMF team, it was noted on several occasions that "debt vulnerabilities" in developing economies are being addressed by those financial institutions "within the context of the global development agenda (e.g., SDGs)."

That same year, the World Bank and IMF's Debt Sustainability Framework (DSF) became operational. Per the World Bank, the DSF "allows creditors to tailor their financing terms in anticipation of future risks and helps countries balance the need for funds with the ability to repay their debts." It also "guides countries in supporting the SDGs, when their ability to service debt is limited."

Expressed differently, if countries cannot pay the debt they incur through IMF loans and World Bank (and associated Multilateral Development Bank) financing, they will be offered options to "repay" their debt through implementing SDG-related policies. However, as future instalments of this series will show, many of these options supposedly tailored to SDG implementation actually follow the "debt for land swap" model (now re-tooled as "debt for conservation swaps" or "debt for climate swaps") that precede the SDGs and Agenda 2030 by a number of years. This model essentially enables land grabs and land/natural resource theft on a scale never before seen in human history.

Since their creation in the aftermath of World War II, both the World Bank and IMF have historically used debt to force countries, mostly in the developing world, to adopt policies that favour the global power structure. This was made explicit in a leaked US Army document written in 2008, which states that these institutions are used as unconventional, financial "weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war" and as "weapons" in terms of influencing "the policies and cooperation of state governments." The document notes that these institutions in particular have a "long history of conducting economic warfare valuable to any ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] UW [Unconventional Warfare] campaign."

The document further notes that these "financial weapons" can be used by the US military to create "financial incentives or disincentives to persuade adversaries, allies and surrogates to modify their behavior at the theater strategic, operational, and tactical levels." Further, these unconventional warfare campaigns are highly coordinated with the State Department and the Intelligence Community in determining "which elements of the human terrain in UWOA [Unconventional Warfare Operations Area] are most susceptible to financial engagement."

Notably, the World Bank and the IMF are listed as both Financial Instruments and Diplomatic Instruments of US National Power as well as integral parts of what the manual calls the "current global governance system."

While they were once "financial weapons" to be wielded by the Anglo-American Empire, the current shifts in the "global governance system" also herald a shift in who is able to weaponize the World Bank and IMF for their explicit benefit. As the sun sets on the imperial, "unipolar" model and the dawn of a "multipolar" world order is upon us. The World Bank and IMF have already been brought under the control of a new international power structure following the creation of the UN-backed Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) in 2021.

At the COP26 conference that same year, GFANZ announced plans to overhaul the role of the World Bank and IMF specifically as part of a broader plan aimed at "transforming" the global financial system. This was made explicit by GFANZ principal and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink during a COP26 panel, where he specified the plan to overhaul these institutions, saying:

If we're going to be serious about climate change in the emerging world, we're going to have to really focus on the reimagination of the World Bank and the IMF.

GFANZ's plans to "reimagine" these international financial institutions involve merging them with the private-banking interests that compose GFANZ; creating a new system of "global financial governance"; and eroding national sovereignty (particularly in the developing world) by forcing them to establish business environments deemed friendly to the interests of GFANZ members.

China has reportedly refused to reschedule a visit from the US secretary of state, as Antony Blinken kicked off a trip to Vietnam, a crucial South-east Asian trade partner that Washington is looking to bolster ties with as it works to balance Beijing's growing assertiveness in the region and beyond.

The visit comes as China refused to let Blinken visit Beijing over concerns that the FBI will release the results of an investigation into the suspected Chinese spy balloon downed in February, the Financial Times reported on Saturday, citing sources.

That's likely to be of little concern to China.

On Saturday Blinken emphasised the importance of human rights in a meeting with the Vietnamese prime minister, Pham Minh Chinh, a US State Department spokesperson said.

Rights groups have regularly raised concerns over Vietnam's treatment of dissidents.

Officials have not said what this closer relationship might entail but South-east Asia expert Murray Hiebert, who visited Vietnam in February and spoke with senior government officials, said it could include increased military cooperation and US weapons supplies.

The US intends to try to use Vietnam as a vassal to further their belligerence against China; as they've done with Japan and the Philippines: US plans to 'quickly' boost military presence near China with 4 new bases in the Philippines

With the Vietnam war era an increasingly distant memory, Washington now considers Hanoi, in the words of the top US diplomat for east Asia, Daniel Kritenbrink, "one of America's most important partners in the region".

But while the United States will probably to push for stronger ties with Vietnam, Hanoi may not share the enthusiasm, said an analyst with Rand Corporation, Derek Grossman.

"For one thing, there is no need, from Vietnam's perspective, to unnecessarily antagonise China ... Another is that Hanoi wants to avoid appearing openly part of the US Indo-Pacific strategy designed to counter China," he said.

It's probably not about 'openly' anything, Vietnam has little to benefit from antagonising China. The US likely will force Vietnam to choose between itself and China, but that tactic hasn't been very successful thus far.

Earlier this week, a Hanoi court sentenced a prominent Vietnamese political activist to six years in prison for conducting anti-state activities, his lawyer said.

• Japan's Prime Minister Kishida makes surprise visit to Ukraine to meet Zelensky
• Philippines' President Marcos open to buying Russian fuel, proposes new Myanmar approach