When Reserves Become Hostages: Gold, Sanctions and the Quiet Unravelling of the Dollar Order

The world did not wake up one morning and decide to hoard gold for fun. Central banks are buying because they no longer trust the Western system that issues the reserves they are meant to rely on. That is the starting point for any honest account of where the world economy is going.

Over the past two years the message from the non Western world has been simple. If your savings can be frozen on a minister’s whim, they are not reserves. They are hostages. The surface story is about gold prices and sanctions. The deeper story is about a monetary order that is quietly tearing itself apart.

How was the post war financial system supposed to work?

After 1945 the United States and its allies built a tightly controlled monetary architecture. International reserves were held mainly in three forms: dollars and other Western currencies, gold stored in New York or London, and claims on Western central banks and global institutions.

The purpose was practical. If a currency came under pressure, the central bank could deploy its reserves to steady the exchange rate. To do that efficiently you kept assets where the deepest markets were. New York and London became the hubs through which most serious interventions ran.

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank were created around this model, with the dollar as the anchor. The implicit bargain was simple. Other states would keep their savings in Western instruments and vaults. In return, Washington and its partners would offer liquidity, market depth and legal predictability. Your money was meant to be safe regardless of your domestic politics as long as you did not flagrantly break core financial rules.

You can criticise the imperial hierarchy behind this settlement. Many countries had little real choice in 1944. But for half a century the system at least pretended to distinguish between political disputes and the basic duty not to rip off your depositors.

When do “safe” reserves become seizable?

That distinction has collapsed. The most dramatic case is the treatment of Russian central bank reserves. Roughly three hundred billion dollars held in Western jurisdictions were frozen after the invasion of Ukraine. Officials in Europe and North America have since moved from freezing to discussing outright confiscation, with proposals to use the assets or their income stream to fund Ukraine.

Whatever view one takes of Moscow’s actions, the precedent is stark. A central bank that holds its assets in Western custody can now watch them immobilised if its state is declared an aggressor. In the next phase those assets may be diverted to a hostile government.

Venezuela’s experience delivered an earlier warning. Its central bank held nearly two billion dollars of gold at the Bank of England. Once Westminster recognised an opposition figure as interim president, two competing boards issued instructions for the same gold. British courts backed the board recognised by London, not the one recognised in Caracas. In practice, this meant Caracas could no longer rely on gold it believed it owned.

Even close allies have drawn lessons. Germany and other European states have quietly repatriated parts of their gold from New York and other foreign vaults over the past decade. Officially, these are routine adjustments. Unofficially, they reflect a simple calculation. If reserves are under foreign political and legal control, their safety is conditional.

Each case has its own legal nuances. The pattern does not. A system that sold itself as neutral market infrastructure is becoming an instrument of open political pressure. Once that shift is visible, other states must assume that their own reserves could become bargaining chips in a future confrontation.

Why are central banks running into gold despite its flaws?

If Western currencies and government bonds can be frozen or seized, what is left? For now, the easiest answer has been gold. Central banks can accumulate bullion and store it in their own vaults rather than in London or New York. That at least removes direct exposure to Western court orders.

But gold is a poor fit for the technical work central banks do. It does not pay interest. It is awkward for day to day intervention. Its price can be volatile in ways that have little to do with the needs of the domestic economy. And gold sitting under your own capital has one brutal vulnerability. It will only be taken if someone is prepared to replace your government or occupy your territory.

So gold is not a strategy. It is a bunker. Central banks are diving into it because they do not yet have a better exit route from a system they now know can turn their savings into leverage against them.

Can BRICS money really replace the dollar?

It is fashionable to talk about a BRICS currency as if a neat alternative is just around the corner. That flatters some hopes but ignores hard constraints.

The first problem is currency risk inside the bloc. If one creditor country accumulates large balances in a partner’s currency, it can find itself holding an asset that steadily shrinks in value. Russia’s growing pile of Indian rupees illustrates the point. You can be a net creditor in real terms and still watch the financial claim decay.

The second problem is political. A genuine common currency requires more than a logo. It needs a central bank, a shared fiscal authority and agreed rules about who receives how much of the new unit and on what terms. The United States built that structure between its states. The European Union, imperfectly, built something similar around the euro. The BRICS countries have nothing comparable. They differ too much in regime type, strategic interests and economic structure.

Finally, any rival monetary arrangement will face constant external pressure. Credit lines can be cut. Secondary sanctions can be threatened. Client governments can be leaned on to walk away from swaps and local currency settlement. Some of that pressure is visible. Some of it will never appear in public documents.

A more serious alternative is the one that lost at Bretton Woods. That is the idea of a neutral international clearing union with its own unit of account, in which surpluses and deficits between members are settled without passing through a single hegemon’s currency. This is technically feasible, and it would reduce the ability of any one state to turn payments infrastructure into a weapon. The obstacle is not financial engineering. It is political will among states that do not fully trust one another yet.

How did empire end up running on credit?

Behind the monetary architecture sits a simpler fiscal story. The core Western state in this system has funded decades of military interventions, tax cuts and corporate friendly programmes without asking either the wealthy or the broader electorate to pay the full bill.

Taxing the very rich risks losing their support and donations. Taxing the wider middle class risks losing elections. Cutting spending in any serious way means breaking campaign promises and detonating your own social settlement. So the state borrows instead.

In practice that means going back to the same wealthy interests it refuses to tax, borrowing the money and promising interest rather than a tax bill. For the creditor class this is an excellent arrangement. For the order as a whole it is a slow moving crisis. Public debt climbs into the tens of trillions. Deficits in the trillions become normal. Rating agencies quietly downgrade sovereign credit. Markets begin to ask when some future government will simply suspend payment in the name of social peace.

That is the backdrop to today’s monetary tensions. A hegemon that does not want to tax its own elites and does not want to shrink its global footprint looks outward for revenue.

Tariffs on imports are presented as punishment for foreign cheats. In reality they are taxes on domestic importers and consumers. Demands that allies pay more for their own defence or for access to cheap energy are dressed as fair burden sharing. In substance they are tribute demands. When you will no longer fund empire from your own surplus, you try to fund it from others.

Why is Europe turning itself into a paying customer?

This is the point at which Europe stops being a partner and becomes part of the revenue plan. The European Union has aligned tightly with Washington on sanctions and asset seizures, joined in attempts to strangle Russia economically and accepted a sharp increase in its dependence on United States energy.

Strip away the rhetoric and the arithmetic looks like this. European industry now pays far more for energy than it did when Russian pipeline gas was the backbone of supply. European utilities and states are signing long term contracts for liquefied natural gas shipped from America, committing hundreds of billions over the coming decade. European governments are taking on much of the economic blowback from the sanctions decisions, while having limited real influence over Washington’s strategy.

At the same time, by pushing hardest to confiscate Russian reserves and redeploy them, parts of the European legal system are behaving less like neutral venues for capital and more like an arm of political warfare. For five centuries Europe was one of the preferred places on earth to store and manage accumulated wealth. If the new message is that asset safety depends on aligning with one bloc in every conflict, large holders will act accordingly.

This is happening just as the core economies of Europe struggle with stagnation, deindustrialisation and strained public finances. Voluntarily undermining your jurisdiction’s reputation as a safe custodian in that environment is more than a tactical mistake. It is strategic self harm.

What does selective default look like in practice?

Once you accept the logic of asset seizure, an awkward question follows. If Western states can immobilise and repurpose hundreds of billions in Russian reserves once, what stops them treating other holdings in a similar way in future, whether through overt confiscation or through more subtle legal and regulatory tactics?

We are not predicting that large nominal holders will lose their entire positions. There are still strong reasons for Washington to honour its obligations, not least the damage any blatant default would do to its own banks and pension funds. The point is more basic. Central bank reserves are no longer regarded as sacrosanct. They are understood as instruments in a wider confrontation.

From the standpoint of any significant reserve holder outside the tight Western alliance, that is all that matters. Even a small perceived probability of arbitrary loss is enough to justify a gradual but determined search for alternatives. That is what we see in the data and in official statements from across the global South.

Diversification into gold despite its problems, greater use of local currencies where possible, development of alternative payment systems and regional clearing arrangements. None of these yet constitutes a clean break. Taken together they mark the erosion of the foundations that underpinned the post war dollar centred order.

How does lawfare collide with the “rules based order”?

The credibility problem is not merely financial. It is legal and moral. The same bloc that presents itself as defender of a rules based order has normalised practices that would once have been publicly unacceptable even to its own citizens.

There have been targeted killings at sea of alleged drug traffickers on boats in international waters, without arrest or trial. Severe economic measures have been applied in ways that obviously cripple civilian infrastructure far beyond any reasonable link to immediate military necessity. Principles of sovereign immunity that were treated as untouchable during the high era of globalisation are suddenly flexible when the target is a disfavoured government.

In many instances the full factual record is still emerging. Numbers are contested. Legal justifications are argued over. What is not in dispute is the pattern. Standards that are enforced ruthlessly on adversaries are quietly set aside for friends, for major powers and for the institutions of the order itself.

States in the global South do not need specialist commentary to see this. They watched how Russian and Venezuelan assets were handled. They watched how favoured allies were indulged. They heard open talk in Brussels and Washington about using other people’s reserves as war finance. Then they acted to reduce their exposure.

Why is China exiting cautiously rather than loudly?

One state sits at the hinge of this system. China’s rise over the past generation depended heavily on the very order that is now malfunctioning. It used the dollar as a transmission belt. It sold into Western demand for manufactured goods. It relied on access to global logistics, payments and information networks.

At the same time Beijing kept strong state control over the commanding heights of its domestic economy and never surrendered political authority to foreign capital or external institutions. That combination of public direction and disciplined markets is a key reason it has outperformed many other states in the global South working under the same global rules.

For China the question is not whether to leave the Western dominated monetary order but when and at what speed. Move too soon and you risk undermining the very system that still delivers useful leverage and export income. Move too late and you risk waking up to a sanctions shock or an asset seizure that destroys a large part of your stock of dollar claims.

That is why Beijing has moved cautiously rather than theatrically. It has increased gold holdings and local currency settlement while avoiding grand declarations. It has built alternative payment channels in parallel with rather than instead of legacy systems. It has deepened trade and infrastructure links with a wide network of partners without branding them as an explicit anti dollar campaign.

The more unpredictable Western policy becomes, the stronger the incentive to accelerate this process. But China will try to control both the timing and the narrative rather than simply reacting to each move by Washington or Brussels.

What does “end of empire” actually mean in numbers?

It is easy to declare that an empire is ending. It is harder to specify what that means in measurable terms. In monetary and economic language it does not mean the dollar suddenly disappears or Western economies collapse overnight. It looks more like a gradual loss of privileges that once seemed permanent.

Reserve data show the dollar share slowly sliding rather than crashing. Trade data show more invoicing in local currencies and more bilateral deals that bypass Western banks. Legal practice shows that reserves and custody are now openly used as tools of punishment rather than treated as neutral plumbing. Fiscal data show a widening gap between the costs of maintaining a global posture and the domestic willingness to fund it honestly.

On each of those axes the direction is clear even where the destination is not. The post 1945 order is changing. The questions are how fast, how chaotically and with how much collateral damage to societies that had no say in its design.

For Europe and the United Kingdom, the risk is obvious. Tie yourself uncritically to an order that is now openly weaponised and structurally unstable, and you import not just its protections but its liabilities. For the global South, the danger is that attempts to build a fairer system will be sabotaged by the same forces that turned the old one into an instrument of coercion.

The real contest is not between the dollar and a fantasy BRICS note. It is between a world where reserves and payment systems remain the private property of one camp, and a world where settlement is boring, neutral and predictable again. If that second world fails to materialise, the flight into bunkers will continue. The day Russia’s reserves were frozen and Venezuelan gold was locked away may come to be remembered as the moment the old order finally overreached.

References