So… we seized $7 billion of Afghan central bank reserves kept at the Fed….
While it seems we intend to redistribute half of them to Afghanistan in the form of humanitarian aid, the other half will go to 9/11 victims (WTF). The move will drain most of the Afghan central bank’s capital, further perpetuating a currency crisis and a banking system collapse.
I probably wouldn’t have an issue if we seized $7 billion worth of heroin… but this is just wrong. On so many levels. It sets an awful precedent and sends the wrong message to other less than stable regimes.
Why couldn’t they keep the reserves at the Fed until a legitimate government was in place? Why not limit access to the funds, not allowing transfer out but allowing the funds to be used for currency stabilizing operations? If the Taliban is not the legitimate government, how can we take these funds and earmark them for payout of lawsuits against the Taliban? What gives us the right to seize another nation’s legally acquired reserves in the first place?
I know our use of the financial system to wreck countries is nothing new, but it deeply saddens me that these actions don’t receive more scrutiny. Bad actors always find ways around the measures and the people suffer. In corrupt states, people aren’t going to rebel against the bad actors or vote them out of office, so economic warfare isn’t a means to an end. It’s an end in and of itself and it’s cruel. An economic collapse affects the entire population for years to come. If anything, it’s a great way to inspire terrorism, not discourage it.
What are your thoughts?
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society