China Daily udgiver stor profil af Helga
Zepp-LaRouche og LaRouche-bevægelsens arbejde

18. aug., 2017China Daily’s weekendudgave har en profil i fuld længde af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, af China Daily’s USA-korrespondent Chen Weihua, med titlen, »Identifying with China«  (Identificering med Kina) og med en indledning, der lyder, »Helga Zepp-LaRouche ser Bælte & Vej Initiativet som opfyldelsen af sin og sin mands, amerikanske politiske aktivist Lyndon LaRouches, livslange indsats«.

Helga under sit første besøg i Kina, i 1971.

Artiklen fortsætter dernæst med at diskutere Zepp-LaRouches første, lange besøg til Kina som ung journalist under perioden med Kulturrevolutionen. »Min generation var stadig nysgerrig over for verden«, siger Zepp-LaRouche. »I dag googler de unge mennesker blot om ting fra deres søgemaskine. Jeg ville se, hvordan verden ser ud.« I interviewet fortæller Zepp-LaRouche om nogle af sine indtryk fra dengang, inklusive, at nogle af de kinesere, hun mødte, talte tysk og beredvilligt talte om deres situation. »Hun fandt, at folk var ’venlige’, men sagde, ’Folk var slet ikke lykkelige’«, skriver Chen. På samme rejse, siger han, besøgte Zepp-LaRouche også Afrika og andre dele af Asien og så den enorme fattigdom. »Jeg kom tilbage fra denne rejse med den absolutte overbevisning, at verden måtte ændre sig, måtte blive forbedret«, sagde hun. Efter hjemkomsten søgte hun efter løsninger og stiftede bekendtskab med den amerikanske, politiske aktivist Lyndon LaRouches arbejde, skriver Chen, »som er bedre kendt som ophavsmanden til LaRouche-bevægelsen«.

»Bevægelsen, der har omfattet mange organisationer og selskaber i verden, promoverer en genoplivelse af klassisk kunst og større helligelse til videnskab; den er fortaler for udviklingen af store, økonomiske infrastrukturprojekter på global skala; og kræver en reform af det globale finanssystem, der tilskynder til investering i den fysiske økonomi og undertrykkelse af finansspekulation.«

»Helga fandt, at Lyndon var den eneste, der talte om behovet for udvikling og industrialisering af Afrika og den Tredje Verden, såvel som også etableringen af en internatonal udvikling, noget i lighed med Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB)«, skriver han. Helga Zepp og Lyndon LaRouche blev gift i 1977.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche var inviteret til at deltage på Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing, 14.-15. maj, 2017, hvor hun deltog i flere diskussionspaneler.

Artiklen fortsætter med at diskutere Helgas og hendes mands arbejde med at forfølge disse mål sammen med den indiske premierminister Indira Gandhi og Mexicos præsident José López Portillo. Zepp-LaRouche roser Kinas arbejde med Bælte & Vej og AIIB og fortæller om nogle af sine aktiviteter om dette spørgsmål i løbet af de seneste tre år, inklusive hendes deltagelse på Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing. »Jeg var meget glad for at deltage«, siger Zepp-LaRouche i interviewet, »for vi har kæmpet så længe for dette. Jeg identificerer mig på en måde med dette projekts succes.«

I interviewet taler hun også om betydningen af Trump-administrationens åbne holdning til Forummet, ved at sende en amerikansk delegation på højt niveau, og understreger, hvor fordelagtigt, samarbejde omkring Bælte & Vej ville være for genopbygningen af den amerikanske infrastruktur. Hun siger, at, under sine diskussioner med afrikanske delegerede på Beijing-forummet, var det tydeligt, at de nu har et håb for fremtiden, et håb, der var svært fraværende før det kinesiske initiativ. Chen fortsætter: »Helga siger, at det, Kina gør, har berettiget det, som hun og hendes kolleger har gjort i de seneste 40 år.« Vi er meget glade» for BVI, siger Zepp-LaRouche. »Det er én ting, at en lille organisation som vores producerer ideer, men det er en ganske anden ting, at verdens største land begyndte at gennemføre dem.« Hun beklager det faktum, at hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, der er 94 år, sandsynligvis ikke kommer til at besøge Kina. »Han elsker Kina«, siger Zepp-LaRouche, »og han er overbevist om, at det kinesiske initiativ (BVI) lige nu er den vigtigste ting på planeten.«

China Daily USA udkommer overalt i USA. Interviewet skal efter planen også udkomme i den europæiske udgave af China Daily i næste uge.

http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/




Xi-Putin topmøde udvikler spændende perspektiver
for kinesisk-russisk økonomisk samarbejde

5. juli, 2017 – Gid andre møder mellem internationale ledere var lige så lovende for deres nationers befolkninger, som det netop afsluttede topmøde mellem Xi Jinping og Putin!

De 40 bilaterale aftaler, der blev underskrevet, drejede sig om alt fra landbrug til samarbejde inden for Bælte & Vejs globale udviklingsinitiativ, med et par private kontrakter, der også blev underskrevet på sidelinjerne af topmødet. For at støtte disse økonomiske udviklingsinitiativer, gav præsidenterne deres støtte til aftalen mellem den Russiske Direkte Investeringsfond og Kinas Udviklingsbank, for at skabe en fælles investeringsfond på næsten $10 mia. (65 mia. yuan). Præsident Putin rapporterede, at de også havde aftalt »at fortsætte med konsultationer om den udvidede anvendelse af vore nationale valutaer i gensidige transaktioner og i investering«, og at de havde »sat sig den opgave mere aktivt at udvikle kreditsfæren og den finansielle sfære, samt samarbejdet i dette felt«.

Højteknologi og videnskabeligt samarbejde stod højt på deres dagsorden. Under deres pressekonference bagefter, nævnte Putin den succesfulde konstruktion af den første enhed af Tianwan-kernekraftværket (den største i drift i Kina, bygget med russisk teknologi) og sagde, at endnu to enheder ville komme i drift i 2018. De to præsidenter instruerede ligeledes det russiske atomenergiagentur Rosatom »om at underskrive en pakke af dokumenter om fire projekter for kernekraftværker i Kina før udgangen af 2017«, rapporterer Sputnik.

»I dag har vi særligt fokuseret på højteknologiske industrier – primært fælles rumforskning. Vi arbejder på det næste rumprogram for 2018-2022«, rapporterede Putin ligeledes.

Idet han nævnte Moskva-Kazan-højhastighedsjernbaneprojektet som blandt de fælles hovedprojekter, sagde Putin ligeledes, at de to havde drøftet »lokaliteten for rullende materielfremstilling i Rusland«.

Han rejse også spørgsmål om voksende videnskabelige og uddannelsesmæssige bånd mellem Rusland og Kina, og der er 17.000 russiske studenter i Kina, som præsidenten ser vokse til 100.000 studenterudvekslinger frem til 2020. For eksempel vil det første russisk-kinesiske universitet begynde at optage sine første studerende i september måned.

Under deres fælles pressebriefing understregede Putin atter engang, at deres fælles, økonomiske projekter udgør en del af deres bestræbelser for at »forbinde aktiviteterne i den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union med det kinesiske initiativ for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte«, som de diskuterede »i dybden … i overensstemmelse med vores idé om at danne et bredt, eurasisk partnerskab«.

Putin forklarede:

»Vi se et stort potentiale i den fælles anvendelse af den Nordlige Søfartsrute og den Transsibiriske Jernbane og Baikal-Amur-jernbanen. Dette er i vid udstrækning i overensstemmelse med vore kinesiske partneres initiativer, der blev drøftet under det nylige Bælte & Vej Internationale Forum i Kina. Den kinesiske leders initiativ fortjener omhyggelig opmærksomhed og vil blive støttet af Rusland på enhver måde.

Jeg er overbevist om, at disse storstilede projekter vil resultere i intensiv handel, moderne produktion og jobs og den hastige udvikling af russiske og kinesiske områder.«




’Arg fattigdom kan absolut besejres’

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. juni, 2017 – På nogle få årtier har Kina udført nogle økonomiske bedrifter, der har efterladt verden i en tilstand af lykkelig forbløffelse: de har bragt 700 millioner kinesere ud af fattigdom; hævet den forventede, gennemsnitlige levealder fra 35 år til 76 år i dag; lanceret videnskabeligt arbejde i verdensklasse omkring udforskning af rummet og udvikling af nuklear fusionskraft.

Men Kina hviler ikke på sine laurbær. Præsident Xi Jinpings regering planlægger at fjerne fattigdom i Kina – og der findes stadig 40 millioner mennesker i denne kategori – frem til år 2020. For nylig mødtes Xi med ledere af Kommunistpartiet i Kinas nordlige Shanxi-provins, hvor han sagde til dem:

»Så længe, vi gør os umage, tænker korrekt, træffer effektive forholdsregler og arbejder fornuftigt og nede på jorden, så kan arg fattigdom absolut besejres.«

Kina begrænser heller ikke sin ambitiøse plan til Kina alene. Udenrigsminister Wang Yi deltog den 21.-22. juni i en todages konference med den Afrikanske Union i Addis Abeba, hvor han erklærede, at »tæt ved 400 millioner mennesker i Afrika lever under fattigdomsgrænsen, og flere end 40 millioner kinesere har behov for at blive løftet ud af fattigdom. Kina og Afrika må gå sammen i kampen mod fattigdom og om at opnå fælles udvikling. Dette er vores ansvar over for de kommende generationer, det kinesiske og afrikanske folks fælles mål og en iboende del af menneskeligt fremskridt.«

Wang Yi rejste fra Etiopien til Libanon, hvor han understregede, at »Kina er fortaler for flere handlinger til at bremse en forværring af flygtningekrisen i Mellemøsten og finde en løsning så snart som muligt«, og tilføjede, at Kina er villig til at forstærke samarbejdet inden for rammerne af Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

Som Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, i de seneste uger gentagent har understreget, så var Bælte & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, der fandt sted i sidste måned, 14.-15. maj, i Beijing, – og hvor hun selv var en fremtrædende deltager – et vendepunkt i moderne historie i retning af at gøre denne plan til en global realitet. Med den forgangne uges vigtige indikationer på USA’s voksende involvering i Bælte & Vej-projektet, står vi nu på tærsklen til denne globale forandring.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, og hans hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har været frontkæmpere for mange af disse udviklinger, længe før de indtraf. Det var Lyndon LaRouche, der først erklærede, at USA’s tilslutning til Bælte & Vej Initiativet var nøglen til den strategiske krise, og til dette formål skabte han det programmatiske grundlag med sine Fire Love. Og det var Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der, i en tale i Chongqing i 2015, først opfordrede Kina til at være med til at løse krisen med krige og emigration i Mellemøsten og Afrika, ved at bringe Bælte & Vej, eller den Nye Silkevej, ind i dette område. Det er Schiller Instituttet, der har været pionerer inden for udbredelsen af klassisk musik og kultur som grundlaget for en dialog mellem civilisationer, med det formål at begrave britisk geopolitik, én gang for alle.

Vi står nu mindre end to uger fra begyndelsen af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, den 7.-8. juli, hvor historiske topmøder mellem og blandt Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Shinzo Abe, samt andre, vil finde sted. Men, uanset resultatet af disse møder, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag, er hele planeten nu i bevægelse under Bælte & Vej Initiativets overvældende dynamik. Et succesrigt resultat af dette initiativ er, som det har været tilfældet fra dets begyndelse, afhængigt af det enestående, strategiske og politikskabende, begrebsmæssige input, som LaRouche-bevægelsen leverer. Og det er denne bevægelses særlige ansvar, erklærede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at bruge sin organiseringsindsats til at introducere skønhed i den politiske debat.

Som Lyndon LaRouche har haft for vane at sige i årtier, så er tiden nu inde til at have det sjovt.

Foto: Præsident Xi Jinping mødes med repræsentanter, der deltager i Kinas Unge Pionerers 7. Nationale Kongres, i Folkets Store Hal i Beijing, 1. juni, 2015. (Photo Xinhua/Ma Zhancheng)




Trump vil samarbejde med Kina om Bælte &
Vej / Indsats for Glass/Steagall optrappes:
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
23. juni, 2017

… Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år.

Matthew Ogden: Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, redaktør for EIR’s økonomiske stof, og som har været meget aktiv i Washington, D.C., i den eskalerede kamp for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall og resten af hr. LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love i Hamiltons tradition. Han har mange opdateringer til os på denne front. Og via video har vi Diane Sare, LaRouche PAC Policy koordinator for New York, med os fra Manhattan. Hun har netop skrevet en artikel med titlen, »Gullivers rejse til Manhattan! Kun LaRouches Fire Love og Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ kan løse Manhattans infrastrukturkrise.« (EIR, 23. juni). Som vi alle ved, venter »Helvedessommeren« forude i New York City, mht. transportinfrastruktur.

Jeg vil straks begynde med nogle meget signifikante udviklinger i kampen for at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, ind i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. For det første vil jeg rapportere direkte, at Xinhua, et kinesisk nyhedsmedie, rapporterer, at præsident Donald Trump i går mødtes med Kinas statsrådgiver Yang Jiechi i Det Hvide Hus, og til statsrådgiveren Yang sagde, at USA er villig til at samarbejde om projekter relateret til det kinesiske Bælte & Vej Initiativ. De to havde dette møde i Det Hvide Hus som en del af statsrådgiver Yangs besøg til Washington; dette var et møde på højt niveau. Og, iflg. nyhedsrapporter, sagde Yang til præsident Trump, at Kina var meget tilfreds med, meget glad over og satte meget stor pris på det faktum, at Trump-administrationen havde besluttet at sende en repræsentant på højt plan – Matthew Pottinger – til at deltage i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing i sidste måned. Vi har rapporteret, at denne repræsentant for USA var en beslutning i sidste sekund fra Trumps side, og at det var en meget god beslutning. Rådgiver Yang sagde også til Donald Trump, at Kina ville være villig til at arbejde sammen med USA om Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år. Dette blev bekræftet af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson i en pressekonference, han holdt onsdag. Præsident Trump rapporterede ligeledes, at han ser frem til igen at mødes med præsident Xi Jinping ved G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, i juli måned. Det var første punkt, og det er naturligvis en meget signifikant udvikling.

Det andet punkt er, at der samtidig, dagen før dette møde mellem præsident Trump og statsrådgiver Yang, var en møde på højt niveau mellem tidligere kinesiske regeringsfolk og amerikanske erhvervsledere på højt niveau, i regi af et bilateralt eller fælles møde, der fandt sted mellem USA’s Handelskammer – der repræsenterer førende, amerikanske erhvervsinteresser – og Kinas Center for Internationale Økonomiske Udvekslinger, der er en regeringstilknyttet tænketank med base i Beijing. Under dette møde udstedte disse to grupper et fælleskommunike, der promoverede fælles samarbejde mellem USA og Kina.

Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk:

So, I’m going to put on the screen here a picture of this
meeting that occurred [Fig. 1].  As you can see, it’s the 9th
U.S.-China CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue; jointly
sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the China Center
for International Economic Exchanges.  What the joint communiqué
reports is that not only would the U.S. businessmen be interested
in joint cooperation on the Belt and Road, but they would also be
interested in cooperation on building U.S. infrastructure here
domestically.  So you can see here a direct quote from their
communiqué.  This is under the subtitle “Strengthening Investment
Cooperation Under the Framework of Belt and Road Initiative and
Through Other Means.”  So, here’s what it says:
“Investment is an important driver of China-U.S. trade
relations and the growth of the two economies.  There is great
potential for the two sides to further expand mutual investment.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has spurred investment in
infrastructure building, will considerably broaden the space for
Chinese and U.S. investment and open many opportunities for
Chinese and U.S. companies to cooperate in third countries.
Significant participation by U.S. companies, including in
partnership with Chinese companies, can make new contributions to
the furtherance of China-U.S. economic and trade relations.  In
certain areas, U.S. companies can offer the world’s best
technology and management capability, thereby helping to insure
smooth and efficient completion of Belt and Road projects.
Infrastructure building in the U.S. will generate an enormous
need for investment, and the new U.S. administration has
indicated that this is a major priority.  China has strong
capabilities and cost advantages in infrastructure building,
including the building of urban roads, expressways, fly-overs,
high-speed rail, and ports.”
It goes on to say: “Chinese companies and financial
institutions are ready to contribute to this effort through
financing and through the provision of goods and services.
Chinese investment in certain areas of U.S. infrastructure
development has the potential to help strengthen business
relations between the two sides, and in some cases, speed up
completion of the needed projects at lower cost and with greater
efficiency.  Both sides agreed that the two countries can engage
in full cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative and
through a number of other means, including the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the World Bank, and other
multilateral investment and financing institutions.”
Then it has a subtitle:  “Agreed Action”
“Within the next twelve months, the CCIEE and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will organize a conference on the Belt and
Road in China or in the United States; which will allow the
Chinese side to brief the U.S. side on the Belt and Road plans,
including initiative content, current progress and projects that
might be appropriate for U.S. company participation, including in
partnership with the Chinese companies.  The U.S. side will brief
the Chinese side on the latest infrastructure developments in the
United States and share reflections on pathways for Chinese
companies to participate in U.S. infrastructure revitalization
initiatives.”
So, this is a very important development.  And now, third,
here’s an article from {China Daily} which reports on a rather
extraordinary forum that happened in San Francisco yesterday,
which was titled “2017: U.S.-China Transportation Cooperation
Forum.”  Before I get to the next slide, just see here, the
beginning of the article.  It’s titled “Chinese Builders Wanted
in the U.S..”  The beginning of the article says, “Chinese
infrastructure techniques are urgently needed to rehabilitate
America’s poorly maintained and in some cases dilapidated bridges
and road system, industry experts from both countries agree.  The
fact that the U.S., the world’s most economically and
technologically powerful country, should import fast-train
know-how from a developing China, reflects a new normal for
China-U.S. cooperation and communication.”  Then, the article
quotes Chinese Consul-General to San Francisco Luo Linquan, who
gave the keynote.  He said, “China and the U.S. cooperation on
the infrastructure front is posed to become the new highlight in
the trade engagement between the two countries.  California along
with its neighboring states has especially close trade relations
with China,” he added. “The import and export volume between this
region and China has mounted to more than $201 billion in 2016.
The One Belt, One Road Initiative was conceived in China,” he
added, “but it provides a global platform for economic
development for all the countries participating.”
So clearly, all three of these are extraordinary
developments, highlighted by this meeting in the White House,
where Donald Trump said — according to Chinese reports — that
the United States would be happy to participate in the Belt and
Road Initiative.  This is clearly coming along very rapidly; and
as Helga LaRouche said when she was briefed on these developments
earlier today, she said “Remember, it was only three years ago,
in 2014, that the LaRouche movement put out the call for the
United States to join the Silk Road.”  I think you can remember
the pamphlet that was printed by the LaRouche Political Action
Committee that was called “A Hamiltonian Vision for the Future of
the United States:  The United States Joins the New Silk Road.”
But Helga LaRouche said, at that point — 2014 — this idea was
almost unheard of.  But now, as you can see from these
developments and otherwise, this initiative has really gained
prominence and is becoming a dominant reality.  It is very
urgently needed.  “We’ve seen a very significant victory,” she
said, “on this front; and we should recognize it as such.”  She
said, “I think an appropriate for this is ‘Ideas Matter; Ideas
Shape History’.”
I think you can really expect the consolidation of this with
the meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20 summit in July.  And
I think we can also see some dramatic developments between the
potential for a bilateral meeting — and this is becoming more
solid as the days go on — between Trump and Putin.  But, as the
lead article on the LaRouche PAC website states very clearly
today, although it’s widely expected that President Trump and
President Putin will meet for the first time on the sidelines of
this G20 summit, it’s very clear that the opponents of this
world-changing event of the United States-Russia-China
cooperation, are doing everything they can in an hysterical
fashion, to try to undermine this before it ever happens, to
force the cancellation, to cause it to become totally hostile, or
to cause there to be no positive progress that can be made out of
such a summit.  You see this crazy Russian sanctions bill that
was rammed through the Senate 98-2; you can see the efforts by
the U.S. forces shooting down this Syrian jet over Syrian
territory, which has the potential to develop very rapidly.  This
forced the Russians to again terminate the non-confliction
hotline between the United States and Russia.  You can see Steve
Mnuchin’s efforts to levy new sanctions against 38 Russian and
Ukrainian firms and individuals.  Then you can see this F-16 that
buzzed the military aircraft that was carrying Russian Defense
Minister Shoigu.  All of these are very dangerous, and are
obviously planned to try to derail any potential for a positive
relationship between the United States and Russia.
One only has to read this hysterical article in the
{Washington Post} today, “Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish
Russia for Putin’s Election Assault,” which only continues this
false narrative.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Not so secret.

OGDEN:  Not so secret.  So, that gives you a picture of
where we stand, but a very optimistic picture, as Helga LaRouche
underlined; if we see in terms of the potential for this United
States New Silk Road, New Paradigm consolidation.  But it’s very
urgent that this happen as well.  That was why I asked both Paul
and Diane to join me on the show today.
First, I’d like to ask Diane to go through a little bit of
what you have in this article.  As I said, it’s titled “Gulliver
Travels to Manhattan! Only LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Belt and
Road Can Save Manhattan Infrastructure Crisis.”  So Diane.

DIANE SARE:  Sure.  I was inspired, if one can call it that,
by my attendance at a Cranes, New York real estate conference,
where they had three panels.  The way it was billed was that —
and they had the CEO of the Port Authority, and the building
trades union, and Staten Island and Brooklyn.  And given what’s
about to happen here, which people may or may not be aware of,
basically we are at a total breakdown point in the greater
Manhattan area.  During the day in Manhattan, you have about 3.1
million people; at night, it’s about 1.8 million.  There’s
something between 1.5 million and 1.8 million who commute into
the city to the island of Manhattan on a daily basis.  That’s a
very large traffic flow.  Penn Station handles about 650,000
people a day; I think that’s triple what it was built for.
Similarly, every other major transit point, whether it’s coming
in from Long Island and Brooklyn across the East River, or coming
in from New Jersey on the western side, everything is completely
overloaded; at or well above capacity.  So now, the system itself
is anywhere from 70 to 100 years old, and very little maintenance
or repair or upgrading has been done.  We’re using switching
systems which were built before World War II largely; I think
they’ve modernized one line so far, and another one will be done
in a few years.  It really is insane.
So, I went to this conference, because starting on July 10,
since there were two train derailments in early April in Penn
Station on the tracks there, they’ve decided they cannot put off
repairing those tracks.  But of course, to repair tracks, then
you cannot use them while you’re repairing them.  They’re saying
they’re going to have to reduce the traffic coming in from Long
Island by 20%; I don’t know what the percentage is from New
Jersey, but it’s probably something similar or greater.  I know
the commuter routes from Essex and Morris Counties, which include
commuters coming in from Pennsylvania who go to various places
and then take a train into Penn Station, that’s all going to be
rerouted into Hoboken; the PATH system which is also overloaded.
At any rate, these repairs start on the 10th of July, and they’re
going to be going on for at least six weeks or longer.  Who
really knows, frankly?
There’s no redundancy.  This is a system that any section of
it that you shut down, if you’re talking about transit points
that are already functioning or not functioning I should say, at
over capacity.  And you’re going to add 20% more traffic, or 30%
more traffic, or 50% more traffic to it; you could have a total
breakdown of everything.  None of the plans I’ve seen so far
really are adequate.  I don’t know what they’re going to do as
they get closer; maybe they’re going to have to have people come
into work on rotating shifts, people’s hours are going to change,
I don’t know.  But at any rate, I was hoping that this conference
might address it.  What I heard there — and it’s not as though
these speakers were completely incompetent or were not aware of
the crisis in some way — but what you saw was that people’s
thinking has been so warped.  One, as I said in the article, by
this Bertrand Russell legacy that there’s no such thing as a
creative idea, or a new idea; but that everything is an algebraic
system of linear deduction.  Of course, from that standpoint, you
could never conceptualize where this region should be in 50 or
100 years.
So, the things that they were proposing be done, like
turning Rikers Island into a part of LaGuardia Airport —
LaGuardia Airport, as people may know who have travelled into New
York, is very much overloaded.  They don’t have the space for the
number of flights that are coming in, and they’re projecting that
by 2030 there will be another 30 million people per year trying
to fly into the city.  So, how do you handle this?  They said,
well we need 75 more flight operations per hour.  Taking over all
of Rikers Island for this and a new wastewater treatment plant,
only gives you an increase of 30 more flight operations per hour.
So, why would you do that?  What is the point of investing in
something that doesn’t even meet either the current needs or what
you are projecting?  It’s really insane.  So, you have that
factor; and the other factor is the funding, which I think Paul
may deal with more; but the idea that everything can only be done
through public-private partnerships.  As people know, my
colleague Bill Roberts has an article in the same issue of {EIR}
about the Soo Locks, where of course they figured out in 1986
that this is a key transshipment point for coal and other things
in the United States; and they really needed to be repaired and
modernized.  So, this was approved in 1986, but they concluded
that you’d only make back 75 cents on the dollar of what was
invested.  Clearly by Bertrand Russell-type methods, where it’s
all linear, because if you cause 11 million people to be
unemployed, which is what would happen if this thing wasn’t done,
that’s not taken into account.
Similarly, the speaker at this conference from Brooklyn,
showed pictures of the damage from Hurricane Sandy, which were
horrific; I was here in New Jersey when that occurred.  We didn’t
have electricity for about two weeks; it was very damaging, very
devastating.  There were several proposals made in 2009 at a
conference in Manhattan for storm surge barriers.  My favorite
was a five-mile one that went from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to
the Rockaways.  So you go across the whole area before you even
get to Staten Island, and it would have an underground tunnel and
it would have gates that came up; but normally the ocean would be
flowing through.  I think that would cost something like $6
billion.  I can see these silly accountants with their
mathematical methods saying $6 billion, what’s the profit?  Well,
how about saving $80 billion?  $6 billion versus $80 billion in
damage when you get one of these storms.  But nonetheless, they
decided not to build it, and we got what we got with Hurricane
Sandy.  So, because of the way people think in terms of
worshipping money, as opposed to seeing money as a means of
credit generation, or as a means of figuring out how to measure
the cost of an improvement that you need; which will lead
ultimately to the increase in the productivity of your
population.
What does it mean when you say we want our standard of
living to be higher?  Well, that doesn’t mean having seven
television sets in every room as opposed to one, or something
like that.  When you say the standard of living, we mean things
like life expectancy, being free from disease, being better
educated.  How many Americans speak only one language, and maybe
that’s an exaggeration to say that Americans even speak a
language.  Many people now do not have a very good command of the
English language, which is our language in this country.  In
other words, how many Americans know how to read music?  How many
Americans have conducted basic scientific experiments in school;
have ever tried to make a painting or a work of art or write a
poem?  In other words, by standard of living you mean that
there’s a life expectancy which allows for a young person to be
educated to the age of 22, 25, 28; and then that person has an
adult lifespan in which they’re still developing and learning.
You can get human beings developing a quality of genius which
contributes to the future for all mankind.
The only reason for money, is to create a situation where
you can think in those terms.  That the people living 100 and 200
years from now will live longer, be healthier, be better
educated, and be better; which is what you would want.  Who
really wants to be the best of all time?  That means, in effect,
that your life is meaningless, if everything coming after you is
going to be worse than you.  So, that’s the point of economy; but
none of these people was thinking that way at all.  It really
struck me that here we are sitting on potential complete chaos;
you already had two weeks ago, there was a subway that got stuck,
and it didn’t have air conditioning because the power was out.
So you had people packed in this car, and the temperatures were
getting to 100 degrees, it was like a sauna in there.  No one
could move for 45 minutes and they were on the brink — as you
might imagine — of getting completely panicked.  Happily, no one
had a heart attack or other medical disaster, but it does make
people nervous.  A few days ago, another subway car was stalled
out, so people went out the back exit and got down on the track
and started walking to the station.  That’s extremely dangerous.
What happens if you lose all order because people just panic
because they don’t know if they’re going to reach their
destination?  They don’t want to be stuck in a subway for hours
on end.  We’re really on the brink of a situation like that.
People would be prepared to tolerate hardship if they knew that
there was a plan to actually address it.
For example, if President Trump, as a result of his
dialogues with Xi Jinping and President Putin, were to say “Look,
we actually think the Bering Strait tunnel should be built within
the next decade; and we’re going to launch a crash program with
China and Russia to develop high-speed rail corridors across the
United States.  So that Manhattan really should be connected with
Paris; and that’s something that will happen.  I’m going to
initiate that in my Presidency, and it’s something that will be
completed during a future administration.”  Now knowing Trump,
he’d probably say “Well, it has to be done within my first term.”
But at any rate, what would that mean for Manhattan?  What kind
of infrastructure would you want to have in place?  If you had
high-speed rail connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia,
Manhattan, New York City, and Boston, then you would know that
you might have a free flow of people in the entire northeastern
coastline — this huge metropolitan area — because you’re
talking about taking an hour to travel from D.C. to New York.
So, what does that mean?  What do you want New York City to look
like under those circumstances?  Maybe we have to consider taking
advantage of this massive 22% of New Jersey’s land areas in the
Pine Barrens, and convert part of that into a large city where
part of the population of New York City could be relocated, while
you build something which is actually appropriate.  But no one is
thinking in this way.
Apparently, plans have been made, as we know with the Soo
Locks, plans have been made.  There are engineers who are highly
competent who are aware of these things, who know that there are
limits on the life expectancy of cast iron and things like that.
They may have long life expectancies, but there is a point at
which things begin to corrode and things like that.  So, plans
have been made, plans exist.  But where do you get the funding to
implement it?  What is the magnitude of these plans?  If the
population were aware that such a thing existed, that is was
going to be set into motion, then people would be prepared to put
up with a certain amount of hardship; probably very happily,
knowing that their children were going to live in a much more
beautiful and functioning location than we currently do now.
So, this is the battle.  And I think Matt, what you reported
just at the beginning of this show, in terms of the commitment of
President Trump to work with the Chinese, the commitment of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce explicitly to collaborate with the Belt
and Road Initiative; this is extremely promising, and should
absolutely be promoted.

OGDEN:  Well, I think those scare stories you have from New
York City should probably encourage people that this is a rather
urgent initiative.  I know from talking to Paul, that you have a
few more scare stories that you might want to share with us.  I’m
going to just let you go through a few of those also.

GALLAGHER:  Well, I’m going to come back to this.  I wanted
to just briefly sketch the fight around Glass-Steagall; but I’m
going to come back to this in particular on the character of the
PPPs — public-private partnerships — as actually “poison pill
policy,” which is really threatening this entire potential for
collaboration, China-U.S. collaboration both on the Belt and
Road, and also starting with the Bering Strait Tunnel.  Also in
regard to infrastructure in North America and infrastructure in
the United States.
But on Glass-Steagall, let me just indicate, you have a very
stark comparison in terms of infrastructure investment between
the United States and China.  In the United States, about $300
billion is invested in infrastructure every year, and that is,
every school, every hospital, every road job, every subdivision’s
new sewer and water and optical fiber, and so forth — that is
absolutely everything, public, private, local, Federal, amounts
to about that much investment.  In China, the four major state
banks which provide the credit for the infrastructure
breakthroughs that have been made in China, those four banks
issue about $140 billion worth of credit annually for high-speed
rail in China alone.  And just that form of advanced
infrastructure and just that public investment by those four
national banks:  the Exim Bank, the China Development Bank, the
other China policy banks, as they’re called.  That investment in
just high-speed rail is half of the total investment made by the
United States — public, private, in every form, on every kind of
infrastructure and every public band-aide that’s put on, and
claimed as infrastructure, every year.
In addition, those banks in China have invested and
committed $300 billion just in the three years since the Belt and
Road Initiative of President Xi began to take off, and that $300
billion invested and committed by those banks is outside China.
So that’s going on simultaneously with the large-scale
investments in completely frontier, including things like maglev
subways, in the major cities of China, and there are many, many,
many major cities in China as people know.
So this is widely in the financial press in the United
States and Europe, the old imperial liberal order defends itself
by saying, “This credit issuance of China can’t possibly be
sustained.  There will be a tremendous, earthshattering collapse
of all of this infrastructure credit, because the banks — it has
dwarfed even what the Federal Reserve has done for the banks
here, and for a good purpose, and it can be sustained; it’ll all
blow up.”  There is a very fundamental difference here, though,
in that China, for the last 20 years has had bank separation; it
has many shadow banks, it has a lot of investment companies
involved in broker-dealers, but they are completely separated
from the both private commercial banking system, which they want
to build up further, and also from this kind of public banking.
So that these banks are not involved in the $550 trillion
derivatives exposure of the banks in London and New York.  These
banks are not involved in securities speculation.  They are able
to handle bankruptcies; they’re able to handle non-performing
loans when they appear in various sectors as the economy
develops.  So, Glass-Steagall, although they don’t call that law
“Glass-Steagall” in China, that bank separation is important to
what they are able to do and the fact that they’ve been doing it
now for 20 years on a level of spending nearly 9% of their GDP on
new infrastructure every year, for more than 20 years.  Compare
that to the United States, which spends about 1.3% of its GDP now
on infrastructure annually. They’ve been able to do that, and
keep it up.
Now, we’ve been fighting for Glass-Steagall in Washington.
It’s really taken on much more of the characteristics of a good
brawl, in the recent weeks.  It’s become a big public fight, for
one thing, where you have on the one hand, especially for the
last two months, three months,  — on the one hand, you have all
the financial press and the major national {Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, New York Times}, running all kinds of editorials
and op-eds on why Glass-Steagall is not necessary, why it’s
terrible, why it’s completely outdated;  it was only repealed 20
years ago, but it’s completely outdated, practically a relic of
the Middle Ages, why it didn’t have anything to do with the crash
in 2008, and so on and so forth.  You have that going on, you
have think tanks in Washington, like Heritage Foundation and
American Enterprise Institute running whole events which consist
of nothing but examining Glass-Steagall.  I went to one recently,
at the American Enterprise Institute, where six different
speakers were attacking Glass-Steagall.  The only person in the
room who was fighting for Glass-Steagall was me, and I was not
one of the speakers.
So you have these kinds of attacks on it, but also the
sponsors.  The main sponsors of the House bill, Marcy Kaptur (D)
of Ohio, Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina, the Republican main
sponsor, have started to really fight publicly.  They had a
public press conference when they introduced the bill three and a
half months ago with 25 sponsors.  They now have about 55
sponsors as a result of fighting for it publicly since then.
This is a much faster rate of getting sponsors onto the bill than
was the case in the last session, where eventually there were
about 85 sponsors after two years of work.  But in this case, the
week before last they had a congressional briefing for the staffs
of Congressmen throughout the House, about somewhere between 35
and 40 other Congressmen sent their staffs to this briefing, so
it was really quite a packed event in one of the office
buildings, to take notes and report back to their Members of
Congress.  And not only Kaptur and Jones, but also experts from
the AFL-CIO, from the Americans for Financial Reform, from Public
Citizen; Nomi Prins, an independent, former investment banker and
author on banking, independent expert — they all testified.  And
this is causing a tremendous amount of discussion throughout the
House in particular.
On the Senate side, the leading sponsors have all made it a
point to draw out the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and make
it clear that what he was advising Donald Trump to do during the
campaign essentially, was not the real Glass-Steagall or anything
like it; but rather Mnuchin’s advice to Trump during his
campaign, was to talk about Glass-Steagall while Mnuchin
privately was designing something which was really Wall Street
deregulation like the bill that recently passed the House.
So the fact that they have really broken Mnuchin down on
this and made him say “No, no, no, I don’t believe in anything
like separating commercial and investment banking.”  This has
also dramatically clarified issues for people in both the Senate
and the House.  And secondly, we have begun to get close to the
mobilization of large organizations, large trade unions,
coalition organizations like Public Citizen, and in this I don’t
mean them endorsing Glass-Steagall, I mean them mobilizing their
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of members to demand this from
Congress.  We’ve come very close to getting to that stage, and in
particular you saw last week a broadcast that Public Citizen ran
on their Facebook page with Rep. Marcy Kaptur, in which they were
motivating and calling on their reportedly 400,000 members to go
after Congress to get this.
So the objective is to get from the 55 sponsors now to 100
— fast.  Because it’s not so important in the Senate, to pile up
a lot of sponsors — there are only a 100 Senators. It’s very
important in the House, when the leadership of both parties is
against Glass-Steagall, which they are: Both the Republican and
the Democratic leadership do not want to see it; the Democratic
leadership wants to cling onto this failed Dodd-Frank Bill, and
pretend that Obama came up with something nice there.  And the
Republican leadership wants to give Wall Street every kind of
deregulation that they’ve ever asked for.
So in that situation, it is crucial to get to 100 sponsors.
This is the stated objective of the major sponsors in the House
and when they do that, then they really want to go public and
start to hold the kind of press conferences and press bugging of
other Members which will get widely covered in the media and
really  make this into a bigger brawl.
So that’s just an indication of some of the things we have
been getting going.  And one of the arguments that Jones and
Kaptur have started to use, for example when they — I didn’t
mention this, but they also went to the Rules Committee when it
was marking up this crazy Republican deregulation bill called the
“Financial CHOICE Act.”  They went to the Rules Committee with an
amendment that said, strike CHOICE Act, take it away, and put
Glass-Steagall reinstatement in its place, and that’s our
amendment.” So they got to make a fight in front of the Rules
Committee on that.
But they’ve begun to make the very coherent argument that
not only did Glass-Steagall’s elimination lead directly to the
crash in 2008; there’s no need to go over this now, it’s the most
obvious thing in the world to most thinking Americans.  It’s like
the guy who ate nothing but McDonalds food for four months and
after four or five months his organs were failing, he was
catastrophically obese, he was near death!  And this is like
saying “there was no connection, there were other factors that
brought this guy into this condition.  It wasn’t the McDonald’s
Big Macs that he was eating.”  That’s what it amounts to to tell
Americans that less than 10 years after getting rid of
Glass-Steagall, the whole banking system blew up simultaneously,
which has never, for all of the major banks to be bankrupt at the
same time, as Ben Bernanke admitted they were, has never happened
in the entire history of the United States.  It took less than 10
years without Glass-Steagall to bring that about.
So they also are now arguing that the period in which
Glass-Steagall was in effect, which is also the period in which
the biggest infrastructure investments in new infrastructure in
the United States were being made, from the ’20s, up through the
end of the ’60s and into the ’70s, that that was a golden era of
productivity in the United States.  We had a banking system then,
which concentrated not only on loaning to  — but you see it in
many examples of the history of that period — concentrating on
making commercial and industrial loans to businesses for
expansion and for participation in major projects.  You don’t
have that kind of a banking system without Glass-Steagall;
instead, you have a banking system which wants to underwrite bond
issues for only the biggest corporations, with which they can
play around with their stock prices and so on.  And it brings the
entire economy down.
It gets us right back — and they’re making now the right
argument and very powerful argument, that if we want to rebuild
the United States, and particularly build new, frontier new
infrastructure in the United States, we have to have a commercial
banking system which is separated from securities broker-dealing
and speculation in the derivatives markets; and which is
concentrating on household lending and commercial and industrial
lending to the companies participating in these great projects.
Now, public-private partnership is, again, back to Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin, the conference that was held in Washington
last week, SelectUSA, which was a conference trying to get
foreign investment in the United States.  So this is the Treasury
Department; you’ve already given the context for this, along with
what Diane reported, in terms of the imminent potential,
absolutely imminent potential for large-scale investment,
particularly from China in an infrastructure build in the United
States.  instead, what the Treasury Secretary went there and
offered was, he said:  We want this kind of investment and
public-private partnerships are critical.
Suffice it to say, never in the United States has a major
infrastructure project or major new element of the infrastructure
of the United States, {never} has such a thing been constructed
with a public-private partnership, let alone by private
investment alone.  The Transcontinental Railroad was by no means
a public-private partnership.  And these things simply don’t
work.  The investors in them want their capital back in 10 years,
and they want 10-12% rates of interest in their invested capital
during that 10 years.  Well, that means they want it back, if
it’s anything major, while the thing is still not finished, and
still not being used to a full extent; and they want to
absolutely rob the public taxpayers whose money is going into
such a project.  It simply cannot work, and it will sabotage
foreign investment in new infrastructure building in the United
States if this method is used.
We have a threadbare public investment in infrastructure
now.  What President Trump has spoken about, the time has run out
for him and for the Congress to implement it.  They have to now
create, immediately, a National Bank on the order of $1-2
trillion in capital, in the way that Alexander Hamilton and his
successors in the American System built such National Banks
starting in 1790, through the 19th century.  They have to create
such a bank {now}, so that there is a credit institution here, to
cooperate with the credit institutions like those in China that I
was discussing earlier.
Otherwise, we are really facing disaster.  I’ll give you an
example:  I went to  a Congressional hearing yesterday and talked
to some of the witnesses who were involved in exactly trying to
organize some of the infrastructure developments that Diane
indicated are so needed in the New York area.  One of them is a
bridge over the Hackensack River near Secaucus, New Jersey,
called the Portal Bridge, which is 108 years old.  It was
designed in the 19th century, completed in 1910.  It has ships go
under it by splitting the bridge, but opening as a drawbridge.
All of the rail traffic, freight and passenger, between Florida
and Massachusetts goes over that bridge — all of it!  And that
bridge, when they open it to get a ship go through, when they try
to close it now, 9 times out 10, according to the fellow who
spoke to me there, 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t close properly,
so that rails don’t align.  And they then send workers out on the
concrete abutment of the bridge with sledgehammers, and they
hammer at the iron trusses of the bridge to get the rails to
align.
All that it would take is for them to be able to unable to
get them to align, once, and as he estimated, that would be a
single-point loss of potentially 10% of U.S. gross domestic
product.  Right there.
And then you have, in the Poe Lock, the potential failure of
the Poe Lock between Lake Superior into Lake Huron, and the whole
Mesabi Iron Range, and all of the ships which are carrying all of
the strategic metals, the iron, the coal coming out of Northern
Minnesota, Ontario, the Mesabi Range, all of that would be
stopped:  another 10% of the gross domestic product of the United
States would be frozen and they estimated up to 11 million jobs
would be lost.
So you say, “well of course, they’re replacing this bridge
at Hackensack,” but actually, they’re not!  They don’t have the
funds!  They have a plan, it’s all worked out, it’s engineered,
but the replacement is not under way.
So you have here, the makings of a movie you could call it,
a suspense thriller: “The Bridge over the Hackensack River.”  But
with 10% of the U.S. economy hanging on the guys banging those
rails back into place, but there is not any funding arranged to
replace that bridge.  And you can multiply that for all the other
things that have to be done.
We’re very far from the frontier, national high-speed rail
network, nuclear desalination plants, the Western water
management systems,  — we’re very far from the frontiers in
space infrastructure that we have to be building. We’re actually
threadbare in terms of just continuing to use, and have an
economy, what we already have.
So there’s no time at all left, for these wonderful
prospects by the discussions with the Chinese now at the highest
level, between President Trump and one of the tope people in the
Chinese government, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, for these
wonderful prospects to be backed up by the institution which
issues credit for the United States, a Hamiltonian bank for
investment.  It must be formed.  It must come out of the Congress
with the drive from the White House in order to get it done.

OGDEN:  As you said, time is running out: We’re five months
now into the Trump administration, and you highlighted the role
of Steve Mnuchin:  I think this continues to be a very bad
element in the Trump administration.  And the kind of support
that Trump gained from his support for Glass-Steagall during the
Presidential election campaign, is something that has now — that
has to become visible.  That has to become a visible, vocal, sort
of element from the population, from the constituency.  And I
just want to put on the screen the URL that we have for the
mobilization that we have for H.R.790: That’s the bill that’s in
the House, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act” —

GALLAGHER:  The Glass-Steagall bill.

OGDEN:  Which was introduced by Marcy Kaptur and Walter
Jones.  This is the return to Glass-Steagall.  As you can see,
this is the website:  http://lpac.co/hr790  And I think that this
goal of reaching 100 cosponsors in a very short amount of time,
is a very tangible goal that we can mobilize for, along with this
vision of, the United States joining the New Silk Road.  But
Paul, as I think you just laid out very clearly, that is
impossible without Glass-Steagall.  You cannot set up the kind of
national credit institutions, the national banking credit
institutions that would channel that kind of joint investment
into this infrastructure in the United States, without this
critical first step of the return to Glass-Steagall.
One thing I wanted to ask you about, Paul, is just the
prognosis on how close we could be to another disastrous blowout
of the trans-Atlantic banking system.  I know Nomi Prins did an
interview a few months ago with you, where she highlighted a few
of these things with the corporate debt bubble.  But that’s
something that Marcy Kaptur cited in her testimony to the Rules
Committee, and I think that element of urgency is also necessary
to put in here.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170319/interview-nomi-prins]

GALLAGHER:  We don’t know how much time, because it’s
impossible to put a finger on a date when a really huge and
increasing unproductive debt bubble, in this case, as
Representative Kaptur identified, the corporate debt bubble in
the United States, when it’s going to blow up.  But, the size of
corporate debt in the United States has doubled in seven years,
from about $7 to about $14 trillion, with really the great
majority of that tremendous debt expansion being used for what
they call “financial engineering” by large companies: Meaning
buying back their own stock, mergers and acquisitions, finding
ways to increase the dividends they give to their stockholders,
increasing their own executive compensation — all of this kind
of financial engineering has used in various years up to 80-85%
of this new corporate debt.
What has really suffered in the process has been business
capital investment and the commercial and industrial lending,
which it depends on. So that that tremendously expanding bubble
has stopped expanding.  And this has been noted  rather suddenly,
by everybody from the IMF to individual bank research teams,
since April of this year, that suddenly that tremendous expansion
has stopped; as happens with an immense bubble that’s about to
explode, and it started to shrink.  And there was a report put
out by UBS bank in Switzerland about two weeks ago which caused a
certain amount of alarm, because they found that what they call
the “credit impulse,” had gone negative in the last six months —
they’re talking globally now — meaning that the second
derivative, the rate of the rate of growth of business lending
around the world had suddenly in the last six months become
negative.  And that is something which virtually always points to
a bubble about to collapse.
This is a very huge one, indeed.  The IMF estimated that if
interest rates were to go up sharply in the United States, 20% of
all the companies in the United States would default.  That’s way
above the rate of defaults on mortgages even at the worst 10
years ago; and the whole thing would come crashing down.
So we need the reorganization of the banking system,
urgently, for that reason, also in order to make the commercial
banking side of it proof against this kind of a blowout.  And so
you don’t have, again, a situation in which the bankruptcy of any
investment bank, let’s say, becomes, almost overnight, the
bankruptcy of every major U.S. based bank as happened in late
September 2008.

OGDEN:  I would say, this is real policy.  This is what
anybody who’s serious is discussing right now.  And the failed
decision by the Democratic Party, for example, to just be the
party of resistance, is increasingly proven to be an increasingly
proven to be very ill-advised policy.  And I think even Sen.
Chris Murphy made some headlines this week where he said:  Look,
none of my constituents are talking about “Russia,” when I go
home.  They’re talking about jobs, drugs, poverty.  They’re
talking about exactly what we’re discussing here!  Hmm, gee,
maybe we shouldn’t be pumping anti-Putin propaganda all day every
day.
So, I wanted to ask Diane, you know, we’ve had some
surprising reports — or surprising for some — from the streets
of Manhattan, where you would assume because of the 24-hour-a-day
anti-Putin propaganda that people are being inundated with, that
this would be the only thing that’s on people’s minds.  But as we
saw, the reality on the ground in New York is the collapsing
infrastructure.  This is what people are actually interested in
talking about.  And we’ve had some rather surprising readings
from the population there in New York and northern New Jersey, in
the recent weeks.

SARE:  Sure.  We’ve had numbers of teams set up by the
roadside in New Jersey or right in the middle of the large
sidewalks in Manhattan, with giant signs saying “Defend Trump.
Stop Here.  Donald can’t do it alone, join LaRouche PAC.  The
U.S. must join the Belt and Road.  Russia-Gate Is a Comey Plot!”
And many people are coming up to our tables and we’re actually
getting a very hot response, much more intense than at any period
since the election, with people coming over saying, “You know, I
thought I was the only one.  The propaganda is so intense, I
don’t dare to say that I supported Trump at my workplace.”
We had a very strong response also in Connecticut, Long
Island, Jersey and Manhattan per se, where we are getting this
type of response.
And I also just wanted to add, in light of this crazy
continuing of the story about the alleged Russian hacking which
somehow caused people to change their mind on how they were
voting.  Remember we did just did have the special election for
Congress, in South Carolina and Georgia, where the Democratic
candidates, one of whom I think spent $33 million or some
absolutely obscene amount of money, and still lost the election.
And it’s not because the Republican candidates were so brilliant;
it’s because the population has really had it and this is where,
if President Trump moves in a very big way, very public way to
embrace the Chinese offer, to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act so
we can have a sane banking system, and to launch some of these
infrastructure projects on a Federal basis, you would just see an
incredible upsurge of support.  And most of this vicious,
including assassination threats and so forth, these attacks on
the President, would simply evaporate and the people that persist
would be shown for the paid agents of the British Empire and
George Soros that they are.

OGDEN:  I think it was clearly said by Helga LaRouche:  We
have a very significant victory to claim, I think both in terms
of the further consolidation of this idea that the United States
should join the New Silk Road, and the fact that these
discussions are now going on at the very highest level between
the United States and China.  But also in terms of this fight for
Glass-Steagall and as Paul said, this is something that LaRouche
PAC has been directly involved in, on the forefront of leading
for year — 2008, 2009?  Lyndon LaRouche’s call at that time was
for a complete bankruptcy reorganization of the economy.  It was
initially the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act and that became
this idea of the Four Laws.

GALLAGHER: August 2007 was the Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act.

OGDEN:  That’s right. So now we’re coming up on 10 years!  I
think that’s widely recognized, the leadership that the LaRouche
movement has played, including on Capitol Hill from the sponsors
of this legislation.  So this decision now to mobilize and to
really enter into a brawl, the fight is on on that front and we
have a responsibility to pour as much as we can, from around the
country, in mobilizing on that front, too.
I think that’s a good conclusion for our webcast here,
today.  Thank you Diane, for joining us from New York, and thank
you very much Paul for joining me here.

GALLAGHER: A pleasure.

OGDEN:  Stay tuned to larouchepac.com and we’ll talk to you
soon.




FOLKEMØDET PÅ BORNHOLM:
SCHILLER INSTITUTTET DELTAGER MED FIRE
REPRÆSENTANTER I MANGE DEBATTER
OG INTERVENTIONER

Nyhedsorientering maj/juni 2017

18. juni, 2017 – Schiller Instituttets 4 mand store delegation fik skabt en del opmærksomhed ved at synge tostemmig kanons, som fik mange mennesker til at stoppe op, og vi uddelte Schiller Instituttets Nyhedsorientering, der handler om den historiske konference i Beijing, “Bælte & Vej Forum”. På vores plakat stod der, »Fremtiden ligger i Kinas Bælte & Vej«, med et billede af infrastruktur, der binder verden sammen.

 

 

Vi deltog i debatmøder, hvor vi kunne stille relevante spørgsmål. Vi uddelte over 900 eksemplarer af Nyhedsorientering og kom i samtale direkte på stedet med mere end halvdelen af de mennesker, der tog vores materiale. Vi har bl.a. talt med folk, der har været i Kina og er meget begejstret for den udvikling, der er i gang dér. Mange af de mennesker, vi talte med, kunne huske os fra før. En dame kom op til os og sagde, »Det er jo jer, der har talt om Silkevejen, før det blev til Kinas politik«. Hun var meget imponeret over, at Kina har vedtaget den Nye Silkevej, og hun tog vores materiale med stor interesse. En bornholmer stoppede op, da han kendte os fra før og i mange år havde støttet os. Han var glad over at se, at hans støtte har båret frugt.

Vores sang fik mange mennesker til at komme op til os. Mange stoppede op for at lytte, fordi, som nogle sagde, det varmede deres hjerte. Flere klappede og andre kom op til os for at rose os for at synge så dejligt.

Den første dag var det hovedsaglig sang og uddeling; de andre dage deltog vi i flere debatter og blandede os med spørgsmål.

På Folkemødets anden dag deltog Schiller Instituttets repræsentanter i et politisk møde, der fandt sted i Akademikernes Hus, organiseret af DJØF’erne. Emnet var »Verdensordenen efter Trump og Brexit«, hvor Mogens Lykketoft (S), Storbritanniens ambassadør til Danmark Dominic Schroeder og USA’s fungerende ambassadør Laura Lochman talte.
Diskussionen var meget baseret på den forandring, der er i gang omkring den kendsgerning, at Donald Trump er blevet valgt til præsident, hvilket Mogens Lykketoft ikke var så glad for. Mogens udtrykte mest sin bekymring for, at USA har trukket sig ud af Paris-klimaaftalen, og at Trump ikke vil samarbejde med Kina. Vi benyttede muligheden for at stille nogle spørgsmål.

Feride på Folkemødet 2017

Feride I. Gillesberg fik stillet første spørgsmål, hvor hun bl.a. sagde:

»For en måned siden var der ’Bælte & Vej Forummet’ i Beijing, hvor USA havde en særlig udsending, Matthew Pottinger.  Konferencen skulle konsolidere Kinas politik for Bælte & Vej, der omfatter hele verden; ikke kun Kina. Bælte & Vej er allerede nu omkring 30 gange større en Marshallplanen (for Europa efter krigen). Den amerikanske præsident er åben over for samarbejde omkring det. Det andet, vigtige spørgsmål er samarbejdet med Rusland … De amerikanske medier har kørt en kampagne for at begå karaktermord på præsidenten, lige siden han blev valgt, i bl.a. New York Times, og med et teaterstykke, ’Julius Cæsar’, der spilles i New York Central Park, og som går ud på at myrde den amerikanske præsident. Der er et billede i omløb, hvor præsidenten har fået skåret hovedet af … Scenen er sat til at myrde præsidenten. Det gamle paradigme med Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, briterne, MI6 og de britiske imperialister vil have en unipolær verden. Den nye præsident er åben over for en multipolær verden … Medierne skulle jo netop dække, at det, præsidenten vil, er en positiv, og ikke en negativ ting.«

Derefter blev der taget tre andre spørgsmål, hvor Lissie Brobjerg fra Schiller Instituttet kom til som den sidste. Hun understregede følgende i sit indlæg:
»Lyndon LaRouche siger, at kuppet mod Trump vil føre til generel krig; hvad skal vi gøre for at forhindre det, således at Trump kan opbygge USA og skabe samarbejde med Rusland og forhindre en verdenskrig og skabe fred?«.

Lissie Folkemødet 2017

Ordstyrerne prøvede at underspille de to kontroversielle kommentarer. Den fungerende britiske ambassadør sagde straks, at han ikke har tænkt sig at svare på 90 % af de ting, der blev taget op i diskussionen.
Mogens Lykketoft, der stod og sagde, han er bekymret over Trumps forhold til Kina, ignorerede totalt, hvad der blev taget op; han skiftede emnet tilbage til den gamle verden med Paris-aftalen og klimaforandring.
Vi delte på dette debatmøde vores Nyhedsorientering ud til flere deltagere, der gerne vil læse vores materiale.

 

 

 

Kort efter fik vi mulighed for at tale på »speakers corner«, der er et åbent forum til korte taler, som Bornholms Tidende organiserer, så andre holdninger end de officielle også kan komme til udtryk.
Feride I. Gillesberg fik ordet og benyttede chancen til at fortælle om den historiske konference, »Bælte & Vej Forum«, der fandt sted i Beijing.

»Vesten burde deltage i det paradigmeskifte, som »Bælte & Vej Initiativet« repræsenterer for udvikling af hele verden. Det er kampen mellem på den ene side dem, der vil have en unipolær verden og dem, der er for en multipolær verden. Obama, Hillary, MI6 og det Britiske Imperium kæmper for at bevare den gamle, unipolære verdensorden. Det er årsagen til angrebene på den amerikanske præsident, som skal stoppes. I stedet skal vi tilslutte os det nye paradigme.«
Feride sluttede talen med at synge den kinesiske sang, »Kangding Lovesong«. Flere af tilhørerne ville gerne læse Nyhedsorientering om Bælte & Vej Forum, og en mand kom senere op til os for at sige, hvor bevægende den kinesiske sang var.

Schiller Instituttet fik mulighed for at deltage i en anden debat med Rasmus Jarlov (Konservativ; formand for Folketingets Forsvarsudvalg), Nick Hækkerup (næstformand, Socialdemokratiet) og Marie Krarup (Dansk Folkeparti) om »Truslen fra Øst«. Der var 80 mennesker til stede. De to førstnævnte mente, at Ruslands Putin var en trussel, og at han havde manipuleret det amerikanske valg, hvilket sidstnævnte ikke mente. Alle mente dog, at der var brug for øget forsvar.

Lissie Brobjerg fik det første spørgsmål:

»Hej, jeg er Lissie fra Schiller Instituttet. Trump siger, at han vil samarbejde med Rusland, da han ønsker at forhindre en atomkrig, og han sagde til et NATO-møde, at han ikke betragter Rusland som sin nummer 1 fjende; skulle vi ikke hellere samarbejde med Rusland i stedet for at opspinde historier om, at de vil erobre verden? Det var jo faktisk Obama, som støttede neonazister i Ukraine og væltede regeringen«.

Dette skabte tumult, hvorefter Lissie refererede til Stepan Bandera-folkene (i Ukraine). Marie Krarup tog Lissies spørgsmål op. Bagefter uddelte vi vores Nyhedsorientering til deltagerne, der var interesseret i at læse vores materiale.

Christian Folkemøde 2017

Christian Olesen fra Schiller Instituttet talte efter debatten med Rasmus Jarlov, der under debatten havde beskrevet begivenhederne i Ukraine fra en meget propagandistisk vinkel. Christian sagde til Jarlov, at han havde et meget unuanceret syn på Ukraine, hvortil han svarede, »Det kan man altid sige, når man ikke har nogen argumenter«! Til det svarede Christian, at de søde og venlige demonstranter, Jarlov havde beskrevet, havde brændt folk levende i Odessa. Det fik Jarlov til at vende ryggen til og skynde sig væk.

 

 

 

Til en debat ved Femerns venner, hvor man diskuterede fremtidsperspektiverne for tunnelen (Femern Bælt-forbindelsen), fik Lissie Brobjerg det første spørgsmål:

»Hvad tænker I om ideen om, at Danmark går med i Kinas Nye Silkevej? De vil forbinde hele verden med store infrastrukturprojekter, højhastighedstog, tunneller og broer, og projektet er nu 30 gange større end Marshallplanen.«

Responsen fra den ene taler var, at hvis Kina havde stået for tunnellen, havde den allerede været færdig i går, men at, i Danmark har vi dog en demokratisk proces, hvilket han foretrækker. Flere mennesker kom bagefter op til Lissie for at få en Nyhedsorientering, inklusive ordstyreren og den anden taler, der glad modtog en Nyhedsorientering.

Feride diskuterer

Den tredje dag på Folkemødet begyndte med et debatmøde, der fandt sted i Enhedslistens telt over emnet, »Russerne kommer«. Talerne var lektor ved Forsvarsakademiet Peter Viggo Mortensen, forfatter Jens Jørgen Nielsen og Nikolaj Villumsen (Enhedslisten). Man diskuterede faren for krig med russerne. Jens Jørgen forsøgte at give deltagerne en idé om, hvordan russerne tænker, mens de andre analyserede Rusland baseret på, at Rusland agerer ud fra stormagtspolitiske interesser.

Feride intervenerede blandt andet ved kort at fortælle om den historiske konference, der fandt sted i Beijing, og om, at Europa ikke ’skyder sig selv i foden’. Rusland har tilsluttet sig et samarbejde med Kina omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som Vesten aktivt burde være en del af. Feride tog spørgsmålet om NATO’s rolle op, om det ikke er en forældet institution, og at man skal forstå, at Rusland har set, hvad der er sket med de nationer, hvor man har lavet regimeskifte, der har efterladt lande i kaos og elendighed; og at russerne ser Vestens politik, med regimeskifte i Ukraine og udvidelsen af NATO, i denne sammenhæng.

Lissie fik nummer to spørgsmål og sagde:

»Trump har gjort det klart, at han vil samarbejde med Rusland, og der har allerede været en koordinering med russerne. Effekten har dog været, at New York Times og britiske medier skriver om en mulig afsættelse af eller mord på Trump, og flere Hollywood-skuespillere har været ude og fremvise Trump med et afskåret hoved eller er kommet med voldelige udtalelser imod ham. Ligger faren for 3. Verdenskrig ikke nærmere i faren for, at briterne/ Obama/ Hillary og FBI skal lykkes med at få ham afsat, da de ønsker krig med Rusland?«

Den sidste del af debatten handlede om, hvordan man kunne løse konflikten mellem Rusland og Vesten. Peter Viggo Mortensen indrømmede blandt andet, at politikken for regimeskifte har slået fejl, og at den Nye Silkevej er en naturlig udvikling, som lande vil gå med til. Den anden del af diskussion handlede om løsninger. Da fik Christian det sidste spørgsmål og pointerede blandt andet, at en del af løsningen ligger i, at man begynder at tale ærligt omkring, hvad Rusland er og gør, bekyndende med, at Rusland ikke invaderede Ukraine.

I en debat hos Informationen, »Will Trump Last the Entire Presidential 4 Year Period?«, talte den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør til Danmark, Rufus Gifford, om sandsynligheden for, at Trump kunne blive afsat gennem en rigsretssag (impeachment) gennem det 25. Forfatningstillæg, eller evt. selv gå af. Han mente ikke, at det var sandsynligt, omend han ønskede det. Hvis en rigsretssag skal være mulig, kunne det være pga. ’forhindring af udøvelse af retten’ (obstruction of Justice), men ellers skulle man bruge kræfterne på demokraternes mærkesager. 300 mennesker deltog, det foregik i centrum og den generelle konsensus var, at Trump er forrykt. Lissie kom op til ambassadøren bagefter og sagde, at Lyndon LaRouche havde sagt, at, hvis Comey og Co. lykkedes med et kup mod Trump, ville det føre til generel krig, og at briterne var efter Trump, fordi han vil samarbejde med Rusland, medens Obama derimod forsøgte at starte en atomkrig med Rusland. Han skyndte sig blot væk efter at han blev noget chokeret over det, Lissie sagde.

Vi intervenerede også i et andet møde med titlen »Atomkraft, ja tak! Hvor skal fremtidens energi komme fra?« i Dansk Erhvervs telt. I panelet deltog en repræsentant for Greenpeace, en repræsentant for Århus Universitet og Villumsen fra Liberal Alliance. Kun hr. Villumsen mente, at man måtte søge nye energikilder inden for nye teknologier og understregede, at vindmølle-fanatikerne var religiøse og foruden ræsonnement. Én fra publikum spurgte ind til thorium-reaktorer, hvor Villumsen havde en god respons, mens ham fra Greenpeace ævlede om, at det var dyrt og tog lang tid. Lissie stillede det sidste spørgsmål, hvor hun sagde:

»Nu har vi en situation i verden, hvor man, siden Kinas Bælte & Vej og BRIKS-projektet, er begyndt at bygge en masse atomkraftværker; i Sydafrika har man planlagt 11, Bolivia skal have et atomkraftværk, Kina planlægger at udvinde helium-3 på Månen til fusionsbrændsel, så verdens fremtid er faktisk atomkraft. Skal vi ikke hellere gå med dér, da energigennemstrømningstætheden er meget højere, og med 30 tønder olie har man, hvad der svarer til få gram fusionskraft. Desuden har Henrik Svensmark (astrofysiker) lavet forskning, som viser, at solpletter og kosmisk stråling skaber klimaforandring.«

Repræsentanten fra Greenpeace sagde blot, at ingen tager Svensmark seriøst, og at 97 % af alle klimaforskere er enige. Villumsen svarede positivt og udtrykte respekt for, at nogen tør tage diskussionen op i et sådant forum.
Bagefter delte vi ud til alle, og mange var interesserede.

Alt i alt var vores tilstedeværelse på Folkemødet på Bornholm en fantastisk mulighed for at nå ud til så mange borgere, politikere, akademikere og eksperter med vores ideer, der dækker politik og fremtidens verden med Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

– Feride I. Gillesberg; Lissie Brobjerg; Christian Olesen.

Titelfoto: Feride I. Gillesberg i diskussion med en borger på Folkemødet. På plakaten står der, »Fremtiden ligger i Kinas Bælte & Vej«.




POLITISK ORIENTERING 13. juni, 2017:
Kinas Nye Silkevej – LaRouches nye
økonomiske verdensorden.
Vil vi få ‘LaRouchenomics’?

v/ formand Tom Gillesberg.

Video og lydfil.

Velkommen til dette fortsatte drama, som vi forhåbentlig vil se tilbage på om et par år og sige:

»Det var dengang, verden var på kanten af at udrydde og udradere sig selv; men lige pludselig, så lyttede menneskeheden til de fantastiske mennesker, de ikke ville lytte til før; så lyttede man til de vise ord fra Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttet og Tom Gillesberg og Jacques Cheminade. Det her er folk, som igennem årtier havde kæmpet for at få vendt udviklingen og få verden sat på ret kurs. Og vi troede aldrig, det ville ske. Og lige pludselig, så begyndte man at lytte; og ikke nok med, at man lyttede til det her, man begyndte faktisk at gøre det.

Det var først kineserne, der for alvor så lyset og begyndte at gøre noget ved det. Men da først Kina satte sig i spidsen for dette udviklingstog, for den Nye Silkevej, så gik der ikke lang tid, så kom resten af menneskeheden med om bord, og så skete der noget. Og selv i de tidligere håbløse områder, som f.eks. New York City, hvor det var et mareridt, hvor man knap nok kunne bevæge sig fra A til B, fordi der var så mange folk, der skulle transporteres, og hele infrastrukturen var 100 år gammel; jamen, så i løbet af bare ganske få år med kinesisk hjælp, så lykkedes det faktisk at bygge en helt ny, fantastisk infrastruktur.

Og Donald Trump, som man forsøgte at gøre grin med, som man forsøgte at få afsat, som man forsøgte at få fjernet med alle midler; jamen, det viste sig, at han faktisk indgik et strategisk partnerskab med Kina, med Rusland og blev til en af USA’s rigtig store præsidenter.«

Og det er det, vi må håbe er fortællingen om ganske kort, for det er det potentiale, der er i tiden. Igen, man forsøger ved hjælp af ’fake news’, dvs., de veletablerede mediekanaler i den vestlige verden, hele tiden at have en pseudodagsorden; hele tiden at få folk fikseret på det ting, der ikke er de store spørgsmål, mens de virkelige, revolutionerende, afgørende begivenheder, der sker i verden rundt omkring, jamen, dem forsøger man ikke at snakke om.

Altså, hvor mange har læst i danske medier, en udførlig rapport fra Bælte & Vej Forummet, 14.-15. maj, (i Beijing); denne verdenshistoriske begivenhed, hvor 130 nationer var til stede, og hvor Bælte & Vej Initiativet så at sige gik ind i næste fase, og hvor sågar USA, som under Obama havde gjort alt for at sabotere dette udviklingsmomentum, faktisk gik med om bord; at man havde Pottinger som Trumps repræsentant; at man nu har etableret en samarbejdsgruppe, USA’s Bælte & Vej Samarbejdsgruppe, som skal få integreret USA i Bælte & Vej politikken.

Tilmed i Danmark; Karen Ellemann blev sendt som Lars Løkkes personlige repræsentant: Hvor mange danskere tror I ved det? At Danmark var med på Bælte & Vej Forummet? 1 procent; 1 promille? 5 Mennesker ud af fem millioner? Det er meget få, for der har ikke været en lyd om det. Intet. Og det er ligesom måden, man forsøger at behandle det her på; man forsøger ligesom fanatisk at sige, i den gamle optik, i den gamle verden, at der ikke er sket noget; verden er, som den altid har været. …




Seniorrådgiver i USA’s Transportministerium:
Vær opmærksom på Bælte & Vej

12. juni, 2017 – I en artikel med titlen, »USA’s engagement i Bælte & Vej er et strategisk imperativ«, i juniudgaven af Journal of Commerce, advarer Tony Padilla, en seniorrådgiver for internationale anliggender ved USA’s Transportministerium, om, at det er til USA’s eget fordærv fortsat at ignorere Bælte & Vej. »Alt imens den Amerikanske Kongres kæmper med den bedste måde at genopbygge en aldrende, amerikanske infrastruktur på, til dels gennem, hvad der ville være en $1 billion stor investering over 10 år, så indikerer rapporter, at det Kina-ledede Bælte & Vej Initiativ allerede har forpligtet næsten $2 billion i løbet af de seneste tre år fra forskellige kilder, inklusive Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), banker til Kinas politik og multilateral og bilateral finansiering«, skriver Padilla.

Og alt imens Kongressen har afholdt høringer om infrastruktur, så bemærker Padilla, at mange af deltagerne i en reception på Capitol Hill under Infrastruktur-ugen aldrig havde hørt om Bælte & Vej. Dernæst går Padilla videre med at citere tidligere amerikanske diplomat Chas Freeman for, at projekterne er »den største og potentielt mest transformerende ingeniørindsats i menneskets historie«.

Padilla knurrer over, hvordan USA vil blive kørt ud på et sidespor af Bælte & Vej, hvis det fortsat ignorerer og klager over Kinas »aggressive merkantilisme« og citerer endda admiral Mahan og en af vore nutidige Cassandra’er, admiral James Stavridis. Men hans respons synes mindre et krigshyl end en opfordring til, at Amerika står ud af sengen og gør noget, går med i Bælte & Vej snarere end at forsøge at underminere initiativet. »At tackle disse spørgsmål kræver en portefølje af løsninger, der kunne omfatte at udføre lobbyvirksomhed for gennemskuelighed i tilbudsgivningen for kontrakter i Bælte & Vej-relaterede markeder samtidig med en fokusering på de formidable problemer mht. at flytte og levere materialer internationalt«, skriver Padilla.

»Som en magt i Stillehavsområdet med enorme økonomiske og strategiske spørgsmål, der står på spil i Bælte & Vej-området«, fortsætter Padilla, »kan USA ikke tillade sig at sidde på sidelinjen og se på, at disse infrastrukturudviklinger i udlandet går fremad. Ved at acceptere Bælte & Vej kunne USA sikre, at selskaber og investorer bliver i stand til at deltage i det, der kunne blive historiens største, økonomiske udviklingsprojekt. Men det må gå frem med forsigtighed og afbalancere fordelene ved større adgang til udviklende markeder samtidig med, at det tager en førende, komplementerende rolle sammen med vore kinesiske modparter for at være med til at udforme et transparent, gnidningsfrit og ligeværdigt handelsnetværk.« Han slutter med endnu en advarsel om, at, hvis USA ikke bliver involveret, vil det »ultimativt gøre det muligt for Kina ensidigt at trække linjerne op for verdens næste, episke kapitel for geopolitik og geoøkonomi«.

Foto: USA negligerede infrastruktur smuldrer. 




Karen Ellemanns indlæg ved tematisk session om Infrastruktur-forbundethed
på Bælte & Vej Forum, 14. maj i Beijing

Følgende er Karen Ellemanns tale, som blev holdt på engelsk. 

Minister for ligestilling og minister for nordisk samarbejde, Karen Ellemann, blev sendt til Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing som statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussens særlige repræsentant. Taletid: 4 min.

Deres excellence, transportminister Li Xiaopeng; ærede kolleger,

Tak for invitationen til at tale i dag som statsminister Rasmussens særlige repræsentant for Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

Bælte & Vej Initiativet er lige så betydningsfuldt, som det er ambitiøst. At gøre over 60 lande og 70 procent af verdens befolkning mere gensidigt forbundne er ikke en nem opgave. Men, gennem at bringe lande sammen – og især gennem at bringe Asien og Europa tættere sammen – skaber vi en platform for at bringe fremgang og udvikling til alle dele af det eurasiske kontinent.

Bælte & Vej Initiativet er en mulighed for at skabe bæredygtig udvikling i området, og for at forbinde Asien og Europa.

Danske selskaber har erfaringer og resultater inden for bæredygtige løsninger for byplanlægning, infrastruktur og energi.

Danamark er blandt verdens førende som søfartsnation og inden for vedvarende energi med selskaber, der er globalt førende, og vi ser os selv som en naturlig partner, både i initiativets dele for Bælte og for Vej.

Danmark besidder også førende ekspertise inden for vej- og jernbaneplanlægning, såvel som også andre hovedelementer for transportinfrastruktur. Disse globalt førende danske selskaber er allerede engageret i Asien, og nogle er til stede her på forummet.

Bælte & Vej Initiativet har et lovende potentiale for fremme af frihandel, skabelse af bæredygtig vækst og fattigdomsbekæmpelse i mange lande. Men vi må sikre et ligeligt spillefelt for investeringer og sikre, at investeringer er baseret på de højeste standarder for gennemskuelighed.

Forbundethed handler også om at bringe mennesker sammen. Mellemfolkelige kontakter skaber bedre gensidig forståelse og gensidig afhængighed og fører til nye ideer og innovation, der er nødvendig for en bedre og mere bæredygtig verden for kommende generationer. Til dette formål er turisme et vigtigt redskab, og Danmark er stolt af at have sit første turismeår med Kina i år.

Jeg takker igen for muligheden for at tale på dette vigtige forum. Danmark ser frem til at deltage i den fremtidige implementering af Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

Mange Tak.

 

Foto: Minister for ligestilling og minister for nordisk samarbejde, Karen Ellemann. Foto fra 2010.




Lad være med at sluge den inducerede
pessimisme – Den nye økonomiske
verdensorden er allerede på plads

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 6. juni, 2017 – Til amerikanere og europæere, der døgnet rundt, og alle ugens syv dage, udsættes for en spærreild af rapporter om globale katastrofer, om Trump, der står over for afsættelse ved rigsretssag, om verden, der snart brænder op pga. global opvarmning og flere og flere ’fake news’ – falske nyheder – og ’fake’ videnskab og bevidst fremkaldt pessimisme – kom videre i teksten! Verden har forandret sig.

Momentum i vor samtids historie defineres af den enorme sejr for menneskeheden, der blev konsolideret på Bælte & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde den 14.-15. maj i Kina, efterfulgt af Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum den 1.-3. juni, i Rusland.

Disse fora gik langt videre end til at fremlægge en håbefuld vision om en fjern fremtid, men fremlagde også en kortlægning af den transformation af hele planeten, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste par år gennem processen med den Nye Silkevej samtidig med, at man har opnået et forpligtende engagement på vegne af det store flertal af den menneskelige race, for at fortsætte denne udvikling i et forhøjet tempo.

USA var deltager i denne proces, med præsident Trump, der sendte en seniordelegeret til Beijing, og med 300 førende industrifolk, der deltog i Skt. Petersborg. Helga Zepp-LaRouches deltagelse på Bælte & Vej Forum, og på fora og i presseinterviews i hele Kina i to uger efter BVF-begivenheden, demonstrerede anerkendelsen i Kina af, at hun og hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, tilbage i 1990’erne havde initieret processen med at erstatte den Kolde Krig med udviklingsprojekter, der fysisk og kulturelt forbinder nationer, ligesom den oprindelige Silkevej havde gjort det i fortiden.

I dag talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche til de amerikanske medlemmer af LaRouche-organisationen om det presserende nødvendige i at løfte befolkningen ud af det kontrollerede miljø, som er skabt af de desintegrerende politiske partier, de neokonservative og de mislykkede massemedier. Er infrastrukturen i din by ved at smuldre, som den er i New York City? Stil dig selv spørgsmålet: Hvad ville Kina gøre? Inden for et eller to år ville Kina erstatte forfaldet med nye højhastighedsjernbaner, svævetogs- (maglev-) undergrundsbaner, produktion af elektricitet ved hjælp af kernekraft og nye faciliteter til uddannelses- og sundhedssektor. Og, med initiativet for Bælte & Vej, sammen med de udviklingsbanker, de har skabt, bringer Kina denne proces til resten af verden – inklusive (hvis vi accepterer) til USA.

Dette er, hvad Franklin Roosevelt og John F. Kennedy ville have gjort. Dette er, hvad LaRouche, meget detaljeret, har foreslået hen over de seneste 50 år, siden Kennedy blev dræbt af dem, der foragtede hans vision og videnskabelige optimisme. I dag gennemgik Zepp-LaRouche, hvordan denne organisation har udarbejdet udstrakte udviklingsprojekter for Afrika, for Latinamerika, for det Indiske Hav/Stillehavsbækkenet og for Nordamerika, og ligeledes for en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons, Lincolns og Roosevelts politikker for udstedelse af statskreditter, der ville fremme sådanne store projekter. Men dette er præcis de forslag, der i dag bliver implementeret under Kinas og Ruslands lederskab!

Der er ingen tid at spilde med hensyn til at vække den amerikanske befolkning og de europæiske befolkninger til at gå med i det nye paradigme, der står lige foran dem, men som er skjult af den løgnagtige presse, og af deres egen frygt og pessimisme. Hidtil har præsident Trump nægtet at bøje sig for den nye ’McCarthy-isme’, som er orkestreret af briterne og deres aktiver i USA, og som tror, at befolkningen er blevet så »fordummet«, at den vil acceptere den absurditet, at et venskab med Rusland og Kina er en forbrydelse mod amerikansk frihed og demokrati.

Det vil ikke virke. LaRouche-organisationen er, med løsningerne på hånden, strategisk placeret til at bryde igennem moradset for at bringe USA og Europa fuldt og helt ind i den Nye Silkevej, for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingslov og statsbankpraksis i Hamiltons tradition, og for at gå sammen med resten af verden i forceringen af den menneskelige videns fremskudte grænser og skabe en fremtid, der er menneskeheden værdig, her på Jorden, og i vore fremtidige kolonier i rummet.




Optimisme og muligheder:
USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej.
LaRouche PAC Internationale
Webcast, 2. juni, 2017

Matthew Ogden: Temaet for aftenens webcast er: USA må afgjort tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej. Dette er den strategisk vigtigste ting, der kan ske; alt andet må ses som underordnet dette mål. Vi havde lejlighed til at tale med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for et par timer siden, og vi har lidt nyheder; nogle bemærkninger fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som jeg gerne vil oplæse som indledning. Hun sagde, at verden hastigt bevæger sig i en meget ny og dynamisk retning. Momentum er meget klart. Tag Bælt & Vej Forum, der fandt sted for kun to uger siden, og tag dernæst Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der finder sted netop i disse dage; naturligvis med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin som vært. Ved denne lejlighed er den særlige gæst premierminister Modi fra Indien, og vi ser en fortsat integration mellem Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), Bælt & Vej, den Nye Silkevej og alle disse eurasiske, økonomiske udviklings- og integrationsorganisationer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, vi må nu optrappe vores kampagne her i USA, for, at USA kan blive fuldt ud engageret og involveret i denne nye dynamik med win-win-samarbejde og gensidigt fordelagtige udviklingsprojekter. Hun sagde, at vi må holde fokus på dette spørgsmål; ikke lade os distrahere af noget som helst andet. Verden har totalt forandret sig. Vi befinder os i en fuldstændig ny epoke, en ny æra for civilisationen.

Hun sagde, vi i nyhederne netop har set, i de sidste 24 timer, at præsident Trump har sagt nej til denne Paris-klimaaftale, og det er en god ting, sagde hun. For det (klimaaftalen) er ikke baseret på videnskab. Jo, vi ved godt, at klimaet ændrer sig, men det er ikke baseret på menneskeskabt, global opvarmning. Spørgsmålet er så, hvad er årsagen? Paris-aftalen var baseret på ideologi, sagde hun; den var baseret på ideologien om grænser for vækst, befolkningsreduktion, undertrykkelse af udvikling – især i den tredje verden.[1] Sæt som modsætning den Nye Silkevej, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, der kommer fra Kina, og som bringer hårdt tiltrængt udvikling til den tredje verden, til Afrika og andre steder; som disse områder ikke har haft adgang til i generationer. Man må se, at dette er en virkelig bølge af optimisme.

Hun sagde, hold tingene optimistisk, bliv ved at være optimistiske. Det kunstige diskussionsmiljø i USA, der er skabt af nyhedsmedierne, er ren propaganda, sagde hun. De falske nyheder er ikke kun de negative rapporter – det har vi set masser af. Men, de falske nyheder er i realiteten, at man ikke rapporterer de positive og optimistiske udviklinger, der finder sted i hele verden, og som især kommer via Bælt & Vej Forum.

Vi havde lejlighed til at få en ti minutter lang briefing fra fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går, under en telefonkonference med hendes medarbejdere (i USA). Det var en virkelig vidunderlig og optimistisk refleksion tilbage over betydningen og virkningen af dette Bælt & Vej Forum, som hun havde mulighed for at deltage i personligt. Vi har fremstillet en slags video til jer her, hvor vi har brugt nogle billeder af Helgas besøg til Kina, og noget baggrundsmateriale, som I vil få at høre her, som gennemgår LaRouche-bevægelsens 40-50 år lange historie for denne nye, internationale, økonomiske orden, der nu er ved at blive til virkelighed. Her kommer denne ti minutter lange video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekspcgnkoY

(Her følger resten af diskussionen på engelsk. Helgas briefing (videoen) er oversat til dansk, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=19877 )        

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I just wanted to make sure that
you get a first impression from me from my trip, because I think
the worst mistake we could make would be to respond to the
absolutely incredible psywar propaganda coming from the U.S.
mainstream media and the neoliberal media in Europe, like Spiegel
Online with its Chief Editor piece which was really out of this
way! It is very clear that people who are primarily relying on
such media have a completely, totally, 100% wrong idea of what
the reality is of what’s going on.  And we should really get that
out of our heads and not try to swim within the fishbowl of an
artificially created environment. Because, from my standpoint,
the world looks very, very different.
First of all, I said this already, and I reiterate it:  With
the Belt and Road Forum, the world has dramatically consolidated
the beginning of the new era, and I don’t think at all, that
short of World War III, this is going to go away, because the
majority of the world is moving in a completely liberated way.
And first of all, this was the highest level conference I ever
participated in.  There were 28 head of state, speaking one after
the other, and obviously, the speech by Xi Jinping was absolutely
outstanding, and whoever gas time to listen to it, should really
do it, because it was a very, very Confucian speech, which set
the tone for the two-day conference in a very clear way. So,
please listen to it when you have some time.
I think the way people have to understand what is going on,
you have to really think what this organization, and Lyn in
particular did for the last almost 50 years.  The first time when
Lyn in 1971 recognized what the significance of the dismantling
of the Bretton Woods system was, and then all the many, many
things we did in the last over 40 years: Lyn coming back from the
Iraq Ba’ath Party celebration in 1975, when he proposed the IDB
as an International Development Bank to foster a new world
economic order; the fact that we, for one year, campaigned with
this IDB proposal which then basically became part of the
Colombo, Sri Lanka resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in ’76.
Then, in the end of the ’70s, when we worked with Indira Gandhi
on a 40-year development plan for India.  Already in ’76, we
published a whole book about the industrialization of Africa.  We
worked with Mexican President José López Portillo on “Operation
Juárez.”  We put out a 50-year Pacific Basic development plan.
Lyn had already in ’75 had proposed Oasis Plan.  And then
naturally when the [Berlin] Wall came down and the Soviet Union
disintegrated, we proposed the Productive Triangle and the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.
And all of these proposals!  And just think of the many,
many activities we did, conferences all over five continents, all
of this was on the level of ideas, on the level of program — but
only after Xi Jinping put the New Silk Road on the agenda in
2013, and in the four-years of breathtaking developments of the
One Belt, One Road initiative since, these ideas are becoming
realized!  And the genie is out of the bottle!
When you have now the Bi-Oceanic Railway discussion and the
tunnels and bridges connecting the Atlantic and Pacific around
Latin America, you have all these railways now being opened up in
Africa — this is unprecedented!  This was not done by the IMF or
the World Bank.  They suppressed it with the conditionalities.
But with the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road
Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the direct investment of the
Chinese Ex-Im Bank, the China state bank, all of these projects
are now proceeding, and they have completely changed the attitude
and the self-confidence of all participating countries.
Now, the way people in China look at President Trump is
absolutely different than what the media are trying to say.  They
are very positive about Trump, in the same way that people in
Russia think that Trump is somebody you can absolutely have a
decent relationship with, and that is reality. And forget the
media!  Forget these whores in the press who are really just
prostitutes for the British Empire.  Don’t pay any attention to
what they say, and don’t allow the people you are talking with to
do that, either.
When Trump promised $1 trillion infrastructure investments,
this was the right thing, and we put out the right program saying
the United States must join the Silk Road and that {should be our
focus}, and nothing else.  Everything else should be a subsumed
aspect of that.  This is the strategically important thing, and
the fact that the head of the China Investment Corp. Ding Xuedong
said it’s not $1 trillion but $8 trillion, is what the United
States needs, is absolutely on the mark; and you know it yourself
from the conditions of the roads and the infrastructure in all of
the United States.
So the fact that the same organization has now set up their
office in New York, advising Chinese investors how to invest in
the United States, and vice versa, how U.S. investors can invest
in China; the fact that the Chinese are invited to participate in
this infrastructure conference in June; all of this is absolutely
going in the right direction.
What happened in the Belt and Road Forum and the many
meetings I had afterwards — after all, I spent two full weeks in
Beijing, in Nanjing, in Shanghai  but it’s the fact that in the
many interviews, many quotes, and the general view is that we
were treated with the highest respect possible.  I mean, people
are fully aware of Lyn’s significance as a theoretician of
physical economy, his ideas are highly respected; and people
treated me as we should be treated, namely as people who have
devoted their entire lives to the common good of humanity.  And
this is absolutely in stark contrast to the shitty behavior that
we are normally getting from the neo-liberals in the
trans-Atlantic region.
And you should understand that what the attack on Trump is
supposed to do:  Is to make — it’s so difficult for him to focus
on the positive aspect, and there are quite some many of them,
including his working relationship with Russia and China, which
is strategically the most important. So that, basically, he has
to defend himself instead, and everybody thinks they have to
spend all the time to defend themselves.
So don’t fall for it.  The idea that we are losing is
completely off! Mankind is on the winning track and we have to
pull the American population to create the kind of ferment so
that the implementation of the infrastructure program as a first
step is on the agenda, and on everybody’s mind and nothing else.
Even if Europe is still in the grip of the EU Commission, I
mean, if Merkel wants to be the leader of the free West, —
forget it.  Macron just had a very excellent meeting with Putin,
defining a cordial relationship with Russia! This is not what
Merkel and Obama have been cooking up, when Obama addressed the
church day of the Protestant church, but Merkel is pretty
isolated.
Just look around in Europe:  Macron send Raffarin, the
former Prime Minister, to the Belt and Road Forum who gave an
excellent speech, why China and France have to work together.
Gentiloni from Italy said China and Italy will work together on
the development of Africa.  All the East Europeans, Tsipras [from
Greece], Serbia, Hungary, Czechia’s Zeman, Orban [Hungary] — all
of these people were absolutely enthusiastic on the Belt and Road
Initiative.  And now even Germany, it shows that the German
industry is actually really getting it, that their interest is to
work on joint ventures in third countries together with China. So
I think even Germany will change.
I have the strong conviction that by the end of this year,
it will look completely different, because the development
perspective is so contagious, that I think all the efforts by the
British Empire to somehow throw in a monkey wrench will not work!
So take the winning perspective, take the high ground, think
strategically:  And realize that what is happening in reality, in
many, many development projects around the world, is what this
organization has been fighting for, for almost half a century.
I just wanted to tell you that, because the worst thing we
could do, is look at it from inside the United States, from
within the box, when the whole world has moved out of the box
decisively, with the Belt and Road Forum, which is not going to
be stopped by anything.  And that is my view I wanted to
communicate.
[end video: https://larouchepac.com/20170602/silk-road-
strategy-helga-larouche-report-belt-and-road-forum
OGDEN:  As you could hear, Helga LaRouche was extremely
optimistic after spending an entire two weeks in China; and her
point could not be more clear.  The United States must join the
Silk Road; this must be our focus and nothing else.  “Everything
else should be a subsumed aspect of that,” she said; “this is the
strategically most important thing.”
Helga also had, among many media interviews, you could see
some pictures there from her interview on the “Dialogue with Yang
Rui” show, which was a very widely watched and wonderful
interview.  She had many TV interviews, many other press
interviews.  Here’s an interview that just came out; this is from
{Shanghai Daily}, and I’m going to read a few excerpts from that
interview as well.  I think is just really a nice overview.  As
you can see, the title is “Belt and Road Initiative Instills Hope
for Peace and Development Among Nations.” You can see the picture
of Helga LaRouche there.  The editor’s note begins the article;
it says,
“Helga Zepp-LaRouche visited Shanghai for the first time in
the summer of 1971. In 1977 she married American economist Lyndon
LaRouche, and the couple have since worked together on
development plans for a just new world economic order.”  That was
the overview that we saw in the video just now.  It goes on:
“Zepp-LaRouche founded the Schiller Institute in 1984, a
think tank devoted to the realization of these plans and a
renaissance and a dialogue of classical cultures.
“She is an expert in European humanist philosophy and
poetry, Confucius, and history.
“After attending the recent Belt and Road Forum in Beijing,
she visited Shanghai, where {Shanghai Daily} reporter Wan Lixin
interviewed her.”
These are going to be a few excerpts from Helga LaRouche’s
answers to the questions that were posed to her in this {Shanghai
Daily} interview.
So, Helga said: “I think the Belt and Road initiative
signifies a revolutionary move to a new epoch of civilization.
The idea of having a win-win cooperation among nations is the
first time that a concrete concept has been offered to overcome
geopolitics.
“Since geopolitics was the cause of the two world wars, I
think it is a completely new paradigm of thinking where an idea
proposed by one country has the national interest basically in
coherence with the interests of humanity as a whole. This has
never happened.
“This has instilled tremendous hope among developing nations
that they have the chance to overcome poverty and
underdevelopment. And I think this is an initiative that will
grow until all the continents are connected through
infrastructure and development.”  (That’s the idea of the World
Land-Bridge.)
“We have always made the point that for this new Silk Road
to succeed in the tradition of the old Silk Road, which was also
an exchange of ideas and cultures, not just products and
technology, you have to combine economic cooperation with
dialogue between cultures. This dialogue must be on the highest
level, so each culture has to present example of the best of
their culture, like Confucianism, Italian renaissance, the German
classical period, and present the best works of arts in music and
poetry, paintings and other forms of art.
“Our experience is that when people get into contact for the
first time with expression of such high culture from another
culture, they are surprised by its beauty. And this beauty then
opens the heart and souls of the people. And this is the best
medicine against chauvinism, xenophobia, and prejudice, and it
opens the way for the love of other cultures.
“This is in conformity with Confucian teaching that all
activity must be combined with strengthening of love for the
mankind, because without that cultural component, that new Silk
Road will not flourish.”
“I think it a great honor for me to participate in this Belt
and Road Forum, and I was deeply impressed by the speech of
President Xi Jinping. Among all participants I spoke with there
is consensus that we are actively participating in the shaping of
history. All this means that China is right now leading the world
in terms of providing the perspective for the future.
“I think this has been recognized by many countries in Latin
America, in Africa, in Asia, and even some European countries
start to recognize it is in their best interests to ally with
that initiative. So I think it has made clear that China is the
only country right now that offers a positive perspective to
overcome the strategic bottleneck of our present times.”
“Here I would like to quote from Pope Paul VI who said that
‘Development is the new name for peace.'”
“I was first in Shanghai 46 years ago in 1971, after
traveling on a cargo ship. Although it was not the best time to
be in China, it had awoken my love for China.
“I think the Chinese people are much too modest. They should
feel more confident about what they have accomplished. They have
created the biggest miracle of the world, even bigger than the
post-war German economic miracle. They should be very proud to be
Chinese.”
So again, that was from an interview in {Shanghai Daily}
called “Belt and Road Initiative Instills Hope for Peace and
Development Among Nations.”
[http://www.shanghaidaily.com/opinion/chinese-perspectives/
Belt-and-Road-initiative-instills-hope-for-peace-and-development
-among-nations/shdaily.shtml]
Obviously, this is just a wonderfully optimistic view of the
world right now.  I think it gives you a sense of what Helga
LaRouche gained as an eyewitness and participant on the ground at
the Belt and Road Forum.  It’s what Americans are not being
given; we’re not being given this kind of optimistic perspective
of what the future of mankind could be, and it’s very much within
our grasp.  The kind of pride that she said Chinese should feel
about being Chinese, this is something that Americans desperately
to access again; this pride of being American.
With that kind of overview and our very clear sense of what
our mission is, that the United States should join this New
Paradigm of win-win development, I think maybe Ben can give us a
little bit of a sense of what it’s going to take to get the
United States back on this path to development.  It’s been 50
years since the assassination of John F Kennedy and the departure
of the United States from this sense of development and progress.
This embrace of this Malthusianism, zero-growth kind of
population control ideology, which has brought us to the point of
just miserable economic suffering.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  As you mentioned in the beginning,
Trump’s announcement that the U.S. is going to pull out of this
Paris climate change agreement is a really big deal; this is
excellent.  To my knowledge, unless I’m missing something, since
this whole climate change scare got going, this is the first U.S.
President who has actually kicked back against this.  It started
really back with George H.W. Bush; Bill Clinton went along with
it.  Despite the narrative of it being a Republican versus
Democrat issue, the George W Bush administration was fully on
board; they went with all this junk.  Bio-fuels, global warming,
they pushed it fully.  Obama pushed it further.  Now, we finally
have a President who is actually kicking back against this.  This
is huge, this important; Trump definitely deserves respect and
support for fighting against this thing.  As many of our viewers
know, this is a huge global lobby that’s been pushing this thing
from the top down for decades now.
I thought it was also important that Trump highlighted the
economic effects of this.  Some people just say the science says
this, or the science says that; but there’s also the reality of
what is the effect on the people.  What’s the effect on your
citizens of going with these policies?  They say CO2 is terrible,
it’s a pollutant, etc.; therefore, we need to go with all these
wonderful, clean energy solutions.  They paint this rosy picture,
when in fact, that has devastating effects on the real-life
conditions of our population.  This whole Green energy fraud is
ridiculous.  Given that this issue is now coming up, I think it’s
worth just highlighting a couple of points on this.
If you want to talk about the reduction in CO2 emissions and
the Green energy stuff, I still think it’s worth looking at what
Germany is facing right now in terms of their energy prices.  If
you want a case study in what wind and solar and exiting nuclear
and getting rid of coal and natural gas does; in Germany, just
between 2004 and 2015, their energy prices went up 50% from $0.23
cents a kilowatt-hour in U.S. values, to $0.35 cents a
kilowatt-hour.  They were already in 2004, twice the rate we pay
in the U.S. on average.  And over that ten-year period, in the
context of a lot of this nuclear exit, CO2-reduction stuff, they
went up another 50% to now three times what Americans pay on
average for energy, just as an example of what that means for
real life conditions.  This has been driving industries to leave
Germany, so it has an effect on industry, other forms of economic
activity as well.
In 2013, just one subsidy — this major surcharge they added
to the average German’s bill to pay for wind and solar — was the
equivalent of $0.07 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour.  That alone is
60% of what we pay on average for the U.S.; just for one subsidy,
just for wind and solar.
In the context of all the propaganda that gets put out, it’s
worth emphasizing the idea that we can transition to some
wonderful world powered by wind, solar electricity is a face;
it’s a fraud.  We need to go in the other direction.  To the
degree necessary, use coal, use natural gas, whatever; but move
towards more advanced higher forms of energy like fission and
nuclear fusion — that’s really the future.  The future is
increasing energy use per capita, increasing the use of higher
qualities of energy per capita, not reduction.
I also think it’s worth in the context of the debate
re-erupting right now, people are freaking out about Trump doing
this; I think it’s worth re-examining the issue of CO2.  What
does CO2 do?  It’s now officially labelled a pollutant by the
EPA.  There are all these horror stories about extreme weather,
climate change, etc.
I just want to highlight one graphic [Fig. 1].  Tons could
be said, but I think it’s just worth it for the education of our
audience and the real facts on the issue, it’s worth just
highlighting this study, comparing literally dozens of different
computer models on the effects of CO2 increase with the reality
that’s happened just in the last couple of decades.  So, what
these people did was to take 32 different computer models, all
claiming what the effects of CO2 increase were going to do to the
global temperature.  Those are all the variety of small dotted
lines rising up in the graph there.  The thick red line there is
the average of all of these 32 different computer models.
If you take the claims being made by these models and by
these fear-mongers around the CO2, they say this is the type of
rate of temperature increase you’re going to get.  But if you
compare that to the actual observations indicated below in the
blue and green lines with the squares and the dots, you see that
none of the computer models have been accurate in reality.  Both
satellite measurements by two different types of measurements, as
well as independent {in situ} measurements with balloon systems,
have shown that the temperature over the past 15 years now on
average, has been relatively flat with little increase.  {None}
of the models showed this; none of them.
So, have this in mind when you hear these scare stories
about this much temperature rise is going to cause this much
extreme weather, etc.  They’re basing it all on these models that
have already shown to be ridiculous.
There’s another interesting aspect to the CO2 issue, which
isn’t discussed at all, which is this apparently secret thing
that many of these fear-mongering people around climate change
don’t apparently know, which is that CO2 is actually a part of
the biosphere, and it’s actually an important part of the
ecological cycle.  People talk about being “pro-green”:  It’s
actually an important contribution to green on the planet.
And there’s been some work done, and I’d like to play a few
short clips of an interview I’d done a few weeks back with a
scientist who’s led a great amount of effort on studying the
positive effects of higher CO2 levels.  This is Dr. Craig Idso,
and he has spent many years and a lot of effort doing actual
experiments with greenhouses, overviews of various studies,
overviews of satellite measurements, and actually studying the
question of what is the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plant
growth and then also on agricultural activity.  These clips speak
for themselves, but I think this is an important part of the
discussion, as being completely blacked out, which is, aside from
the scare-stories about CO2 not being grounded in reality,
there’s actually a beneficial side for increasing CO2 levels.

[start video]
DR. CRAIG IDSO:  There are three main benefits from
increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere:  The
first is that it increases plant productivity for biomass of the
plant.  On average, what we see is that for a doubling of CO2,
something that’s going to happen by the end of this century, most
are basis plants, non-woody plants like crops and things like
that, will experience anywhere from a 25% to a 55% increasing in
biomass per yield.  And that’s a phenomenal result and that’s
something that’s going to happen just because we raise the CO2
concentration and nothing else.
Second is that higher CO2 concentrations help increase the
plant’s  water use efficiency.  Again, a doubling of CO2 allows
plants to use about half as much water as they need to produce
the same amount of tissue, so another phenomenal benefit.
And then the third benefit is that higher CO2 concentrations
helps to ameliorate environmental stresses.  So if you have a
stress from hot air temperature, maybe low light, low levels of
soil fertility, those sorts of things, when you have higher CO2
concentrations they tend to reduce or lessen that stress if not
completely ameliorate it, under a doubling of CO2.
You put all those three benefits together, and what you get
is a tremendous benefit to the biosphere to the growth.  And
we’re seeing that already:  We see it in tree-ring cores, you can
look and look at how their water use efficiency has improved over
time, and we see anywhere from 35% to 40% increase already, as
the CO2 concentration has increased by about 40%.  So the
satellites have been up measuring reflectivity of vegetation,
over the entire globe ever since about the early 1980s.  And what
they find consistently, whether they’re focussing on a particular
region of the globe or the globe as a whole, you get anywhere
from about 6% to 15% increase in biomass in that period of time.
The globe as a whole, or in total, is actually in a better off
condition now than it was when those measurements began.
I did the first approximation to determine what is the net
monetary benefit on crop production globally, in the past and
then also projected into the future, and what I found was that
over the 50-year period from 1961 to 2011, it amounts to about
$3.2 trillion on the global economy, a phenomenal benefit. And
then, projecting that forward in time, as the CO2 concentration
is going to continue to rise, from about 2012 to 2050, we expect
it to be about $10 trillion to the economy.
And that’s just really scratching the surface, because you
could look at studies, for example, I’ll take rice, where there’s
a number of genotypes of rice, and scientists have looked at for
example, in one study I’m thinking of, they looked at 16
different genotypes of rice, and how those genotypes responded to
a doubling of CO2, and they received values that ranged from
about 0 all the way to a whopping 265%.  So, if governments and
scientists focussed on those specific genotypes that we received
the greatest increase in biomass per CO2 rise, and then grew
them, we could have this phenomenal increase in agriculture and
have no problem in feeding the planet in the future.
[end video]

DENISTON:  I wanted to just highlight that interview,
because that needs to get out.  These are astounding facts: You
compare on the one side, the scare stories are not adding up.  On
the other side, just review what he said, that over the past 35
years, according to global satellite measurements a 6-15%
increase in total biomass production to the planet, the entire
planet!  We’re not talking about a 10th of a percent of a half of
a percent, 6-15%, that’s huge.  And these assessments they’ve
done on the increased crop yield, which they put in monetary
terms of $3 trillion increased value production from higher crop
yields.  Again, these are not models and studies; you can take a
greenhouse, you can study tomato plants, this particular species,
what’s their yield under regular atmospheric CO2 conditions,
what’s their yield under this much increase?  And they have hard
data on this, so these are not models, this is real stuff.
And then the other irony, which is an irony for some people
is this water use efficiency:  You actually get a highly
significant boost for certain plant species in their ability to
produce more biomass with less water use, and this has rather
interesting implications for drier regions in particular, where
water becomes a limiting factor in plant growth.  And now, all of
a sudden, with higher concentrations of plant food in the
atmosphere, CO2, they can grow in regions they couldn’t grow in
before; they can be more healthy in regions they couldn’t be
healthy before.  And you just take a look at places we’ve had
water issues — California — and we have our crazy governor in
California, running around pretending he’s the world leader on
CO2, when his state is actually benefitting greatly from the fact
there’s been higher CO2 levels in the context of the recent
droughts. The ironies are just all over the place.
You’ve really got to ask yourself, why are none of these
just basic scientific facts even being added into the discussion?
All you hear is these super, extreme, incredible flimsy arguments
claiming to be science, about scare stories, and then basic, raw,
scientific data and studies and discussion — you don’t hear
about that in the media, at all.  I think people need to let that
irony sink in, on this whole climate debate issue.
And Matthew, as you said in the beginning, the real issue is
there’s an ideology behind this, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in
our discussion earlier today: The whole climate change issue is
not really about climate change.  That’s the latest scare story
certain people have grabbed onto and pushed from the standpoint
of a Malthusian ideology.  And tons can be said; we put out an
entire report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not
Science.”  This was put out by  {Executive Intelligence Review};
if you don’t have a copy of this, you should get one.
[http://store.larouchepub.com/category-s/1840.htm]  Under Mr.
LaRouche’s direction, over decades, his organization has uniquely
put out the entire story  of the origins of this, not just
climate-change scare, but more broadly this whole
environmentalist movement as coming from this Malthusian
ideology.
And you look at the founders of the modern environmentalist
movement, if you look at who these people were, these are people
that created the entire structure that pushed globally this whole
environmentalist system.  We can just highlight some of the key
figures:  Sir Julian Huxley, a lifelong proponent of eugenics,
head of the British Eugenics Society.  After World War II, after
Hitler’s horrific war crimes, and crimes against humanity were
exposed, and the connection to eugenics there, Huxley still
promoted eugenics in his position in the UN, as the head of
UNESCO at the time.
Prince Philip, whenever he gets the chance, talks about how
terrible population growth is, and the fact that population
growth is the number one problem on the planet.  The guy whose
said if he could be reincarnated, he’d like to come back as a
deadly virus to reduce world population.  That’s his view, that’s
his belief-system.
Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, who was actually
working with Nazi intelligence, a member of the Nazi Party.  He
even helped Nazi war criminals escape after World War II.  These
people came together and started the environmentalist movement,
going back to the immediate post-World War II period, and going
into the ’50s and ’60s when it started to take off.
This is the ideology behind this.  It’s not about the
debates you see on the media, about this claim or that claim on
supposed science of CO2.  If you really want to understand the
issue, it’s this oligarchical, Malthusian ideology that’s been
campaigning for generations against economic development, against
population growth, against the development of so-called Third
World nations.  These are people who have said we cannot allow
the world to rise to the living standards of America and the
West.  Think of Obama travelling to Africa, telling students in
Africa, if you all had air conditioning and cars the planet would
boil over, so that’s not an option.
And that’s the issue.  I think what Helga said, in response
to Trump’s pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, is, that’s
the issue.  This is an expression of the old Malthusian,
geopolitical paradigm, and what we’re seeing emerging with
everything around this Belt and Road Forum summit, everything
that you just went through, Matthew, is the future.  That’s the
future.  So Trump’s dumping this climate change thing is
completely coherent with the idea of the United States bucking
this past, geopolitical, zero sum game, Malthusian ideology, and
getting towards building the future again.
And I would say, from our work, the next steps in the energy
issue is going hard with fusion, nuclear fission as needed along
the way.  But the key is not only cheap energy, in using coal,
natural gas, etc., but what are the future energy sources that
are going to allow not only nations around the world to come up
to the same energy use that we have in the U.S. now,  but even
higher levels and including in the U.S.  How can we actually
increase the total energy-flux density of the global economy in
totality?  That’s the future.  The entire history of the
development of mankind has always been intimately connected with
and tied to these kinds of increases in energy-flux density.
That’s got to be the next step in this thing.

OGDEN:  I think that idea, the increases in energy-flux
density is the key.  It unlocks the entire mystery of this whole
discussion.  If you go back to that history that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche walked us through, about the 40, 45-year history of
the LaRouche movement’s fight for a new, international economic
order, that was paralleled by a 45-year history of a fight
against this kind of Malthusianism, the idea of “limits to
growth” and overpopulation and these kinds of things that have
become ingrained.
This was paralleled, in fact, we saw all those reports about
the great development of India, the development of the Pacific
Basin, the development of Africa, the development of Latin
America, all of these reports mapping out a blueprint for the
development of the planet; but also, there was a book that was
published, called {There Are No Limits to Growth}! And this was a
book by Mr. LaRouche [1983] and it is rooted so deeply in his
unique approach to economic science, the idea that, no, in fact,
we are not living in a closed system.  This is not a closed
economic system, this is not even a closed biological system, but
that in fact, the very fact that mankind has a voluntary,
creative capability as a species, allows mankind to move into
progressively higher and more efficient economic systems.
Because we’re not based on one sort of limited resources regime.
And we’ve seen this throughout history:  If you just take
the empirical view of human history, mankind has progressively
moved from one resource base to another resource base, through
discoveries, through new technologies, and each one of those
resource bases is defined by a higher energy-flux density, more
powerful forms of “fire,” as you could call it,  a Promethean
idea of what mankind is capable of.
You take that idea of economics, and this is really Mr.
LaRouche’s unique contribution, and you say: OK, the fact that
that debunks the entire idea of limited resources, that very fact
itself overthrows the entire idea which has been at the basis of
geopolitics for at least the last 50 years.  What was the
justification for saying, “no we have to limit the access of
these countries in the Third World to these limited resources, so
that the developed countries — the United States, Western Europe
— can have access to them?”  This was literally the basis of our
national security strategy in the 1970s and the 1980s.  But when
you say, there’s no such thing as “limited resources,” it
overthrows that entire idea of geopolitics.
And I think that really serves as the scientific basis for a
new idea of “win-win” cooperation, as counterposed to the idea of
a zero-sum game, where, if some countries win that means other
countries lose.  No.  In fact, {all} countries can win and
development is an unlimited potential.

DENISTON:  I don’t think it can be stressed enough, this is
an entire paradigm shift we’re talking about.  I think Helga’s
point about this being the end of the geopolitical perspective,
people have to realize that’s what’s on the table.  And that’s
why it’s so important she came back from China with this report.
Because we have to get Americans to understand the depth of this
revolution that’s happening right now, and the importance of the
United States jumping on board with this, immediately.  Because
this is a historic shift:  If you get the United States onboard
now with Russia and China and the nations allied with them,
that’s it.  We can have the future, we can create the future we
want with that alliance.  The British will be forced to go along
with that global alliance — they can put up as much of a fight
as they can, as we’re seeing, with this crazy propaganda campaign
in the United States, but people have to realize how vulnerable
the British Empire actually is, and that we have this perspective
before us.  Because this has happened, this is moving right now

OGDEN:  OK! Wonderful.  I think that what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s point was, stands:  The United States must join
the New Silk Road.  This is the primary strategic focus and
everything else must be subsumed, as subsumed factor of that.
This is our focus, and nothing else.
So we need to escalate that campaign, obviously, and watch
for very dramatic and rapid developments around the globe!
Thank you very much, Ben, for joining me here in the studio
today, and thank you all for tuning.  That’s the conclusion to
our broadcast today:  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
We’ll make that video that we showed you earlier, of Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks available as a standalone, and your task
for this weekend is to spread that around as far as you can.
Thank you very much, and good night.

[1] Se vores omfattende dossier: Stop den Grønne Kult Feature

 




’VERDEN SER MEGET ANDERLEDES UD FRA KINA’
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
»Tænk ud over kassen!«

Torsdag, 1. juni, 2017 – Under en telefonkonference med medarbejdere diskuterer Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter af det internationale Schiller Institut, sin seneste rejse til Kina, hvor hun var inviteret til at deltage i det historiske Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, 14.-15. maj, 2017. Zepp-LaRouche fortæller, hvor dramatisk anderledes, verden ser på Trumps præsidentskab, i modsætning til de hysteriske, vestlige mainstream-medier. »Tænk ud over kassen; resten af verden er allerede trådt frem og går fremad.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg vil gerne sikre mig, at I får et førstehåndsindtryk af min rejse fra mig, for jeg mener, den absolut værste fejltagelse, vi kunne begå, ville være at respondere til den absolut utrolige psykologiske krigsførelse, der kommer fra de amerikanske mainstream-medier og de neoliberale medier i Europa, såsom Spiegel Online, med dets chefredaktør-indlæg, som virkelig var helt ved siden af alting! Det står helt klart, at folk, der primært baserer sig på disse medier, har en komplet, 100 % ’s forkert idé om, hvad kendsgerninger er i det, der foregår. Det bør vi virkelig få ud af hovedet og ikke forsøge at svømme inden i fiske-glasbowlen med et kunstigt skabt miljø. For ud fra mit synspunkt, så ser verden meget anderledes ud.

For det første, som jeg allerede har sagt, og nu gentager: Med Bælt & Vej Forum har verden på dramatisk vis konsolideret begyndelsen af en ny æra, og jeg tror slet ikke på, at dette vil forsvinde, med mindre Tredje Verdenskrig skulle indtræffe; for størstedelen af verden bevæger sig på en fuldstændig frigjort måde. Først og fremmest var dette den konference på det højeste niveau, jeg nogensinde har deltaget i. Der var 28 statsoverhoveder, der talte efter tur, og Xi Jinpings tale var selvfølgelig fuldstændig fremragende, og I bør absolut lytte til den, hvis I har tid, for det var en meget, meget konfuciansk tale, der på en meget klar måde satte tonen for denne todages konference. Så lyt til den, når I har tid.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx_mE951GzI]

(Engelsk udskrift af talen her: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/14/c_136282982.htm)

Måden at forstå, hvad det er, der finder sted, er virkelig at tænke på, hvad denne organisation, og Lyn[don LaRouche] i særdeleshed, har gjort i de seneste næsten 50 år. Første gang, da Lyn i 1971 erkendte betydningen af nedtagningen af Bretton Woods-systemet, og dernæst alle de mange, mange ting, vi har gjort i de seneste mere end 40 år; da Lyn kom hjem fra det irakiske Ba’ath Partis jubilæum i 1975, og han foreslog den Internationale Udviklingsbank (IUB)[i], der skulle formidle en ny, økonomisk verdensorden; den kendsgerning, at vi, i et helt år, førte kampagne for denne IUB-idé, som dernæst blev en del af Den Alliancefri Bevægelses Colombo-resolution i Sri Lanka i 1976; dernæst, da vi i slutningen af ’70’erne arbejdede sammen med Indira Gandhi om en udviklingsplan over 40 år for Indien.[ii] Allerede i ’76’ udgav vi en hel bog om Afrikas industrialisering.[iii] Vi arbejdede sammen med den mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo om »Operation Juárez«.[iv] Vi udgav en 50-års Basal Udviklingsplan for Stillehavsområdet.[v] Lyn havde allerede i ’75’ foreslået Oasis-planen.[vi] Og så, selvfølgelig, da [Berlin]Muren faldt, og Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning, foreslog vi den Produktive Trekant[vii] og den Eurasiske Landbro.[viii]

Alle disse forslag![ix] Tænk blot på de mange, mange aktiviteter, vi lavede, konferencer på alle fem kontinenter, alt dette var på idé-planet, på program-planet – men først efter, at Xi Jinping satte den Nye Silkevej på dagsordenen i 2013, og med de åndeløse udviklinger i de fire år, der er gået, med Ét Bælt, én Vej (OBOR), er disse ideer nu ved at blive til virkelighed! Lampens ånd er sluppet ud!

Når vi nu ser diskussionen om den Bi-oceaniske Jernbane [Sydamerika] og tunneller og broer, der skal forbinde Atlanterhavet og Stillehavet omkring Sydamerika, og vi ser alle disse jernbanestrækninger, der nu åbnes i Afrika – dette er uden fortilfælde! Det var ikke IMF (Den internationale Valutafond) eller Verdensbanken, der gjorde det! De undertrykkede det med deres ’betingelsespolitik’. Men, med Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), den Nye Udviklingsbank (’BRIKS-banken’), den Nye Silkevejsfond, den Maritime Silkevejsfond, de direkte investeringer fra Kinas Exim Bank, Kinas statsbank, skrider alle disse projekter nu fremad, og de har fuldstændig ændret alle de deltagende landes holdning og selvtillid.

Måden, hvorpå man i Kina ser på præsident Trump, er absolut anderledes end det, medierne forsøger at sige. Kineserne er meget positive mht. Trump, på samme måde, som man i Rusland mener, at Trump er en person, man absolut kan have et anstændigt forhold til, og dét er virkeligheden.

Glem medierne! Glem disse presse-horer, der faktisk ikke er andet et Det britiske Imperiums prostituerede. Lad være at lytte til, hvad de siger, og giv heller ikke de mennesker, I taler med, lov til det.

Da Trump lovede $1 billion i infrastrukturinvesteringer, gjorde han det rette, og vi fremlagde det rette program, da vi sagde, at USA må tilslutte sig Silkevejen, og dét, og intet andet, bør være vores fokus. Alt andet bør være et underordnet aspekt af dette. Dette er, hvad der er strategisk vigtigt, og det faktum, at chefen for China Investment Corp. Ding Xuedong sagde, det er ikke $1 billion, men $8 billion, som USA har brug for, rammer absolut plet; og I ved det selv fra den forfatning, som vejene og infrastrukturen i hele USA befinder sig i.

Så det faktum, at samme organisation nu har åbnet et kontor i New York, hvor de rådgiver kinesiske investorer om, hvordan de skal investere i USA, og vice versa, hvordan amerikanske investorer kan investere i Kina; det faktum, at kineserne er inviteret til at deltage i denne infrastruktur-konference i juni; alt dette går absolut i den rigtige retning.

Det, der fandt sted i Bælt & Vej Forum og de mange møder, jeg havde bagefter – jeg tilbragte trods alt to fulde uger i Beijing, i Nanjing, i Shanghai – mange af disse ting rapporterer jeg ikke om, for det er blot ting, der er i gang, men det er det faktum, at, i de mange interviews, de mange citater og det generelle synspunkt – I kan spørge Kasia og Stefan Tolksdorf, eller Bill Jones, for den sags skyld – vi blev behandlet med den største respekt. Jeg mener, folk er fuldt ud bevidste om Lyns betydning som en teoretiker inden for fysisk økonomi; hans ideer er højt respekterede, og folk behandlede os, som vi burde blive behandlet, nemlig som mennesker, der har helliget hele deres liv til menneskehedens almene vel. Dette står i absolut stærk kontrast til den dårlige behandling, vi normalt får fra de neoliberale i det transatlantiske område.

Man bør forstå, hvad disse angreb på Trump går ud på, hvad de skal gøre; det er for – det er så vanskeligt for ham at fokusere på det positive aspekt, og dem er der en hel del af, inklusive hans arbejdsrelation med Rusland og Kina, som rent strategisk er det vigtigste; så han grundlæggende set i stedet må forsvare sig, og alle mener, de må bruge al deres tid på at forsvare sig. Tænk blot tilbage, for de af jer, der var her dengang, hvordan vores liv som organisation ændrede sig efter angrebet i 1986. Frem til dette tidspunkt var vi alle positive, vi vandt primærvalg i Illinois, vi overvejede at skabe tre, private universiteter, for vi havde et netværk af henved 100 professorer, der ønskede at gennemføre Lyns ideer i form af et pensum i universiteter.

Og efter angrebet i 1986[x], udført af det samme apparat, der nu går efter Trump, måtte vi bruge alle disse penge på advokater, og vi måtte forsvare os, og det ændrede fuldstændig organisationens liv, og det er, hvad de nu forsøgerat gøre imod Trump!

Så lad være med at falde for det. Den idé, at vi er ved at tabe, er helt forkert! Menneskeheden er på vej fremad, og vi må få den amerikanske befolkning til at skabe den form for grobund, så gennemførelsen af infrastrukturprogrammet som første skridt kommer på dagsordenen, og på alles tanker, og intet andet.

Jeg ville blot sige dette, for ud fra indledende diskussioner, jeg havde i dag, fik jeg indtryk af, at folk ligger for meget under for det, og selv om Europa stadig er i EU-kommissionens greb, jeg mener, hvis Merkel ønsker at være leder af det frie Vesten – glem det. Macron har netop haft et meget fremragende møde med Putin, der satte betingelser for en hjertelig relation med Rusland! Dette er ikke, hvad Merkel og Obama havde lagt op til, da Obama talte på den protestantiske kirkes kirkedag, men Merkel er temmelig isoleret.

Se jer omkring i Europa: Macron sendte Raffarin, den tidligere premierminister, til Bælt & Vej Forum, og som holdt en fremragende tale om, hvorfor Kina og Frankrig må samarbejde. Gentiloni fra Italien sagde, at Kina og Italien vil samarbejde om Afrikas udvikling. Alle østeuropæerne; Tsipras [Grækenland], Serbien, Ungarn, Tjekkiets Zeman, Orban [Ungarn] – alle disse personer var absolut entusiastiske over Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Og nu, selv Tyskland; det viser, at tysk industri faktisk er ved at fatte det, at det er i deres interesse at samarbejde om joint ventures i tredjelande, sammen med Kina. Så jeg tror, selv Tyskland vil skifte mening.

Det er min faste overbevisning, at, ved dette års afslutning, vil det hele se helt anderledes ud, for perspektivet for udvikling er så smittende, at jeg tror, at alle Det britiske Imperiums bestræbelser på at smide en svensknøgle [i maskineriet], ikke vil virke!

Så sats på vinderperspektivet, sats på det bedste perspektiv, tænk strategisk: Og indse, at det, der finder sted, i mange, mange udviklingsprojekter i hele verden, i realiteten er det, som denne organisation har kæmpet for i næsten et halvt århundrede. Det ville jeg blot fortælle jer, for det værste, vi kunne gøre, er at se på det inde fra USA, inde fra kassen, når hele verden på afgørende vis er trådt ud af kassen, med Bælt & Vej Forum, der ikke lader sig standse af noget som helst. Og det er mit synspunkt, som jeg ønskede at videreformidle.

(Herefter følger Spørgsmål og Svar, i uddrag, med den efterfølgende diskussion på engelsk)

Diane Sare: Jeg ved, du skal skåne din stemme, men vil du have en diskussion?

Zepp-LaRouche: Hvis folk har uafklarede spørgsmål, hold jer ikke tilbage.

Spørgsmål: Hej, Helga, her er Mindy. Dette er ganske klart og det er godt at høre det fra dig, på en måde, for vi ser på, hvad vi gjorde på Beijing-topmødet, kineserne her kender CIC, og dernæst det forestående juni-topmøde og G20-topmødet i juli, hvor Putin og Xi og Trump vil være til stede; og vores rolle, og Lyns og din rolle har været – vi har opnået meget, og nu skal vi bare gå fremad for virkelig at bringe USA ind i et optimistisk syn og knuse denne fjende og satse på det, på meget kort tid.

Zepp-LaRouche: Præcis. jeg mener, potentialet absolut er til stede, diskussionerne mellem Xi Jinping og Trump er meget gode; udnævnelsen af den nye ambassadør [til Kina] Branstad udgør nu en yderligere kanal. Der er den igangværende kommission, der blev oprettet på Mar-a-Lago, med fokus på økonomien, og vi bør forstærke dette. Jeg mener, det er vigtigt, at vi får hele landet ind i en fornemmelse af en kampagnemobilisering, for vi vil ikke overlade denne kamp til de britiske agenter, der forsøger at ødelægge denne chance for at få USA ind sammen med denne udvikling.

Det fordrer virkelig, at vores organisation er fuldstændig klarhjernet og simpelt hen viser folk vejen. Og vejen er, at USA går med i Silkevejen. Vi må få veje bygget, ved I nok. Vi må få havne og nye byer. USA befinder sig i en forfalden tilstand, det ved I alle, og kineserne har absolut indikeret, at de har til hensigt og er villige til at investere. Tag blot det faktum, at Detroits Symfoniorkester nu turnerer i Kina, jeg tror, det er i fem byer, de giver koncert – Detroit, af alle steder! Så den rette hensigt er der, og vi bør blot forstærke den.

Giv ikke folk lov at være pessimistiske i blot ét enkelt sekund! Fortæl dem, at pessimisme er en sygdom. Det bør ikke tolereres.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche sammen med værten og den anden gæst på Tv-showet Dialog med Yang Rui under sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Q:  It’s Margaret Scialdone, I have a question about —
right after the Beijing conference we had initiated a petition
that went along with a marvelous little video by Jason, and the
petition was called “Suck It Up and Move On” — a petition to
Congress. I found it very refreshing.  I thought it had the right
kind of bite to it.  So I think it sort of dwindled, it hasn’t
been pushed or anything like that; but I’m wondering if we should
have a renewed initiative to really use this attitude to mobilize
people.  Or, if you think that we ought to come out with a new
wording, or new title or something like that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I have not seen the video, or if it’s the
one I saw, my memory is overshadowed by many, many impressions,
so  — maybe it would be good to make a short new one, because I
think this video was made before the Belt and Road conference?
Am I correct?
Q:  It was done, I think two days after it.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  If it kept to what I just expressed before,
then we should use it, and if not, it should probably be updated.
But if you say it’s already in there, then use it, and maybe make
another one in the next days, but go with it now.
SARE:  I think it definitely could be updated.  This dynamic
is completely new, and it is foreign to Americans, the sense that
you’re conveying.  I think that Americans would have a very hard
time imagining anyplace where Trump is viewed with respect and
optimism.  And if there’s billions of people in China, Russia,
and otherwise, who think that, Americans don’t know it.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  What people say is that they’re very, very
happy that it’s not Obama or Hillary, because they knew perfectly
where this would have led to.  So people — and the fact that Xi
Jinping and Trump got along well is really important.  It’s not
only important for Trump to say to his supporters in Harrisburg,
that Xi is “great guy” and he gets along well with him, it’s also
the other way around.  When Xi Jinping gets along well with
Trump, then this is very important for all the Chinese.
Q:  Hi, this is Susan Director.  I think that what you’re
saying today, Helga, could be made into a very powerful audio to
post on the website, today.  Because, the intensity of your
presentation is the kind of thing that will lift people up and
pull them into action.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Then put it on!  Tiramisu! Tiramisu! Pull
me up!

Q: This is Evelyn in Houston, and it struck me, when Robert
Mueller was appointed as a Special Prosecutor, who also headed
the Get LaRouche task force, that the best flank on the attack on
Trump and also on the economic question, would be for us to call
again for the exoneration of Lyn.  Because it was the same
network, that attacked him, and for the same reasons, because they
don’t want Trump to go with Lyn’s policies.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, I agree.  That is one of the moral
stains on the history of the United States, and it absolutely
should be done.  I fully agree.  Remember that Ramsey Clark said
that Lyn’s case was the worst violation of justice in U.S.
history.  I think people can find the exact formulation of what
he said and use it.  And I think it’s very useful, because it
{is} the same network.
But while we should say it, I still think we should focus on
the positive thing, because it is the same network, and we should
do it, but more importantly, or not more importantly, but the
angle with which to go about it is to say, the world has moved in
a completely different direction, and what the mainstream media
are doing is sort of the last battles of a war which they have
been lost already by them. Maybe you could find some
appropriate battle from the Civil War — aren’t there some
battles where the British were still making some noises but they
were defeated, I mean, the Confederates —

SARE: In the War of 1812, they had surrendered but people
were still fighting in different places long after, not knowing
somehow.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah, why don’t you use that as an image?

SARE:  That’s a nice image!
If there’s nothing else, I think this is excellent.  I think
we can put this to good use.  We should get this up on the
website, and then we’ll have a lot to talk about on Sunday, after
our success.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: OK, very good!

[i] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1998/eirv25n32-19980814/eirv25n32-19980814_020-1975_larouche_calls_for_intl_dev.pdf

[ii] http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/fusion/19800505-fusion.pdf

[iii] http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/book/1980IndustrializeAfrica.pdf

[iv] http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31620 og http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1986/eirv13n35-19860905/eirv13n35-19860905_018-ibero_americas_strategy_to_defea-lar.pdf

[v] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1983/eirv10n35-19830913/eirv10n35-19830913_018-a_50_year_development_policy_for-lar.pdf

[vi] http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html#Oasis plan

[vii] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1990/eirv17n31-19900803/eirv17n31-19900803_031-the_economic_geography_of_europe.pdf og

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html#Triangle

[viii] http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/14728

[ix] En omfattende online oversigt, ’LaRouche’s 40-Year Record’; A New International Economic Order, kan studeres her:

https://larouchepac.com/new-economic-order

[x] Helga henviser her til de falske anklager om bedrageri imod Lyndon LaRouche, som var politisk motiverede. LaRouche blev idømt 15 års fængsel, men løsladt i 1994. Tretten af hans medarbejdere blev ligeledes idømt fængselsstraffe på falske anklager.




Kinas ambassadør til Tyskland forklarer potentiale for kinesisk-tysk samarbejde

Torsdag, 1. juni, 2017 – Aftenen før et forum for tyske erhvervsfolk i Berlin i dag, hvor også premierminister Li Keqiang og den tyske kansler, Angela Merkel, deltog, sagde Kinas ambassadør til Tyskland, Shi Mingde, til kinesiske medier, at »de to nationers varefremstillingsindustrier er særdeles komplementære. Kina er et stort vareproduktionsland, alt imens Tyskland er et stærkt ditto. En ny runde med industriel revolution tager fart og vinder momentum … hvilket har bragt en mulighed uden fortilfælde for strategisk samarbejde«.

Shi sagde, at der er 8000 tyske selskaber, der opererer i Kina, med et totalt investeringsvolumen på mere end €60 mia. ($67mia.), mens henved 2000 kinesiske foretagender opererer i Tyskland. Disse selskaber bliver en væsentlig styrke i promoveringen af samarbejde, sagde han. To stærke nationer, der går sammen, vil få en effekt langt ud over deres grænser, sagde Shi.

Han nævnte potentialet for byggeri i alle lande under Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Dette refererer til det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej, der tilsigter at øge forbindelserne mellem Asien, Europa og andre områder. Han nævnte også muligheden for globale standarder for intelligent varefremstilling. Forummet under Lis besøg forventes at skabe nye, innovative måder at samarbejde på, i felter såsom smart-varefremstilling, elektriske transportmidler og innovation, der kommer fra unge mennesker.

Hubertus Troska, et medlem af Daimler AG’s bestyrelse, med Kina som ansvarsområde, sagde, at trenden med forbundethed (konnektivitet), selvkørende fartøjer, ’sharing’ og elektrisk mobilitet er i færd med at revolutionere bilindustrien, »måske intetsteds hurtigere end i Kina«. I et nedskrevet interview med China Daily sagde Troska, »På linje med Kinas økonomiske udviklingsplan vil vi møde både muligheder og udfordringer frontalt med yderligere innovationer og opgraderet varefremstilling«.

Foto: Kinas ambassadør til Tyskland, Shi Mingde, giver her interview til Xinhua på Kinas ambassade i Berlin, Tysklands hovedstad, 29. maj, 2017. Kina og Tyskland kan gå frem med opgradering af deres eksisterende samarbejde under de nye, internationale betingelser, sagde Shi i interviewet. (Xinhua/Shan Yuqi)




Kinas succes påvirker kamp om infrastrukturinvestering i USA

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 31. maj, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trump kan være tæt på endnu et betydningsfuldt skift, væk fra »globaliseringens« døde æra – denne gang er det et amerikansk exit fra Barack Obamas nulvækst »Paris-aftale« – og han er fortsat udsat for ubarmhjertige angreb fra efterretnings-staten. Med endnu et stort, tysk medie, der bringer mord på Trump på banen, denne gang Der Spiegel, raser ’globalisterne’ for at blive af med ham.

Men amerikanerne stemte for et fundamentalt skift i økonomisk politik for atter at gøre Amerika til en stor, industriel og teknologisk nation. Og nu bliver truslen mod Trump fra den såkaldte »deep state«, »staten i staten«, måske modsvaret af udfordringen med de dybe huller i vejene, og de dybe, økonomiske huller, som millioner af amerikanere er faldet ned i.

Det rapporteres, at Trump-administrationen midt i juni til Kongressen vil cirkulere et udkast til amerikanske investeringer i ny, økonomisk infrastruktur og anmode om, at der vedtages love om det hen over sommeren. Og endnu, mens den investering, Trump vil anmode om, synes at blive stadig mindre end de $1 billion, han talte om under sin valgkampagne, så bliver modforslag fra Demokraterne stadig større.

På vegne af den Demokratiske Progressive Gruppe og valgkreds og fagforeningsgrupper, der støtter dem, fremlagde henved et dusin Demokratiske kongresmedlemmer den 25. maj et krav – i form af en kongresresolution, ikke lovgivning – om mere end $2 billion i direkte, statslig infrastrukturinvestering hen over 10 år, med betragtelig fokus på højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekter og nye projekter for vandveje og vandkontrol. Dette fulgte i kølvandet på et lovforslag om $1,25 billion som statsbevillinger til ny infrastruktur over kun fem år, introduceret af kongresmedlem Brian Higgins (D-NY).

Der er to faktorer, der fremmer disse forslag: det alarmerende sammenbrud af offentlig infrastruktur i større byer og stater; og så entusiasmen hos dem, der kender til Kinas utrolige Bælt & Vej-infrastrukturplatforme og de offentlige tilbud fra Kina og Japan om at investere i en opbygning af infrastruktur i USA.

Beijings Bælt & Vej Forum den 14.-15. maj var en forbløffende succes. Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der gav en præsentation om »Verdenslandbroen« under topmødet og i årtier har arbejdet på spiren til dette Bælt & Vej-initiativ, beskrev forummet som at deltage i udformningen af verdenshistorien til det bedre. Lyndon LaRouche, ophavsmanden til ideen fra 1989 og fremefter, sagde i dag: »Vi har etableret noget på globalt plan, og det er godt.«

Kinas udstedelse af produktiv kredit for at styrke andre nationers økonomier så vel som sin egen, har været unik i verden i et årti, og en politik, der både er konfuciansk og i Hamiltons tradition. Politikken i traditionen efter Hamilton mærkes i Amerika som et potentiale.

En sigende artikel i Asia Times den 29. maj havde titlen, »OBOR: Hvordan infrastruktur overtrumfer politik«. Den lægger ud med at diskutere Japans »overraskende« vending mod Kinas initiativer, Bælt & Vej og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Men dernæst, efter en gennemgang af viften af projekter for jernbaner, havne, elektricitet osv. i mange asiatiske lande, vender artiklen sig mod USA.

»For USA er Kinas OBOR-initiativ blevet en multidimensional udfordring, der påvirker nationale anliggender, såvel som international politik. Kinas fokus på multilaterale udviklingsprojekter har fremhævet et ubehageligt, nationalt spørgsmål for Trump: den amerikanske, civile infrastrukturs affældige tilstand, og Kongressens modstand mod at bevilge de nødvendige midler til at gøre noget ved det … Amerikas næststørste by, Los Angeles, er indbegrebet af Amerikas smuldrende infrastruktur. På trods af, at byen håber at sikre sig rettighederne til at være vært for 2024-Olympiaden, holdes byen tilbage pga. dens gennemhullede veje med trafikpropper, et aldrende telekommunikationssystem og manglen på pålidelig, offentlig transport. Borgmester Eric Garcetti kom endda med en dybtfølt bøn til Trumps transportminister, Elaine Chao, om at forcere en pakke på $1,3 mia. til byens undergrundsbane – men det står ikke klart, om administrationen vil føje ham.

»Garcetti går måske til Kina for investering.«

Det viser sig, at Kinas største producent af togvogne, CRRC Corp., allerede bygger 64 nye togvogne til Los Angeles’ undergrundsbane, og også til andre byer. Dette er kontrakter, der er udbudt til selskaber: men Kinas præsident Xi og ledere af statsbanker har gjort det klart, at Kina selv kunne investere i kreditydelse til store, nye infrastrukturplatforme, såvel som at være med til at bygge dem; det samme gælder for Japan.

Dette fordrer en statslig, amerikansk kreditinstitution. Ved de Progressive Demokraters begivenhed, understregede EIR-repræsentanter over for de tilstedeværende behovet for en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, som den centrale kilde til kredit, der kan gøre disse projekter mulige.

Foto: Shenzhen-strækningen af Guangzhou-Hongkong Højhastigheds-jernbanen under konstruktion. Maj, 2011. (Foto: Alancrh / wikimedia commons / CC BY-SA 3.0)

 




’Fremtiden fødes i dag: Integration og infrastruktur’ til at løfte verden op

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 30. maj, 2017 – 1.-3. juni træder Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF) sammen, under værtskab af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, der for to uger siden var æresgæst på Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde (BVF) i Beijing, og som netop i går i Paris førte strategiske forhandlinger med præsident Emmanuel Macron. I går gav TASS en forhåndsvisning af mødet i Skt. Petersborg, under titlen, »Fremtiden fødes i dag: Integration og infrastrukturprojekter i Eurasien«. Den rapporterer om den kendsgerning, at en opbygning af nationer nu er ved at komme sammen – EAEU (Eurasisk Økonomisk Union), SCO (Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen) og Bælt & Vej-initiativ (BVI), plus tre nationer i BRIKS – for at fremme storstilede projekter, der udføres ud fra et »globalt standpunkt«, til alles fordel. Der sættes fokus på specifikke projekter, såsom Vostochny Cosmodrome (Kosmodrom Øst), som Japan er interesseret i at deltage i; og den »Østlige Polygon« – det fjernøstlige program for forbundethed – konnektivitet – som involverer den Transsibiriske Jernbane, Baikal-Amur Hovedlinjen, regionale grænseovergange og havne.

Mødet i Skt. Petersborg er nu den optimistiske »nye norm« i Eurasien, ledet af Kina og Rusland; og billedet er ved at blive fyldt ud for andre dele af verden. I Afrika finder den storstilede åbning af Nairobi-Mombasa-jernbanen sted, hvis 480 km ses som den første strækning i den fremtidige, østafrikanske, længdegående jernbanekorridor. »At forbinde nationer og give mennesker fremgang«, lyder mottoet på den nye, kenyanske linjes lokomotiver.

Uvidende om denne kendsgerning om denne globale omgruppering for udvikling – eller værre endnu, med had til den – er de politiske kræfter, der er sat i gang imod dens succes, og som for størstedelens vedkommende kommer fra den depraverede, britiske imperieflok. Der er et grelt misforhold mellem virkeligheden og så atlanticisternes forslag. Fra Europa kommer der fortsatte angreb mod præsident Trump og mod de amerikanske vælgere, der indsatte ham i embedet, og mod Trumps modstand mod ’grønt’ folkemord og NATO-geopolitik. Mandag fortsatte kansler Angela Merkel i Berlin de bebrejdelser imod USA, som hun havde udtalt efter sidste uges G7-møde. I en tale på en konference for bæredygtig udvikling sagde hun, at hun fortsat er en »overbevist atlanticist«, og at man ikke kan stole på USA; »vi europæere må virkelig tage skæbnen i egne hænder«, især mht. klimapolitik. I dag krævede hun, at Europa er »pro-aktiv i internationale anliggender«. Den tyske udenrigsminister Sigmar Gabriel angreb Trumps »snæversynede« politikker, der har »svækket« Vesten og EU-interesser.

Her til morgen svarede Trump igen i et tweet, men sammenhængen går langt videre end til øje for øje. På spil står præsidentskabets eksistens, USA’s integritet som nation, og om USA – meget snart – vil stille sig på linje med det nye paradigme, med Verdenslandbroen/Ny Silkevej. Faren og bestikkeligheden ved angrebene på Trump fremgår af en artikel i Spiegel Online fra 20. maj, »Tiden er inde til at komme af med Donald Trump«. Med en hysterisk tirade imod Trump (ingen moral, ingen mål, ingen strategi, ingen hjerne, osv.), gennemgår artiklen, hvordan man kan afsætte ham, med reference til det uhyggelige »Game of Thrones«. Artiklen opfordrer medierne til at »fortsætte med at sige det, som det er: Trump må fjernes fra Det Hvide Hus. Hurtigt. Han er til fare for verden«. Oversat betyder det, at man erkender, at et partnerskab mellem USA, Rusland og Kina er en dødbringende trussel mod Det britiske Imperium.

Sandheden er, at mennesker kan formås til at tænke og overvinde disse beskidte operationer, uanset, hvor uophørlige og farlige, de måtte være. Vi har meget specialarbejde at udføre. En stor udfordring er sammenbruddet og nødsituationen i New York Citys transportsystem. Knap seks uger fra i dag truer massivt kaos, når nogle af toglinjerne mellem Manhattan og Long Island og New Jersey indskrænkes pga. hastereparationer. Dette sker i sammenhæng med, at hele metropolregionens infrastrukturbase er affældig. LaRouche Manhattan Projekt går frem på basis af en overordnet plan, sammenhæng og frem for alt et krav om national handling for en tilslutning til den globale omgruppering for en Ny Silkevej.

Diane Sare fra LaRouche PAC Politiske Komite har en artikel i det næste nummer af EIR (2. juni), der slutter således:

»New York City og de dermed sammenhængende områder har en høj tæthed af kapable mennesker, hvis der fandtes et forceret program for at uddanne dem. Det er de spørgsmål, som USA’s befolkning omgående må overveje, og ikke, om Jared Kushner havde et møde med den russiske ambassadør (hvilket under alle omstændigheder sikkert ville have været en god idé).

LaRouches Fire Love angiver det nødvendige, forcerede programs medvirkende faktorer. Vi må nu samle en komite af eksperter, der kan udfylde detaljerne, og hermed transformere den måde, New Yorkere tænker på, mht. den aktuelle katastrofe. Husk, at, på kinesisk, er symbolet for krise og muligheder det samme.«

Foto: Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta indviede i dag, den 31. maj, officielt den 472 km lange jernbanestrækning med standardspor mellem havnebyen Mombasa ved det Indiske Ocean og Nairobi, hvor han kørte med Madaraka Expressens første, regulære afgang. (foto: www.railwaygazette.com)




POLITISK ORIENTERING 31. maj, 2017.
Trump skaber ravage i G7 –
Vil han lade USA gå med i et strategisk
partnerskab med Kina og Rusland?
Se også 2. del her.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Video 2. del:

»Velkommen til disse ufatteligt spændende tider, hvor verden i den grad flytter sig, og hvor centrum for den historiske proces i den grad er flyttet over til Kina. I betragtning af, at der er 1,4 mia. kinesere og den tusindårige, gamle kultur, man har dér, er det egentlig ikke så mærkeligt, fordi der er et fundament, specielt også med hele den konfucianske kultur, som midlertidigt, igennem et stykke tid, blev holdt nede pga., at udefra kommende, kolonialistiske kræfter kunne manipulere kineserne til at ødelægge sig selv, grundlæggende set – det var briterne meget gode til. Men, nu har Kina fundet sig selv, og dermed er Kina i gang med at indtage sin naturlige plads på verdensscenen. Det var, hvad vi så med dette verdenshistoriske topmøde, som fandt sted den 14.-15. maj, det såkaldte Bælt & Vej Forum, i Beijing, hvor 29 stats- og regeringschefer og 130 lande, 50 internationale organisationer med FN’s generalsekretær i spidsen, og omkring 1500 delegerede, diskuterede, hvordan – hvor går vi nu hen i næste fase af dette gigantiske projekt, Kina har sat i gang, som allerede nu, i de projekter, man er blevet enige om, er 30 gange større end Marshallplanen i sin tid var det … «    

Lyd:




Professor Wang Yiwei giver interview til det danske Schiller Institut
i forbindelse med DIIS-arrangement om Bælt & Vej og Norden

København, 18. maj, 2017 – Følgende interview blev gennemført efter seminaret, »Kinas Ét Bælt, én Vej-initiativ og mulighederne for Norden«, der var arrangeret i fællesskab af Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS) og Kinas Ambassade i Danmark. Wang Yiwei er professor ved Skolen for Internationale Studier, direktør for Instituttet for Internationale Anliggender, og direktør for Centret for Europæiske Studier ved Renmin Universitet i Beijing. Han er forfatter til bogen: »The Belt and Road: What Will China Offer the World in Its Rise«, fra 2016 (Bælt & Vej: Hvad vil et fremvoksende Kina tilbyde verden). Han var til stede ved den officielle præsentation af den kinesiske udgave af EIR’s rapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter, på et symposium, der var sponsoreret af Chongyang Institut for Finansielle Studier, den 29. september, 2015, på Renmin Universitet. Chongyang er også medsponsor af rapporten på kinesisk.

Schiller Instituttet (Michelle Rasmussen): Professor Wang, der har netop, i sidste weekend, fundet en meget historisk begivenhed sted i Beijing. Som Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale leder, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, sagde, så er dette en historisk begivenhed; dette er et faseskifte for menneskeheden hen imod etableringen af en ny, økonomisk verdensorden. Hvilken betydning har denne konference i Beijing, efter Deres mening?

Dr. Wang Yiwei: Det er måske lidt hårdt at kalde det »den ny, økonomiske verdensorden«, for dette har været den økonomiske verdensorden i mange år, men den trængte til en reform, bestemt; men det er ikke at opbygge en ny orden, for omkostningerne forbundet med opbygning af en ny orden er meget høje, og der er måske ikke behov for at få en fuldstændig ny orden. Vi gør denne orden mere bæredygtig, mere inkluderende, mere afbalanceret og til større fordel for folkeslagene i Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI). Men, jeg mener ikke, det er for at bygge en ny orden.

SI: De fortalte mig før, at De var til stede under pressekonferencen på Renmin Universitet, da den kinesiske udgivelse af vores rapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, blev udgivet, og som har cirkuleret. Hvad er, efter Deres mening, de grundlæggende ideer i BVI, og hvorfor er det vigtigt, at Europa og USA nu beslutter sig for at tilslutte sig, i stedet for at være imod det, af geopolitiske årsager?

Dr. Wang: Det drejer sig faktisk ikke om geopolitik. Det går videre end som så. Geopolitik gør verden splittet og splittet, adskilt og adskilt. Vi ønsker at gøre verden forbundet, gensidigt forbundet, hvilket er ånden i Ét Bælt, én Vej (OBOR). Verden lider meget, fordi der er for mange, separate organisationer, og så mange lande. Før Første Verdenskrig var der kun 40-50 lande i verden, og efter Anden Verdenskrig, 60 eller 70, og nu er der flere end 200 lande. Det enkelte land kan blive for småt, især i Europa. Så hvordan skaber man det større marked? Jeg mener, at gensidig forbundethed (konnektivitet) giver håbet om, at dette mål kan nås. Det er den grundlæggende [idé]. Og ikke kun inden for kontinentet, men også interkontinentalt. BVI er den mest ambitiøse plan for forbundethed under FN.

SI: Hvad ser De som principperne for økonomisk udvikling? De har talt om, at Kina lagde vægt på at løfte hundrede millioner af mennesker ud af fattigdom. Hvordan kan man gøre dette, under BVI?

Dr. Wang: Præsident Xi holdt hovedtalen til Bælt & Vej Forum og sagde, at udvikling er nøglen til at løse alle former for vanskelige problemer. Ikke kun for udviklingslandene, men også for de udviklede lande. For eksempel, så rejser befolkningen i Europa sig nu, pga. de vanskeligheder, de lider under, pga. globalisering efter den globale finanskrise. At give flere jobmuligheder for ungdommen, at lukke svælget mellem rige og fattige, og svælget mellem Nord og Syd. Den europæiske stil fokuserede oprindelig på fordeling af rigdom i form af bistand til de afrikanske og andre lande, men den kinesiske fremgangsmåde fokuserer ikke kun på bistand, men på investering – industrialisering. Jeg mener, at BVI virkelig er den klogeste [kan ikke høres – måske »verdenskontakt«]. Som vi kinesere siger, »At give dig en fisk er ikke vigtigt. At lære dig at fiske er det vigtigste.«

SI: Fr. LaRouche sagde i sine bemærkninger på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, at det er meget vigtigt nu at gå videre til det næste skridt, nemlig videnskabeligt samarbejde omkring ideen om rumrejser, om at udvikle kernefusion, om de banebrydende felter inden for videnskab og også inden for kultur, for at fremme menneskelig kreativitet som drivkraft for økonomisk udvikling, som Xi Jinping siger, »innovation«. Hvad mener De om det?

Dr. Wang: Det er meget vigtigt, for i dagens verden er der milliarder af mennesker, der går med i [organisationer?], industrialisering. Sanktionerne, som tilhørerne nævnte pga. universelle værdier, universalisme, faktisk baseret på millionerne, de titals af millioner – den europæiske erfaring i en kort periode, men Silkevejen er 2000 år gammel, og den europæiske verdensdominans er kun 500 år gammel, eller 200 eller 300 år gammel. Med et titals af millioner af menneskers erfaring, hvordan kan man arbejde for nutidens verden med flere end 7 mia. mennesker? Verden er så forskellig og kompleks. Vi har brug for ny tænkning, en ny arbejdsmodel, samarbejdsmodel for at matche den dynamiske, forskellige og udviklingsmæssige virkelighed. Som jeg sagde, så er den kinesiske erfaring den, at søge sandhed gennem kendsgerninger.

Kendsgerningerne er så komplekse, men med sandheden kan man også tilpasse sig den nye verden, ikke kun I [Europa] udgør standarden, de bedste. Det, der er godt i praksis, er det bedste.

SI: Hvad ville De sige til folk i Europa og USA om, hvilken fremgangsmåde, vi skal anvende for den fremtidige økonomiske udvikling, hvis vi ser på de næste 10, 50 eller 100 år. Hvilke er de principper, der kan gøre det muligt for os at få denne økonomiske vækst?

Dr. Wang: Gensidig forbundethed. [Mellem] udviklingslande, mindre udviklede lande, fremvoksende lande, fremvoksende markeder og de udviklede lande. Jeg mener, dette er, hvad vi behøver. Hvis vi bygger mere infrastruktur i Afrika, Bælt & Vej-landene, er det også godt for Europa og amerikanerne at investere i. Det vil være til gensidig fordel. Og Kina deler sine erfaringer om høj effektivitet, om infrastrukturbyggeri, der er til fordel for lokalbefolkningen, især de fattige, ikke lave [kan ikke høres], ikke længere skabe en [spekulations]boble, som jeg sagde.

SI: Mange tak.

Videoen med interviewet kan ses her:

 




Den omgrupperede orientering

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Verden ser meget anderledes ud, når den anskues fra Kina, end den gør fra USA eller Europa, lød Helga Zepp-LaRouches kommentar, da hun vendte hjem fra sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, der fandt sted 14.-15. maj. Kina befinder sig i en udvikling, der foregår i et forbløffende tempo, og deler nu denne succesfulde model med hele planeten, gennem Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Som en opstigende kraft i hele planetens økonomiske og kulturelle udvikling har Kina et optimistisk og forhåbningsfuldt syn – og ikke den pessimisme og fortvivlelse, der har hersket i det meste af Europa og USA, siden mordet på John F. Kennedy.

Der foregår nu en global omgruppering, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med fornuftige regeringer, der bringer deres nationer om bord i Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Kun de dumdristige vil blive stående udenfor og ’kigge ind’ sådan, som Angela Merkel nu gør med Tyskland.

Præsident Donald Trump må nu handle hurtigt for at sikre, at USA bliver en del af denne omgrupperede orientering. Han valgte klogt at sende en personlig toprådgiver, Matt Pottinger, som sin repræsentant til Bælt & Vej Forum. Nu må han forhandle Amerikas fulde deltagelse i alle aspekter af dette Nye Paradigme, inklusive investering af billioner af dollars i genopbygningen af Amerikas totalt ødelagte infrastruktur. Trump må handle hurtigt for at skabe reel, fysisk-økonomisk forandring – det er, hvad de millioner, der stemte på ham, venter på. Han må handle hurtigt, for at genindsætte FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933 for at skabe den nødvendige bank- og kreditramme for en sådan massiv indsats for genopbygning – dét er mandatet, han fik ved præsidentvalget i 2016. Den idémæssige køreplan for, hvordan disse politikker skal implementeres i USA, har Lyndon LaRouche gentagent leveret – senest i sine Fire Love (til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning).

Præsident Trump bør ikke tillade, at han presses eller distraheres bort fra denne hastedagsorden, af disse tendentiøse og grundløse anklager, der slynges ud mod hans regering, den ene efter den anden. Det er netop formålet med disse, af briterne påbudte operationer, at de skal forhindre præsident Trump i at vedtage de nationale, og internationale, politikker, som Det britiske Imperium i den grad frygter. At fordømme og afsløre disse løgne er selvfølgelig nyttigt, og endda nødvendigt. Men, denne eneste måde, hvorpå disse beskidte operationer på afgørende vis kan begraves, er at gøre præcis dét, som briterne er mest bange for; og begynde at bygge infrastrukturen og andre store projekter, nu.

En mere passende hyldest til John F. Kennedy i hundredeåret for hans fødsel, end netop atter at hellige vor nation disse politikker, eksisterer ikke.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, 2017.




Onsdag 31. maj kl. 19: Politisk Orientering v/ Tom Gillesberg
på vores kontor, eller via Skype;
Kom og vær med




NYHEDSORIENTERING MAJ/JUNI 2017:
Skelsættende Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing

Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, hvor 130 lande havde takket ja til præsident Xi Jinpings invitation, Ruslands Putin var æresgæst, men hvor også USA sendte en vigtig delegation, kan meget vel være starten på en sådan ny, retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden, hvor alle nationer får adgang til udvikling. Trump taler stadig godt med Xi Jinping og forbereder at løse krisen med Nordkorea. USA og Rusland samarbejder i Syrien. Krigsfraktionen i Vesten fortsætter heksejagten på Trump, og medierne skriger »Watergate« uden, at der er substans. Kan medierne sammen med efterretningstjenesterne få afsat Trump? Eller vil Trump rense op i overvågningssamfundet? Trump skal have gang i infrastrukturprojekter, men pengene vil ikke komme fra Wall Street. Vil vi se Glass/Steagall og LaRouches tre andre love blive gennemført, så USA kan overleve det bankerotte finanssystem og blive stort igen? Vil USA og Europa gå med i dette nye, globale paradigme? Præsident Trumps afvisning, ved NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles den 25. maj, og ved det efterfølgende G7-topmøde i Italien, af at lade USA under hans ledelse fortsætte den gamle, vestlige politik, kan være startskuddet til en helt ny verdensorden, hvor USA samarbejder tæt med de tidligere fjendebilleder Kina og Rusland.

Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand i Danmark, holdt den 17. maj 2017. Se og hør talen inklusive den efterfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Helga Zepp-LaRouche taler for forum i Kinas største forlag

24. maj, 2017 – I en tale for et publikum på mellem 100 og 200 mennesker i forlaget Phoenix Press Publishing Groups hovedkvarter i Nanjing, Kina, gav Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets præsident, en tilbagemelding om sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing.

»Bælt & Vej har indsprøjtet optimisme i mange lande«, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, »og dette momentum kan ikke standses«, men at bringe det til at bære den fulde frugt »bliver ikke let«. Umiddelbart efter topmødet, fortsatte hun, optrappedes angrebene mod Bælt & Vej, kombineret med angreb mod præsident Trump, der havde sendt en delegation på højt niveau til BV-topmødet. »Angrebene var baseret på de absurde anklager om aftalt spil med Rusland i valget«, sagde hun.

»Efter den Kolde Krig, ønskede briterne og deres amerikanske allierede at skabe en unipolær verden«, sagde hun. »Og i deres bestræbelser herpå, har de ødelagt Mellemøsten og efterladt det i ruiner.« Dette fremskyndede flygtningekrisen, den generelle reaktion imod »globalisering« og fremvæksten af højrefløjsbevægelser. »Bælt & Vej«, sagde hun, »vil virkeliggøre skabelsen af Verdenslandbroen, som vil forbinde alle kontinenter. Dette er noget, vi har kæmpet for i over 40 år«, sagde hun.

Dernæst beskrev hun den kamp, som hun og hendes mand, Lyndon H. LaRouche, jr., har ført for at bygge en ny, økonomisk verdensorden: LaRouches forslag om en International Udviklingsbank, kampen for den afrikanske udviklingsplan og det latinamerikanske initiativ med samme formål, med samarbejdet med den mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo [1976-82], samt de hundredevis af seminarer på fem kontinenter, som Schiller Instituttet har afholdt, med krav om en Bælt & Vej-udvikling.

»Transformeringen af Bælt & Vej til at blive til en Verdenslandbro vil for første gang rent politisk virkeliggøre en reel fremtid for alle mennesker, der lever på denne planet, og vil etablere former for regeringsførelse for verden.« Men, for fuldt ud at realisere dette, sagde hun, »må man også studere min mands ideer med hensyn til spørgsmålet om økonomi«.

Fr. Zepp-LaRouche gennemgik dernæst de altafgørende kulturelle aspekter af Bælt & Vej og behovet for, at alle de forskellige kulturer bringer alle deres bedste præstationer frem, med det formål at bruge disse til at skabe en dialog mellem kulturer blandt nationerne i Bælt & Vej. Dernæst gennemgik hun betydningen af Friedrich Schiller i tysk og vestlig kultur, og betydningen af Konfucius i kinesisk kultur, idet hun foretog en konkret sammenligning mellem Schillers og Konfucius’ værker, hvor hun viste den nære lighed i disse to, store tænkeres ideer, der var skilt af næsten 2000 år.

Efter fr. Zepp-LaRouche havde Bill Jones, chef for EIR’s Washington-kontor, en fremlæggelse, hvor han viste en power point-præsentation, der beskrev LaRouche-organisationens kamp fra tidspunktet for Nixons ophævelse af Bretton Woods-systemet. Han beskrev Romklubbens angreb i 1970’erne og udgivelsen af bogen »Grænser for vækst«, der havde til hensigt at transformere en fremskridtskultur til en dødskultur, med den internationale indsats for Økonomisk Nulvækst og Befolknings-nulvækst. Han skitserede Lyndon LaRouches og LaRouche-organisationens reaktion på Nulvækst-bevægelsen, LaRouches krav om den Internationale Udviklingsbank (IUB) og det efterfølgende krav om IUB og en Ny, økonomisk Verdensorden ved den Alliancefri Bevægelses Colombo-møde i 1976, og gennem Guyanas udenrigsminister, Fred Willis, i FN’s Generalforsamling.

Jones beskrev den kamp, som LaRouche førte for at bringe præsident Ronald Reagan, der havde vedtaget LaRouches idé om Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI (Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ) som et fredsforslag sammen med Sovjetunionen, ind i en arbejdsrelation med de progressive ledere i udviklingssektoren, såsom den mexicanske præsident López Portillo og den indiske premierminister Indira Gandhi. Disse bestræbelser førte dernæst til en reaktion fra vicepræsident George H.W. Bush, der intrigerede for at få LaRouche og flere af hans medarbejdere fængslet på falske anklager. Valget af præsident Bill Clinton bragte LaRouche ud af fængsel og tilbage i en rådgivende rolle, med præsident Clintons forsøg, om end mislykket, på at gå i retning af en ny finansarkitektur. Skabelsen af Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI) og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) repræsenterer således den type strukturer, som LaRouche og hans bevægelse har forsøgt at frembringe i over fire årtier, forklarede Jones.

Dernæst fulgte professor Bao Shixiu, professor i militærvidenskab, der skitserede Bælt & Vejs strategiske betydning for Kina og viste, hvordan det vil gøre det muligt for landet at overvinde de traditionelle vanskeligheder, det har haft med andre lande, inklusive Indien og Japan. Professor Bao understregede LaRouche-parrets skelsættende rolle med at bringe dette initiativ frem i forreste front, og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches fortsatte kamp for at overvinde modstanden mod det, fra finanseliten i London og New York. Professor Bao fremlagde også både Bælt & Vejs økonomiske og strategiske implikationer for Kina, som ville være med til at sikre et harmonisk klima i området og i verden, der igen ville gøre det muligt for Kina og alle andre lande at fortsat udvikle sig.

Tilhørerne viste stor interesse, især for Helga Zepp-LaRouches forslag om en dialog mellem kulturer og en større grad af interesse i Friedrich Schillers værker blandt personalet i Phoenix-forlaget, af hvilke nogle syntes at have fået et ret stort kendskab til den tyske kulturs værker.

Foto: Som præsident for Schiller Instituttet var Helga Zepp-LaRouche inviteret til at deltage i det netop afsluttede Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, hvor hun deltog i rundbordsdiskussioner mellem tænketanke. Her ses hun som tilhører under forummet.




Lad os komme videre!
Nu skal landet genopbygges!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
26. maj, 2017.

Matthew Ogden: Vi befinder os nu lidt under to uger efter det verdenshistoriske Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, Kina. Som resultat af dette ekstraordinære topmøde har de forskellige dele af verden nu indledt processen med at konkretisere og konsolidere det, der blev diskuteret på dette forum; og de befinder sig i processen med at bygge det mest ambitiøse og langt det mest vidtrækkende infrastrukturprojekt i verdenshistorien – det såkaldte Ét Bælte, én Vej; det økonomiske bælte; den Maritime Silkevej. Dette nye paradigme, der repræsenteres af dette fredelige, samarbejdende win-win-udviklingsprogram med storstilede projekter og reel, eksponentielle eksplosioner i menneskelig produktivitet, er nu ved at blive den fremherskende dynamik på denne planet. Vi har en meget spændende rapport fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der, som det er vore seere bekendt, deltog personligt i dette Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing; hvor hun deltog i flere plenarforsamlinger og rundbordsdiskussioner. Hun er fortsat med at holde private møder i Kina, siden topmødet sluttede. Så sent som i går holdt hun endnu en fremtrædende tale i Nanjing.

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet. Hele Helgas tale vil kunne læses på dansk her på hjemmesiden i løbet af weekenden.)

So, let’s take a look here; this is what Helga LaRouche had
to say.  She was a featured speaker at a conference of several
hundred people at the Phoenix Press Publishing Group
headquarters, which published the Chinese version of the New Silk
Road Special Report.  It was a report-back from her attendance at
the May 14-15 Belt and Road summit.  So, here’s a view of
beautiful Nanjing; this is where she was speaking yesterday.  As
you can see, a very modern and high-tech Chinese city.  She said
the following:
“The Belt and Road has injected optimism into many
countries, and the momentum is unstoppable.  But bringing it
fully to fruition will not be easy,” she said.  Then she
elaborated a little bit on that; she said, “Immediately after the
Beijing summit, the attacks against the Belt and Road escalated;
combined with attacks against President Trump, who had sent a
high-level delegation.  The attacks were based on the absurd
charges of collusion with Russia in the election.”
“After the Cold War, the British and their American allies
wanted to create a unipolar world.  In doing so, they have
destroyed the Middle East and left it in a shambles”; which she
said contributed to the refugee crisis.  And she said, “The Belt
and Road will bring about the creation of the World Land-Bridge,
which will connect all continents.”  This is something that we,
the LaRouche movement, have been fighting for, for over 40 years.
She concluded saying, “Transforming the Belt and Road to a World
Land-Bridge will realize politically for the first time, a real
future for the people living on this planet; and will establish
forms of governance for the world.”  She made a very important
point, which we’ll take up. “But to fully realize this, you must
also study the ideas of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on the
question of economics.”
In addition to Helga, other speakers at this conference
were:  Bill Jones, the {EIR} bureau chief for Washington, DC; and
a very distinguished gentleman, Professor Bao Shixiu, who’s a
professor of military science.
That’s the kind of optimism, you get a sense of the real
optimism that’s being expressed by Helga LaRouche; and that’s
what the world looks like to the rest of the world for anyone who
is not reading the hysterical American and European press.  On
the other hand, for your average American citizen, the very words
“New Silk Road”, “One Belt, One Road”, “Belt and Road
Initiative”, these phrases are almost like a foreign language.
It’s practically unheard of, with hardly a mention of this
incredible development in world history that occurred over the
last two weeks.  Hardly a mention of this in the mainstream press
aside from propaganda about how this project is just some sort of
front for a so-called “new Chinese imperialism” or other lying
distortions of what the implications of this idea, of this
vision, is.
So instead, while your average American is sitting in the
sweltering heat in Penn Station, waiting for a train which has
been delayed for two hours because of some track derailment, or
literal disintegration of the track, while he’s sitting in his
car for hours in a traffic jam waiting to go through the Lincoln
Tunnel, or stuck in traffic on 495, or sitting at home looking
for a job to pay off hundreds of thousands of student debt that
he spent to get a degree that has earned him nothing.  What is
the average American forced to listen to on the radio, or on CNN,
or while he’s reading the esteemed headlines in the so-called
venerable press, the mainstream media, the {Washington Post} or
the {New York Times}?  Nary a mention of the new high-speed,
vacuum tube magnetic train that is being developed by China, or
the new rail routes that are being opened in Africa, or the
literally hundreds of great infrastructure projects that are
being built practically overnight along the routes of the New
Silk Road.  But rather, what are you reading?  Page after page
after story after article of McCarthy-ite scare stories about
evil Russian spies who have supposedly infiltrated and subverted
the entire Trump administration, lurking behind every desk in the
West Wing.  Literally smuggling hidden microphones into the Oval
Office itself; the inner sanctum of the Trump administration.
They’re reading John Brennan repeatedly tell a Congressional
hearing “I don’t do evidence”; as he increasingly begins to sound
like a character out of a “Doctor Strangelove” movie.
Here’s a quote from John Brennan:  “I know what the Russians
try to do.  They suborn individuals and they try to get
individuals, including US individuals, to act on their behalf;
wittingly or unwittingly.”  In other words, any American who has
some contact with Russia or Russians, may be a spy or a mole,
whether he or she knows it or not.  Subversion, or possible
subversion, is everywhere; trust no one.  There’s John Brennan
for you.
Now, Americans should ask themselves, why are we being
subjected to an endless, round-the-clock, literally nonstop
narrative of so-called collusion between Russian spies and the
Trump campaign, when even John Brennan himself was forced to
admit in that same hearing, under rigorous questioning from
members of Congress, that no, in fact, he has absolutely {no}
evidence of collusion, cooperation, or coordination.  Let’s take
a look:

ALICIA CERRETANI [on video]:  On Tuesday, Obama’s CIA
director, resident thug, and coup plotter John Brennan testified
in front of the House Intelligence Committee.  His testimony was
then used by the crazed media to flame the ongoing coup against
the President for yet another day.
Who is this guy? Well, after his stint as CIA station chief
in Riyadh, Brennan became George Tenetâs gopher at the CIA, and
then authored the intelligence assessment that claimed Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Credible guy, right? He
became Obamaâs CIA director in 2013, and regularly joined Obama
for the infamous Tuesday kill sessions. He helped overthrow the
duly-elected government of Ukraine using neo-Nazis, and helped
Obama encircle Russia and China with US military forces, setting
the stage for World War III.
On Tuesday, Brennan told Congress that based on his
intelligence experience (like the Iraq war intelligence
assessment), when he observed contacts between Trump campaign
personnel and Russian personnel he thought they might be
nefarious, even if the Trump campaign personnel were “unwitting”.
This has justified a full, unprecedented FBI investigation of a
Presidential campaign and all that has followed.
And just like the Iraq war, his “judgment” is not based on
“evidence”. As he explained, he “doesnât do evidence.” Listen to
these exchanges:

REP. TOM ROONEY:  But with regard to the main question at
hand, in your experience with the Russians trying to involve
themselves in our election, did you every find any evidence, as
the ranking member spoke of collusion, while you were the
Director, did you find direct evidence of collusion between the
Trump campaign and Putin in Moscow, while you were there?

JOHN BRENNAN:  Mr. Rooney, I never was an FBI agent, I never
was a prosecutor, so I really don’t do evidence.  I do
intelligence throughout the course of my careerâ¦.

REP. TREY GOWDY:  When you learned of Russian efforts, did
you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and
Russian state actors?

BRENNAN:  As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don’t do evidence.  We
were uncovering information and intelligence about interactions
and contacts between US persons and the Russians.  As we came
upon that, we would share it with the Bureau.

GOWDY:  So, was it contact that you saw, was it something
more than contact?  What is the nature of what you saw?

BRENNAN:  I saw interaction, and was aware of interaction.
But again, it raised questions in my mind about what was the true
nature of it; but I don’t know.  I don’t have sufficient
information to make a determination whether or not such
cooperation or complicity or collusion was taking place.

REP. MIKE TURNER:  But if someone left this hearing today,
and said that you had indicated that those contacts were evidence
of collusion or collaboration, they would be misrepresenting your
statements, correct?

BRENNAN:  They would have mis-heard my response to the very
good questions that were asked of me.  I’m trying to be as clear
as possible in terms of what I know, what I assess, and what I
can say.

TURNER:  So, you would say that’s a misrepresentation of
your statement, yes?

BRENNAN:  I would say that it was not an accurate portrayal
of my statement, absolutely; it was inconsistent with my remarks.

TURNER:  So, let me go to the next step.  If someone saw
what you saw, and only what you saw, with respect to those
contacts, if they looked at the intelligence that you saw, where
you said it might have been benign, might not have been benign,
and then they characterized what they saw as having been evidence
of collusion or collaboration, they’d be misrepresenting the
intelligence, would they not?

BRENNAN:  I don’t know what else they have seen that could
corroborate or —

TURNER:  If they saw only what you saw, they would be
misrepresenting the intelligence, correct?

BRENNAN:  I presume they would be misrepresenting what it is
that I saw.  Again, I don’t know —

TURNER:  Thank you.  I appreciate that, because I do believe
that there are members of this committee who deserve that
counsel.  Because your specificity gives us an understanding of
what we’re reviewing, and I do believe there are those who
reviewed some of the information that you have seen, and
represented to the public absolutely incorrectly and
misrepresented it.

CERRETANI:  Itâs time for Americans to see the world as
Brennan and his cohorts see it. Their establishment has their
panties in a bunch, not over Trump-Russian collusion, but because
Donald Trump said he is ready to work with Russia and China on
terrorism and economic development, ending the miserable years
under Bush and Obama which Brennan so faithfully served. Trump
needs to keep his promise; end the regime change wars and focus
on rebuilding the economy. And the same goes for our Senators and
Congressmen: Suck it up, move on, and back Trump up on rebuilding
the country.

OGDEN:  So, as you can see, we have a petition on that
subject which is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  It’s
called “It’s Time to Rebuild the Country”; the website is
lpac.co/rebuild.  This is a petition which you can sign and you
can circulate.
So, to take up that question — “It’s time to rebuild the
country” — I’m joined by Jason Ross as I mentioned earlier; who
spent the last week in New York City, conducting meetings with
some top engineers and discussing what must be done to form a
task force, a national action force, to address what is rightly
being called an infrastructure emergency.  It is expressing
itself very acutely in New York City, but it’s a general problem.
Before I bring Jason on, I want to show a couple of headlines to
give you a flavor of what New Yorkers are experiencing right now.
Here’s the first:  “Nothing Can Save New York City Commuters from
a Summer of Hell”; “Long Island Railroad Riders Could Be in for a
‘Summer of Agony’|”; “MTA Taking on ‘Crushing Debt’ for Expansion
Projects”; “New York Governor Urges Trump to Provide Emergency
Funds for Penn Station”; and “If You Want to Understand America’s
Infrastructure Problem, Just Look at New Jersey!”
So, Jason, why don’t you give us a flavor of what’s going on
up there in New York?

JASON ROSS:  Sure!  I can say a bit about what’s going on up
here, and then I think the really important aspect is about where
the solution can come from.  Some people like to look for local
solutions, which in the case of New York is simply not possible
here.  In terms of what the region is facing, I’ll just give a
couple of examples.  One is New York Penn Station, which is where
the New Jersey Transit trains come in from New Jersey, it’s where
the Long Island Railroad trains come in from the east, and also,
Amtrak trains use it.  It serves about 700,000 passengers every
day, busiest train station in the United States.  The tunnels
that go under the Hudson River from the west side of Manhattan,
are over 100 years old.  They received damage during super storm
Sandy, and without repair, they’re expected to potentially fail
anytime within a decade or so.  But it’s unpredictable; they
could fail sooner.  Basically, it’s a ticking time bomb.
Were one of these tunnels to fail, there would literally be
probably about 100,000 people unable to get to work in the
morning, or get home, or run their errands or do whatever they’re
doing.  100,000 people.  That’s an awfully large number of
people.  Also related to this, Matt, you had mentioned the
“Summer of Hell” for Long Island Railroad commuters.  Coming out
of Penn Station to the east, are tunnels that cross the East
River.  Of the four tunnels, there are two that are going to be
undergoing repair and maintenance.  During that time, the
availability of trains is going to be decreased; this is the
“Summer of Hell”.  This is going to be a major bottleneck for
commuters.  Then coming up in 2019, the L train, which crosses
the East River and heads to Williamsburg and Brooklyn, is going
to be closed down for over a year.  That tunnel needs such major
maintenance; again, an over 100-year old tunnel serving the
busiest metro system in our nation.  When that is closed for over
a year, that’s going to cause major disruptions.
The thing is, this is not an accident; it’s not as though
these things were unforeseen.  Due to decades of
under-investment, the infrastructure of New York City, the
largest, most important city in the United States, is really at
catastrophic levels.  Even the planned outages are going to be
very debilitating, and were something to occur to the Hudson
River crossing heading into Penn Station from the New Jersey
side, you would have an absolute disaster.  You’d have to change
the bridges and tunnels to be buses and carpools only, for
example.  Major disruption, very major disruption.
What I think this shows us, in addition to the $100 billion
to $1 trillion that would be required to really revamp the system
in New York, to standardize the types of sizes of the trains, or
have platforms that can operate on both New Jersey Transit and
Long Island Railroad trains; not to get into all the detail on
this.  Let’s talk about what would make it possible.
You opened up the show discussing Helga LaRouche’s visit to
the Nanjing, following her participation in the Belt and Road
Forum in Beijing two weeks ago.  This Belt and Road Initiative
outlook, the types of financing that are involved in this, the
funding, the way that this infrastructure is being conceived and
put together; this is something that’s absolutely essential in
the United States.  Infrastructure isn’t little bits and pieces
that get put together to make individual commuters or the
movement of goods easier.  What it is, is a platform as a whole,
required for a certain level of productivity.  So, we require
both an increase in the productivity of the United States,
productivity in the sense of producing things.  Producing
something for the future, as exemplified by scientific research
or high-technology manufacturing, by the space program.  These
are things that are incredibly productive in achieving a greater
potential for the future.  When you say what is the platform on
which a higher level of productivity can exist, then the answer
to that question is things like national rail upgrades; very
high-speed rail, for example, along the eastern coast of the
United States, throughout the country.  A large investment in
revamping in the New York City metro system, for example; but far
beyond that.  Nationally, rail; power plants.  Upgrading our very
old power plants to new, higher technology, more efficient and
safer nuclear power plants; fourth generation nuclear power
plants.
The kinds of upgrades that are needed are on a scale that is
so large, that it requires a commitment from the nation.  This, I
think, gets to the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, the proposal
that he’s made for what’s necessary for real economic recovery in
the United States.  With Glass-Steagall in place and the
potential to actually direct the economy in a productive
direction, you’re going to need a national banking approach.
We’re going to need the ability to finance large investments in
infrastructure in projects that will not bring a return.  This is
the biggest problem people have in understanding this.  You’re
thinking about value in terms of money.  Does the New York subway
pay for itself?  Do people pay enough in fares to pay for the
system?  These kinds of things really miss the point, because
they ignore the qualitative incommensurable change in
productivity that’s made possible by an infrastructure platform
as a platform.
As Mr. LaRouche considers it, in creating a synthetic
environment, an artificial environment, a manmade, nurturing,
improved, better environment around us; where our surroundings,
the world that we live in, is, to an increasing degree, one of
our own creation.  The resources that are resources to us in our
daily life, or on a national economic scale, are not those of
2000 years ago.  They’re not the resources of good land for
agriculture — although of course, we use that; or of resources
that are sitting around.  Fish in the ocean or the river that you
can catch.  They’re resources that are underground; they’re
resources that are very hard to separate from each other.
Separating out rare Earth elements for their use; mining aluminum
ore and creating aluminum with a process that requires a great
deal of electricity.  The ability to use the resources of the
future to increase our power as a species; that’s the real key
direction that infrastructure must be approached from.
The way to avoid the bit by bit, piece by piece, piecemeal
user fee approach to infrastructure financing, is to acknowledge
its unique role in the economy as something that’s of
governmental responsibility and something whose returns are
inherently indirect and should not be looked for in terms of
direct money made by them via user fees.  It’s just a completely
wrong way to look at these things.
The way to make this possible is going to go far beyond
Donald Trump’s proposals for investing $1 trillion in
infrastructure over the next decade via a process that pulls in
private money via PPPs (public-private partnerships) and the
like.  What’s required is not annual appropriations, not private
financing, but an ability to have national credit over a longer
term loans via a national banking approach to make it possible to
build these 5-, 10-, 25-year programs at rates that are
affordable.  So we can put in place this necessary physical
environment; create the platform that we would want to live in,
where we’re able to move efficiently.  Where new areas for, for
example, affordable housing open up, when you’ve got a better
transportation system.  You don’t have to live quite so close to
an expensive city center to be able to get a job there.  You can
enjoy more of your time when you have an efficient and productive
infrastructure platform.
So I think overall, New York City is a case study.  You’d
say that if this can happen in New York, and you think about the
importance of New York City and the nation, the importance of the
businesses that are located there; you’d say that there is enough
of a pull that this should never have been possible for this to
occur in New York City.  But it has, and it’s just an
illustration of a dramatic underinvestment nationwide; and
something that has to be reversed in this way that Mr. LaRouche
has been very unique and very correct in proposing for the United
States.

OGDEN:  Well, Jason, you have unique perspective, because
not only have you spent the last week up in New York, but you’ve
had the opportunity to travel to China.  Maybe you could just
tell us a little bit; just a personal eyewitness view.  What’s
the difference between being an American walking around the
streets of New York City right now with crumbling infrastructure,
versus being in China, walking around Beijing with a blossoming
high technology commitment to modern infrastructure?

ROSS:  Well, some people might say it’s an unfair
comparison, because the metro system in Nanjing is basically
brand new; it’s a decade or two old.  And in Beijing, there’s
been significant expansion of the lines.  But the fact is, that
even older cities — take Seoul, South Korea; they’ve had major
upgrades to their subway system.  They put in the screen doors in
the stations so you don’t have trash or people falling on the
tracks; it makes it safer, it makes it possible to air condition
the stations.  These are the kinds of things that New York could
have retrofitted; but if you look at the situation today, you’ve
got the interesting aromas in New York subways.  You’ve got the
famously unreliable performance.  In contrast to that, the
Chinese, for example, high-speed rail network, where you’re able
to go an equivalent distance as that between here and Chicago —
meaning Beijing to Shanghai — you can go in five hours in China.
That same trip by rail here in the United States takes 19 hours.
Or, take New York to Washington.  It’s kind of insane for
somebody looking from the outside, to see these two major cities
of the United States separated by travel really takes hours.
It’s a little under three hours even with the “high-speed” Acela;
which is isn’t very high-speed.  By road, you’re looking at more
than five hours.  This would be a one, one and a half hour
travel.  It’s really a question of how we’re thinking about
ourselves; the fact that these kinds of terrible conditions are
being tolerated.  And the fact that of these stupid, stupid
economic policies that have made this possible, continue to be
tolerated.
Mr. LaRouche has pointed to the post-Kennedy shift in
orientation of the United States, away from a future orientation,
away from investments in the future, away from physical
productivity towards finance.  You can have all of the exotic
investment derivatives that you want, but that’s not going to get
you home any quicker if the train is late, or because a bunch of
trash on the tracks caught on fire and delayed the subway line.

OGDEN:  One thing about that.  First of all, infrastructure
goes far beyond just transport infrastructure.  Obviously there’s
the power production and what you can provide in terms of energy
density towards manufacturing and all of the agricultural
technology that is involved in a modern infrastructure platform
for a nation.  But one question I think is interesting, and we
discussed it a little bit.  We take for granted that the idea of
faster transport is just a modern idea and that we should have
faster transport between cities.  That sort of stands on its own,
it is true.  But what role does that play in terms of the science
of economics?  Productivity and what does that allow us to do
economically that we couldn’t do before without this kind of
high-speed transport?

ROSS:  Well, let’s also take it on the level of the Belt and
Road, where some of these areas, it’s not just going from
moderate to high speed transit; it’s going from a two-week voyage
through the mountains by road to one that only takes a few days
in the location I’m thinking of right now.  But think of the
value of land in a certain area.  What is the value of a piece of
land?  It depends on what the surroundings are, what is the
environment; including, very importantly, probably most important
these days, the created environment — the constructed
environment.  That nurturing, synthetic, artificial, manmade
human environment that we’ve created.  If you’ve got an area, and
now you’ve got access to high-speed rail, you’ve built several
fourth-generation, a very highly efficient nuclear power supply.
You know it’ll be on 24 hours a day; the rates are reasonable.
You’ve got a water supply system backed up by desalination to
ensure that it’s always available; and you’ve got an efficient to
get people, employees, and goods around.  The value of that area
has now just dramatically increased; not just in financial terms,
like the rent would be higher on a piece of land there, if you
owned a building.  But it actually is more productive.  You can
move things around more quickly; you can go from a prototype
design to creating goods more rapidly.  You’re able to waste less
time having whatever it is that you’re producing or working on
just being in transit going from place to place.
Think about it.  When you’re shipping things, say you’ve got
a type of production facility and you’re shipping things by ocean
and you’re counting on a certain number of car parts arriving
every week.  Well, there’s always a certain number that are just
sitting out in the ocean in transit; it’s just wasted inventory
basically.  So physically, those are maybe a small type of
improvement to look at, but the type of economy that’s made
possible as a whole.  You could do the best urban planning you
want, you could have a wonderful system in some area; but if that
area didn’t have electricity, it doesn’t matter how well things
are laid out.  It doesn’t matter how clean the water is around
it, how perfect the weather; you’re simply going to be limited in
terms of what processes you can engage in.  Transportation,
energy, access to resources.  I think the real way to look at it
right now is we have to keep in mind, whenever we’re talking
about infrastructure or platforms, we have to talk about nuclear
fusion.  Because that’s really the thing you’ve got to keep in
mind.  How will our relationship to other people, land area,
resources, how is that going to change with the development of
commercial nuclear fusion?  Where the price of energy will come
down dramatically; where our ability to process resources will be
dramatically eased.  How is that going to change the
productivity, the value of every person, the value of the
platform of constructed environment that we’ve got?  You have to
always keep that in mind.  What’s the next level going to be?
I’ll say one more thing.  You brought up agriculture.  Think
about the important role of space infrastructure in agriculture
today.  The ability of GPS positioning; the ability to get a very
good sense of conditions on the ground of agricultural
conditions, of weather, of location; and the way that changes the
way you approach to fertilizing, taking care, harvesting of the
field.  So, the space program, where our space infrastructure is
playing a major role here.
So, what are the next levels of infrastructure going to be?
Let’s keep that in mind.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the key.  It’s vision; it’s where are
we going next.  Where is the world in the next 50 years?  Can we
imagine a new platform of human existence which is incommensurate
with the one that we currently have?  It’s very important to look
backwards in history and say, prior to the discovery of nuclear
fission, what was possible and what was not possible?  Prior to
the development of widespread electricity?  So, if you look at
the incommensurate changes over time that the human species has
gone through, can you imagine what the next incommensurate leap
is going to be?  I really do think that that is the beauty of
this Belt and Road Initiative.  Go back 40 years, go back as I
think Helga mentioned in the remarks that I quoted in the
beginning; go back to when Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche
were first campaigning for this idea of a new international
economic order around the International Development Bank.  This
became this vision of this productive linkage between East and
West, uniting Eurasia; it was known as the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
This was the vision for the New Silk Road that now in 2013 was
adopted by the Chinese government and is now a reality.  Forty
years ago, would you have even imagined what has now become
possible because of what China has committed itself to?
It requires those types of visionaries at every stage of
history to say where do we go to next; what is the next leap that
mankind has to take?  I do think, as we’ve discussed, the next
leap is moving mankind into near-Earth space and then beyond.  We
have to become an extraterrestrial species; not just one that
makes expeditions with two-man, three-man capsules to the Moon
and back.  But actually building up an infrastructure as we have
here on Earth, to create these kinds of artificial environments
in space.  You project that vision of the future back onto what
we should be doing here on Earth, and a lot of these things just
become kind of obvious.  We shouldn’t have trains derailing
coming in and out of Penn Station, if we’re actually a species
worthy of colonizing Mars.

ROSS:  Right.  You’re talking about looking back to the past
to look at something having been a breakthrough originally.  Some
of the equipment that’s currently operating in the signalling in
the New York subway is from the 1930s, when those relay boxes and
things like this go back to the Roosevelt administration.  And
they’re still in use; thankfully, still working for the most
part.

OGDEN:  Do they use Morse Code to signal when the train’s
coming into the station?

ROSS:  There are rude levers and things like this.

OGDEN:  I thought it was unique that in this speech that
Helga made in Nanjing, as I mentioned, she was speaking to the
Phoenix Publishing House, which  published the Chinese version of
the “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” special
report; which is the {EIR} Special Report from two years ago, and
now this is circulating in Chinese.  But she was sort of giving a
report back on what’s the progress that we’ve made; what are the
breakthroughs that we’ve made so far; what do we have to do next?
It was this remark that she made that to fully realize all of
this, you must study my husband’s science of economics.  It
really is true.  Beginning to understand these things not just
from the standpoint of transport corridors and train tracks and
highways and these types of very necessary projects; but to
understand it from above in terms of the science of human
productivity and how the human mind harnesses new technologies
and uses them to build these increasing platforms of human
existence.  You already have the world engaging in a process of
which they’re not even quite conscious of what they’re doing.
It’s necessary to become fully conscious of what this process
actually is, in order to carry it forward to the next level.
Let me ask you one more political question, Jason.  On the
ground there in New York, how are people responding to, on one
side this 24-hour nonstop news cycle barrage about Russian spies
and so on; and then on the other side, being told that there’s
this incredible process that’s underway, this breakthrough that
happened in China that they’re not even being told about?  What’s
people’s response to that?

ROSS:  I don’t know how different it is from other places,
but overall, people are getting really sick about hearing about
Trump-gate and Russia.  People are really sick of it.  Either
that, or they’re going along with it and they kind of listen to
it.  But what really gets through to people is when you’re
discussing thinking about the future.  This is what people really
do respond to.  They say, “OK, what are we going to do?  The
election happened.  What’s our future going to be?”  If your
favorite historical figure ever were the President of the United
States right now, what would be the policies you’d want to get
implemented?  OK, let’s start making those things happen.
The potential to do this in a very new way, both shocks some
people or seems impossible to others; but I attended a forum
about US-China economic relations the other day, and one of the
things that came up was one of the presenters was going through
various studies about the economy in China.  About how the middle
class is exploding, how poverty is diminishing very rapidly; the
percentage of the population that’s actually poor is going down
very quickly; and about the level of optimism.  There was a chart
of optimism among different nations; it measured as survey
questions.  “I think my children will have a better future than I
do.”  And in all segments of China, this was very positive in all
segments of China.  For the middle segments of China it’s 60-70%;
even a majority in the lower income segments as well.  There’s
just this tremendous sense that things are getting better, things
are moving forward; the next generation will have it better.
Then on this chart, you have the United States, way down here
almost at the very bottom, along with the Western European
nations.  So, I just think — I know this gets away from asking
how people respond here, but it’s a very important point, I
think.  In keeping with the shift of the center of gravity in the
world, the importance economically and politically, away from the
trans-Atlantic and towards Asia where everyone is expecting the
majority of the growth in the world economy in the next decades.
Along with that, you have this sense of happiness and optimism in
that part of the world.  In these old, sour nationsâ¦.  It’s also
changing in Europe, but in the trans-Atlantic, the government
leaders can say whatever they want, but if you actually ask
people what they think about what their future looks like, it’s
very grim.  The contrast between these two outlooks — you had
asked earlier about New York versus China — as a personal
anecdote, that was one of the huge differences that I saw; was
this overwhelming sense of optimism from people in China.  It’s
getting better.  We can absolutely have that sense here as well,
by making it a reality; by throwing off the stupid ideas that are
holding us back.  By throwing off this slavish adherence to Wall
Street and London; by tolerating the avowed supremacy of finance
over actual human contributions.  It’s a choice we have to make.

OGDEN:  Exactly!  That was exactly the point that Helga made
in her speech in Nanjing; she said “The Belt and Road has
injected optimism into many countries, and the momentum is
unstoppable.  But, to fully bring it into fruition, it will not
be easy.”  So, we have our work cut out for us here in the United
States.  I think this idea of a task force of engineers and real
qualified minds who are going to put their minds to work on how
to construct this vision for how the United States can join this
New Silk Road dynamic; it’s a very important one.
I’d like to put on the screen one more time the address to
the petition:  This is “Congress: Suck It Up and Move On!  It’s
Time to Rebuild the Country”; lpac.co/rebuild.  I encourage you
to sign that petition and to circulate it, and to become involved
in what you just heard from Jason.  Spread the news about this
dynamic of optimism that is sweeping the world, and the
possibility that this is something that could happen here in the
United States.
Thank you so much, Jason; it was a pleasure talking to you
from your remote location.  I’d like to thank everybody for
tuning into our webcast here today.  Please stay tuned for more
news from Helga Zepp-LaRouche; we’ll keep you updated as her
travels continue.  We’ve got some definite breakthroughs that we
can be expecting over the coming days.  So, thanks for joining
us, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




Kinas udenrigsminister: Bælt & Vej-initiativ
er middel til industrialisering af Afrika

24. maj, 2017 – Under forløbet af sin rundrejse til fire afrikanske nationer – Mauretanien, Kap Verde, Mali og Elfenbenskysten – understregede Kinas udenrigsminister Wang Yi, at Kina søger at styrke samarbejdet med afrikanske nationer inden for rammerne af Bælt & Vej-initiativet, rapporterer Xinhua.

Under en pressekonference den 22. maj i Abidjan, Elfenbenskysten, understregede Wang, at Afrika og Kina »kan kombinere de 10 største planer for samarbejde mellem Kina og Afrika, foreslået af Xi Jinping, med Bælt & Vej-initiativet« og få dem til at komplementere hinanden. Xinhua understregede, at Afrika er ivrig efter at gå bort fra metoden med »ensidig metode til vækst« med eksport af råmaterialer og opnå økonomisk uafhængighed gennem industrialisering. Kina ses som den mest pålidelige partner til opnåelse af dette mål.

I sine bemærkninger understregede Wang, at Afrikas vækst også er afgørende for udviklingslandes overordnede styrke, og dette er i både Kinas og Afrikas interesse. Han påpegede det mangeårige venskab mellem Kina og Afrika og betydningen af infrastrukturprojekter, som Kina var med til at bygge for årtier siden – Mauretaniens »venskabshavn«, bygget i 1980’erne, er et eksempel – og som stadig er i fuld drift. Det, der plejede at være kendt som »fattigdommens trekant« i det sydlige Mauretanien, er nu kendt som »håbets trekant«, takket være veje og anden infrastruktur, som Kina var med til at bygge.

I går præsenterede den kinesiske generaldirektør for det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums departement for planlægning af politik, Wang Yajun, i Addis Abeba i den Afrikanske Unions hovedkvarter, en bog om byggeriet af Tanzania-Zambia-jernbanen (TAZARA), med titlen, »Et monument for kinesisk-afrikansk venskab«, som blev indviet i 1976. En rapport på Folkerepublikken Kinas Statsråds webside bemærker, at TAZARA-projektet dækker et område på 1860 kilometer fra Dar es Salaam i Tanzania i øst og til New Kapiri Mposhi i det centrale Zambia i vest. Det kendes som »Frihedens jernbane« og »Venskabets jernbane« – færdigbygget på fem år og otte måneder.

Foto: En jernbanebro på TAZARA-jernbanestrækningen mellem Tanzania og Zambia.    




Bælt & Vej sætter dagsordenen i verden

23. maj, 2017 – Efterklange fra Bælt & Vej Internationale Forum for Samarbejde, der fandt sted i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, mærkes fortsat i alle hjørner af globen, med ’ordet’, der kommer ud, om, at der findes et alternativ til geopolitik og økonomisk kollaps, og som allerede er i gang, og hvor alle inviteres til at deltage.

Hongkongs South China Morning Post pegede i sin lederartikel i dag på Bælt & Vej som »en måde, hvorpå Kina og Japan kan udbedre deres bånd«. Dette er en måde, hvorpå den nødvendige tillid kan opbygges for at etablere «en vedvarende forbedring» i de kinesisk-japanske relationer, der ellers hænger fast i »uløste historiske spørgsmål«, som yderligere kompliceres af Japans »tilnærmelse« til Taiwan.

»Afsløringen af et personligt, forsonligt brev fra den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe til præsident Xi Jinping, der blev overleveret på vegne af Abe efter det nylige Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, er derfor en udvikling, vi hilser velkommen«, skrev SCMP. Abes brev siges at have foreslået, at der bør arrangeres gensidige statsbesøg mellem de to ledere. SCMP indikerede, at, alt imens japanske forretningsfolks entusiasme for Bælt & Vej er en faktor, så kan Abes brev også være blevet afstedkommet af forbedringen i de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer, som det indikeredes af (senior-nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver til præsident Trump i asiatiske anliggender) Matthew Pottingers deltagelse i forummet og skabelsen af en amerikansk Bælt & Vej arbejdsgruppe på regeringsniveau.

»Bælt & Vej-planen kunne blive et udgangspunkt for Kina og Japan for den fortsatte normalisering af deres relationer … Hvis den kan blive medvirkende til at bane vejen for forhandlinger mellem Japan og Kina, ville det være en bonus for området«, konkluderer SCMP.

Det er også i Europas interesse at deltage. I sin seneste artikel i Forbes-magasinet, lovpriste den entusiastiske tilhænger af den Nye Silkevej, Wade Shepard, der har rejst langs Bælt & Vej i to år som forberedelse til en bog om projektet, Bælt & Vej-initiativet for »dets pågående tilsidesættelse af de etablerede, geopolitiske splittelser i verden«. Monarkier, demokratier, diktaturer, teokratier og selv »borderline konkursstater« er velkomne, så længe, de er indstillet på at »komme hen til bordet og gå til sagen i praksis«. Wade foreslår, at Europa holder op med at bekymre sig om gennemskueligheden af Kinas markeder. »Bælt & Vej-initiativet gør Europa relevant igen, én trans-eurasisk jernbanelinje, ét finansielt distrikt og én havn ad gangen …

Bælt & Vej-initiativet tilbyder ligeledes Europa økonomiske og infrastrukturelle muligheder, som ellers ikke ville eksistere, muligheder, som, hvis de blev udnyttet korrekt, kunne være med til at få Europa tilbage på sin sokkel.«

Udelades skal heller ikke det Kinesisk-britiske Erhvervsråd (CBBC), som er »henrykt« over de udsigter, der kommer fra BV-forum i Beijing, som det deltog i, rapporterede sino.uk.com i går. CBBC rapporterer, at det vil udarbejde fællesrapporter med det Kinesiske Akademi for International Handel og Økonomisk Samarbejde (CAITEC) »om Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI) for at sikre, at britiske selskaber får den bedste placering til at drage fordel af et af de mest omfattende, globale forretningsinitiativer i moderne historie. BVI-visionen er i færd med at blive til virkelighed, og Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing i denne weekend demonstrerer Kinas ambition for BVI«.

Selv de, der er fikseret på at tjene penge, er ved at vågne. Europæiske banker bør gå med i dette projekt, skrev Alicia Garcia-Herrero, der er associeret til den europæiske økonomiske tænketank BRUEGAL og det spanske monarkis Royal El Cano Institut, i en artikel, udgivet på brinknews.com, og hvis titel opsummerer artiklens argument: »Kina kan ikke alene finansiere Bælt & Vej«.

På lignende vis skrev en Tony Boyd i Australian Financial Review, (»Opportunities for Business in China’s One Belt One
Road«), at den australske »regerings lunkne respons til Kinas massive Bælt & Vej-infrastrukturplan ikke bør afholde australske erhvervsfolk i at komme med deres egne, omfattende strategier for engagement«. Kina har »en plan« og mulighederne er der »for bankfolk, byggefirmaer, infrastrukturinvestorer, konsulenter, firmaer for professionelle tjenesteydelser, managers af aktieinvesteringer og eksportører. Foretagender må forstå de finansielle og økonomiske implikationer af et budget for koordineret infrastruktur, der spænder over op til 65 lande«, skrev Boyd.




Er fred i Mellemøsten endelig muligt?

Leder Fra LaRouche PAC, 24. maj, 2017 – Præsident Trumps historiske besøg til de hellige steder for de tre religioner af Bogen (Den jødiske Bibel, den kristne Bibel og Koranen, -red.), sluttede i dag i Vatikanet. Udskrifter fra både Vatikanet og Det Hvide Hus rapporterer, at samarbejde omkring fred i Mellemøsten var det centrale diskussionsemne – »fremme af fred i verden gennem politisk forhandling og dialog mellem religioner«, som Vatikanet udtrykte det.

Forskellen mellem den aktuelle situation og så alle de mislykkede bestræbelser under tidligere præsidenter er den kendsgerning, at den britiske opsplitning af verden i Øst og Vest, den »frie verden vs. gudløs kommunisme«, skabt af briterne efter præsident Franklin Roosevelts død, er i færd med at blive smadret af samarbejdet mellem Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping. Den israelsk-palæstinensiske konflikt har tjent som den primære styrekabine for denne opdeling af verden, og det samme har Nordkorea i Asien. I begge tilfælde ville briterne og deres naive fjolser i USA og Europa træffe alle tænkelige forholdsregler for at forhindre, at der kommer en løsning på disse betændte kriser, på trods af den kendsgerning, at deres eksistens var grobund for et terroristkaos og konstant truede med at blive gnisten til udbruddet af atomkrig.

Nu er en ny, økonomisk verdensorden på plads, hvilket demonstreredes af det succesrige Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj. Alt imens Kina og Rusland var hoveddrivkraft bag denne proces, så sendte præsident Trump en højtplaceret repræsentant, skabte en »Bælt & Vej Komite for USA« for at følge op på forummet samt inviterede Kina til at deltage i planlægning og byggeri af den desperat nødvendige genopbygning af den smuldrende, amerikanske infrastruktur.

Med præsident Trump, der har kurs mod Bruxelles på torsdag til et NATO-møde (de anti-russiske fanatikere holder vejret i forventning om, hvad Trump vil sige), så fremlagde den russiske forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu i dag et ekstremt positivt syn på det amerikansk-russiske samarbejde i krigen mod terror i Syrien.

»Vi taler med dem ’på alle tider af døgnet’«, sagde Shoigu om det amerikanske militær, »både nat og dag, og vi mødes ved forskellige lejligheder«. Chefen for den amerikanske generalstab, general Dunford, beskrev i sidste uge det tætte samarbejde med russerne og syrerne, selv om amerikansk lov forbyder egentlige fælles militære deployeringer.

Dette er det nye, globale miljø, baseret på samarbejde, i hvilket præsident Trump opfordrer Islam, Jødedom og Kristendom til at komme sammen for fred. Med hensyn til terrorisme sagde Trump søndag i Riyadh, ved et møde med ledere fra næsten 50 islamiske nationer, at det ikke er en konflikt mellem religioner, men mellem godt og ondt.

I samme ånd bryder muligheden for fred ud på Koreahalvøen. Den nyligt valgte præsident for Sydkorea, Moon Jae-in, promoverer åbenlyst en genindførelse af ’Solskinspolitikken’ for økonomisk samarbejde med Nordkorea, både for fælles udvikling og for at etablere den nødvendige tillid for en aftale for at afslutte Nordkoreas atomprogram, til gengæld for en fredsaftale og løfte om ikke-aggression fra USA.

Præsident Moons udsending til Rusland, Song Young-gil, holdt dybtgående diskussioner med Ruslands minister for udvikling i Fjernøsten, Alexander Galushka, i sidste uge. Song sagde til det sydkoreanske nyhedsbureau, Yonhap: »Minister Galushka foreslog, at det trilaterale samarbejde mellem Syd- og Nordkorea og Rusland, og som har befundet sig i et dødvande pga. atomspørgsmålene, nu fremsættes af hver nation, og det gik jeg ind på.« Dette har været kernen i Lyndon LaRouches forslag mht. Korea i de seneste tyve år. Ligesom tilfældet er i Mellemøsten, så er den Nye Silkevej også her den platform, på hvilken fred endelig kan etableres.

Kinas ambassadør til FN, Liu Jieyi, sagde ved Sikkerhedsrådets møde om Nordkorea tirsdag, at »der er intet til hinder for en dialog i den aktuelle situation – det kræver politisk vilje.«

»Alle skridt fremad i Koreakrisen er sket gennem dialog«, sagde han – og han kunne have tilføjet, at alle skridt fremad blev saboteret af krigspartierne i Vesten, først Bush og Cheney og dernæst Barack Obama.

Disse geopolitiske spil kan og må lægges i graven for evigt, og Imperiets ild må slukkes. Tiden er inde.

Foto: USA’s præsident Donald Trump havde udstrakte drøftelser med Pave Frans under en privat audiens i Vatikanet, 24. maj, 2017. Her beundrer han med fr. Trump Michelangelos store vægmaleri, Dommedag, i det Sixtinske Kapel i Vatikanet.




Schiller Instituttet interviewer
dr. Wang Yiwei i København om
Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing

København, 18. maj, 2017 – Efter seminaret »Kinas Ét Bælt, én Vej-initiativ og mulighederne for Norden«, der var arrangeret i fællesskab af Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS) og den Kinesiske Ambassade i Danmark, gennemførte Schiller Instituttets Michelle Rasmussen et interview med Wang Yiwei, professor ved School og International Studies; direktør for Institute of International Affairs, samt direktør for Center for European Studies ved Renmin Universitet i Beijing. Han er forfatter af bogen, »The Belt and Road: What will China offer the World in its Rise?«, fra 2016 (Bælt og Vej: Hvad vil Kina tilbyde den fremvoksende verden?)

Wang Yiwei deltog ved præsentationen af den kinesiske udgave af EIR’s specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, som blev præsenteret af Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved et symposium, sponsoreret af Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, der også er medsponsor af den kinesiske udgivelse, den 29. september, 2015, på Renmin Universitet.