Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 3. maj, 2017 – Den dynamik, der repræsenteres af de »Tre Store« internationale ledere (Putin, Xi og Trump), får i stigende grad rodfæste i den globale, strategiske situation, om end ulige fordelt. På mærkedagen for Trump-administrationens første 100 dage var det Det britiske Imperiums plan, at Donald Trump skulle være afsat fra præsidentembedet og /eller død; at verden skulle være på en fast kurs for regional og global atomkrig; og at Glass-Steagall skulle være historie – og kun historie.

Den britiske plan var ganske bestemt ikke, at Trump foreløbig skulle have talt tre gange i telefon med den russiske præsident Putin, med udsigt til et møde mellem dem, der sandsynligvis vil finde sted under G20-topmødet i juli; det var ikke, at Trump skulle have gennemført et møde med Xi Jingping samt talt med ham flere gange; og det var ikke, at Trump personligt skulle have placeret spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall som topprioritet til diskussion – selv om kampen om, hvilken version af »Glass-Steagall« – den ægte FDR-lov eller en eller anden ersatz variant med »ring-fencing« (intern bankopdeling) – stadig udkæmpes, og hvor amerikanske borgere er en del af kampen, anført af LaRouche PAC’s mobilisering.

Føj hertil den kendsgerning, at det forestående topmøde for Bælt & Vej-initiativet 14.-15. maj i stigende grad dominerer den globale, økonomiske dagsorden, og at Lyndon og Helga LaRouche personligt er i centrum for denne diskussion, med Rusland og Kina som de primære samtalepartnere, (som det meget klart sås af den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York), og man vil se, hvorfor Det britiske Imperium ikke er den mindste smule ’begejstret’.

De er faktisk i panik, og de forsøger stadig at brygge et fremstød sammen for at afsætte Trump ved en rigsret, og for at gennemføre en ’farvet revolution’ i USA.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i dag, at vi nu befinder os i en nedtælling på 10 dage til Bælt & Vej-topmødet i Beijing, og at vi må forstærke indsatsen for at insistere, at USA må blive involveret i denne proces. USA har et infrastrukturunderskud til skønsmæssigt mindst $8 billioner og har brug for kinesisk ekspertise og investering til at være med til at genopbygge landets infrastruktur på det højeste, teknologiske niveau. Desuden, understregede Zepp-LaRouche, bør USA og Kina gå ind i joint venture-projekter, især i Mellemøsten og Afrika, for at bringe fred og udvikling til disse områder. Zepp-LaRouche erklærede: Der er masser at gøre!

Det er sikkert, at Rusland og Kina vil respondere favorabelt til en sådan amerikansk politik. Som den officielle kinesiske avis Global Times skarpt bemærkede i en leder fra 2. maj:

Ængstelse over Bælt & Vej-initiativet »blotlægger den stereotype, amerikanske nulsums-tankegang …

[Men] den offentlige mening i USA er diskret ved at ændre sig fra at være imod det, og til at tillægge det større betydning at undersøge det …

[Samarbejde ville] hæve deres gensidige tillid til det næste niveau … og skabe en ny platform for kinesisk-amerikansk samarbejde …

Beijing har allerede overbragt en invitation, og hvordan USA vil respondere til det, er værd at observere.«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 1. maj, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trumps erklæring i dag om, at han er villig til at forhandle fred direkte med Nordkoreas Kim Jong Un – hvilket vil forskaffe de største, løgnagtige medier i London, New York og Washington et nervøst sammenbrud – er begyndelsen til, at præsidenten muligvis vil bryde ud af en britisk krigsfælde. »Under de rette omstændigheder«, sagde han, og disse omstændigheder kunne meget vel være præcis de multilaterale, direkte forhandlinger, som præsidenterne Xi og Putin arbejder så hårdt på.

Kina og Rusland – de nationer, som den britiske elite har forsøgt at drive Trump til krig med. Den britiske regerings Boris Johnson og Michael Fallon har gentagne gange meddelt, at de med sikkerhed vidste, at Trump stod for at gå i krig mod Nordkorea, ligesom de, kortvarigt, havde puffet ham ind i en krigsfælde i Syrien.

Det er af presserende betydning, at alle Trump-tilhængere forstår dette og lægger yderligere pres på ham for at undfly briternes dødbringende »geopolitik«.

Hans destination bør være Beijing, 14.-15. maj, sammen med 30 andre statsoverhoveder og 101 nationale delegationer i Bælt & Vej Forum. Det er samarbejde med Kina om økonomisk udvikling på verdensplan, inklusive en ny økonomisk infrastruktur i USA.

Præsidenten overrumplede Wall Street i samme interview i det ovale kontor ved at sige, at han ønskede at bryde Wall Street-bankerne op med det »21. århundredes Glass-Steagall«. Ingen tvivl om, at de vil tilbyde Barack Obama endnu mere – en halv million pr. tale – for at angribe Trump. Fra og med G20-mødet i februar 2009 i London fulgte Obama den britiske, politiske ledelse: Bankredning (bailout) til alle storbankerne, og vedtagelse af hvad som helst, blot IKKE Glass-Steagall. Dét ville sætte en stopper for Londons rolle og verdens imperie-finanscentrum.

Hvad der er vigtigere, så ville dette smide Wall Street-bankernes spekulative derivater og »kasino«-operationer ud af støtte fra skatteborgerne og statslig garanti og overlade dem til at gå fallit, hvis de vil gå fallit. Med en enorm gældsboble i foretagender og selskaber på $14 billion, der er begyndt at gå i betalingsstandsning og nu truer med at gå fallit, er dette det afgørende, første skridt til at vende tilbage til en økonomisk genrejsning. Som stiftende chefredaktør for EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, i dag sagde om Trumps interview: »Dette finanssystem har været komplet degenereret, et svindelnummer, siden et godt stykke tid før krakket, som jeg forudsagde i begyndelsen af 2007. Man må simpelt hen skaffe sig af med det.«

Præsidenten tager skridt til at undfly den dødbringende, britiske fælde med geopolitik og krig, som – siden FDR – kun JFK og Ronald Reagan er brudt fri af, i det mindste delvist. Den ene blev myrdet, den anden næsten myrdet. Det er et spørgsmål om liv og død for nationen, at præsident Trumps tilhængere forstår, hvad han er oppe imod, og hvad hans næste skridt må være.

29. april, 2017 – Liu Qibao, chef for Kinas Kommunistiske Partis Centralkomites PR-afdeling, sagde under et besøg i Athen, at Kina ønsker at arbejde sammen med Grækenland for at »implementere Bælt & Vej-initiativet og således fremme udviklingen af det kinesisk-græske allround strategiske partnerskab«, rapporterede Xinhua den 28. april. Den græske premierminister Alexis Tsipras på sin side sagde, at Grækenland ønsker »at benytte Bælt & Vej-initiativet som en mulighed for yderligere at fremme bilateralt samarbejde i felterne for handel, investering, kultur, videnskab og teknologi, så vel som turisme«, iflg. Xinhua. Tsipras og andre højtplacerede græske folkevalgte vil være i Beijing for at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum 14.-15. maj.

Liu var også involveret i underskrivelse af flere kulturaftaler i Grækenland, inkl. to forståelsesmemoranda om »fælles filmproduktion og -oversættelse, og udgivelse af klassiske og moderne, græske og kinesiske, litterære værker«.

Foto: Den græske premierminister Tsipras og Liu Quibao under sidstnævntes besøg i Grækenland.

Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl, for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Vi ser denne kamp blive mere intens over spørgsmålet, »Hvorhen, USA?«, med den titel, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York City – »Hvorhen, USA: Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«. Der er i løbet af den seneste måned, siden det meget ukloge angreb, som Trump-administrationen beordrede mod Syrien, sket det, at det er kommet offentligt frem, at der rent faktisk finder et britiskanført kup sted i USA imod Trump-administrationen. Indholdet er de løgne, de fabrikerede efterretninger, der er kommet fra britisk efterretning og er blevet bulldozet hen over præsident Trump; meget på samme måde, som Tony Blair brugte løgnene om maseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003 for at bringe USA ind i Irakkrigen.

Vi må bruge det bedste fra alle kulturer og skabe en virkelig universel renæssance!

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er 28. april, 2017; jeg er Matthew Ogden; velkommen til vores LPAC webcast fredag aften, her på larouchepac.com. Med os i studiet i dag har vi en særlig gæst, Mike Billington fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), som vi har inviteret i dag pga. af den aktuelle, strategiske situations ekstraordinære natur.

Vi står naturligvis blot to uger fra det meget betydningsfulde Bælt & Vej-topmøde, der finder sted i Beijing, Kina, den 14. og 15. maj; og det er altså præcis to uger fra i morgen. Flere dusin statsoverhoveder fra lande i hele verden har bekræftet deres deltagelse. Som vi har rapporteret, så er den russiske præsident Putin inviteret som æresgæst til at deltage i Bælt & Vej-topmødet. Vi fortsætter vores kampagne for at opfordre præsident Donald Trump til at deltage i dette topmøde, som særlig gæst; og for at bruge det som hans mulighed for at gengælde præsident Xi Jinpings tilbud om, at USA kan gå med i det nye paradigme for udvikling og fred, som repræsenteres af Bælt & Vej, eller den Nye Silkevej.

Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl, for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Vi ser denne kamp blive mere intens over spørgsmålet, »Hvorhen, USA?«, med den titel, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York City – »Hvorhen, USA: Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«. Der er i løbet af den seneste måned, siden det meget ukloge angreb, som Trump-administrationen beordrede mod Syrien, sket det, at det er kommet offentligt frem, at der rent faktisk finder et britiskanført kup sted i USA imod Trump-administrationen. Indholdet er de løgne, de fabrikerede efterretninger, der er kommet fra britisk efterretning og er blevet bulldozet hen over præsident Trump; meget på samme måde, som Tony Blair brugte løgnene om maseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003 for at bringe USA ind i Irakkrigen.

Men dette var ikke et enestående tilfælde for Irak i 2003, eller for Syrien i 2017. Dette er den måde, hvorpå briterne har spillet deres imperiespil i det ene årti efter det andet; de har brugt USA som deres dumme kæmpe, med det formål, fortsat at holde verden opdelt. Denne del-og-hersk-strategi har været en britisk imperiestrategi i århundreder, og tiden er inde til, at USA bliver intelligent og siger, »Det er slut! Vi vil ikke lade os bruge på denne måde; og vi vil tage imod det Nye Paradigme med ’win-win’-samarbejde«. Briterne og deres rejsekammerater i USA har sandelig været meget ligefremme i deres forsøg på at destabilisere og vælte Trump-administrationen, fordi de var meget bange for, at han ville gennemføre, hvad han har sagt. Ikke flere regimeskift; ikke flere imperialistiske krige, og vi vil samarbejde med Rusland og med Kina. Det sidste var lidt mere komplekst, men det om Rusland var meget klart. Men som vi ved, så har præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping fra Kina, siden topmødet med præsident Xi, haft meget tætte, personlige relationer og har regelmæssigt haft samtaler. Denne kommunikationskanal er afgørende, især med det brændpunkt, som nu er vokset frem direkte på Kinas grænse, i tilfældet Nordkorea.

Vi vil bruge tilfældet Nordkorea som en case study, men i sammenhæng med denne meget bredere opfattelse af opgøret over, hvilket system, der i fremtiden vil styre verden: det imperialistiske del-og-hersk, eller et nyt ’win-win’-paradigme for fred og udvikling. I denne sammenhæng har vores gæst her i dag, Mike Billington, netop udgivet en ny artikel, som er en meget vigtig artikel, I bør læse . Den er meget klar. Den har den provokerende titel og stiller spørgsmålet, »Hvorfor er Korea ikke allerede genforenet?«.

(Artiklen findes i EIR’s seneste nummer, men er kun tilgængelig for abonnenter. Andre artikler kan læses gratis – se knappen EIR på vores hjemmeside. Du kan henvende dig til vores kontor mht. at tegne abonnement på EIR, tlf. 35 43 00 33 – red.) 

Hermed giver jeg ordet til Mike og lader ham gennemgå lidt af indholdet, de aktuelle udviklinger, og så spørgsmålet, som han fremlægger i sin artikel:

(engelsk):

MICHAEL BILLINGTON:  Thank you, Matt.  In fact, the purpose
of this article was to show that the answer to that question is
that there is {no} legitimate reason that Korea is not peaceful
and at least on the way to reunification already.  I’ll review
some of that material here.  But let me start.  There were some
extraordinary developments today; so let me give a short update
on the crisis.  It has to be noted that this is a very serious
crisis, in the sense that were something like what happened with
Syria, where Trump was — as Matthew said — lied to coerced into
carrying out an attack against Syria for absolutely no reason; on
totally false intelligence.  Were that to happen in Korea, this
would not be like an attack on an airbase in Syria.  This would
lead to a total disaster throughout all of East Asia and perhaps
even global nuclear war.  Whether or not they could take out
North Korea’s nuclear capacities, North Korea — as I’m sure
people know, because it’s all over the press — they have massive
conventional capacity.  Their armaments lie a total of 30 miles
from the capital [of South Korea] Seoul, this beautiful,
developed, advanced city; which could be just absolutely wiped
out if there were a war.  And they could possibly attack even
Japan, let alone US bases within South Korea; so this would be a
move of insanity.  The Japanese and the South Koreans know this
very well.  I should point out that our friends in South Korea
note that there is no panic in South Korea; because they’ve been
through these kinds of things before, and they simply assume that
nobody is crazy enough to launch a preemptive attack on North
Korea.
But, because of what happened in Syria, a lot of people —
including all of us — were very concerned that the British might
pull off another stunt and get Trump to go with this.  What
happened today is extremely important.  Trump himself did an
interview with Reuters, in which he said on North Korea, “We’d
love to solve things diplomatically, but it’s very difficult.
But Xi Jinping is playing a crucial role in this.  I believe he’s
trying very hard.  I know he would like to be able to do
something.  Perhaps it’s possible that he can’t, but I think he’d
like to be able to do something.”  Then, most extraordinarily, he
said about Kim Jung-Un, the leader in North Korea and grandson of
the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, he said, “He’s 27 years
old.  His father dies; he took over a regime.  So, say what you
want, that’s not easy; especially at that age.  Now I’m not
giving him credit, or not giving him credit.  I’m just saying
it’s a very hard thing to do.  As to whether or not he’s
rational, I have no opinion, but I hope he’s rational.”  So, this
is useful.  He then returned again to the fact that he has very
good personal relations with Xi Jinping: “I feel that he’s doing
everything in his power to help us with a big situation.  I
wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him; and I
certainly would want to speak to him first before taking any
action.”  Very useful.
Then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who chaired a meeting
at the UN Security Council this morning of ministers, taking the
place of that wacky lady we have in there right now speaking for
the US too often.  But Tillerson was not wacky; not at all.  He
was very clear in his presentation to the UN Security Council.
He said, “For too long, the international community has been
reactive in addressing North Korea.  Those days must come to an
end.  Failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in
the world may bring catastrophic consequences.”  Now, what does
he mean to act now?  The press headlines all over the world are
“Trump and Tillerson Are Threatening War on North Korea; They
Want To Act Now.  It’s the End of Strategic Patience”, which was
the policy of Obama.  But keep in mind, “strategic patience” was
not being patient; it was saying “We will not talk to North
Korea.  We refuse to talk to North Korea; we simply sit back and
constantly increase the sanctions, increase the military build-up
around their border until they do what we say.”  Which, of
course, they won’t do as long as they’re being threatened.
So, the question is, what does it mean to act now?  Does it
not mean, let’s get back to talks, let’s negotiate.  What the
President said about Kim Jung-Un is a very serious comment.
Here’s somebody who’s in a difficult position.
Then, Tillerson said the following: “Our goal is not regime
change.  Nor do we desire to threaten the North Korean people, or
destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.  Since 1995, the US has
provided $1.3 billion in aid to North Korea; and we look forward
to resuming our contributions once the country dismantles its
weapons program.”  Now that 1995 is a reference to something
called the Agreed Framework, which I’m going to mention when I go
through some of the history on this.
Even more powerful, Tillerson — in an interview with NPR
before he went into the UN Security Council — said the
following:  “You know, if you listen to the North Koreans, their
reason for having nuclear weapons is that they believe it is
their only pathway to secure the ongoing existence of their
regime.  We hope to convince them that you do not these weapons
to secure the existence of your regime.  We do not seek a
collapse of the regime.  We do seek an accelerated reunification
of the peninsula; we seek a de-nuclearized peninsula, and China
shares this goal with us.”
Now these are very positive steps; and they refute the
British headlines and the {Washington Post} and {New York Times}
headlines that say “Get ready. We’re going to have a war in
Korea.”  So, this I think is extremely important.  Let me go
through a bit, some of the history of this; because even in my
reviewing to write this article, I was a bit astonished at how
close we were, twice before, to having a peaceful relationship in
the Korean peninsula and potentially even being reunified or
being on the course to reunification.
The key point, I think, is that the British assets in the
White House over the last 16 years — Bush and Cheney, and then
Obama, who served the British purpose of keeping the world
divided East and West, as Matthew was pointing out.  The key to
doing that was making sure the US did not have good relations
with Russia, and making sure the US did not have good relations
with China.  They used the South China Sea, they used Ukraine,
they used Syria; all of these really had nothing to do with the
South China Sea or Ukraine or Syria.  They had to do with
preventing any potential for the US and Russia to work together,
and the US and China to work together.  This is empire; that’s
the way empire works to keep the world divided, especially the
East-West divide.
Let’s go back to what Tillerson was referring to in 1995.
What happened was that the North Koreans were part of the UN
Non-Proliferation Treaty and non-nuclear development agreements;
that they wouldn’t develop nuclear weapons.  Then in the early
’90s, the IAEA — the International Atomic Energy Agency —
believed that they were using small test reactor at Yongbyon.  It
was a graphite-moderated reactor which produces plutonium as a
side-product of producing energy.  So, they believed that they
were hiding the plutonium being produced at the Yongbyon plant
and using it produce weapons.  This led to a very serious crisis.
The Clinton administration and their Defense Secretary at the
time, William Perry — and I’ll mention Perry a couple of times
here — were very seriously considering a strategic take-out of
the Yongbyon plant.  Would that have been as serious as now?  I
don’t think so, but it would have been very serious.  What
happened is quite interesting.  Former President Jimmy Carter
went to North Korea — supposedly on his own; I’m sure this was
very carefully worked out with President Clinton.  But he went on
his own; he met with Kim Il-Sung who was still alive at that
time, the original head of North Korea.  Out of that meeting,
[they] came to an agreement that they would, through
negotiations, come up with an agreement to solve the crisis;
which they did.  It was called the Agreed Framework of 1994.
This was quite extraordinary.  The North Koreans agreed to
dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant and to stop construction on
two other plants that also were graphite and could produce
plutonium.  In exchange, the US built a nuclear plant for North
Korea.  The US and the South Koreans were, and they began — they
didn’t get very far — to build a large 1000-megawatt nuclear
plant; but it was going to be a light water reactor that didn’t
produce fuel for nuclear weapons.  It was a safer form of a
nuclear plant.  In the meantime, they did provide oil, until they
got the nuclear plant going, for heating.
They agreed to start negotiations toward a peace agreement.
The US and North Korea are officially still at war.  After the
Korean War, there was not a peace agreement, but just an
armistice to stop the fighting.  Officially, there is no peace
agreement; we do not have normal relations with North Korea.
We’re actually in a state of war with North Korea.  Clearly, the
North Koreans want to have a normal relationship with the US, not
to be constantly threatened.  It was agreed that that would
happen.  This was moving forward quite well; it was slow, there
were problems.  The US didn’t live up to all its agreements; but
it was moving forward.
Then, extremely importantly, in 1998, Kim Dae-jung was
elected President of South Korea.  Kim Dae-jung was a very
interesting character; he had been a very strong opponent of the
military regimes in South Korea.  He had been thrown in jail
several times, and there was a point where he was about to be
executed; the US intervened and saved his life at that time.  By
1998 things had changed; there was more of a move towards getting
away from military regimes.  They weren’t exactly dictatorships;
they were elected, but they were military regimes.  Kim Dae-jung
was elected.  He immediately began to not only democratize
domestic policies, but he set up something called the Sunshine
Policy, which was we will work with North Korea on development;
on opening up economic collaboration as the basis over the long
term to establish peace between us and long-term reunification.
So, Kim Dae-jung was in power.  William Perry, the Defense
Secretary — he had left being Defense Secretary by that time —
but in a recent article on his history in all of this, said that
towards the end of the Clinton administration, they were working
to take that agreement even further.  To have the North basically
swear that they were giving up all weapons programs, in exchange
for having a peace agreement and setting up normal relations
between the two countries.  It was so close that they had
actually planned a Presidential visit to North Korea; that
Clinton would visit North Korea.
Unfortunately, as William Perry points out, the Clinton
administration ran out; and Bush and Cheney came in.  You may
remember that the Defense Secretary under Bush and Cheney was
Colin Powell, a general; a fairly wise gentleman.  He, in his
first press conference, said we intend to engage with North
Korea, and pick up where Clinton left off.  Very important.  The
{next day}, Bush — with Cheney behind him and Paul Wolfowitz
around — said “There will be no engagement with North Korea.
They’re a dictatorship.”  Sounds familiar, right?  Dictators.
“We will not talk to them.  There will be no engagement.”  And
Colin Powell was basically put in his place, and the whole
process began to fall apart; at least in terms of the US working,
collaborating, and playing a key role in collaboration with North
and South Korea, and Russia and China and Japan.
In any case, Kim Dae-jung and the others — Russia, China,
Japan, North Korea, South Korea — continued the process.  They
basically said OK, that’s what Bush and Cheney are saying; but
this is the future lives of our country and really of the world.
They moved forward.  Kim Dae-jung, by 2002, was successful in
setting up an extraordinary process.  I should mention here that
Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas through that period — 2000-2002 — were
all over South Korea.  One of our members, Kathy Wolfe, was going
back and forth; she was meeting with people in the government,
around the government, cultural people in South Korea.  You may
remember that 1992 was when Lyndon LaRouche first came up with
the idea at the time of the fall of Soviet Union, that we should
build a New Silk Road; we should have a Silk Road which would
bridge Europe, Russia, China, and bring them together around a
development process by building the New Silk Road — what the
Chinese called the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
So, Kim Dae-jung, the South Korean President, built a
process he called the Iron Silk Road.  I can assure you there was
an influence there; that term didn’t come out of nowhere.
LaRouche had always said that the New Silk Road should go from
Busan to Rotterdam.  Busan is at the southern tip of South Korea.
In other words, it had to go through North Korea, through Russia,
and also through China into Europe.  So, this idea of the Iron
Silk Road was taking shape.  It was taking shape so much — put
that first map on [Fig. 1].  This is the map.  The plan was to
reconstruct two rail lines from South Korea into North Korea,
which of course had been shut down.  There was an armed
Demilitarized Zone [DMZ] with fences on either side; and a no
man’s land in between.  The idea was to build rail connections as
you can see on the map.  One of them going through the West, that
would go up through Pyongyang and then into China.  One that
would head out towards the West and go up towards Russia into
Vladivostok and hit the trans-Siberian railway in both
directions, actually.
Indeed, they began this process.  Kim Dae-jung went to the
North and met with Kim Jong-Il, who was the son of Kim Il-Sung;
who was in power.  Kim Il-Sung literally died the year they
signed the Agreed Framework; but his son continued it.  They made
this process; they built this process up.  By 2002, they
literally opened up the Demilitarized Zone fences in both of
those spots.  Both the North-South and the [inaud; 21:43]; they
cut the DMZ fences.  Soldiers from both the North and South went
into the DMZ and began clearing the mines that were all over the
place in the DMZ.  They reconstructed the rail line between the
two countries.  In 2002 [Fig. 2] you had the extraordinary event
of a railroad going across the DMZ; going from South Korea into
North Korea.  Symbolic, because there had to be a lot of
construction on the rail lines to make them connect all the way
through.  But as you can see here, they had a big banner in the
front; the Reunification of the Koreas.  This was an
extraordinary event, which we reported in {EIR} at some length;
these pictures were in those articles back in 2002.
It wasn’t just the railroads.  At the same time, Kim
Dae-jung began an industrial park in North Korea — the Kaesong
Industrial Park.  This was across the border in North Korea with
South Korean companies setting up factories in the North with
North Korean labor.  This grew to the point where recently there
were 123 South Korean companies working in the North.  This was
obviously in the direction of setting up collaboration between
the South Korean industry and the skilled but very poor workforce
in the North.  So, this was proceeding forward.
They also set up six party talks.  You’ve probably heard of
the Six Party Talks.  This was where Russia, China, Japan, North
and South Korea, and the United States began a series of talks to
try to regroup from the failure, the collapse, the shutdown by
Bush and Cheney of the Agreed Framework.  These meetings began.
I won’t go through the details of what happened; it’s tedious,
because every opportunity that Bush and Cheney had to say that
the North Koreans were cheating, the North Koreans are lying; you
can’t trust these vicious dictators.  Every opportunity they had
to sabotage forward direction; there were some positive
agreements made.  If you read the history of it from the US
press, it’ll say the North Koreans reneged.  Well, it wasn’t that
way.  It was sabotage by Bush and Cheney every chance they got.
It went into the Obama administration and Obama continued
sabotaging it every chance he got.
So eventually, these fell apart under Obama.  Obama then
began this so-called “strategic patience”; which meant no talks,
build up your military, impose sanctions.  They might have said
that the purpose was that they expected the North Korean regime
to collapse; but that wasn’t it at all.  Bush and Cheney and
Obama {wanted} North Korea to build nuclear weapons.  Now why
would somebody be so insane as to want North Korea to have
nuclear weapons?  First of all, they knew that they wouldn’t use
them, or they’d be blown off the face of the map.   William
Perry, in his recent article, said the North Korean regime is
reckless, but they’re not crazy; they’re not suicidal.  If they
were to use a nuclear weapon preemptively, they know that the
country would be obliterated overnight and their leadership
entirely killed.  They’re not crazy.  But why would the West want
them to have nuclear weapons?  Because the target is not North
Korea; it’s China.  As long as you have this bugaboo of North
Korea threatening the world with their nuclear weapons, you can
go ahead and build up a massive force around China, the way they
were in Europe where they’re building anti-ballistic missiles and
moving NATO right up to the Russian border.  Sending troops,
tanks, planes right up to the Russian border.  And in Asia doing
the same thing, supposedly to counter North Korea.
Most people have read about what’s going on with these THAAD
missiles.  Literally just a couple of days ago, they actually set
up the THAAD missiles in South Korea; claiming that these are
needed for the defense of South Korea against the North.  THAAD
— this is Terminal High Altitude missiles.  North Korea is 30
miles from Seoul; they don’t need to send 8 ICBMs up into space
and back down onto Seoul.  The THAAD is useless against North
Korea; it may be useless in general.  But it’s a threat to China
and to Russia, because with that you have the X-band radar, which
sees deep into Chinese territory and Russian Far East territory.
Which thereby gives them an advantage in a potential first
strike, where they could take out — they fantasize — they could
take out the counterstrike capacity of China.  The Chinese and
Russians are saying this destroys the balance; we’re going to
have to put something together to counter this.
The other thing to point out is the obvious fact that North
Korea sees very clearly what happened to Iraq; what happened to
Libya.  Two countries that voluntarily gave up their nuclear
weapons program with all kinds of praise and promises from the
West, although they lied about Iraq.  But as soon as they did,
their nation was bombed back to the Stone Age, their leaders
killed, and their country turned over to warring terrorist
forces.
So, the North Koreans are not crazy!  And they’re aware
that, were they to give up their nuclear weapons program
preemptively, they’d probably get the same regime change
statement.  Which is why it’s so important Tillerson is saying we
are not going for regime change; which is what Trump had said
throughout the campaign — that they weren’t going to have regime
change.  They also see that the targetting of China, they’re
aware of this, is part and parcel of this operation.  You should
point out that the Obama administration had this TPP — this
Trans-Pacific Partnership — which was also a part of the attempt
to isolate China.  It didn’t work; largely because the countries
there recognized that this was an attack on China, and they
absolutely depend upon and appreciate the infrastructure
development coming from China through the New Silk Road the New
Maritime Silk Road.
That’s where this stood.  And the last thing I’ll bring up
here is that the last administration in South Korea — Park
Geun-hye; I’m sure that everybody has seen that she was recently
impeached and thrown out of office.  The impeachment was upheld
by the Constitutional Court, and there’s now an election which is
taking place in less than two weeks on May 9; which makes it all
the more absurd that the US deployed this THAAD missile system,
literally few days before an election in which the candidates are
both against the THAAD missile system.  They rushed this in, in
order to make it — hopefully, they think — make it impossible
to be reversed.  But we’ll see.  It was a foolish move by the US
to ram this through.
But in any case, Park Geun-hye started her administration —
this is the daughter of Park Chung-hee, who was the brilliant
leader who brought Korea out from being one of the poorest
nations on Earth to being one of the great industrial, nuclear
power producing and exporting countries in the world.  His
daughter, Park Geun-hye, was elected President.  But
unfortunately, she was elected mostly on her name.  However, she
began her administration with what she called the Eurasian
Vision.  This was, in fact, part of the New Silk Road process.
She saw working with Russia, China, and Japan, that Korea
belonged to Eurasia; which obviously meant that it had to work
through North Korea.  Officially, the regime in the South under
her and her predecessor were not allowed to have relations with
North Korea, except for the Kaesong Industrial Park.  But, Park
Geun-hye allowed three major South Korean companies — Hyundai
Merchant Marine, which is their biggest ship company; KoRail,
which is their state rail company; and POSCO, a huge steel
company — to have a consortium with Russia and North Korea.
Literally, a consortium; a business agreement where the Russians
rebuilt a port in the north of North Korea; rebuilt the railroad
from Vladivostok down to that port.  They were shipping Russian
coal into North Korea, where it was picked up by a South Korean
Hyundai ship; shipped to the South, put on South Korean rail and
shipped to a South Korean steel mills.  This was, again like the
Kaesong, it was a model for the kind of collaboration which could
lead towards long-term economic progress and development and
trust; and lead towards a reunification.
Then, without going into details, the North Koreans tested I
think it was the fourth of their nuclear tests.  Everybody knew
it was going to happen for the reasons I said.  They’re not going
to give this up unless they can get an honest pledge that there’s
not going to be a war, a regime change against them.  They did;
and unfortunately, Park Geun-hye who was weak, capitulated
entirely to Obama.  She shut everything down; shut down even the
Kaesong Industrial Plant which had been up for 15 years, which
killed their own industries.  Shut down the [inaud; 31:25]
process of the rail, and basically cut off all ties to the North
all together on behalf of Obama, on behalf of a war against
China.  Despite the fact that in 2015, she had gone to Beijing on
the 70th anniversary of World War II’s victory against the
Japanese and the Germans.  She’d gone there and stood on the
podium with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin; the three of them
standing together, honoring the war victory.  Then she comes back
and basically pulls the plug on the whole thing.
She wasn’t impeached because of that; she was impeached
because of a corruption case within South Korea.  But I’m certain
to this led to the loss of any trust in her; that she’d
undermined her own industries; that she’d capitulated to an
American policy, that she was going ahead with this THAAD
deployment.  She lost the industry, she lost the left factions
that were about to win the election, the more liberal side.  So,
this was a real disaster for South Korea, and potentially for the
world.
Now, we have Trump; we have Xi Jinping; we have Abe in Japan
working very closely with Putin.  And we’re going to have a new
regime in South Korea.  I won’t go into exactly who these guys
are; but in general, both the leading candidates want to work
with Russia and China and want to open up better relations with
the North.  So, you have the geometry.  If Trump goes with the
Silk Road process, you have a geometry which is going to end this
last British outpost of destabilization and instability — this
North Korea monster.  The monster issue; it’s not that North
Korea is a monster.  But this has served the British imperial
purpose of keeping the US at a point of conflict with Russia and
China.  If we can solve that, then all of Asia is now unified,
except for the North Korea issue.  With the election in the
Philippines of Duterte, his rejection of the war policy in the
South China Sea, it basically united all the Southeast Asian
countries; all ten of them are now united around working with
China.  Not cutting off ties to the US, but working with China.
So, you have tremendous potential; and it’s all really
coming down to the next very short period.  Weeks, months at
most.  A lot of this is going to be determined in the very near
term.  As LaRouche has always insisted, to look at any particular
crisis — like the North Korean crisis — you have to look at it
in the context of the entire world; and certainly in the context
of the Eurasian potential of the New Silk Road.  I think there’s
every reason to be confident that some sort of talks are being
discussed privately; not just threats.  That this is going to
move forward in the context of the Silk Road.  As Matthew
mentioned, if Trump were to go to this meeting on May 14 and 15,
Abe would probably then go from Japan; and there’s no question
that we would have a peace process that would be almost
unstoppable, no matter what the British claim they’re going to
unleash.
So, this is a very great moment in history.  A dangerous,
but potentially great optimism is in hand.

OGDEN:  And you can tell that the British are definitely
very anxious of what could be lurking around the corner for the
future of their divide and conquer strategy.  I know we were
talking before the show, Mike, about the very appropriate and
incisive statements that were made by the Russian representative
at that meeting at the United Nations Security Council.  Here’s
the quote.  This is the Russian Deputy Permanent Representative
to the UN, Vladimir Safronkov, and he turned to Matthew Rycroft,
who is the British Permanent Representative at the United Nations
Security Council, and he said the following:  “The essence is,
and everyone in the United Nations knows this very well, is that
you are afraid.  You have been losing sleep over the fact that we
might be working together with the United States; cooperating
with the United States.  That is your fear.  You are doing
everything to make sure that this kind of cooperation be
undermined.”

BILLINGTON:  This has had a tremendous impact, because
people know that LaRouche has argued all the last 50 years, that
the problem is the British Empire.  Almost nobody of stature has
ever acknowledged that continuing role of the British Empire
until this, really.
I learned today that Ambassador Rycroft, who was a close
ally and advisor to Tony Blair, and was one of the authors of the
“dodgy dossier” which started the Iraq War in the first place.  I
learned today from our friends in England, that Rycroft was
meeting today with the head of the White Helmets; the terrorist
so-called “humanitarian” group that works with al-Qaeda and
al-Nusra, and who provided the fake evidence of Assad carrying
out a chemical weapons attack.  So, this is confirmation that
this open collaboration with a terrorist organization funded by
the British, and functioning to try to start a war in Syria for
which we can and must prevent that in league with this overall
fight to bring about the New Silk Road, not a new war.

OGDEN:  Let me end with this, and I’ll let you respond to
it.  I think as everybody knows, a very significant personality
in Korea and that area of the world, was the great US General
Douglas MacArthur.  In the aftermath of the original Korean War,
Douglas MacArthur came back to the United States, and he reported
back to Congress.  This is a quote from MacArthur’s speech to a
Joint Session of Congress in 1951.  I think it gets directly at
the much broader point that Helga and Lyndon LaRouche have been
making at the present time about what is really at stake, and
what is necessary if we’re going to move civilization into a new
paradigm of survival.  This is what Douglas MacArthur said:
“Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations,
all in turn fail; leaving the only path to be by way of the
crucible of war.  The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out
this alternative.  We have had our last chance.  If we will not
devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be
at our door.  The problem, basically, is theological and involves
a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that
will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science,
art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of
the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save
the flesh.”
So Mike, you were one of the speakers at the conference the
Schiller Institute sponsored in New York City two weeks ago.  The
subject of that conference was not only the diplomatic and
strategic cooperation which is necessary between the United
States and China right now, the United States joining the New
Silk Road and the Belt and Road Initiative.  It was also a
dialogue of civilizations; a dialogue of the greatest parts of
these two great cultures — European culture and Chinese culture.
In a form where Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in a really profound way,
stretching across generations, across centuries, across millennia
really put the great German poet, the revolutionary poet and
philosopher Friedrich Schiller in dialogue with the poet and
philosopher who really is the basis of all of modern Chinese
civilization — Confucius.  That dialogue she set up between
Friedrich Schiller and Confucius, speaking to each other across
the span of millennia and across literally two sides of the
world, created the kind of image of mankind, the possibility of a
mankind which could emerge if we were to finally put an end to
this imperial system of dividing the East and the West and
bringing these two great cultures into a dialogue with each
other.
So, you presented at that conference, and maybe just in that
context

BILLINGTON:  Those are available now.  The new {EIR} that
came out today has Helga’s speech and a speech by Patrick Ho, who
is a very good friend of ours from China, from Hong Kong, who is
campaigning all over the world for the New Silk Road.  It’s three
conferences now that we’ve done together.  He gave a presentation
then on Confucian thought and Western thought; but in that
presentation, he showed a very serious problem which I had
addressed over my long years of sabbatical leave in prison, where
I studied extensively the Chinese culture and the relationship
between Confucian culture and the Western Christian Renaissance.
Patrick didn’t take up that challenge for this speech; so he gave
a speech which fell prey to exactly what I then spoke about.
That speech is also in the {EIR} this week; or you can watch it
on the Schiller Institute website.  It’s very important, because
what I learned in studying this, is what the British set about —
as they do in every colony that they took over — in profiling
the backward tendencies within that culture and then grasping
those backwards tendencies that want to stay primitive, stay
backwards; and defining those to be the natural ideology of that
country.
In the case of China, they recognized that Confucianism was
a very great threat to their ability to control and keep China
backwards; because it’s a vision like Platonism in the West.  And
as Helga had brilliantly shown, like the Renaissance thinking in
Europe that professed progress.  It valued the mind of the
individual as that which made him human; it’s the creative power
of the human mind.  Against that, the British said no, no,
Confucianism is keeping you backwards because it’s formal and
it’s structured.  You have to go back to the roots of Taoism,
which basically tells the peasant that he’s a happy peasant; he’s
happy not knowing about science and technology.  Stay backwards.
Or the so-called “legalist” ideology which was punishment and
reward; you treat people like animals.  You punish or reward them
like you do a dog, to make them do what you want them to do.
The unfortunate reality is that the British deployed their
top guns — especially Bertrand Russell — into China; especially
when Sun Yat-sen came along promoting the American System.  They
sent Bertrand Russell in to poison that system; to denounce
Confucianism; to promote the happy peasant and the Taoist
ideology.  Unfortunately, this was deeply ingrained into the
Chinese culture, so that even today, Xi Jinping, who is fighting
to bring that country forward, is faced with this kind of thought
in China.  And, what they presented to the Chinese as “Western
thought” so-called, was not Leibniz and Schiller and Nicholas of
Cusa; the people who gave us the Renaissance, who gave rise to
modern science.  But rather, they said, “We, the British,
defeated you because we have wealth and power.  How do we have
wealth and power?  It’s that we believe in Darwinism, social
Darwinism; that the strong must crush the weak.  That’s the way
you get strong.  So, if you want to be strong, then you should be
like us and believe that Western thought — i.e., British
empirical anti-human thought — is what you should aspire to.
I won’t go into more details, but I encourage you to read
it; because these are fundamental debates.  This question of how
can we create a renaissance, which crosses every great culture;
because every great culture has great moments and bad moments,
bad tendencies.  Weak tendencies, and strong tendencies which
honor the human creative power; the other which tries to keep
people enslaved as master and slave.  We have to pull out the
best of every culture throughout the world.  Islam; Judaism;
Christianity; Confucianism; the Muslim tradition of the Baghdad
Caliphate.  All of these are there — the Indian Gupta period.
We can pull these together and have a Renaissance which is not
this part of the world as opposed to that part of the world; but
is truly universal.  Of man with a common aim for mankind as
Helga likes to say.
This is within our grasp; this could truly be the end of war
for all mankind.  People say, “Oh, that’s naïve; because human
nature is war-like.”  Well, {human nature} is not; human nature
is creative.  It’s the bestial imposition of this backward
ideology on peoples which leads to wars.  If we had a true,
global renaissance based on science and technology, great culture
and great music, there’s no reason to think we could not end the
scourge of war once and for all; as that beautiful quote from
Douglas MacArthur — which I’d never heard — clearly indicates.
These are philosophic and theological issues; but they’re in our
grasp today.  This is what the LaRouche Movement has been about
since its inception; and it’s now literally within our grasp.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Mike.  This material is
available; Mike’s article is going to be published.  This is in
the {Executive Intelligence Review}, and it will be made
available through LaRouche PAC as well.  As Mike said, all of the
proceedings of that Schiller Institute conference in New York are
also available.  LaRouche PAC also made a video a couple of years
ago on the question of the reunification of Korea and some of
these initiatives from the 1990s and these reunification efforts.
So, we’ll make that video also available; it will be linked in
the description of this video.  But I think that’s a wonderful
discussion; and it’s extraordinarily valuable for people to have
this view, this depth of background.  But also this vision of
what is possible.  Douglas MacArthur’s point that in essence this
is a spiritual, this is a theological question.  Will mankind
come to know himself as a creative species?  Will we change the
way that man views himself, which is what is necessary if we are
to survive?  The vehicle for doing that is this type of “win-win”
development projects; that’s the true name of peace.  So, I think
we have a wonderful microcosm in what we just used as a case
study in Korea; but this type of thinking is what is so urgently
necessary for the entire world.  That’s absolutely the value of
what the LaRouche Movement has done over the last several
decades, and continues to represent on this planet today.
So thank you, Mike.  And thank you all for tuning in, and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

København, 26. april, 2017 – Schiller Instituttet i Danmark har længe ført kampagne for, at Danmark tilslutter sig Bælt & Vej-initiativet og Verdenslandbroen, og Instituttets publikation, ’Nyhedsorientering’, for marts måned havde titlen, »Tager Trump og Løkke Rasmussen til Silkevejstopmødet i Beijing?«

Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen deltager ikke i Bælt & Vej Forum, men er i Kina i øjeblikket og vil snart komme på statsbesøg; i næste måned vil Danmarks deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum være på et lavere niveau, idet vi sender Transportministeriets departementschef. Altså, ikke engang en minister.

Talsperson for Kinas Udenrigsministerium, Geng Shuang, meddelte under sin pressekonference i går: »På invitation af premierminister Li Keqiang vil statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen fra Kongeriget Danmark komme på officielt statsbesøg fra 2.-5. maj.

Under statsbesøget vil præsident Xi Jinping, premierminister Li Keqiang og formand [for Folkets Nationalkongres] Zhang Dejiang afholde separate møder og forhandlinger med statsminister Rasmussen og udveksle synspunkter med ham om bilaterale relationer, såvel som også spørgsmål af fælles interesse.

Danmark er blandt de første, vestlige lande, der oprettede diplomatiske forbindelser til Folkerepublikken Kina, og er ligeledes det første nordeuropæiske land, der har indgået et omfattende, strategisk partnerskab med Kina. Kina og Danmark har en lang historie med udvekslinger og et solidt fundament for praktisk samarbejde. De kinesisk-danske relationer udvikler sig med et solidt momentum. Vi mener, at statsminister Rasmussens besøg vil styrke gensidig, politisk tillid, udvide og intensivere praktisk samarbejde, bringe det bilaterale, omfattende, strategiske partnerskab til nye højder og føre til nye fremskridt i samarbejdet mellem Kina og Nordeuropa.«

I forbindelse med udenrigsminister Anders Samuelsens besøg i Kina for et par uger siden, hvor han mødtes med Kinas udenrigsminister Wang Yi, blev en specialenhed for Bælt & Vej-initiativet oprettet for at koordinere aktiviteter, og omfatter afdelinger af det Danske og det Kinesiske Udenrigsministerium, og det Danske Udenrigsministerium etablerede formel kontakt med flere kinesiske tænketanke, inklusive den tænketank, der var involveret i at udtænke Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Dette er alt sammen ikke nok, men det er en begyndelse.

Foto: Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen under et tidligere besøg i Kina. Til venstre, Kinas præsident Xi Jinping.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 26. april, 2017 – Wall Street er tydeligvis på fortvivlelsens rand over momentummet for Glass-Steagall, ikke alene i Kongressen og i hele landet, men især i Det Hvide Hus. Tidligere chef for FDIC, William Isaac, og tidligere direktør i Wells Fargo, Richard Kovacevich, er troppet op til en kronik i Wall Street Journal i dag med overskriften, »De brodne argumenter for en Ny Glass-Steagall«, som lægger ud med et voldsomt angreb mod præsident Trumps chefrådgiver, Gary Cohn, for at støtte en Glass-Steagall opdeling af investeringsbanker og kommercielle banker.

»Dette er dybt skuffende«, klynker de, efterfulgt af et højtravende opspind om, hvordan »diversificering« af både kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker (dvs., ved at slå dem sammen), har skabt det nu »stabiliserede« banksystem, som en påberåbelse imod Glass-Steagall.

Sådanne desperate skrig fylder nu i bogstavelig forstand finanspressen hver dag. Det må antages, at de er udmærket klar over, at virksomhedernes og selskabernes gældsboble i USA nu er væsentligt større, end boblen på ejendomsmarkedet var forud for krakket 2008, og som nu nærmer sig $14 billion, sammenlignet med $11 billion og lidt småpenge, for huslånsboblen. Tidligere adm. direktør i Goldman Sachs, Nomi Prins, forfatter til Alle the Presidents Bankers, sagde til EIR under et interview for nylig, at gældsboblen i foretagenderne nu er langt større end ejendomsboblen, der var gnisten til kollapset i 2008, og nu er vokset med 75 % i løbet af det seneste årti til næsten $14 billion, og som næsten med sikkerhed vil eksplodere inden årets udgang. Selv IMF advarede forgangne weekend om, at en væsentlig stigning i rentesatserne kunne fremprovokere et kollaps i 20 % af de amerikanske foretagender. Der er panik i luften, og en løsning såsom Glass-Steagall ville betyde, at spekulanterne på Wall Street endelig langt om længe ville blive nødt til at finde sig en nyttig beskæftigelse, snarere end at få endnu en bailout, betalt af skatteborgerne, og samtidig ville den nyttige, kommercielle banksektor blive bevaret for atter at finansiere realøkonomien.

Men, for at redde USA’s økonomi, må præsidenten også tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej, nu, helst ved at deltage i Forum for Ét bælt, en vej (OBOR), som afholdes i Beijing 14.-15. maj. Den kinesiske ambassadør til USA, Cui Tiankai, fornyede den invitation, som præsident Xi Jinping udstedte under sit besøg med Trump, til, at USA’s præsident kunne besøge Kina, og til, at USA kunne deltage i Bælt & Vej. China Daily citerede i sin rapport om ambassadør Cuis invitation Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der i sin tale ved Schiller Instituttets Forum den 13.-14. april i New York, med titlen, »Amerikansk-kinesisk samarbejde om Bælt & Vej-initiativet«, sagde, »Samarbejde om Bælt & Vej kunne bruge kinesernes erfaring til at opbygge USA’s infrastruktur«, og at Trump kunne blive »en af de største præsidenter i USA’s historie«, hvis han går sammen med Kina og andre nationer i Bælt & Vej-initiativet.

EIR opfordrer vore læsere til at se og cirkulere nedenstående, 35 minutter lange opsummeringsvideo, som giver et overblik over denne ekstraordinære Schiller Institut-konference, inklusive præsentationerne fra Kina og Rusland, fra højtplacerede personer inden for diplomatiet.

I hele verden finder der optaktsmøder til Bælt & Vej Forum sted – alene i løbet af de seneste 48 timer i Polen, Ukraine, Etiopien, Kasakhstan og Pakistan. Kansler Merkel har meddelt, at Tyskland vil sende sin økonomiminister, og den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi, som deltager i Forum for Oldtidscivilisationer i Athen, Grækenland, har inviteret sin egyptiske modpart og andre til at deltage.

Verden står stadig og vakler alt for tæt på en mulig global krig, som udløses af Det britiske Imperiums dinosaurer, der desperat forsøger at bevare deres opdeling af verden i fjendtlige lejre, Øst og Vest, ved at forhindre præsident Trumps erklærede hensigt om at være venner med både Kina og Rusland som grundlaget for globalt samarbejde og global udvikling. Det er et stærkt og presserende valg – udvikling og globalt samarbejde, eller global krig.

Titelbillede: Bemærk: Denne grafik fra 2015 er en smule forældet, men viser stadig nogle af de væsentligste zoner for økonomisk aktivitet fra Kinas initiativ Ét Bælt, én Vej. Grafik fra merics.org.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. april, 2017:         

Vi befinder os i en særdeles omskiftelig situation, som mest dramatisk ses af begivenheder mht. Nordkorea; men underliggende har vi den økonomiske sammenbrudskrise og de transatlantiske nationers mislykkede politik. Det, vi har brug for, er, at USA samarbejder med Kina og Rusland, »inden for rammerne af Bælt & Vej-initiativet« – som præsident Xi Jinping sagde til præsident Trump i Florida, den 7. april – for at sætte en kurs mod sikkerhed og tryghed, bort fra de geopolitiske konfrontationer, som er det ’britiske imperiespil’.

Se på Nordkorea, som i dag fejrer sit 85. jubilæum for oprettelsen af sin hær, med ceremoniel og våbenøvelser, midt i en aggressiv retorik imod USA. Med mindre, der finder en proces sted med forhandlinger og overvejelser blandt de berørte nationer (hvad enten det bliver i regi af 4 eller 6 parter), som kommer med en løsning, så er situationen mere end farlig. Trump-administrationen er aktiveret, men foreløbig kun ud fra et standpunkt om pres og trusler, om end behersket.

’Bak ud’, begge to, lød budskabet i dag i den statsejede, kinesiske presse, China Daily, hvis lederartikel bærer overskriften, »Fejlvurdering udgør den største risiko for Halvøen«. Man frygter, at »alt kunne ske, hvornår, de skal være, i det spændte opgør, der har udviklet sig mellem Washington og Pyongyang«. Med hensyn til Nordkorea, gør den kinesiske avis det klart, »så har de politiske beslutningstagere i Pyongyang, at dømme ud fra deres seneste udtalelser og handlinger, alvorligt misforstået FN-sanktionerne (de nye), der er rettet mod landets atomvåben- og missilaffyringsprovokationer, og ikke landets system eller dets lederskab … De må revurdere situationen, så de ikke foretager fejlvurderinger«. Over for USA formaner China Daily, »På samme måde bør Washington fortsætte med at udvise beherskelse og forfølge en fredelig løsning af spørgsmålet«.

Præsident Trump tager usædvanlige skridt i Washington, D.C. I går, den 24. april, var han i Det Hvide Hus vært for et frokostmøde med de 15 ambassadører til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, hvor han talte om Nordkorea og Syrien. I morgen eftermiddag, den 26. april, er alle de 100 senatorer i den Amerikanske Kongres inviteret til en briefing om Nordkorea i Det Hvide Hus, ved cheferne for forsvars- og udenrigsdepartementerne, stabschef, general Joseph Dunford, og national efterretningsdirektør, Dan Coats. Fredag, den 28. april, vil udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson præsidere et møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om Nordkorea. (USA har det roterende formandskab for april måned.)

Budskabet i alt dette er foreløbig, som Trump i går udtrykte det over for ambassadørerne, at FN og medlemsnationerne af Sikkerhedsrådet må gøre mere mht. Syrien og Nordkorea. Finansminister Mnuchin annoncerede i går, desværre, amerikanske sanktioner mod 270 syriske videnskabsfolk og forskere med den påstand, at præsident Bashar al-Assad havde gasbombet sit eget folk. Dette på trods af, at der ikke har været nogen ordentlig undersøgelse på åstedet. Situationen er således fortsat fyldt med anspændthed, og folk lider og dør.

Se så på, hvem, der ansporer til katastrofe: New York Times og Wall Street Journal – direkte talerør for Det britiske Imperium. 24. april kræver NY Times handling nu over for Nordkorea, fordi »landet er i stand til at producere en atombombe hver seks eller syv uger«. Hvor ved ’The Slimes’ det fra? Fra »en voksende mængde af ekspertundersøgelser og klassificerede efterretningsrapporter«, alle unavngivne. For en god ordens skyld går dagens Wall Street Journal ind med tilføjesen, at enhver investering i Ét Bælt, én Vej er »dårskab«, spild af tid og penge.

Det er vores opgave er gå ud med sandheden overalt. Den franske statsmand og præsidentkandidat Jacques Cheminade talte på valgaftenen til sin kampagne og sagde, »vi tog vor tids udfordringer op«. Med et blik på fremtiden, »kan vi blive katalysator for et reelt skift og en reel inspiration. Men på én betingelse: at I fortsætter med at kæmpe for det …«

Foto: Den 24. april var præsident Trump vært for et frokostmøde med de 15 ambassadører til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, hvor han talte om Syrien og Nordkorea.  

24. april, 2017 – En lille delegation på ministerplan fra Sverige vil deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing 14.-15. maj, med infrastrukturminister Anna Johansson i spidsen. Delegationen er ikke koordineret med deltagere fra svensk industri, som blev inviteret særskilt af Kina. Og selv om Sverige er et stiftende medlem af AIIB og har deltaget i disse møder, så bærer regeringens synspunkt stadig præg af, af Bælt & Vej-projektet ikke er meget andet end et jernbaneprojekt.

Minister Johansson er fra Göteborg, hvor den store bilproducent Volvo Cars, der ejes af Kina, har udviklet en førsteklasses udveksling af teknologi med Kina. At bringe de svenske underentreprenører af Volvo Cars ind i Silkevejsudviklingen, hvilket involverer infrastrukturkorridorer på det højeste, teknologiske niveau, ville direkte involvere en stor bid af svensk industri i alle regioner, så vel som også i nabolandene, i et samarbejde for at udvikle alle de industriparker, der er planlagt langs ruterne.

Schiller Instituttet vil advokere for, at den svenske regering fuldt ud koordinerer med svenske industrier, der skal deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum, med det formål at opgradere Sveriges deltagelse. Det ville ligeledes være passende, om statsminister Stefan Löfven stod i spidsen for delegationen.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 24. april, 2017 – Med endnu en telefondiskussion søndag om fred på Koreahalvøen, er dialogen mellem præsident Donald Trump og Kinas præsident Xi Jinping ved at få afgørende betydning som lederskab for verden, hvilket forstås af førende, kinesiske personer, men i det atlantiske område fordunkles af britske krav om krigskonfrontationer.

Xi har foreslået, og Trump givet tilsagn til, samtaler mellem de to på fast basis, samt Trumps snarlige besøg til Kina til endnu et topmøde.

Dette er et afgørende samarbejde for den første, amerikanske præsident i hundrede år, der taler om en tilbagevenden til Alexander Hamiltons og Lincolns »Amerikanske Økonomiske System«, som trodsede Det britiske Imperium og gjorde USA til verdens førende industrination.

Kinas »Økonomiske Bælt & Vej-initiativ« er drivkraften i den verdensøkonomiske vækst og er til reel fordel for de øvrige 60 nationer, der deltager, og tilfører deres økonomier infrastruktur og skaber produktiv beskæftigelse. Dette er, hvad Trump ønsker at gøre.

Trump genopliver ånden fra John F. Kennedys Apolloprogram, med videoer om rummet fra præsidenten og hans opkald i dag til rumstationen, hvor tusinder af amerikanske elever så med, og han foreslår at forcere en tilbagevenden til Månen og Mars. Kinas rumprogram fører an i udforskning af Månen, inklusive dennes bagside, hvilket aldrig tidligere er forsøgt, og med udsigt til Mars.

Trump og Xi ønsker begge en fredelig løsning i Korea. Londons ledere og medier forsøger nu, efter at have anført et slag à la McCarthy-epoken imod Trumps samarbejdsrelation med Rusland, ihærdigt at få krisen over Nordkorea til at eksplodere i en verdenskrig. Den britiske forsvarsminister Michael Fallons udtalelse i går om, at »premierminister May er rede til at tage atomvåben i brug i et førsteslagsangreb«, som en britisk overskrift korrekt rapporterede, var krigsvanvid, især i en fabrikeret atomvåbenkrise. Storbritanniens statsanklager har netop erklæret, at aggressionskrig ikke er forbudt under britisk lov!

Briternes handlinger for at sværte og begå ’kup’ imod Trump-præsidentskabet må standses.

Hvis det amerikansk-kinesiske og det amerikansk-russiske samarbejde er godt, er der intet problem i verden, der ikke kan løses.

Som den seneste, 1-minut lange video fra EIR erklærer:

»Præsident Donald Trump har ofte talt om sin plan om at bruge $1 billion til USA’s infrastruktur for at styrke produktiviteten og udvide økonomien. Næste måned har han en fantastisk mulighed for at diskutere denne vision med andre verdensledere, inklusive dem i Asien, som bruger 30 gange så meget som USA på infrastruktur, i forhold til deres BNP.

Den 14. og 15. maj afholdes der et enormt topmøde i Beijing, for at udarbejde en detaljeret plan for udførelsen af Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Dette er et internationalt samarbejdsprojekt, initieret af Kina, som involverer: samarbejde mellem flere end 60 lande; byggeriet af det, der vil blive infrastruktur for henved $20 billioner; det vil berøre mere end 4 mia. mennesker.

Topmødet i maj vil inkludere: 110 nationer, af hvilke 28 bliver repræsenteret af deres statsoverhoveder. Det er en stor mulighed for infrastruktur.

Præsident Trump, gå ikke glip af denne mulighed. Deltag i topmødet i Beijing!«

Foto: From @RealDonaldTrump, April 7, 2017, Mar-a-Lago, Florida: “”@FLOTUS & I are honored to welcome the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, & Madame Peng Liyuan to the United States.”

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 23. april, 2017 – I denne uge gjorde den russiske og kinesiske presse det til en sag at dække LaRouche-bevægelsens kampagner for at formå Trump-præsidentskabet til at bringe USA ind i det Nye Silkevejsparadigme med Xi Jinpings Bælt & Vej-initiativ, alt imens de samtidig i stigende grad identificerer briternes rolle i at undergrave Trumps bestræbelser for at bringe USA, Rusland og Kina ind i et samarbejde, til menneskehedens gode. Samtidig foregår der en bevægelse, hvor politiske institutioner i USA går i retning af et samarbejde med LaRouche-organisationer – Schiller Instituttet, Executive Intelligence Review og LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite (LaRouche PAC).

Lørdag gik repræsentanter fra Schiller Instituttet og medlemmer af en Tea Party-organisation fra New Jersey sammen foran New York Times – eller, som præsident Trump korrekt identificerer det, det »mislykkede New York Times«. Plancher ved protesten inkluderede: »New York Times ønsker krig med Rusland, amerikanere ønsker fred«; »New York Times – få alle de falske nyheder på tryk«; og en plakat med et portræt af en rødmende Göbbels, med ordene: »New York Times får Göbbels til at rødme«.

En artikel i TASS samme aften lød: »’Hele verden griner ad New York Times’, sagde Daniel Burke, talsmand for Schiller Instituttet, i et interview til TASS’ korrespondent. ’De er blevet smålige tjenere for dem, der søger krig og kaos.’ Efter hans mening ’spreder denne udgivelse løgne om Syrien, ligesom den løj om tilstedeværelsen af masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak. Dette er en del af en kynisk og falsk kampagne for at udskifte regimet i Syrien – dette kan let føre til en Tredje Verdenskrig’, sagde Burke.« Ruptly, RT’s Tv- og videotjeneste, udlagde en video af demonstrationen.

Ligeledes lørdag, udgav China Daily en lang artikel, inkl. billeder, som rapporterede om Schiller Instituttets konference i New York City med titlen, »Bælt & Vej-initiativ ’Ny Platform’ for kinesisk-amerikansk samarbejde«, som rapporterede om præsentationerne af dr. Patrick Ho, stifter af China Energy Fund Committee, vice-generalkonsul for Folkerepublikken Kina i New York, Zhang Meifang, og vice-chargé d’affaires ved Ruslands permanente mission til FN, Petr Iliichev, som alle talte med Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

EIR har nu indledt en daglig, kort (1-2 minutter) lang video på EIR YouTube kanal, der er totalt helliget afsløringen af den direkte britiske rolle i både at undergrave ethvert samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina, og i at bruge enhver tænkelig løgn for at manipulere USA ind i en krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som omgående kunne afslutte civilisationen, som vi kender den. Vi opfordrer alle til at abonnere på denne daglige video.

Præsident Trump accepterede, under sit møde med præsident Xi Jinping den 6.-7. april i Florida, Xis invitation til at besøge Kina, men uden at fastsætte en dato for besøget. Alt imens et sådant besøg er af den yderste vigtighed for menneskehedens fremtid, når som helst, det måtte finde sted, så har Lyndon og Helga LaRouche kraftigt opfordret præsidenten til at deltage i »Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde«, som afholdes i Beijing den 14.-14. maj. Hvis han deltager, ville Trump kunne mødes med både Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin, sammen med 26 andre statsoverhoveder og regeringschefer, der har planlagt at deltage i forummet, i omgivelser, der tilsigter at skabe samarbejde for udvikling mellem nationerne på vores fælles planet. Verden må skride til handling nu for at opnå et sådant nyt paradigme for verdens udvikling, som den nødvendige basis for at gøre en ende på det britiske system med geopolitisk, militær konfrontation, én gang for alle, og i stedet skabe en ny renæssance, der er helliget menneskehedens fælles mål.

Foto: Lørdag den 22. april, 2017, holdt medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet og en Tea Party-organisation fra New Jersey en demonstration uden for New York Times. (photo: Daniel Burke/LaRouchePAC)

… LPAC’s mål  stadig er det samme. Et meget klart mål, der har to sider:

1) At befri USA fra det britiske imperie-systems forsøg på at bruge USA til at bulldoze verden ind i Tredje Verdenskrig; en fare, der netop nu er særdeles reel, med situation i Syrien, der er ved at blive hed efter Trumps-administrationens meget ukloge angreb mod den syriske regering dér, og som var baseret på ukorrekt efterretning. Samt den krigeriske, aggressive optrapning omkring situationen i Nordkorea.

2) Men på den anden side, også at fortsætte kampagnen for at bringe USA ind i det Nye Paradigme, der netop nu vokser frem i hele verden.

Indledning:

Matthew Ogden: Godaften, det er den 21. april, og dette er vores fredag aften webcast.

For blot nogle få timer siden havde vi en diskussion med både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche; og de understregede begge, at vores mål, som LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite (LPAC), stadig er det samme. Et meget klart mål, der har to sider:

1) At befri USA fra det britiske imperie-systems forsøg på at bruge USA til at bulldoze verden ind i Tredje Verdenskrig; en fare, der netop nu er særdeles reel, med situation i Syrien, der er ved at blive hed efter Trumps-administrationens meget ukloge angreb mod den syriske regering dér, og som var baseret på ukorrekt efterretning. Samt den krigeriske, aggressive optrapning omkring situationen i Nordkorea.

2) Men på den anden side, også at fortsætte kampagnen for at bringe USA ind i det Nye Paradigme, der netop nu vokser frem i hele verden.

Vi befinder os naturligvis i nedtællingen til Bælt & Vej-konferencen, der afholdes i Beijing i maj, om under tre uger; Kinas præsident Xi Jinping er vært for konferencen, men tæt ved 28 forskellige statsoverhoveder fra hele verden vil deltage. Vores kampagne er selvfølgelig stadig, at præsident Donald Trump personligt bør deltage i dette topmøde; og bør gengælde præsident Xi Jinpings tilbud om, at USA går med i Bælt & Vej-initiativet og bliver en del af dette Nye Paradigme for økonomisk udvikling og fred, versus det gamle, døende paradigme med Det britiske Imperiums geopolitiske del-og-hersk-strategi, der har bragt verden på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig.

Kineserne handler nu, har optrappet deres organiseringskampagne, for at organisere verden til denne forestående begivenhed. Det er af stor betydning, at der i USA vises øget opmærksomhed over for dette, i kølvandet på Schiller Instituttets konference, der fandt sted sidste torsdag og fredag, den 13. og 14. april, med titlen: »USA og Kina: Samarbejde om Bælt & Vej-initiativet«.

Der er nogle meget betydningsfulde citater, som vi vil afspille for jer her. Det begynder med et besøg, som formanden for den Nationale Kinesiske Folkekongres’ Stående Komite, Zhang Dejiang, havde, da han rejste til Moskva for at mødes med præsident Putin i onsdags, for at lægge fundamentet for præsident Putins besøg i Beijing. Han sagde:

»Under præsident Xi Jinpings strategiske lederskab har vore bilaterale relationer og omfattende strategiske partnerskab nået et meget højt punkt. Kina ser frem til, og byder velkommen, Deres besøg i maj i år, for at deltage i Ét Bælt, én Vej Internationale Samarbejdsforum. De vil være den højeste æresgæst dér. De vil mødes med præsident Xi Jinping på sidelinjen af forummet, og dette har stor betydning for styrkelse af venskabet og samarbejdet mellem vore lande, og for promoveringen af bilateralt samarbejde inden for alle områder, i særdeleshed i dagens situation.«

Zhangs besøg i Moskva er en del af et større organiseringsfremstød for Bælt & Vej-topmødet, som også inkluderede bemærkninger af præsident Xi Jinping under en turné i Sydkinas autonome region, Guangxi Zhuang, i onsdags. Han sagde:

»Bælt & Vej-initiativet har fået stor anerkendelse i det internationale samfund, siden det blev fremsat; hvilket viser, at det er i overensstemmelse med folkenes vilje. Vi vil fremme Kinas store politik for åbenhed og udvikling inden for rammerne af Bælt & Vej, og vi vil yderligere fremme virkeliggørelsen af Kinas mål gennem to hundrede år, og den kinesiske drøm om den kinesiske nations store foryngelse.«

Sidste del af udskriftet på engelsk:

(Se også: Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på konferencens første dag: (Fuld dansk tekst.)

»Samarbejde mellem Kina og USA om Bælt & Vej-Initiativet«. 

Together with this, there has been a press conference which
was sponsored by the Transportation Ministry of China, and the
spokesman stated that “Transportation connectivity is the
founding priority of the implementation of the Belt and Road
Initiative.”  This press conference was hosted by the
Transportation Ministry in order to highlight the growing scope
of the Belt and Road projects.  The Transportation Ministry
spokesman stated that more than 130 regional and bilateral
transport agreements have already been signed; 56 international
road routes have been opened.  He said that 4200 direct flights
now connect China with 43 different Belt and Road Initiative
countries.  And finally — and most significantly — 39
China-Europe freight train routes are now currently in operation.
So, this is clearly highlighting the extraordinary scope and
growing magnitude of the Belt and Road Initiative as the paradigm
which is sweeping the planet.  Also, just this past Wednesday,
Xinhua.net published an interview with the President of Greece,
where he said, “The upcoming high-level forum on the Belt and
Road Initiative is of global significance.  The forum is
important not only to China, but also to the rest of the world.
The forum will prove that in the new historical era, China will
play an important role in promoting the harmonious co-existence
of countries in the world.”
Now this theme of the “harmonious co-existence of countries
in the world” is a theme that the Chinese President and the
Chinese government have highlighted on multiple occasions;
comparing the Silk Road Initiative to a kind of symphony
orchestra, where not one voice is more prominent than another;
but the voices of all the instruments mix together in one
harmonious co-existence.  This is a metaphor for the New
Paradigm; not a unilateral world where one country’s, or one
bloc’s, values and system are imposed on another country; but
that the best of what every country has to offer is brought to
the table in dialogue — culturally, economically, strategically.
And that the New Paradigm is based on this kind of “win-win”
cooperation.
Now this was a theme that Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder
of the Schiller Institute, took up in multiple ways in both her
keynote on the first day of the international Schiller Institute
conference which I referenced, up in New York City, on US-China
cooperation; but also in a very beautiful way in her speech on
the second day of that conference.  We’re not going to play the
full speech for you here; it’s available on the Schiller
Institute website.  But the theme that she brought up was a very
beautiful theme of the cultural dialogue between the best of what
Western European culture has to offer, and the Confucian
tradition in China.  She compared the writings of Friedrich
Schiller, who is obviously the namesake of the Schiller
Institute, and one of the leading thinkers of revolutionary
Europe at the time of the American Revolution — he was called
the Poet of Freedom; compared to the writings of the thousands’
year old philosopher of Chinese civilization, the philosopher
Confucius.  Both of these two philosophers’ writings converge on
the idea that it is the aesthetical education and the aesthetical
development of the citizens of the country, which allows for
peace and prosperity to become the reigning order of that nation,
or of that land.  She read several extensive quotes from
Confucius in which he developed the idea that the music reflects
and reciprocively reflects back on the state of development of
the mind of the people.  An organized and developed form of music
reflects and organized and developed form of society.  She
compared this to the writings that Friedrich Schiller had in his
writings on {The Aesthetical Education of Man}, which he
published in the wake of the failed French Revolution.  Schiller
elaborated that a republican form of government must make as its
number one priority the aesthetical development of its people.
She said that it’s not a surprise for a country such as China,
where President Xi Jinping has put a premium on the revival of
this Confucian idea.  She said that there’s a renaissance of
Confucian ideas and Confucian philosophy that is now taking place
inside China.  That this metaphor of a symphony orchestra, or of
a chorus of voices joining together, should be one that the
President of China uses in his discussion of what this new
international paradigm of “win-win” mutually beneficial
relationships between countries should be; that this is what is
now organizing the world as an almost gravitational force towards
this upcoming Belt and Road Initiative that’s going to be hosted
in Beijing by China in May.
Now obviously, many countries around the world are now
realizing what time it is; that in fact, China is emerging as the
world’s leading economic power and economic leader, and is
bringing that kind of development perspective that it has already
applied domestically for its own people, to countries around the
world.  Former colonial countries in Africa building trains,
building water projects there.  Bringing this as part of a
dialogue in South America for canal and rail projects there; and
obviously, along the entire Belt and Road Initiative corridor.
What is happening is that many countries are now saying, “We’re
on board!”  The latest is Belarus.  President Lukashenko there is
saying that Belarus is going to become a hub of the One Belt, One
Road Initiative inside Europe.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche joked that
Germany is now being surrounded by countries that wish to become
a part of the New Silk Road.  Whereas those countries are hubs of
development, Germany is a hole of development right now.  But you
have also the announcement in recent weeks that many countries
are now joining the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank.  This
was an offer that President Xi Jinping directly put on the table
during the APEX summit years ago in a joint press conference with
President Barack Obama.  Obama rejected it.  Xi Jinping offered
that the United States could enter into the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank as one of its founding investors.  This obviously
remains an offer which is open, and these offers have been
reiterated in the recent weeks surrounding President Xi Jinping’s
trip to the United States during his bilateral summit meeting
with President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, Florida.  Very significantly,
this was reiterated during the LaRouche Movement’s Schiller
Institute conference in New York City by the Deputy Consul
General representing the Chinese Consulate in New York City.
We’re going to play a very short clip from her speech.  It’s
very clear; she says “President Xi Jinping offers the United
States to join China in cooperation in the Belt and Road
Initiative framework.  This is an opportunity that should be
seized, and it’s an opportunity that will be mutually beneficial
to both countries involved.”  So, here’s that clip:

CHINESE DEPUTY CONSUL GENERAL:  “Last by not least, I want to
quote President Xi as saying that China welcomes the United
States to participate in cooperation within the Belt and Road
framework.  President Xi stressed that both countries have become
each other’s first largest trading partners, and both peoples
have benefitted a lot from it.  China’s economy will maintain a
sound development momentum and enhancement of economic and trade
cooperation between the countries enjoys broad prospects.  Both
countries should really seize the opportunities.”

OGDEN: During that conference, it was very significant that
this representative of the Chinese government attended that
conference, which was on the subject of US-Chinese cooperation
around the Belt and Road Initiative; and again formally extended
the offer to the United States and to President Trump to join
this initiative and to cooperate with China around this New
Paradigm of economic development for the planet.  As the Deputy
Consul General stated during the rest of her speech, and as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche reiterated, this upcoming mid-May meeting of the
Belt and Road Initiative that’s being hosted in China is the
opportunity.  This is the inflection point for the United States
to change its policy.
Very provocatively, at that conference, Helga Zepp-LaRouche
began the entire conference with her keynote presentation that
she has stated that if President Trump were to decide to join
this New Silk Road and to join this New Paradigm, he could become
one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United
States.  She said that shocked a lot of people when she said that
several weeks ago; and despite the fact that a very ill-advised
action was taken by President Trump to enter into this
confrontational stance with North Korea and also to take the
initiative the Syrian air base in Syria, she said that statement
and characterization still stands.  Because if he were to make
that choice, that would mean that he was deciding to abandon the
British geopolitics of unilateral imperial war and confrontation,
and to become a part of this New Paradigm; which would mean an
end to the British imperial system once and for all.  Since that
point, it’s been very clear that the British Empire has been
involved directly in trying to bulldoze Donald Trump into this
kind of World War III confrontation and away from the kind of
cooperation that was clearly part of his campaign.
At the same time that the Chinese representative at that
conference in New York City made that statement, that formal
offer once again for the United States to join the Silk Road;
also in attendance was the chargé d’affaires for the Permanent
Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.  He made
a very significant point which was similar.  He said the Russian
people do not wish for confrontation with the United States of
America; but wish instead for bilateral cooperation, a
relationship of friendship, of mutual understanding and mutual
development.  And that this is, in fact, the opportunity which is
posed by the types of initiatives that were being discussed at
that conference in New York City; this Schiller Institute Belt
and Road Initiative conference.
Unfortunately, as we’ve documented and as we’ve continued to
document, the Trump administration has been taken in by the kinds
of false propaganda drumbeat that is now being propagated from
many of the leading media organizations in the United States, and
very profoundly from the British government.  From Boris Johnson,
from the military layers inside Great Britain, and so forth.
However, since the time that President Trump made the decision to
launch the airstrikes against the Syrian government, based on the
supposed intelligence that Assad had used chemical weapons
against his own people, increasingly there has been evidence that
has been coming out from very credible sources, that in fact that
intelligence was flawed; and perhaps was even faked as a false
flag initiative in order to pull Trump into this war.  Very
similar to the type of lies that came out of Tony Blair in 2003
in order to pull the United States into the war against Iraq with
the so-called “weapons of mass destruction”.  There was a very
significant interview that was delivered by President Assad to
Sputnik News just yesterday, which is now being circulated today.
We’re going to read a few clips from that interview for you.
What President Assad had to say in this interview, as you
can see on the screen, with Sputnik News, was that this was a
false flag.  He said, “We formally sent a letter to the United
Nations, asking in that letter to send a delegation in order to
investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhun.  Of course until this
moment, they didn’t send anyone, because the West and the United
States blocked any delegation from coming.  Because if they come,
they will find out that all their narratives were a false flag.
So for us, there was no gas attack and no gas depot.  It was a
false flag play, just to justify the attack on Syria.  That’s
what happened.  The attack was already prepared.  They didn’t
want to listen; they didn’t want to investigate.  They only
wanted to launch the attack.  We believe it was a false flag for
one reason and a simple reason.  If there was gas leakage or an
attack, and you’re talking about 60 dead in that city; how could
the city continue its life normally?  They didn’t evacuate the
city.  Even if you look at the pictures, you can see the
rescuers, the presumable rescuers were rescuing people without
masks, gloves.  They were moving freely; how?  This is against
all specifications of sarin gas.  You can fake this image; it’s
very easy.  So you cannot just base your judgment on images and
videos, especially made by al-Qaeda.”
Now this was also reiterated by the Russian Defense Ministry
spokesman, General Igor Konashenkov on April 20, in a similar
argument where he points to the fraud that’s being perpetrated.
He said, “In the past two weeks, not a single OPCW representative
was seen there” at the site of the supposed attack in Syria.
“Where do these samples come from, that the OPCW claims prove
that there was a sarin gas attack?  Who of the OPCW members was
able to study them so fast, while standard procedures stipulate a
complex research which requires time; as we can see in the case
of the mustard gas use in Aleppo.”  Konashenkov ironically then
went after the “charlatans from the White Helmets organization,
who were hustling and bustling inside sarin gas clouds with no
protective gear on. Although independent experts do not believe
that anyone could have remained unharmed in a sarin gas attack,
nevertheless, maybe the head of the OPCW,” he said, “has created
his own periodic table of the elements instead of Mendeleyev’s
one.”
Then over the course of this week, a qualified source, a
professor emeritus from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, the former professor Ted Postol, released a series of
very detailed exposés on the facts surrounding this Syrian sarin
gas attack; which prove, according to him, that the White House
intelligence assessment blaming the Syrian government is simply
false.  Professor Postol, who — as I said — is a professor
emeritus at MIT, received his PhD in nuclear engineering from
MIT; and he’s worked at the Argonne National Laboratory; he’s
worked in the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; he’s
worked as a scientific advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations;
and also at Stanford University to train scientists studying
weapons technology.  He stated in this exposé about the alleged
Syrian sarin gas attack, he said first of all, the details of the
location being cited, the weather patterns at the time, other
things conclude “Without a doubt, the sarin dispersal site
alleged at the April 4, 2017 sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, was
not a nerve agent site.  It also shows beyond a shadow of a doubt

that the only mass casualty site that could have resulted from
this mass attack, is not in any way related to the sites, which
are shown in video following a poisoning event of some kind at
Khan Sheikhun.”  He continues by saying, “The allegedly high
confidence intelligence assessment issued on April 11th that led
to the conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible for
the attack, is not correct.  For such a report to be so
egregiously in error, it could not possibly have followed the
most simple and proven intelligence methodologies to determine
the veracity of its findings.”
So there you have from several different sources, a
qualified questioning of the facts of the attack on the ground.
None of these obviously is conclusive one way or another, and as
has been stated, an independent, non-biased, United Nations
investigation should take place; and OPCW personnel should be on
the ground.  But the point is, as was realized after the fact,
the lies that came out of the British Empire and from Tony Blair
in 2003, which brought the United States into a completely
unjustified and aggressive war in Iraq, are being repeated at
this point.  There was a story earlier this week which we will
cover more extensively, that in fact, the Chilcot Commission
report which found that Tony Blair was at fault in those lies
that were perpetrated around the 2003 attack; a lawsuit has been
brought against Tony Blair.  But the UK Attorney General has
determined that although aggressive warfare might be against the
law in international law, might be illegal in international law;
in fact, there are no laws on the books in the United Kingdom,
inside England, that say that aggressive war is illegal.  That
aggressive war is a crime.
There you can see that in fact, the British do not believe
that the crime of aggressive war is actually one that should be
prosecuted.
To conclude, there has been an initiative this week from
{Executive Intelligence Review} to begin producing a series of
video shorts which expose the crimes of the British government at
this point to try to steamroll the United States into this kind
of World War III; and to prevent the United States from
participating in the kind of international cooperation that you
see around the New Silk Road.  There is definitely a countdown, a
showdown in these 21 days between now and this Belt and Road
Initiative conference in China; and it should be seen as such.  A
fight for the soul of the United States — what direction with
the US go?  What direction will the Trump administration go?  As
the inaugural video in that short video series, {Executive
Intelligence Review} published a 90-second clip from the
conference presentation by Helga Zepp-LaRouche from last week in
New York City; where she lays out very clearly that what is
happening here in the United States is, in fact, a British
intelligence coup against the Trump administration.  The point
has got to be made: Americans should know their history and
realize that over the course of our entire history, ever since
the American Revolution, the British have been trying to
reconquer the United States to use the United States as its dumb
giant in these wars; in order to assert this imperial agenda.
Now is the time for the American people to recognize this
history; to recognize what is happening, to know who the enemy
actually is; and to say that we will no longer be a tool of this
imperial system.  We are now deciding to become part of this New
Paradigm and to return to our roots — Alexander Hamilton,
Abraham Lincoln, Henry Carey, Henry Clay — and the American
System of Political Economy that Donald Trump, less than three
weeks ago was talking about his model for economic policy for the
United States.
So, I’m going to conclude with this short clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, and encourage you to please tune in to this new
video series that is coming from {Executive Intelligence Review}.
It can be found on the EIR YouTube channel, which you can
subscribe to.  We are also going to be sharing some of these via
social media.  So you can subscribe to these social media pages
— Facebook, twitter, and so forth.
So, thank you very much; and let me conclude with this clip
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  What happened is, de facto, a coup d’état
inside the United States; which has two elements.  One is the
false flag operation in Syria, combined with what one could call
a palace coup inside the administration.  Now, this coup is a
British intelligence operation; and it must be recognized as such
in order to liberate President Trump from this great danger.
Remember that the American War of Independence, that which
created the United States, was made against the British Empire;
and the British Empire never gave up the idea to reconquer the
United States.  The first time they did that was in the War of
1812; then the British Empire allied with the Confederacy —
British banks financed the Confederacy in this war through their
affiliates in Boston and Philadelphia and so forth.  The British
Empire totally got upset when Trump announced that he wants to go
back to the American System of economy — Alexander Hamilton,
Henry Clay, Lincoln.      

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

19. april 2017 – Kinas accelererende økonomiske vækst er fortsat drivkraften i verdensøkonomien – som igen tegner sig for en tredjedel af ekspansionen i den globale økonomi – alt imens USA fortsat trækker verdensøkonomien ned.

Analyser af Kinas »overraskende« vækst i BNP på 6.9 % i første kvartal, lige fra PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) til Bloomberg og til USA’s Nationale Organisation for Økonomisk Forskning (NBER), er enige om, hvad der er den primære drivkraft bag Kinas acceleration i økonomisk ekspansion. Det er ekstraordinære investeringer i nye infrastrukturprojekter, både hjemme og i andre nationer – med andre ord, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, eller den »Nye Silkevej«.

Men, udover accelerationen af væksten af BNP:

Kinas fabriksresultat voksede med 7,6 % i første kvartal, sammenlignet med første kvartal, 2016;

Kinesernes disponible husstandsindkomst voksede med 7,5 %;

Detailhandelen voksede med 10,4 %;

Import fra andre asiatiske lande voksede med 22,7 % og er drivkraften bag ekspansionen af vareproduktions-forsyningskæden i hele Asien;

Import fra USA voksede md 11 %;

Kinas produktion af stål i marts måned nåede op på 72,5 million tons – samme mængde, som USA producerer på et år.

Bælt & Vej-initiativet, der er projiceret til at være lig 20 Marshallplaner, viser sig virkelig at være en storstilet investerings- og handelsplan, der er til gensidig »win-win«-fordel for de 60 eller flere nationer, der deltager i det. De store infrastrukturprojekter, der er involveret, vokser i værdi med næsten 50 % om året, ifølge en undersøgelse fra februar af PWC. Og en ny NBER-undersøgelse i dag estimerer, baseret på fysiske, økonomiske faktorer, såsom oplysning om natten, set fra rummet, at Kinas økonomi faktisk vokser hurtigere, end landets regering rapporterer.

Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, der afholdes i Beijing 14.-15. maj, er tænkt at skulle være en vej til produktivitet, produktiv beskæftigelse og videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt for nationer i hele verden. Henved 28 statsoverhoveder har givet tilsagn til at deltage; selv nationer, der har haft sikkerheds- eller strategiske spændinger med Kina, såsom Indien, sender delegationer på højt niveau og planlægger udviklingskorridorer med hjælp fra kinesisk investering.

Men USA’s økonomi stagnerer fortsat og konfronteres med en potentiel, ny, generel krise i år. USA’s industriproduktion faldt yderligere i marts og er 3,5 % lavere end i juli 2000! Herefter estimerede Federal Reserve den 18. april en årlig vækst på blot 0,5 % i første kvartal, hvilket er endnu lavere end de 1,8 % i 2016. Arbejdskraftens produktivitet er ikke vokset i seks år. Bankkredit ekspanderer ikke længere; kommercielle og industrielle udlån er på nul vækst. Og selskabers gæld er vokset så hurtigt i løbet af de sidste ti år, med affladende eller faldende profitter, at en IMF-rapport i dag sagde, at 20 % af alle ikke-finansielle selskaber vil gå i betalingsstandsning, hvis renterne stiger væsentligt.

Der findes kun én mulighed for at genoplive det økonomiske fremskridt i Amerika: præsident Trump må rejse til Bælt & Vej Forum, og gøre det til et partnerskab for fred og økonomisk fremskridt.

Denne nyhedsorientering er en redigeret udgave af en briefing, Schiller Instituttets danske formand Tom Gillesberg gav den 10. april om situationen, vi står i efter det dramatiske kursskifte den 6. april, hvor Donald Trump blev overtalt til at sende Tomahawk-missiler imod en syrisk luftbase. Talen kan ses og høres på www.schillerinstitut.dk. Udover at sabotere et samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland bliver angrebet på Syrien også brugt til at tale en militærkonfrontation mellem USA og Nordkorea op. Hvis Trump skulle lade sig besnakke til noget så tåbeligt, vil det få endnu mere katastrofale konsekvenser (se side 3). Som en modpol til dette britisk anførte pres for konfrontation og krig afholdt Schiller Instituttet, bl.a. sammen med kinesiske og russiske repræsentanter, en konference i New York den 13.-14. april, der præsenterede det utroligt store potentiale Kinas Bælt- og Vej-Initiativ udgør, særligt hvis USA og Europa ville gå med (se midtersiderne).

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 18. april, 2017 – Det globale topmøde, »Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde«, med Kina som vært, ligger nu under en måned frem i tiden. Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi gav de internationale medier en forsmag på deltagerlisten, dagsordenen og hovedkoncepter for begivenheden den 14.-15. maj i Beijing. Blandt de 110 nationer, der deltager, vil 28 sende deres statsoverhoveder; lederne af De forenede Nationer og 59 andre organisationer vil være til stede. Wang sagde – med reference til Rusland, Centralasien og Kina – at det, der engang var en »arbejdstegning, nu er en køreplan« for dette område. En dag i den nærmeste fremtid bør denne beskrivelse gælde for hele verden sådan, som det i årtier er blevet promoveret af Schiller Instituttet, i form af Verdenslandbroen.

Påfaldende fraværende i dette billede er USA og andre bastioner centreret i Nordatlanten. Dette er en refleksion af den fortsatte dominans af det afdøde Britiske Imperiums tankegang, løgne og beskidte operationer. Men det behøver ikke vare ved ret længe.

Senere på ugen vil en særlig, halv time lang video blive udgivet af Schiller Instituttet om den stærke konference i New York den 13.-14. maj, med titlen, »Samarbejde mellem Kina og USA om Bælt & Vej-initiativet« (ko-sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet). Videoen vil blive forberedt til oversættelse, for bredest mulig cirkulation og virkning, på kortest mulig tid.

I mellemtiden er det britiske imperie-»element« stadig mere eksponeret og sårbart. Den seneste skandale, der er brudt ud, drejer sig om, hvordan tre britiske top-efterretningstjenester fik den tyske kansler Angela Merkel til at komme til dem i England, i hemmelighed, mindst to gange, for at modtage en privat briefing om det, der rapporteres som terrortrusler mod Tyskland – ukendt for hendes egne efterretningstjenester. De blev holdt hen i uvidenhed. Historien kom frem for et par dage siden i Focus, den næststørste ugeavis i Tyskland, hvis kilder (navnene er tilbageholdt) i tysk sikkerhedstjeneste er rasende. De rejser spørgsmålet om forræderi. Merkel har aldrig deltaget i møder med sine egne sikkerhedstjenester. »Hvorfor rejser hun så til England – stoler hun ikke længere på sine egne folk?«

Sidste gang, Merkel deltog i et sådant hemmeligt møde, fandt det sted i Chequers, på daværende premierminister David Camerons (officielle) landsted, i oktober 2015. Cheferne for MI5 og MI6 var til stede, såvel som også Robert Hannigan, chef for GCHQ. Dette er samme tidsramme som den allerede afslørede GCHQ-overvågning af Trump og medarbejdere, for angivelige »russiske« forbindelser. (Hannigan trådte pludselig tilbage i januar, 2017, da det begyndte at brænde omkring Trump-overvågningen.) Dette er den allestedsnærværende ’britiske hånd’ – der udspionerer, afpresser, lyver og kontrollerer.

Dette er ikke blot »interne« skandaler; hvis disse britiske operationer får lov at fortsætte, er faren, truslen om at fremprovokere ufred og krigsførelse efter modellen om konfrontationer mellem »Øst vs. Vest«, såsom NATO vs. Rusland, eller USA/Sydkorea vs. Nordkorea, som kan resultere i tilintetgørelse gennem atomkrig. Tallet for lidelse og død efter år med denne konfrontationspolitik – der ofte går under navnet »ansvar for at beskytte« (R2P), eller »styrkeopvisning«, er i forvejen rædselsfuldt.

Betydningen af Bælt & Vej-topmødet i maj er, at det står som et vartegn for et nyt paradigme, der afslutter ødelæggelsens æra. Den kinesiske minister Wang sagde, at forummet vil blive det internationale møde på det højeste niveau, siden præsident Xi Jinping første gang bebudede den Nye Silkevej i slutningen af 2013. Wang talte om mødets betydning for forbedring af global styrelse, og for at virkeliggøre retfærdighed for alle.

18. april, 2017 – I dag beskrev Kinas udenrigsminister, Wang Yi, som forberedelse til Ét Bælt, én Vej-topmødet, der afholdes 14.-15. maj, programmet og emnerne, der vil blive behandlet, samt den fantastiske, globale repræsentation, som vil være til stede i Beijing.

Wang sagde, at statsoverhovederne for 28 nationer har bekræftet deres deltagelse i begivenheden, inklusive præsidenterne for Argentina, Belarus, Chile, Den tjekkiske Republik, Indonesien, Kasakhstan, Kenya, Laos, Philippinerne, Rusland, Schweiz, Tyrkiet, Usbekistan og Vietnam, samt premierministrene for Cambodja, Etiopien, Fiji, Grækenland, Ungarn, Italien, Malaysia, Mongoliet, Pakistan, Polen, Serbien, Spanien, Sri Lanka og statsrådgiveren for Myanmar. Han sagde, at London, Paris og Berlin har planlagt at sende højtplacerede repræsentanter, snarere end statsoverhoveder, pga. af valg i deres lande. Alt i alt vil flere end 1.200 delegerede deltage i forummet, rapporterer regeringsfolk, fra 110 nationer, og flere end 60 internationale organisationer. Man må formode, der stadig er tid til, at præsident Trump meddeler sin nærværelse.

Minister Wang sagde, at Kina arbejder sammen med lande langs Bælt & Vej-ruten om næsten 20 handleplaner, der vedrører infrastruktur, energi og resurser, produktionskapacitet, handel og investering. Kina forventer at underskrive samarbejdsaftaler med næsten 20 lande under forummet, sagde han. Kina vil også arbejde for at bygge en international samarbejdsplatform for videnskab, teknologi og miljøbeskyttelse, samt styrkelse af udvekslinger og uddannelse af talenter.

På topmødets første dag, sagde Wang, bliver der en åbningsceremoni med deltagelse af præsident Xi, og som vil omfatte en tale af vicepremierminister Zhang Gaoli. Dette bliver fulgt op af »møder på højt niveau«, og ligeledes seks parallelle paneler. Præsident Xi vil også være vært ved et rundbords-topmøde på dag to, der skal inkludere deltagelse af statsoverhoveder, FN’s generalsekretær, præsidenten for Verdensbanken og direktør for IMF, Christine Lagarde. Målet er at udgive et dokument, der definerer mål og principper for at forfine samarbejde.

Minister Wang sagde, idet han herved fjernede enhver tvivl om, at der skulle være opstået uoverensstemmelser i de kinesisk/russiske relationer som følge af briternes nylige forsøg på sabotage: »Med hensyn til Rusland og Kina har vi, lederne af vore lande, aftalt at slå EAEU og Ét Bælte, én Vej sammen.« Wang sagde også, at Kina »ivrigt hilser velkommen« den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins beslutning om at deltage, hvilket »er et vidnesbyrd om det høje niveau, som relationerne mellem vore lande befinder sig på.«

Han sagde, at Tyskland og Frankrig har udtrykt deres ønske om at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum, men at deres ledere ikke vil være i stand til at deltage pga. valg i disse stater; men, sagde han, London, Paris og Berlin har imidlertid planlagt at sende højtplacerede repræsentanter. Wang fremførte med eftertryk, at visse vestlige lederes fravær ikke bør politiseres.

»Dette er et økonomisk initiativ, og det omhandler økonomisk samarbejde, så vi ønsker ikke, at det skal politiseres.«

Reuters’ dækning politiserer en manglende deltagelse som bare Fanden, efter den britiske lærebog for ’farvet revolution’. Reuters skriver, at »diplomatiske kilder sagde, at Putins tilstedeværelse, og tilstedeværelsen af andre ledere fra lande med et tvivlsomt menneskerettighed-generalieblad, såsom Philippinerne og centralasiatiske stater, havde bidraget til, at vestlige ledere var tilbageholdende med at deltage«.

Foto: Statsoverhoveder fra mere end to dusin lande vil deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum i maj i Beijing, sagde Kinas udenrigsminister Wang Yi. 

Aftenens udsendelse falder i to dele. Første del handler om det, der kaldes Trumpgate; eller ideen om, at Vladimir Putin ikke alene satte Trump ved magten, men rent faktisk styrer Trump-administrationen og bestemmer politikken. Vi havde tidligere på dagen et interview med pensionerede CIA-analytiker Ray McGovern, som har arbejdet for CIA i mange årtier og er en af medstifterne af VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionels for Sanity). Lad os starte med det første klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern:

Jason Ross: Godaften. Med mig i studiet i dag er chef for EIR’s Washington-afdeling, Bill Jones.

Aftenens udsendelse falder i to dele. Første del handler om det, der kaldes Trumpgate; eller ideen om, at Vladimir Putin ikke alene satte Trump ved magten, men rent faktisk styrer Trump-administrationen og bestemmer politikken. Vi havde tidligere på dagen et interview med pensionerede CIA-analytiker Ray McGovern, som har arbejdet for CIA i mange årtier og er en af medstifterne af VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionels for Sanity). Lad os starte med det første klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern:

Udskrift af webcast, engelsk:

DEFEAT THE DEEP STATE TO ENSURE THE NEW PARADIGM!

        JASON ROSS:  Hello.  It is March 31, 2017; and you're
joining us for the weekly Friday LaRouche PAC webcast.  My name
is Jason Ross, and I'm joined in the studio today by {EIR}'s
Washington DC Bureau Chief Bill Jones.  We're going to have two
main parts to the discussion tonight.  The first aspect we're
going to be dealing with is what's called Trumpgate; or the idea
that Vladimir Putin not only put Trump in power, but is actually
running the Trump administration and setting policy.  To discuss
that with us, we had an interview earlier today with retired CIA
analyst Ray McGovern; who worked in the CIA for multiple decades
and is one of the co-founders of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity).  So, let's go ahead and get the first
clip from the interview with Ray McGovern.

        ROSS : First off, setting the stage, ever since Trump
was elected, and especially since his inauguration, there has
been a growing chorus of claims about Vladimir Putin putting
Trump in office by directing the election; and of even directing
Trump's policy.  That, in effect, Vladimir Putin is running the
United States government.  So, first off, is this true?

        RAY MCGOVERN:  Well, if it is, then I don't know anything
about Russia or the Soviet Union.  I was counting up the years
that I've been immersed in Russian studies; it goes back 59 years
when I decided to major in Russian, got my graduate degree in
Russian.  Taught Russian; was the head of the Soviet foreign
policy branch at the CIA; briefed Presidents on Gorbachev.  I
like to think I learned something about how Russian leaders look
at the world.  When I heard this meme going around that Vladimir
Putin clearly preferred Donald Trump, my notion was, well, here's
Vladimir Putin sitting with his advisors, and he's saying "That
Trump fellow; he's not only unpredictable, but he's proud of it.
He brags about it, and he lashes out strongly at every slight;
whether it's real or imagined.  This is just the guy I want to
have his finger on the nuclear codes across the ocean."  It
boggles the mind that Vladimir Putin would have had any
preference for Donald Trump.  That's aside from the fact that
everyone — and that would include Vladimir Putin, unless he's
clairvoyant — knew that Hillary was going to win.
        So, just to pursue this thing very briefly, if the major
premise is that Vladimir Putin and the terrible Russians wanted
Trump to win; then you have a syllogism.  Therefore, they tried
to help him; therefore, they did all kinds of  But if you don't
accept that major premise, the whole syllogism falls apart; and I
don't accept that major premise.   Putin said it himself: "I
don't have a preference."  And I didn't have any preference; I
happened to be in Germany during the election, in Berlin.  It was
exciting, because the German anchors didn't know what to say, to
make of it; and my German friends were saying "We have a German
expression here; the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton is
eine wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera."  That means it's a choice
between plague and cholera.  I said, "You know, I kind of agree."
That's why I not only voted for Jill Stein; but was proud to —
on the environment, on all the major issues, she had it right.
The others did not.  That's the way I looked at it.  I kind of
think that's the way Putin looked at it; and when he said "I
don't have any preference," he probably meant he didn't have any
preference.  So, that syllogism falls down.
        Now, just pursue that one little bit here.  Everyone
expected Hillary to win; everyone.  We're talking Summer; we're
talking Fall as Trump disgraced himself in one manner or another.
He could never win, right?  And nobody thought that Hillary was
such a flawed candidate that nobody trusted her; that she might
lose.  So, you hear what I'm saying?  "Well, it looks like
Hillary is going to win.  Looks pretty sure she's going to win.
So, why not hack into her mechanism there in the Democratic
National Committee?  If I get caught, well she may be angry with
me, but what's to lose?"  I don't think so.  Putin is a very
cautious fellow.  If he thought Hillary was going to win, like
the rest of us did, the last thing he would want to do is hack
into their DNC apparatus and be caught; because he would likely
be caught.  And have an additional grievance for Hillary to
advertise against him.  So, it falls down on logic alone.
        Now, luckily, you mentioned Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  We are the beneficiary of a membership
whose expertise in intelligence matters just won't quit.  This
includes four former high officials in the National Security
Agency — retired; one of whom devised all of these collection
systems that NSA is still using.  His name is Bill Binney.  He
and I are very close.  He writes for us; and he helps me write
things.  What he has said from the outset — and this is five
months ago — is that this could not be a hack; it had to be a
leak.  And for your listeners or your viewers, a hack goes over
the network.

        ROSS:  You're speaking of the DNC?

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, I'm talking about the Russians — thanks
for interrupting; the Russians are accused, of course, of hacking
into the Democratic National Committee emails and they're also
accused of surfacing the Podesta emails.  Bill says, "Look, I
know this network; I created pretty much the bones of it.  And,
I'm free to talk about it.  Why?  Here are the slides that Ed
Snowden brought out; here are the trace points, the trace
mechanism.  And there are hundreds in the network.  So,
everything that goes across the network, Ray, and I know this is
hard for you to believe, and you're looking at me real strange,
but {everything}.  You know where it starts and you know where it
ends up; everything."  So, if this was a hack, NSA would know
about it. NSA does not know about it.  As a matter of fact, the
CIA and the FBI said "We have high confidence that the Russians
did this."  The NSA, which is the only real agency that has the
capability to trace this, said "We only have moderate
confidence."  In the Army, we called that the SWAG factor — it's
a Scientific Wild-Assed Guess.  So, NSA doesn't have the
information.  If they had the information, I'm pretty sure they
would release it; because this is not rocket science.  Everybody
knows how these things work, particularly since Ed Snowden
revealed the whole kit and caboodle.

        ROSS [live]:  This is part of the interview; the entirety of
which will be available on the website coming soon.  It was an
hour-long discussion with Ray McGovern.  Just to follow up on
that, or continue, the British origin of the attacks on Trump
were seen in the dossier that was compiled by former MI-6
operative Christopher Steele; who put together the large dossier
of supposedly compromising material on Donald Trump that was
first published in its entirety on Buzzfeed, but which had been
spoken of in anonymous sort of way by press outlets before that.
The incredible assault on Trump here, this doesn't represent a
Democrat versus Republican type of conflict; what this represents
is whether we're going to have the elected government.  Donald
Trump is the elected President of the United States; he was
elected.  He won the election; he was elected.  Whether we're
going to have an elected government run the United States, or
whether the Deep State — the intelligence agencies in the United
States and in Britain, very significantly — are going to have
their way in determining what our policy will be.  Specifically
in seeing the Trump openness in resetting the relationship with
Russia, with an openness towards China and with an increasing
adoption of the American System outlook, this is not the type of
policy orientation that this Deep State apparatus; hence, the
attacks.
        Ray McGovern and Bill Binney co-authored an article three
days ago, called "The Surveillance State Behind Russia-gate".  I
just wanted to read a very short part of this.  They write:
        "Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy
and further befogged by politics  it appears House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about
invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government
officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President
Trump.
        "This news presents Trump with an unwelcome but unavoidable
choice: Confront those who have kept him in the dark about such
rogue activities or live fearfully in their shadow.
        "What President Trump decides will largely determine the
freedom of action he enjoys as president on many key security and
other issues. But even more so," write Ray McGovern and Bill
Binney, "his choice may decide whether there is a future for this
constitutional republic."
        Very strong words.  In the past month, on March 4th, we saw
Trump's announcement that he was surveilled by the outgoing Obama
administration; he used the word "wiretap" at times, for which he
was attacked for his choice of language.  But the statement still
stands about surveillance.  On March 20th, FBI Director Comey
testified that he was investigating the Trump administration;
guess he didn't have any time to investigate the Saudis.  Just
today, Wikileaks came out with a report in which they released
the latest section of what they are calling "Vault 7"; which is a
collection of material from the CIA — documentation and source
code.  What this latest release showed was "Project Marble", as
the CIA called it; which revealed a program that they had to
obfuscate their own creation of cyber weaponry of malware and
other types of attacks, and the ability to easily attribute such
attacks to other state actors.  Including the ability to — while
making it look as though an attack came from Russia, also include
a seeming cover-up of Russian tracks; so that a security
researcher might feel that they had stumbled across a clue by
finding Russian language comments in this cyber attack weapon,
when really it had been planted from the beginning.  This of
course raises the question of attribution at all, and in
particular about the DNC hacks.  The FBI never investigated the
DNC computers; and all the complaints about Russian involvement
and Russian malware came from CrowdStrike, an independent firm.
Which, if it's up against the CIA and a colossal program to be
able to obfuscate the actual origin of internet attacks, makes it
very unlikely; in addition to, as Ray McGovern said, all signs
point to this and the Podesta emails being leaks rather than
hacks anyway.
        So, let's hear our second clip that we have for the program
from Ray McGovern.

        MCGOVERN :  I think Nunes wants to do the right
thing.  Whether he'll succeed or not is anybody's guess.  All I
can say is, he's up against formidable opponents; witness what
the ranking member or minority leader of the Senate, Chuck
Schumer, has said outright to Rachel Maddow.

        ROSS :  Yeah.  It puts the ranking and ranking.

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, you got it!

        ROSS:  I think this story or picture that you've painted
really gives us something that we need to do; because if this is
to be fought out only among institutional layers, it's a tough
fight.  It's something where if people are aware, as we're able
to make known to the population more generally that this is a
fight; that this isn't about Democrats versus Republicans.  This
is really much more about Deep State versus the potential of
elected government to determine our course.  The threats of say,
blackmail via the FBI or other intelligence agencies, the
dossiers that no doubt exist on these elected officials; that
stands as a threat if people aren't aware of that being the MO
[modus operandi–ed.].  I think people are more familiar with the
way the FBI targetted Martin Luther King; urged him on more than
one occasion to commit suicide to prevent these kinds of
documents from getting out.  I think it really means that there's
something for all of us to do in terms of making sure that this
is known; making sure that the terms of the fight are known, to
make it possible to win this one.

        MCGOVERN:  Exactly; and those were wiretaps, back in the
late '50s, early '60s, those were real wiretaps.  You're quite
right; that was heinous.  Now, I asked Colleen Rowley, who's as I
say, the expertise we have available to us at Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity won't quit.  Colleen was
the counsel of the Minneapolis division of the FBI; she was the
one who wrote memos to the Director saying this is how we screwed
up on 9/11.  She's got guts that won't quit as well.  I said,
"Colleen, Robert Kennedy — my God!  Robert Kennedy, Attorney
General, allowing, authorizing the FBI to try to persuade Dr.
King to commit suicide?  How do you figure that, Colleen?"  And
she said, "Ray, wiretapping; J Edgar Hoover.  Bobby Kennedy would
know that J Edgar Hoover has lots of information on all those
pretty girls that he and Jack used to invite to the White House
pool and all of that stuff."  She's imagining this; but the
reality is, Robert Kennedy would know that J Edgar Hoover would
have lots of material to blackmail not only him, but his big
brother.
        That's big; and that's why when all this came out in the mid
'70s, they created these laws and created these Oversight
Committees, which for a while, did their job.  Now, they're
hopelessly unable, unwilling; they don't want to know this stuff,
and they don't know it for that matter.  The intelligence
officials say "They don't want to know this, so why should we
tell them?"  As for citizens, I would emphasize that this whole
business when Edward Snowden came out with his revelations in
June of 2013, what happened?  Well, people say, "Well, isn't this
interesting?  Everything, they intercept everything!  Emails,
telephone calls, wow!  Luckily, I have nothing to hide."  So, we
asked someone from the Stasi — Stasi is the old East German
secret service; and if people have seen "Das Lieben Der Anderen"
— "The Lives of Others" — an Academy Award film about East
Germany and the Stasi.  The Stasi was their KGB.  You get a
picture of what they did.  Wolfgang Schmidt — his real name by
the way — a Stasi colonel, is interviewed.  One of the Americans
sits down and asks, "Wolfgang, what do you think about people in
America when we say 'We have nothing to hide'?"  Schmidt says,
"This is incredibly naïve.  Everyone has something to hide.  You
don't get to decide what they get on you.  The only way to
prevent it from being against you, is to prevent it from being
collected in the first place."  Beautiful, you know? If they
collect it, they can use it. They don't read it all; they don't
listen to it all. But they but it into these little files —
they're not files, but they're …
        So, yeah, {all of us}. What Edward Snowden said about
"turnkey tyranny." If you have these kinds of private information
about {everyone} including the President and Michael Flynn and
all his associates, back in October-November-December; well, you
have the ability, if not to win the election, then to at least to
destroy or make these folks seem beholden to the {Russians}, of
all places, and disarm the attempts that Trump wants to make,
vis-à-vis Russia.
        Now, I would have to tell you, that I am against everything
Trump stands for, internally. I think he's not only unqualified
to be President, but all his instincts are terrible. Okay, so put
that on the record. I think I already said I voted for Jill
Stein. That said, even a broken clock is right how many times a
day?

        ROSS: Twice a day.

        MCGOVERN: Yeah. He's right about Russia. If he were to say
to Vladimir Putin, "Look, I don't think we need to put more
troops in the Baltic states or Poland; so why don't I pull out
those troops, and you pull out the troops on the other side? It's
a deal?" I'm morally certain Putin would say, "It's a deal!" Now,
what would that mean? That would mean what Pope Francis, to his
credit, called "the blood-drenched arms traders" would lose out,
big time. Peace: bad for business. Tension: very good for
business. So, there's a lot at stake among very, very powerful
people; and if Trump can make this stick — this is not a puny,
incidental issue, it's a transcendental one.
        I was more afraid that Hillary would bring us to a nuclear
confrontation than Trump. I didn't like Trump on the environment,
because I have nine grand-children. Don't Senators and
Congressmen have grand-children? Don't they give —  So, for me
it was a choice between pest and cholera. But, here we have a
possibility for a new what the Germans call {ostpolitik} — a new
policy, looking to the east. Take my word for it; I've looked at
what the Russians have done. I've looked at heyday of the
relationship of the United States and Russia, which goes back to
October of 2013 when Putin pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the
fire by persuading the Syrians to destroy or (have destroyed) all
their chemical weapons {on U.S. ships}. Okay? Nobody knows about
that but the United States.
        But the neo-cons, the people who want to create a {bad}
atmosphere in relations between the United States and Russia —
they know about it. It only took them six months to mount a coup
on Russia's doorstep in Kiev, Ukraine. And that's where all this
trouble started: Russians accused of invading Ukraine — not
true; of invading Crimea — not true. All that stuff was
artificially pumped up. It's just as easily tssuuuu, deflated.
And Trump, if he's willing to do that, well, that would be a
biggie.
        So, being right two times a day is better than never being
right.

        ROSS [laughing]: Well put.

        MCGOVERN: I think.

        ROSS: Great! Thanks very much, Ray. Thanks.

        MCGOVERN: You're most welcome. Thanks for asking. It's very
rare that I get a chance to review what I observe. LaRouche PAC
Friday Webcast,  March 31, 2017

        ROSS: To fill in one thing on that, regarding Sen. Schumer:
in January, Schumer was on the Rachel Maddow Show, and he said he
thought Trump was "really dumb" for taking on the intelligence
agencies, because "they've got six ways from Sunday to get back
at you." Schumer was saying, "Don't get on the bad side of the
intelligence agencies, or they're going to make you pay for it."
A very direct and cowardly and craven admission that there is a
power in government besides the elected government. Just a
disgusting thing to say.
        Let's shift now to our other topic, which is where we {can}
go in the United States, once we throw off the yoke of this
opposition to collaboration in the world. The promise that we
see, for example, in the upcoming meeting taking place April 6-7
next week at Mar-a-Lago with President Xi Jinping of China and
President Trump. Bill, what's the import of this meeting
happening? Where could we go if this shakes out well?

        BILL JONES: It's a very significant meeting. It is a
watershed meeting in a variety of ways. First of all, the two
major countries in the world — China and the United States —
getting together in this way at the highest level, is, of course,
something that affects the entire world. But it's important,
especially now, because you have a new administration, with a new
policy, with a new direction, trying to revive the U.S. economy,
trying to bring back a lot of the economic growth that has been
lost over the last few decades. The question for the Chinese, is
what is that policy, what effect does it have on us, and how do
we fit in? It's going to be a meeting that doesn't lead to any
specific what they call "deliverables." You're not going to have
communiques saying we're going to do this, we're going to do
that, coming out of the meeting.
        The Trump administration is still getting itself organized.
Many of the issues, including the issues that are matters of
controversy between China and the United States, have not been
worked out, because the people are not in place in the
departments at this point. Those include the South China Sea, the
Korean nuclear question, the trade issue — which is very
important, of course, for the Trump administration. These things
still have to be worked out. They will be discussed. In fact,
they will, probably, have at the top of the agenda, of going
through them one by one, to determine this is where we stand,
where do you stand? — to try to get an understanding of where
the two sides lie on issues that to some extent separate them.
        The importance of the meeting, if it is successful — and I
think it will be successful; it's happening at a very early stage
in the administration. It's not so often that a summit of this
nature will be held — what is it? — two-three months from the
inauguration of the President. Both sides agreed that they wanted
to have this. Both of them felt that there was a necessity of
getting together at the highest level in order to really get to
know where the two stand, and really getting to know each other
in a very different sense. They've had communication from the
get-go. There were two phone calls. There were a number of
letters that went back and forth; so they're not strangers to
each other. But it's that time of {meeting}, where they can talk
one-on-one, or with people that they decide to have with them at
any particular point. Probably will be a one-on-one meeting with
interpreters at some point. They will get to learn the mind of
the other person.
        This is extremely important because during the course of the
election, as is often the case, many things are said which don't
necessary don't reflect anything on policy. We've had the
uncertainties about the Taiwan issue. At one point it was unclear
for the Chinese if the One-China policy was still going to be
followed by the Trump administration. And certain things that
were tweeted or said in the spur of the moment were taken
seriously by Beijing; and so there was a lot of uncertainty and a
certain amount of trepidation. Most of that has been cleared up.
The One-China policy stands fast. This, President Trump has made
clear.
        More importantly, on the lower level of high-level meetings
between Secretary of State Tillerson and his counterpart, Foreign
Minister Wang Yi, he did something that no other official has
ever done. He reiterated what has been the explicit Chinese
position with regard to the China-America relationship. He said,
"No conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win
cooperation." He's taken a lot of heat for doing that, because
that has not been what the United States has said; it's what the
Chinese have said and indicated this is what they want. By saying
it, Tillerson indicated that the United States was on board these
basic policies.
        On the basis of that, they are able to have their meeting. I
think it will be a good meeting, because President Trump is a
very good host. He has shown that in a lot of the summits that
he's had. President Xi is also — although these are two very
different personalities — they're both really "people persons."
They know how to talk to people in all categories of life.
President Xi is really unique in one sense among many Chinese
leaders, some of whom are much stiffer, because he {does} go to
the people; he {does} know them; he {has} worked amongst them.
President Trump, although he was an industrialist, a very wealthy
man, he could go onto the work sites, he could talk to the people
down there, he could get a feeling for what they were all about.
        I think these characteristics will allow them to establish a
rapport, perhaps even a warm relationship, in understanding each
other. That is extremely important because as we move into the
administration, as policy takes place, a lot of these difficult
issues, like the issue of trade, will be coming up. President
Trump, of course, was very explicit on that in his campaign. He
wants to have fair trade; he's not a "free-trader," letting the
market decide. He has made references to the American System of
Henry Clay. He probably will move to tariffs on certain products,
in order to create a basis for industrial production in those
areas where the United States has lost jobs to low-wage
producers. It's a new element that the Chinese also have to take
into consideration.
        And, of course, it seems to me that if there is this
understanding, and President Trump wants to move forward on maybe
being less open in terms of trade on certain products, there is a
possibility of giving the Chinese added capabilities, because
they may lose some of the market on certain trade, but they can,
for instance, have a larger market in terms of investment in
infrastructure. President Trump also has committed to $1 trillion
in infrastructure in the United States, to rebuild the roads,
rebuild the highways, rebuild the cities, and the infrastructure.
$1 trillion.  He is not going to get that from industry; industry
is not generally interested in waiting 10 years to get a payback
on investment that they make.  Unfortunately, the United States
no longer has the types of institutions that could finance this.
That may change; if Trump goes with the American System, maybe he
will move in the direction that Lyndon LaRouche has indicated in
his four points, by setting up an infrastructure bank or a
development bank like the Hamiltonian bank; like the First Bank
of the United States, to finance this.  But, in that case, you
have China also with a lot of capital that they could invest and
{would like to invest} in the United States; which could assist
President Trump in his attempt to rebuild infrastructure.
        This came up in a meeting today at CSIS; I raised that type
of a trade-off, and the people generally were positive to this
notion.  If some kind of infrastructure bank or a group or fund
in which the Chinese could go and invest, were set up; this would
be a possibility for them investing in the United States.  There
are many difficulties with that, but it may also be something
that the Chinese are interested in.  In fact, the question of
taking much of their capital, which has hitherto been invested in
Treasury bills, and putting that into a fund for infrastructural
investment has been mooted both privately and in public in the
media in China.  So, there may be a possibility that the Chinese
leader coming here, will also have something to offer; may make a
proposal of this nature, which would then set the stage for
moving further.
        So, I think this is an important meeting, because it will
really provide the basis for economic development; and the
Chinese are in the forefront of this economic development.  Not
simply by having become a major — in fact, the second major —
economic power in the world; but through their Belt and Road
Initiative, they have then offered this type of development to
the other countries of the world — especially in the developing
sector.  All countries are invited to this; including the United
States.  So, if you have some kind of an agreement in regard to
these issues on infrastructure, trade, the United States can then
become a part of the Silk Road here in the United States itself.

        ROSS:  Bill, could you tell us more about what lessons we
could learn from China on financing?  China has been putting a
tremendous amount of money into infrastructure.  They have a
wonderful high-speed rail network, the most extensive in the
world; which is going to be doubled within a decade or so in
terms of its extent.  You had mentioned something about the
opportunity to invest Treasury bonds in something more
productive.  What can we learn?  How are they doing this?  What
can we do here?

        JONES:  Well, obviously, what the Chinese are doing is what
the United States used to do.  You go back to the FDR period, and
you will see that this is what was done.  The institutions that
were established to build the TVA, to finance development; to
create the industries at the point in time when we were in the
Great Depression, were all here as institutions which promoted
the development of private industry.  But creating the basis on
which that private industry can move in.  This is the Hamiltonian
system; this is the way the United States was created.  We were
not based on free trade; we fought against free trade.  Hamilton
introduced tariffs in order to prevent the British from dumping
their products on the US economy; making it impossible for us to
produce our own products and ever becoming an industrial nation.
That was reinstituted at various times in our history when the
free trade mania took place, leading to devastation; it was
revived at various points.  Abraham Lincoln did it; President
McKinley did it.  Roosevelt in his own way did that; and it's
been a very successful model.  The Chinese have used that, given
their own specific circumstances, with largely state-controlled
industries, they nevertheless have used this Hamiltonian or you
called it a Listian model; since the influence of Germany on the
Chinese economy was very great in the last century.  They used
this policy in order to develop their industries.  They have a
free market; they have individual entrepreneurs; they're very
successful in computers and other fields.  But there is a
government which is responsible for the good of the people; for
the people's welfare — or as the Chinese call it, the people's
livelihood.  Therefore, they must make sure that things work so
that these industries operate to the benefit of the people.  We
had that system, too; we have it in our Constitution.  The
Federal government is responsible for the General Welfare; that
is a broad notion.  That means that people cannot be put on the
scrap heap, they can't be out of work a long period of time;
there must be measures that are taken to assure them that they
can survive and their families can survive.  We've gone away from
that system; we've become much more anarchistic in this free
market system, and a lot of people have suffered.
        When President Trump was elected, to the surprise of the
large majority of the citizenry and of the world, it was simply
by appealing to the changes that were necessary to move away from
that type of system toward one which could secure a livelihood
for the American people.  The Chinese can serve as a model for
that; it's a little bit different, but the principle is the same.
The principle of this Hamiltonian system.  We have to begin to
reconstitute institutions that can provide credit guarantees to
our industries, to our construction companies; so we can build
those roads, highways, nuclear power plants, things like that
which we need.  We also have got to reinstitute the tried and
true separation of speculators from the legitimate commercial
bankers; that's called Glass-Steagall, and that was the law
between 1933 and 1998.  It meant that the speculators, the
gamblers, those who want to make quick bucks in a short time,
even though there's tremendous risk, they cannot go into the
banks and take Grandma's money and use that for the speculation
to the detriment of Grandma if they lose.  And the losses, of
course, in the financial system have been extremely great.   So,
that has to be reinstituted again.  We have to prevent the Wall
Street culprits, the pirates, from stealing our wealth and the
wealth of people who have invested in their banks.  If that is
done, then we cut off the fluff that is the fictitious growth of
the paper economy, and have the capability of using the funds
that are available to extend a credit system in the United States
to build and to create greater wealth tomorrow as a result of
this investment today.

        ROSS:  So, once we get Glass-Steagall passed, once we trim
off this cancerous speculation and make it possible for credit to
be going into productive purposes, what do you see as the
potential physical types of cooperation with China?  You had
mentioned earlier that if Trump puts up tariffs, China may see
this as acceptable from the context of Chinese businesses being
able to open up in the United States as well.  When you think
about the kinds of physical investments that need to be made on
things like railroads in particular, something where China has a
great deal of home-grown expertise at this point, including the
development of maglev rail; or nuclear plants, which China is
building the most of in the world, most of them are being built
in China right now.  What do you see as the need or the potential
for physical economic cooperation with China, for us to have a
physical economic recovery here?

        JONES:  There are a variety of way they could do this.
There could be direct investment — look, they made a proposal to
build high-speed rail in California going from LA to Las Vegas.
They also invested in Las Vegas a lot, too; there's a lot of
infrastructure there.  However, that didn't go through, because
there were concerns whether it's security or whatever concerns;
maybe because it was a state-owned enterprise.  But those things
are going to happen.  I think the important thing is, if the
rules are lifted, so that China has a greater possibility of
direct investment; they could do that.  There's also another
option; and some people are concerned that if China owns our
railroads, where do we stand and what does this mean for the
United States?  We can get around that through this idea of
creating this fund or a national bank.  The national bank of
Alexander Hamilton, the money was lent from international
lenders; it was really the Dutch who were doing this.  We owed
them the debt, and by creating a debt repayment plan, they were
willing to put more money into the United States.  The bank could
accept money from US people; it could also potentially accept
money from foreign investors as well.  This would be a way for
China — and this has actually been proposed by the head of the
China Central Investment Corporation; who said we have all this
money in Treasury bills, and we're getting maybe 1% or 2%
interest on the Treasury bills.  We would be just as happy to
invest this in an infrastructure fund, where we might get 2% or
3% — a low interest rate it has to be, because it's long-term;
but better than they're doing now.  That money would then be
readily available for the United States also, if they have the
capabilities; if we have the workers and the materiel and
everything to do it ourselves.  But they could also contribute as
well; they could contribute with their expertise as they have
done in Africa, in Asia and Latin America.  They know the ropes
in terms of high-speed rail; they know the problems involved in
it.  They know all the technicalities of it because they've built
so many of those; but we haven't built any high-speed rail, so
we're kind of starting from scratch.  They could come to offer
their technical assistance, or even offer capital to try and get
these things started.  There are many ways that this can be
resolved, and there are ways that have been indicated clearly by
Chinese representatives that they would be happy to do things
like this.  So, the only thing is, we have to have a situation
where the only thing that is done on trade — and nothing
draconian should be done, because that would cause a major
problem.  But whatever is done on trade, there is a quid pro quo;
something that China gets to their advantage so that you have a
win-win situation as people are saying.
        With regard, of course, to the summit, what has been
emphasized by the Chinese, of course, is that element of mutual
respect; and this is absolutely key, this is why there is a
certain amount of trepidation.  China is a major country; it is
effectively a great power at this point.  They are a very proud
people, and they have a right to be; as Americans are a proud
people.  But in the United States, this is not so well understood
because of the attitude toward China and the Chinese which
existed during the entirety of the 1800s going into the 1900s
with the Chinese Exclusion Act and all these measures that were
taken to keep the Chinese — who built our Transcontinental
Railroad — out of the country.  People saw them as people who
didn't have a culture, who lived at a very low level; and they
just did not understand the greatness that was China.  We
understood that in the beginning in the American Revolution;
Benjamin Franklin was the first major Sinophile, the lover of
China.  He wanted to introduce many of these projects that
Confucius — the great Chinese philosopher — had been talking
about in terms of creating a leadership.  He wanted to implement
that here in the United States; but that was lost.  And that is a
big loss, because things may go well at the top level, but there
also has to be this understanding between the peoples.  There's
going to be more exchanges; there are going to be exchanges on
the economic side.  If these programs go through, you will have
Chinese technicians and engineers coming and helping in the
United States; you'll have more Chinese tourists — and there are
many of them coming in today.  And hopefully, you'll have more
American tourists going to China to learn the culture and the
society; to get to know it better.  Because as they get to know
it better, they will understand the importance of the nation and
the importance of the relationship that we have with China.
        So, much can come out of this summit meeting, and I'm
relatively confident that it will be successful; at least to the
extent that the two leaders of the two major nations in the world
will have a greater understanding of the other's views, of the
other's wishes, of the other's motivation. If you have that, then
you have the basis on which these other problems — trade, South
China Sea, the Korean nuclear program — can be more readily
resolved.

        ROSS:  Thank you very much.  On the aspect of moving forward
and China's role in developing new things, I know that China has
made a push on changing the conception of "Made in China" meaning
some cheap junk, to "created in China"; to the fact that there's
a development of an ability to create new products.  You brought
up the entrepreneurship in many fields; we see it in the
high-speed rail, for example.  You definitely see it in the
Chinese space program and Chinese efforts towards fusion
research.
        I wanted to let our viewers know and ask you to say a bit
about a conference that was held last Saturday in Munich,
Germany.  A conference on March 25th for the 100th anniversary of
the birth of the German space visionary, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke.  I know that Bill, you were fortunate to be able to
attend this conference; and the videos of it will be posted on
the Schiller Institute site in a somewhat short period of time, I
hope.  Could you tell us a bit about it from your firsthand
experience?

        JONES:  This is an attempt to revive an understanding of a
person who really was undoubtedly one of the greatest of the
space pioneers who worked in the US space program.  He was a part
of the German team that came over from Peenemünde.  Everybody
knows Werner von Braun, but nowadays they don't know Krafft
Ehricke; which is a shame, because he was one of the most genial
of all of those pioneers.  He was thinking hundreds of years
ahead; he was thinking already in the 1950s of building colonies
on the Moon.  He actually had correspondence between him and
Werner von Braun on how to get to Mars; both of them had written
books on how to get to Mars.  They had exchanges now and then
where Krafft would make suggestions on how you would do it; and
von Braun would respond.  But he was also a very unusual
individual, because he believed that the nature of man is that of
a creative being; that man cannot stand still.  He must always
pursue the search for the new frontiers; this is in the
fundamental core of human nature, that they must seek the new and
develop the new.  Because of this, of course, he came into
contact with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche; and they just hit it off
from the get-go.  They were like souls.  The last part of his
life, he was working with the Schiller Institute and with the
LaRouches to fight the zero-growth movement.  When we came into
contact with Krafft, during the period of transition from the
great heyday of the space program to the low level of the
zero-growth, back-to-nature movement, Krafft was conducting a
lone fight in order to fight the philosophy that was being
foisted upon the American people with the zero-growth movement.
Of course, when he came into contact with the LaRouches, he
realized that there was a greater forum on which he could
operate; so they became very good friends.  He went on tours
together with them in order to talk about the space program; to
try and revive an interest in space in those days.
        The reason we're reviving it is not simply that it's his
100th birthday; he would have been 100 years old this week, if he
had lived.  He died at a very early stage; he was in his sixties
— 1984 — he was still a relatively young man, but he had a
serious ailment and he passed away at that time.  We felt it was
necessary not only to honor him and to raise an understanding in
the broader public about his importance.  But also given the fact
that President Trump has expressed the intention of moving back
into space in the message that he send that he sent last weekend
— in fact, the same day as the conference.  We were able to put
that on the film at the end of that; it had come in in the
morning, and the conference went until the afternoon, so we
showed that; and people of course were very surprised.  They
thought this was a conspiracy between us and President Trump; it
wasn't that, it was just coincidence.  But because this is now
the re-orientation of the United States, it has created a new
capability of moving in that direction that we lost many years
ago.  And that therefore the work of Krafft Ehricke, which again
still remains to be realized, now becomes of practical importance
for moving back into space.  So, there was a kind of dual purpose
for the conference.

        ROSS:  Great.  I think if we compare the two images that
we've been discussing tonight — the attempt to prevent by any
means a shift away from the anti-Russia, anti-cooperation policy
that had dominated the thinking of the previous administration;
we compare that with the potential that we have in cooperating
with and working with the New Paradigm created by the LaRouches
over the decades, and being spearheaded right now on a policy
front by China, we really have a great potential in store for us.
These assaults on Trump — Trumpgate — the idea that Vladimir
Putin is destroying the United States; this stuff really will not
blow over.  Given that Trump has attempted to turn the tables on
this by calling out the wiretapping, by calling out the
surveillance, by taking on these institutions — domestic
intelligence agencies and, of course, the British; this means
it's possible to actually defeat this control or grip over the
government of the United States and make it possible to set our
own policy, and a very good policy.  And develop a future that we
can be proud of.  So, we have a great deal of material about this
on our website; we've been almost every day continuing with
updates to keep you informed about what can be done on this fight
against the Deep State here and in Britain.  We will continue to
have more on that; and we need your help, we need everybody's
help to make sure that we have the potential to be freed up to
join the future that could be ours if we take up that chance.
        So thank you, Bill, for joining us today.

        JONES:  Thank you for having me.

        ROSS:  Thank you for joining us, and we will see you next
time.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

21. marts, 2017 – Liang Haiming, cheføkonom ved Kinas Silkevejsdalens Forskningsinstitut, en tænketank med hjemsted i Guangzhou, skrev en artikel i Global Times i dag om ’Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde’ i maj måned i Beijing og opfordrede specifikt præsident Trump til at deltage, idet han fremlagde win-win-fordelene.

»Trump bør seriøst overveje at tilslutte sig B&V-initiativet«, skriver Liang, idet det kunne »øge antal jobs og fremme hans storstilede infrastrukturplan … Hvis Trump ikke ønsker, at genoplivelse af varefremstilling skal ende som blot et kampagneløfte, bør han overveje at søge samarbejde med Kina om B&V-initiativet.«

Liang påpeger potentiel finansiering fra Kina, så vel som kinesiske fabrikker, der producerer i USA, og tilføjer, at »samarbejde mellem Trump-administrationen og Kina om B&V-initiativet ville styrke konnektivitet med hensyn til politik, handel og kapital, som ville være favorabelt for USA’s forøgelse af vareeksport til Kina«.

Om Trumps $1 billion store infrastrukturplan siger Liang, at »Kina kan tilbyde det, USA har brug for. Kinas samarbejde med lande langs med Bælt & Vej-ruten begynder sædvanligvis med byggeri af infrastruktur. Med Kinas rige erfaring inden for infrastrukturprojekter i udlandet, ville samarbejde inden for dette område være et win-win for de to lande«.

Han bemærker ligeledes, at de enorme kinesiske porteføljer af amerikanske statsobligationer kunne blive et problem for USA, hvis Kina begynder at sælge ud af dem, men at disse resurser fra Kina »kunne være med til at løse problemet med finansiering af infrastrukturen« i USA. Lyndon LaRouche har foreslået en statslig udviklingsbank, der ville være det perfekte redskab til at flytte disse kinesiske porteføljer over til produktiv investering i USA.

Og, tilføjer Liang, at gå med i B&V-initiativet vil gøre det muligt for den amerikanske varefremstillingssektor at udforske nye markeder og drive sin økonomi frem og tilføje nye jobs«, samtidig med, at USA arbejder sammen med Kina om at »være fælles om risiciene, reducere konfrontation og opdyrke et momentum for ny, økonomisk vækst«.

Dette stemmer meget overens med Schiller Instituttets indsats for at få Trump-administrationen til at bringe USA ind på Silkevejen, og for at få præsidenten til at deltage i forummet til maj.

Foto: USA’s infrastruktur smuldrer. Her et billede, der viser arbejde på at erstatte Seattles Alaskavejs-viadukt, som er gået i stå, fordi boremaskinen Bertha har sat sig fast under jorden. (Photo courtesy of Washington DOT)         

18. mrs., 2017 – FN’s Sikkerhedsråds resolution, der fornyer FN’s Hjælpemissions mandat i Afghanistan for endnu et år, og som i går blev enstemmigt vedtaget, inkluderede et nyt fokus i år: at sikring af fred og stabilitet i Afghanistan fordrer en fremgangsmåde, der har rødder i bestræbelser for »at skabe et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«. Resolutionen nævnte ligeledes specifikt det globale Nye Silkevejs-initiativ som afgørende for at udvikle Afghanistan.

Med en gentagelse af behovet for en omfattende økonomisk, sikkerheds- og udviklingsmæssig fremgangsmåde for genopbygningen af Afghanistan, erklærer resolutionen, at medlemmerne af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd understreger »den afgørende betydning af at fremme et regionalt samarbejde i en win-win-samarbejdsånd som et virksomt middel til promovering af sikkerhed, stabilitet og økonomisk og social udvikling i Afghanistan og i området, for at skabe et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«.

Den modsatte pol af britisk imperie-geopolitik!

I interviews til reportere efter den enstemmige vedtagelse fejrede Kinas ambassadør til FN, Liu Jieyi, betydningen af denne udvikling som, »at det viser det internationale samfunds konsensus til at omfavne konceptet« med et menneskeligt fællesskab for en fælles skæbne, rapporterede Xinhua. Dette er første gang, at Kinas »milepæl af et koncept« er blevet inkorporeret i en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, bemærkede Xinhua.

Liu citerede også resolutionens eksplicitte nævnelse af Kinas Silkevejs-initiativ og påpegede, at det vil være med til at skabe »en favorabel atmosfære« for ’Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde’, som Kina vil være vært for i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, med det formål at »gennemføre en brainstorm omkring indbyrdes forbunden udvikling«.

I denne henseende erklærer resolutionen, at Sikkerhedsrådet »hilser velkommen, og yderligere opfordrer til, bestræbelser på at styrke udviklingen af regionalt, økonomisk samarbejde, inklusive forholdsregler for at fremme regional konnektivitet, handel og transit, inklusive gennem regionale udviklingsinitiativer såsom Det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og Det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevejs-initiativ (Bælt & Vej), samt regionale udviklingsprojekter«.   

Det er uden for enhver tvivl en af de vigtigste, strategiske udviklinger, at både præsidenten for FN’s Generalforsamling, Peter Thomson, og den nye FN-generalsekretær, Antonio Guterres, har annonceret FN’s fulde samarbejde med Kinas initiativ for Den Nye Silkevej. Guterres understregede: »Xi Jinpings vision er den eneste fremtid for menneskeheden på denne planet! FN vil samarbejde med Kina om at fremme fred og udvikling i verden, og målet er at virkeliggøre et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid.«

Det er ikke alene fuldstændig sandt, for Kinas koncept for Den Nye Silkevej har i løbet af de seneste tre et halvt år for længst udviklet sig til et unikt, strategisk initiativ, der går langt ud over oldtidens originale Silkevejs dimensioner og er blevet til en udviklingsstrategi for alle kontinenter på Jorden.

18. marts, 2017 – Mere ubehagelig kunne stemningen mellem forbundskansler Angela Merkel og den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump næppe have været under Merkels besøg i Det Hvide Hus. Ingen håndtryk for kameraerne, knap nogen øjenkontakt, og for det meste misfornøjede miner hos dem begge. Ikke alene er kemien mellem de to ikke god, men det er også åbenbart, at der i den aktuelle, transatlantiske geometri ikke kan findes nogen løsning på spændingerne. Ikke desto mindre er der en løsning i sigte, men den findes på et helt andet, højere plan: win-win-samarbejdet med Kina og Den Nye Silkevej, som både USA og Tyskland er blevet inviteret til at deltage i.

I betragtning af, at valget af Trump betød et nederlag for Hillary Clintons neoliberale, neokonservative politik, Clinton, som Trump kaldte ’Amerikas Angela Merkel’, og at Merkel blev anset for at være ’Obamas nærmeste allierede’, kunne man ikke forvente, at de to ville være på bølgelængde. New York Times havde således følgende titel på sin dækning, ’Merkel møder Trump, forsvareren versus udbryderen’. Da en korrespondent fra Die Welt, under en fælles pressekonference, forsøgte at provokere Trump ved at rejse spørgsmålet om anklagerne om, at britisk efterretningstjenestes GCHQ havde aflyttet ham for Obama-administrationen, vendte Trump sig mod Merkel og kommenterede humoristisk: ’så har vi i det mindste noget til fælles’. Det høstede Trump latter for, mens fr. Merkel knap kunne mønstre et smil.

Lignende uoverensstemmelser kom op til overfladen ved G20-finansministermødet i Baden-Baden, hvor de ikke kunne blive enige om formuleringer omkring »protektionisme« og »fair trade«.

Dynamikken, skabt af Kinas diplomatiske initiativer for at forberede Bælt & Vej-forummet den 14.-15. maj i Beijing, er langt mere lovende. Flere end 20 statschefer, over 100 ministerdelegationer, flere end 150 ledere af store organisationer og 1200 delegationer, bestående af videnskabsfolk, industrichefer og økonomer, har allerede givet tilsagn om deltagelse. Rådgiver til det kinesiske statsråd Yang Jiechi, der har ansvaret for forberedelserne til og koordineringen af konferencen, mødtes i slutningen af februar med præsident Trump og så godt som alle medlemmerne af Trump-teamet i Washington. Kort efter kom Trumps invitation til præsident Xi Jinping, til et todages arbejdstopmøde, der skal finde sted den 6.-7. april i Mar a Lago, Trumps ejendom i Florida. Til forskel fra den japanske premierminister Abes besøg, som Trump tidligere har inviteret til sin ejendom, vil det under mødet med den kinesiske præsident ikke komme til at handle om golf, men derimod om et omfattende, amerikansk-kinesisk samarbejde om økonomiske og strategiske spørgsmål.

Under en pressekonference den 10. marts med China Daily, på sidelinjen af den Nationale Folkekongres i Beijing, understregede Yang Jiechi, at det er en del af konferencens mål at konsolidere en »bred, international konsensus til Bælt & Vej-initiativet«. Det er, sagde han, Kinas idé, men det bliver ikke et solonummer fra Kinas side; en bedre sammenligning ville være en symfoni, der opføres af et orkester, bestående af alle deltagende lande.

Det er uden for enhver tvivl en af de vigtigste, strategiske udviklinger, at både præsidenten for FN’s Generalforsamling, Peter Thomson, og den nye FN-generalsekretær, Antonio Guterres, har annonceret FN’s fulde samarbejde med Kinas initiativ for Den Nye Silkevej. Guterres understregede: »Xi Jinpings vision er den eneste fremtid for menneskeheden på denne planet! FN vil samarbejde med Kina om at fremme fred og udvikling i verden, og målet er at virkeliggøre et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid.«

Det er ikke alene fuldstændig sandt, for Kinas koncept for Den Nye Silkevej har i løbet af de seneste tre et halvt år for længst udviklet sig til et unikt, strategisk initiativ, der går langt ud over oldtidens originale Silkevejs dimensioner og er blevet til en udviklingsstrategi for alle kontinenter på Jorden.

Ingen kan bestride, at de mange hundrede projekter, der befinder sig på forskellige stadier af realisering, i forrygende tempo er i færd med at nærme sig det koncept, som vores forlag, EIR, allerede i 2014 foreslog i sin omfattende, 370 sider lange rapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. 

Med andre ord, så bliver Kina og flere end 70 nationer nu officielt støttet af FN i at virkeliggøre den Alliancefri Bevægelses gamle drøm om en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden. Og det er ligeledes ubestrideligt, at ideerne og principperne nu gennemføres på internationalt plan, som Lyndon LaRouche i over 50 år har kæmpet for, som den tunesiske diplomat dr. Ahmed Kedidi for nylig fremførte i en bemærkelsesværdig artikel i Qatar-avisen Al-Sharq. 

Selvfølgelig står betydelige og eksistentielle trusler i vejen for denne vision om en forenet menneskehed, som hidtil kun er blevet tænkt af filosoffer som Konfucius, Sri Aurobindo, Nicolaus Cusanus eller Leibniz. Akutte eksempler ses i den ekstremt farlige konflikt omkring de nordkoreanske raketprøveaffyringer som reaktion på deployeringen af THAAD-raketforsvarssystemet i Sydkorea og de amerikansk-sydkoreanske militærmanøvrer, såvel som også den kun indledningsvist løste krise i Mellemøsten og det øvrige Sydvestasien, eller krisen i Ukraine, der nu igen tilspidses. Og selvfølgelig vil denne krises pragmatikere og kulturpessimister med argumenter i Aristoteles’ ånd som bevis herfor anføre, at målet med en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden er en uopnåelig utopi.

Men den direkte modsatte tankegang er nødvendig. Hvis vi, i menneskehedens fremtidige, fælles interesse, med vores bevidste viljes medvirken, beslutter os for en vision om, hvor menneskeheden skal befinde sig om 10, 100 eller 1000 år, så kan man udtænke et højere fornuftsplan, på hvilket konflikterne på et lavere plan vil være ophævet. Kinas initiativ med Den Nye Silkevej, hvori alle nationer kan deltage i et win-win-samarbejde, udgår netop fra denne tilgang.

Det vil meget snart vise sig, at Trump kun kan opfylde sit løfte om at forny USA’s infrastruktur, hvis lande, der har stor ekspertise inden for dette felt, som Kina, Japan eller Tyskland, deltager i det.

Lige så klart er det, at en fortsat disintegration af Europa kun kan stoppes, hvis de europæiske nationer beslutter sig til at opbygge Balkan og Sydeuropa økonomisk sammen med Kina, inden for rammerne af Den Nye Silkevej. Konflikten omkring den Koreanske Halvø kan kun løses, hvis Nord- og Sydkorea vender tilbage til den fælles udviklingsstrategi, som den netop afsatte præsident Park, efter pres fra Obama-administrationen, havde afsluttet, hvilket kun er tænkeligt, hvis man ser de to koreanske nationer indlejret i Den Nye Silkevejs dynamik.

Og Europa ville måske igen kunne tale om et vestligt værdifællesskab, hvis det opgav det usigelige forsøg på at organisere afskyelige aftaler om opsamlingslejre, som i mellemtiden er blevet til fængsler, for flygtninge, og i stedet går med i en reel udviklingsstrategi for Sydvestasien og Afrika. Dette forudsætter imidlertid, at repræsentanterne for det arrogante, neoliberale, transatlantiske establishment kommer ned fra deres høje hest – eller i modsat fald erstattes af andre politiske kræfter.

Det kan synes urealistisk for mange af samtidens mennesker, men vi er nu kommet til det tidspunkt i universalhistorien, hvor man må benytte de bedste ideer, som menneskehedens store tænkere har frembragt. Et af de vigtigste koncepter af denne art er den tankegang, som Nicolaus Cusanus har udviklet med coincidentia oppositorum, modsætningernes sammenfald. Nicolaus var helt klar over – og har skrevet dette – at han hermed tænkte noget, som ingen før ham nogensinde havde tænkt. Men med denne videnskabelige metode lagde han ikke alene grunden til Den Westfalske Fred, men også til skabelsen af nye opdagelser inden for videnskaberne og den klassiske kunst.

Hvis vi i dag ønsker at løse menneskehedens problemer, må vi udgå fra netop denne Cusanus’ tilgang, der er beslægtet med konfuciansk tankegang, på hvilken Xi Jinpings vision bygger. Læsning af Nicolaus Cusanus’ De Docta Ignorantia (’Om lærd uvidenhed’) og det dertil hørende forsvarsskrift kan stærkt anbefales til fordybelse af denne tilgang. [1]    

[1] Se: »En dialog mellem kulturer – En hyldest til Nicolaus af Cusa«, tale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche i anledning af 600-året, i 2001, for Cusanus’ fødsel. 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. marts, 2017 – Donald Trumps præsidentskab, bagvasket (og aflyttet) af hele det transatlantiske establishment, fra neoliberalt til neokonservativt, er i færd med at ryste det gamle paradigme med geopolitik, globalisering og »grøn« afindustrialisering. Det britiske establishments efterretningsvæsen og statsråd (Privy Council) reagerer med ekstrem giftighed på dette og centrerer fremstødet i både EU-eliten og Obama/Soros-netværkerne omkring hurtigt at bringe Trump til fald ved hvilke midler som helst; rigsretssag, tilbagetræden eller endda mord.

Men det nye paradigme – og den »nye industrielle revolution«, som præsidenten påberåbte sig i Detroit i sidste uge – er allerede på vej fra Den Nye Silkevej. Den tilbydes Trumps USA af Kina og de eurasiske magters store initiativ med byggeri af de store, nye infrastrukturprojekter for Jorden, og med rejser til Månen og gennem Solsystemet.

Som USA’s udenrigsminister Tillerson sagde under sit møde med Kinas præsident Xi i søndags, så støtter USA relationer, der er

»baseret på princippet om nul konflikt, nul konfrontation, gensidig respekt og win-win-samarbejde«.

Og som Xi svarede ham, relationer, der er »ansvarlige over for historien og fremtidige generationer«. Og Den Nye Silkevej tilbyder dette samme, nye paradigme til Tyskland og »Europa« – der nu er så chokeret og fjendtlig over, at Trumps administration afviser de britiske diktater om »frihandel«, miljøbeskyttelse og globalisering.

Det er af afgørende betydning, at der kommer en impuls for dette fra USA. Men for at det kan ske, er det nødvendigt med en politisk revolution i USA, mere, end præsident Trump kan yde, mens han bekæmper angreb fra briterne og Obama. Inden for de næste 30 dage vil Schiller Instituttet, med LaRouche-bevægelsens »Manhattan Projekt« som drivkraft, mobilisere for at bringe USA ind i det nye paradigme.

Der afholdes afgørende konferencer, som fokuserer på Schiller Instituttets konference i New York City 13.-14. april. Konferencen vil præsentere både en Dialog mellem Filosofier – den reelle ensartethed mellem konfucianisme og kristendom i særdeleshed – og de historiske, strategiske muligheder i perioden, der leder frem til »Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde« 14.-15. maj. New York-konferencen vil blive et vigtigt vendepunkt i denne proces.

Blandt deltagerne vil der være tre, fremtrædende, kinesiske autoriteter inden for Bælt & Vej-initiativet, eksperter inden for USA’s infrastruktur og politiske personer, ledere fra LaRouche-bevægelsen og repræsentanter for diplomatiet. Den kulturelle dialog vil blive understreget af en musikalsk aften.

Manhattan-projektet vil være spydhoved for et forenet, nationalt organiseringsfremstød for at katalysere den nødvendige dynamik gennem denne konference og tilknyttede aktiviteter, for at styrke potentialet for en konsolidering af det Nye Paradigme, der udgår fra Beijing.

Samtidig må Glass/Steagall-loven genindføres i Kongressen for at bryde Wall Streets spekulationskasinos greb om den stagnerende, amerikanske, industrielle økonomi. Lovforslaget har samlet 40 sponsorer siden 1. februar; nu må et gennembrud tvinge det til afstemning i salen. De aktuelle ændringer af NASA’s mission må bringes fra blot en »omprioritering« og til et nyt, forceret program for at vende tilbage til og udvikle Månen, som menneskets trædesten til Solsystemet og det fjernere rum. Præsidentens egne, $1 billion store infrastrukturinvesteringsplaner vil forlise uden skabelse af en statslig kreditinstitution til infrastruktur og varefremstilling, en nationalbank efter Hamiltons principper.

At støtte det nationale fremstød for LaRouches »Fire Love« er vejen til en politisk revolution for at bringe USA ind i det nye paradigme. Målet er at bære præsident Trump hele vejen til en central rolle i Beijing ’Bælt & Vej’-forummet, to måneder fra i dag.

Foto: USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson giver hånd til Kinas præsident Xi Jinping før deres bilaterale møde i Beijing, 19. marts, 2017.

18. marts, 2017 – »Atmosfæren kunne næppe have været mere urolig mellem kansler Angela Merkel og den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump under hendes besøg i Det Hvide Hus. Intet håndtryk for kameraerne, næsten ingen øjenkontakt og stramme ansigter hos dem begge. Ikke alene er kemien mellem dem ikke god, men det er åbenlyst, at der i den aktuelle, transatlantiske geometri ikke kan findes nogen løsning på spændingerne. Der er ikke desto mindre en løsning i sigte, men den kan kun findes på et helt andet, højere niveau: win-win-samarbejdet med Kina og Den Nye Silkevej, som både USA og Tyskland er blevet inviteret til at deltage i.«

Således lyder Helga Zepp-LaRouches indledende betragtninger i en analyse for den tyske ugeavis, Neue Solidarität, skrevet den 18. marts, én dag efter den tyske kansler mødtes med den amerikanske præsident. Fr. Zepp-LaRouche er formand for det tyske, politiske parti Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität; BüSo), og hun stiftede det internationale Schiller Institut.

Zepp-LaRouche fortsætter: »I betragtning af, at valget af Trump betød et nederlag for Hillary Clintons neoliberale, neokonservative politik, Clinton, som Trump kaldte ’Amerikas Angela Merkel’, og at Merkel blev anset for at være ’Obamas nærmeste allierede’, kunne man ikke forvente, at de to ville være på bølgelængde. New York Times havde således følgende titel på sin dækning, ’Merkel møder Trump, forsvareren versus udbryderen’. Da en korrespondent fra Die Welt, under en fælles pressekonference, forsøgte at provokere Trump ved at rejse spørgsmålet om anklagerne om, at britisk efterretningstjenestes GCHQ havde aflyttet ham for Obama-administrationen, vendte Trump sig mod Merkel og kommenterede humoristisk: ’så har vi i det mindste noget til fælles’. Det høstede Trump latter for, mens fr. Merkel knap kunne mønstre et smil.«

Lignende uoverensstemmelser kom op til overfladen, fortsatte Zepp-LaRouche, ved G20-finansministermødet i Baden Baden, hvor de ikke kunne blive enige om formuleringer omkring »protektionisme« og »fair trade«.

Efter Helga Zepp-LaRouches mening er dynamikken, skabt af Kinas diplomatiske initiativer for at forberede Bælt & Vej-forummet den 14.-15. maj i Beijing, langt mere lovende.