Lyndon LaRouches Oaseplan for Sydvestasien/Mellemøsten
Nu på dansk

Følgende 5 min. video om Oaseplanen er fra 2010:



2. Følgende uddrag med Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet, som begynder 12 min. inde i den øverste video:

Lyndon LaRouches Oaseplan for Sydvestasien/Mellemøsten

Et uddrag fra: At vinde krigen mod krigspartiet

Manhattan Project Dialogue, Saturday, October 21, 2023

HARLEY SCHLANGER: … Jeg vil give jer en kort kronologi [af Lyndon LaRouches arbejde for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling i Sydvestasien/Mellemøsten]. Det er så stort et arbejde, at det ville kræve mange dage og konferencer, og det burde vi gøre. Men jeg vil bare give jer et kort indblik i, hvad han gjorde, og hvordan han formede denne kamp, og hvorfor det i dag er den politik, som han og vores organisation repræsenterer, der er alternativet. Lad os starte med et historisk øjeblik i april 1975. LaRouche blev inviteret til at deltage i en konference i Bagdad for Ba’ath-partiet. Og mens han var der, mødtes han med en række arabiske ledere og kom derfra med et forslag fra irakerne om at samle en udviklingsfond på 30 milliarder dollars til Israel og Palæstina. Da LaRouche præsenterede det for vores medlemmer, var det ganske forbløffende. Han fulgte op på turen til Bagdad med en pressekonference, hvor han annoncerede udgivelsen af sin Internationale Udviklingsbank, som var en opfordring til et nyt monetært system, der ville være sammenhængende med denne pakke af penge til udvikling af Israel og Palæstina.

Lad mig give jer en kort beretning om omfanget af dette. Lige efter dette skete, bragte vi en overskrift i vores avis, hvor der stod: “Irak tilbyder Israel en fredsplan til 30 milliarder dollars.” Jeg var sammen med en gruppe mennesker, der delte den ud ved en tale, som Moshe Dayan holdt på Wake Forest University i Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Der var hundredvis af mennesker, og vi var meget bange for, at hvis vi gik derhen og sagde, at Irak ønsker at afslutte konfrontationen og tilbyder penge, ville folk blive vrede. Men det vi fandt ud af var, at de var meget interesserede i det. Vi solgte hver eneste avis, vi havde, og efter Dayans tale rejste jeg mig op blandt publikum – José Vega-style – og sagde til Moshe Dayan: “Vi har et forslag, som Lyndon LaRouche har lagt på bordet fra Irak om en udviklingsplan til 30 milliarder dollars for Israel og Palæstina. Vil du støtte det?” Jeg forventede en tirade fra ham, for han havde ry for at være lidt af en hidsigprop, en hård militærleder. Det han sagde var fascinerende. Han sagde: “Det her er meget interessant. Det kan ændre alt. Jeg er meget åben for at høre mere om det.” Det viste på det tidspunkt potentialet for LaRouches intervention – det var lige efter krigen i 1973, efter den arabiske olieembargo, efter det, der så ud til at være enden på enhver mulighed for at realisere ideen om en to-statsløsning for Israel og Palæstina.

Da LaRouche introducerede sin politik for Den internationale Udviklingsbank, sagde han følgende: “Med en IDB-politik i udsigt skulle den fredselskende fraktion i Mapai [som var et israelsk parti] snart blive herskende. Israelerne og de vigtigste arabiske stater kunne let blive enige om betingelserne for fortsatte forhandlinger om det palæstinensiske spørgsmål inden for rammerne af en øjeblikkelig fast aftale om samarbejde om udviklingspolitik.” Med den tilgang holdt LaRouche møder i løbet af de næste par år, begyndende i 1975, hvor han havde et møde med den israelske leder Abba Eban for at fremme diskussionen om denne tilgang. I 1977 skrev LaRouche en artikel, som blev offentliggjort i et Paris-baseret israelsk nyhedsbrev med titlen: “Israel and Palestine; A Future for the Middle East”. Her er, hvad han sagde i den:

“Generelt, uden direkte forhandlinger mellem Israel og Den Palæstinensiske Befrielsesorganisation(PLO), kan der ikke blive nogen løsning i Mellemøsten inden for en overskuelig, umiddelbar fremtid. Vi kender alle alt for godt de underliggende forhindringer for sådanne forhandlinger. Vi burde vide, at vi hurtigt må fjerne forhindringerne for sådanne direkte forhandlinger.” Han henviser udtrykkeligt til idéen om, at man først skal have en politisk aftale og derefter gå videre. Det han siger er, at “det objektive grundlag for en løsning i Mellemøsten er den økonomiske udviklingspakke, vi har peget på. Enhver anden tilgang vil mislykkes; vil hurtigt blive nedbrudt til en farce. Men det er ikke blot materielle fordele i sig selv, der skaber grundlaget for fred. Det er det faktum, at regeringernes forpligtelse til at realisere betydelige videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt fremmer humanistiske holdninger i befolkningerne.”

Det var den idé, LaRouche havde om sit westfalske princip; om vigtigheden af økonomiske politikker, der viser, at hver side anerkender fordelene ved den anden, som grundlag for fred. Det var hans tema i mange andre artikler i den periode. Han gik imod strømmen, da folk sagde, at man ikke kan forhandle med Arafat, han er ikke villig til at forhandle. Hvad LaRouche skrev i december 1983: “Arafat er den etablerede leder af det, der faktisk er en eksilregering for de palæstinensiske arabere. Hvis vi skal have succes med at forhandle med det palæstinensiske arabiske folk, er det Arafats lederskab, vi skal forhandle med.” Derefter skrev han et politisk dokument, “Forslag om at begynde udviklingen af en langsigtet økonomisk udviklingspolitik for staten Israel.”

Kort tid efter, i april 1986, opfordrede Shimon Peres, som på det tidspunkt var Israels premierminister, til at afsætte en pulje på 25-30 milliarder dollars til at skabe en udviklingsfond for Mellemøsten for de næste ti år. Peres kaldte det en Marshallplan for Mellemøstens udvikling. Lyndon LaRouche bakkede op om den og skrev flere artikler, hvor han forsvarede den. Men han påpegede det utilstrækkelige i tilgangen. Hvad han sagde på det tidspunkt var, at det, der er nødvendigt, er at tage fat på det mest alvorlige problem, der findes med hensyn til økonomien. Og hvad er det? Det er manglen på vand, og forholdet mellem det og manglen på strøm eller energi. Så mens LaRouche støttede Peres’ Marshallplan, og i 1986 havde Peres øget det samlede beløb til 50 milliarder dollars, begyndte han at beskrive, hvordan man kan skabe mere vand til Mellemøsten. Dette er grundlaget for det, der senere, i 1990, blev kendt som hans Oase-Plan. Han sagde, at man var nødt til at have en menneskeskabt Jordan-flod, som kunne flyde og give mere vand til alle de områder, der grænser op til den; herunder Jordan, Israel, Egypten og Den Arabiske Halvø. For at gøre det, sagde han, har man brug for afsaltning. Man har brug for en række atomkraftværker på 300 MW, som giver strøm til afsaltningen. Det vil også give den elektricitet, der er nødvendig for industrialisering og avanceret landbrug. I 1990 skrev han et stykke med titlen: “En fredsplan i arabernes og israelernes sande interesse”. Her skrev LaRouche, at vi har brug for “geografisk ingeniørkunst” til at føre kanalerne mellem Middelhavet og Det Røde Hav, og derefter Det Røde Hav til Det Døde Hav, for at skabe vandløb, som med atomdrevet afsaltning til at levere vandkraft og transport, ville give mulighed for industriel og landbrugsmæssig udvikling.

Her er det, han sagde, som virkelig er interessant:

“Man kunne definere den rette tilgang til udviklingen af Mellemøsten, hvis der ikke boede nogen mennesker der i øjeblikket, som hvis vi for eksempel planlagde bosættelsen af Mars: en ubeboet planet, ved hjælp af kunstigt miljø, og så videre.” Han fortsatte med at skrive, at opdelingen og fordelingen af vand og strøm skal organiseres, så den gennemsnitlige kvadratkilometer jord kan udvikles til at være produktiv på de nødvendige niveauer for forskellige typer af jordbrug – græsning, afgrøder, beboelse, industri og handel.

Ideen med de to kanaler og den overordnede tilgang til industriel udvikling blev betragtet som revolutionerende. Hvordan kunne man opnå en aftale på dette grundlag? Hvad der skete på det tidspunkt var, at Bush-regeringen forsøgte at gøre præcis det, som LaRouche havde advaret dem imod at gøre. For at forsøge at få en politisk løsning holdt de en konference i Madrid med repræsentanter for palæstinenserne og israelerne, men den førte ingen steder hen. De samme gamle argumenter, de samme gamle kampe, de samme gamle modsætninger; det faktum, at der havde været en række krige siden 1948, i ’48 og ’56 og ’67 og ’73, og fortsatte træfninger og terrorisme. Hvordan kunne man få de to sider til at mødes? Mens Madrid-konferencen stod på – og på det tidspunkt var det Yitzhak Shamir, der var premierminister – var der noget andet, der blev sat i gang, da Yitzhak Rabin blev premierminister året efter i 1992. Det var en diskussion bag kulisserne i Oslo, Norge, mellem repræsentanter, der var tæt på Shimon Peres, som var kommet med ideen om en Marshallplan for Mellemøsten, og repræsentanter for Arafat.

Det førte til en aftale i september 1993, kaldet Oslo-aftalen. Det vigtigste ved Oslo-aftalen, og de fleste fokuserer på det faktum, at Arafat og Rabin gav hinanden hånden, er, at de talte om at gøre en ende på fjendskabet. Det var her, Rabin kom med sin berømte udtalelse om, at for at gøre dette, må man have modet til at ændre aksiomer. Og det afspejlede de blot ved at mødes og give hinanden hånden. Det var et meget anspændt øjeblik, indtil de to greb hinandens hænder, kiggede hinanden i øjnene og derefter gik væk og udbragte en skål for hinanden. En skål for dem, der har modet til at ændre aksiomer. Men det, der lå til grund for dette potentiale, var netop LaRouches idé om økonomisk samarbejde og udvikling i de to økonomiske bilag, der var knyttet til Oslo-aftalen.

Jeg vil lige læse et par aspekter af dette. Det økonomiske bilag nr. 3: “Protokol om israelsk-palæstinensisk samarbejde om økonomiske og udviklingsmæssige programmer.”

“De to parter er enige om at etablere en israelsk-palæstinensisk komité for økonomisk samarbejde, der blandt andet skal fokusere på følgende.

“1. Samarbejde om vandområdet, herunder et vandudviklingsprogram …

“2. Samarbejde inden for elektricitet …

“3. Samarbejde om energiområdet …

“4. Samarbejde om det finansielle område, herunder et finansielt udviklings- og handlingsprogram til fremme af internationale investeringer på Vestbredden og i Gazastriben …

“5. Samarbejde inden for transport og kommunikation …

“6. Samarbejde inden for handel …” og endelig,

“7. Samarbejde inden for industri, herunder industrielle udviklingsprogrammer, som vil sikre oprettelsen af fælles israelsk-palæstinensiske industrielle forsknings- og udviklingscentre….”

Så det var bilag 3. Bilag 4 befæster dette med ideen om: “Protokol om israelsk-palæstinensisk samarbejde vedrørende regionale Udviklingsprogrammer.” Den taler om et økonomisk udviklingsprogram for Vestbredden og Gaza, en mellemøstlig udviklingsfond og endelig en mellemøstlig udviklingsbank. Alt dette var muligt på det tidspunkt, og det ville have gjort præcis det, som LaRouche foreslog, nemlig at skabe et grundlag hvor folk i de palæstinensiske områder ville se en fordel i at samarbejde med Israel, og israelerne ville se en fordel i at samarbejde med palæstinenserne. Ikke bare for at stoppe drabene, men for at skabe et miljø med gensidigt fordelagtige produktive aktiviteter, som ville hæve levestandarden for folk på begge sider af konflikten. Og på det grundlag ville en to-statsløsning være mulig. Det er kernen i LaRouches ideer.

Hvad skete der med den plan? Tja, den blev først dræbt af Verdensbanken, for i november 1993 sagde Verdensbanken, at de ikke ville kanalisere penge eller give midler, der kom fra donorer. Præsident Clinton forsøgte blandt andet at rejse midler til dette. Der var donorer, som var parate til at give penge, men Verdensbanken sagde, at de ikke ville give pengene til palæstinenserne, fordi de ikke stolede på dem på grund af “korruption”. Især var der modstand mod, at Arafat skulle have nogen mulighed for at modtage midlerne. Som et resultat var pengene der bare ikke. Det var et stort problem for opfølgningen. To år senere, den 4. november 1995, blev Yitzhak Rabin myrdet af en mand ved navn Yigal Amir, som var en del af bosætterbevægelsen og især havde været meget aktiv i Hebron, som var et af de største konfrontationsområder mellem de palæstinensere, der boede der, og de jødiske bosættere, som brugte den israelske stats magt til at rykke ind. Mordet på Rabin, oven i lukningen af potentialet for midler, afsluttede muligheden for succes for Oslo. LaRouche har specifikt udtalt i september 1993, efter håndtrykket i Washington, at det er presserende, at de første skridt til disse nye projekter bliver taget med det samme. Ellers var der fare for, at dette forslag ville drukne i begge parters blod. Han identificerede specifikt Sharon-netværkene i bosætterbevægelsen som truslen mod det. Og det var hvad der skete; en mulighed gik tabt.

Som vi ser, er det tilstrækkeligt at se på udviklingen fra 1995 til i dag. Palæstinenserne har stadig ingen stat; faktisk er de nu delt mellem to grupper, hvoraf den ene – Hamas, som Netanyahu nu sværger at udrydde – siden 2009 har Netanyahu og Israel givet midler til Hamas for at opbygge dem som en modvægt til Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre. Hvorfor det? Fordi Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre er en nationalistisk bevægelse, der repræsenterer palæstinensernes interesser som nation, i modsætning til Hamas, som er en religiøs bevægelse. Så længe man har Hamas, der kæmper mod Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre, har man ingen samlet regering at forhandle med. Det er, hvad Netanyahu sagde; han pralede af at gøre det. Det anslås, at mere end 1 milliard dollars blev kanaliseret fra Israel gennem Qatar til Hamas, som Netanyahu nu siger, at han vil udrydde og udslette.

Så løsningen her er, at man bliver nødt til at identificere, hvad problemet er. Problemet er ikke israelere og palæstinensere, selvom det måske er dem, der udfører de desperate handlinger. Men de handler ikke i egen interesse; de handler i de højere magters interesse, som ønsker at forhindre enhver form for brud med de gamle aksiomer.

På engelsk:

… HARLEY SCHLANGER: Thank you. As I’m sure almost everyone realizes now, we’re facing a growing threat of an expanding war in Southwest Asia; at the same time, we have a continuing proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, and some of the neo-cons are pushing as hard as they can to get a war against China over Taiwan. This was made absolutely clear by Biden’s nationwide address on Oct. 19th. He had just come back from meeting with Netanyahu and his war cabinet. He pledged eternal support of the United States for Netanyahu and the policy of exterminating Hamas. And then he came back and presented a speech to the American people where he made the link of Ukraine and support for Israel. Why did he do that? Because there’s growing opposition to funding the war in Ukraine. This was part of the reason for the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and part of the reason they can’t put together a new speakership now for the House. What Biden tried to do was a clever trick; link the two things together as one package. Here’s what he said:

“Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common: They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy. American leadership is what holds the world together. American values are what makes us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all of that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, is not worth it.” Then he went on to say, “[H]istory has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and to the world keep rising.”

Now if you take that second part of the statement, you could apply it to the United States. Where has been the correct blame on the United States for the wars of aggression by America and NATO? The destruction of Libya, of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Syria, of Ukraine. They have not been held accountable. People like George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Joe Biden. So, to attempt to make this a question of standing up for democracy, this is precisely the line of the leading oligarchs through their Atlantic Council, which sponsored a Summit for Democracy to try and say the divide in the world is between democracies led by America, and authoritarian governments led by Russia, China, and now they throw in Iran, North Korea, and some others.

The attempt to connect these two funding situations—the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel—is an attempt to outflank those conservative Republicans who are opposing the new package Biden presented for Ukraine funding, initially a $24 billion request. In the budget deal that was reached, they threw that out completely. But listen to what leading Democrats are saying about the importance of Biden’s speech. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer applauded his plan and said, “We’re going to do everything in our power to ensure the Senate delivers the support of Israel and the rest of the package,” that is, Ukraine. Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat who is head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred with Schumer and said, “The linkage has bipartisan support, and is our best shot to get it done now.” That’s the intent to outflank the opponents of Ukraine funding; but more importantly, what’s the real intent here? Permanent warfare to disrupt the potential of nations to break out from the unipolar order or the rules-based order.

What we’ve been emphasizing, as you heard from Lyndon LaRouche just before, is that the drive for war comes from higher up; above the elected officials who parrot the demands coming from the think tanks and the corporate cartels. But it’s the higher-ups you have to look at. Last week, in the Manhattan Project, I went through LaRouche’s assessment, which is that both sides in the Middle East have been played; both sides. The Arabs and Palestinians, and the Israelis. This is something that didn’t start just recently; it’s an orchestration by the British Empire going back, as LaRouche talked about, for thousands of years, but in the more recent period, going back to the pre-World War I period, when the question was, “How do you replace the Ottoman Empire to make sure that it remains under the control of the British Empire?” That is, the geographical area which we now call the Middle East, but which is essentially Southwest Asia. How do you keep it under the control of the British Empire? This was part of the fight in World War I. The intention to keep Germany and Russia away from each other so that the Trans-Siberian Railroad and the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad did not cut out the power of the British Navy to control international trade and commerce.

In 1916, there was the Sykes-Picot Agreement, where the British and the French carved up the Middle East to make sure that there would not be a coherent plan for nations to develop, but that they could easily be pitted against each other based on national views, tribal interests, religious differences such as Shi’ite and Sunni, and so on. And in 1917, they added to that with the Balfour Declaration, promising a Jewish state in Palestine.

When you look at the developments in recent days and the war expanding in Southwest Asia, this is what LaRouche said is a result of geopolitics. You look at that area, and what’s there? It’s an automatic natural land connection between Asia and Europe, and between Asia and Africa. It’s a sea connection with the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean. These were areas central to British control, and that’s what geopolitics is about. How do you manipulate governments so that there will be no opposition to a looting policy directed from above by the British Empire? That’s the reason, LaRouche says, people are played there.

Let me just give you a brief sense of what I mean when I say the higher-ups involved in manipulation. There’s a fellow called Frederick Kempe, who is the CEO of the Atlantic Council, which is one of the leading think tanks for the geo-politicians and the corporate oligarchs. The Atlantic Council is funded by the British government; it’s highly integrated into British intelligence; and then it’s funded also by corporate cartels from the City of London and Wall Street. Here’s what Kempe had to say about Biden’s speech Thursday night. He said:

“Historians may come to know U.S. President Joe Biden’s speech to the nation as his ‘inflection point address’,” because Biden said this is an inflection point. Kempe goes on to say, “It was as eloquent and compelling as any he has delivered in his lifetime,” which, by the way is not saying much. But then he goes on to say, “It has the potential to be the most significant of his Presidency, and it was choreographed to be seen as such. It was only the second time he has chosen to speak from behind the resolute desk in the Oval Office, and he did it with the backdrop of wars in Ukraine and Israel, and simmering tensions around Taiwan.”

Now, to show you that Kempe actually understands what’s going on, he does make the counterpoint that, as this was going on, “as if scripted by a grand dramatist, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin were meeting in China as Biden travelled to Israel; doubling down on their common cause to rewrite the rules of the global order.” On that, Kempe is absolutely right. They are rewriting the rules, because they don’t accept the rules of the unipolar order dictated by the corporate cartels centered in London and Wall Street. They are, in fact, leading a rebellion against it, which includes most of the Global South. There are 150 nations at the Beijing conference of the Belt and Road Initiative. So, Kempe has a sense that he’s speaking going uphill. But what he’s identifying, and what Ursula von der Leyen, who is also very close to the Atlantic Council, said in her trip to Washington, what would happen if the U.S. role as the sole superpower is rejected? That’s what Biden said also. The pivotal role of America as the indispensable nation as the murderous Madeleine Albright called it. Well, Lyndon LaRouche has been a primary intellectual force in the opposition to this globalist policy for his whole life. In the time I knew him, from 1972 until his passing in 2019, he gave many speeches, conferences, voluminous writings presenting an alternative to submitting to this order.

I’m going to give you a brief chronology. It’s such a massive opus of work, it would require many days and conferences and we should do that. But I just want to give you a brief glimpse into what he did, and how he shaped this fight, and why today it’s the policies that he and our organization represent that are the alternative. Let’s start in one historic moment, April 1975. LaRouche was invited to attend a conference in Baghdad of the Ba’ath Party. And while he was there, he met with a number of Arab leaders, and came out of there with a proposal from the Iraqis to pull together a $30 billion development fund for Israel and Palestine. This, when LaRouche presented it to our membership, was quite staggering. He followed the trip to Baghdad with a press conference announcing the release of his International Development Bank, which was a call for a new monetary system which would be coherent with this package of money for developing Israel and Palestine.

Let me give you a brief anecdotal report on the magnitude of this. Right after this happened, we put out in our newspaper, a headline stating, “Iraq Offers $30 Billion Peace Plan to Israel.” I was with a group of people who distributed this at a speech given by Moshe Dayan at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. There were hundreds of people there, and we were very much afraid that if we went there and said Iraq wants to end the confrontation and offers money, people would be angry. But what we found out is that they were highly interested in it. We sold every single newspaper we had, and then after the speech by Dayan, I stood up in the audience—José Vega-style—and said to Moshe Dayan, “We have a proposal that Lyndon LaRouche has put on the table from Iraq for a $30 billion development plan for Israel and Palestine. Would you support that?” I was expecting a harangue from him, because he had a reputation of being a bit of a hothead, a tough military leader. What he said was fascinating. He said, “This is very interesting. This could change everything. I’m very open to hear more about it.” It showed at that time the potential for LaRouche’s intervention—this is just after the 1973 War, after the Arab oil embargo, after what appeared to be an end to any possibility of realizing the idea of a two-state solution to Israel and Palestine.

When LaRouche introduced his International Development Bank policy, he said the following: “With an IDB policy in the wind, the pro-peace faction of the Mapai [which was an Israeli party] should soon become hegemonic. The Israelis and key Arab states could readily agree on durable terms of continued negotiation concerning the Palestinian question within the context of immediate firm agreement for cooperation in development policies.” With that approach, LaRouche conducted meeting over the next few years, beginning in 1975 when he had a meeting with Israeli leader Abba Eban to further the discussion of this approach. In 1977, LaRouche wrote an article which was published in a Paris-based Israeli newsletter called “Israel and Palestine; A Future for the Middle East.” Here’s what he said in that:

“In general, without direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, there can be no Middle East settlement for the foreseeable, immediate future. We all know all too well subjective obstacles to such negotiations. We ought to know that we must rapidly eliminate the obstacles to such direct negotiations.” He’s referring specifically to the idea that you should have a political agreement first, and then move on. What he says is that “The objective basis for a Middle East settlement is the economic development package we have indicated. Any other approach will fail; will be quickly degraded into farce. However, it is not mere material advantage in itself which provides the basis for peace. It is the fact that the commitment of the governments to realize high rates of scientific and technological progress fosters humanist outlooks in the populations.”

That was the idea LaRouche had of his Westphalian principle; of the importance of economic policies that show each side recognizing the benefit of the other as the basis of peace. This was his theme in many other papers during that period. He went against the tide when people were saying you can’t deal with Arafat, he’s unwilling to make a negotiation. What LaRouche wrote in December 1983: “Mr. Arafat is the established leader of what is, in fact, a government in exile of the Palestinian Arabs. If we are going to deal successfully with the Palestinian Arab people, it is with Mr. Arafat’s leadership that we must deal.” He then wrote a policy paper, “Proposal To Begin Development of a Long-Range Economic Development Policy for the State of Israel.”

Shortly after this, in April 1986, Shimon Peres, who was at that time Israeli Prime Minister, called for a $25-$30 billion pool of money to create a Mideast Development Fund for the next ten years. Peres called it a Marshall Plan for Middle East Development. As far as it went, Lyndon LaRouche backed it, and wrote several articles defending it. But he did point out the inadequacy of the approach. What he said at that time was that what’s necessary is to address the most serious problem that exists in terms of the economy. What is that? It’s the lack of water, and the relationship of that to the lack of power or energy. So, while endorsing Peres’ Marshall Plan, and by 1986, Peres had upped the total to $50 billion, what LaRouche did is, he started writing about how you can create more water for the Middle East. This is the basis of what became known later, by 1990, as his Oasis Plan. What he said is that you need to have a manmade Jordan River, which could flow to provide more water for all the areas that bordered it; including Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and the Arabian Peninsula. He said to do this, you need desalination. You need a string of 300MW nuclear plants that give you the power to do the desalination. It will also provide the electricity needed for industrialization and advanced agriculture. In 1990, he wrote a piece called “A Peace Plan in the True Interests of Arab and Israeli.” What LaRouche wrote in this is that we need “geographic engineering” to run the canals between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, and then the Red Sea to the Dead Sea, to create water courses which, with nuclear-powered desalination to provide water power and transport, would allow for industrial and agricultural development.

Here’s what he said that’s really most interesting:

“One could define the proper approach to development of the Middle East, if no persons lived there presently, as if, for example, we were planning the settling of Mars: an uninhabited planet, by aid of artificial environment, and so forth.” He went on to write, the division and distribution of water and power must be organized to develop the average square kilometer of land to be productive at needed levels for different types of land-use—pastoral, crop, residential, industrial, and commercial.

This was idea of the two canals and the overall approach to industrial development was seen as revolutionary. How could you get an agreement on this basis? What happened at that point was that the Bush administration tried to do exactly what LaRouche had warned them not to do. To try and get a political settlement, they had a conference in Madrid, which included representatives of the Palestinians and Israelis, but it was going nowhere. The same old arguments, the same old fights, the same old antagonisms; the fact that there had been a number of wars since 1948 in ’48 and ’56 and ’67 and ’73, and continued skirmishing and terrorism. How could you get the two sides together? While the Madrid conference was going on—and at the time it was Yitzhak Shamir who was the Prime Minister, there was something else that was launched when Yitzhak Rabin became Prime Minister the next year in 1992. It was a back channel discussion in Oslo, Norway, between representatives who were close to Shimon Peres, who had come up with this idea of the Mideast Marshall Plan, and representatives of Arafat.

This came to fruition in the September 1993 agreement called theOslo Accord. Now, what’s most important about the Oslo Accord, and most people focus on the fact that Arafat and Rabin shook hands, they spoke about putting an end to the enmity. This is where Rabin made his famous statement that in order to do this, you must have the courage to change axioms. And they reflected that merely by meeting together and shaking hands. It was a very tense moment until the two of them grabbed each other’s hands, looked in each other’s eyes, and then moved away and did a toast to each other. A toast to those who have the courage to change axioms. But what was underlying this potential was precisely LaRouche’s idea of economic cooperation and development in the two economic annexes that were attached to the Oslo Accord.

I’m just going to read a couple of aspects of this. The economic annex #3: “Protocol on Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation in Economic and Development Programs.”

“The two sides agree to establish an Israeli-Palestinian Continuing Committee for Economic Cooperation, focusing, among other things, on the following:

“1. Cooperation in the field of water, including a Water Development Programme …

“2. Cooperation in the field of electricity …

“3. Cooperation in the field of energy …

“4. Cooperation in the field of finance, including a Financial Development and Action Programme for the encouragement of international investment in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip …

“5. Cooperation in the field of transport and communications …

“6. Cooperation in the field of trade …” and finally,

“7. Cooperation in the field of industry, including Industrial Development Programmes, which will provide for the establishment of joint Israeli-Palestinian Industrial Research and Development Centres….”

So, that was Annex #3. Annex #4 consolidates that with the idea of the “Protocol on Israeli-Palestinian Cooperation Concerning Regional Development Programs.” It talks about an economic development program for the West Bank and Gaza, a Middle East development fund, and finally, a Middle East Development Bank. All of this was possible at that time, and this would have done precisely what LaRouche was proposing, which was to create a basis where people in the Palestinian territories would see a benefit in cooperating with Israel, and the Israelis would see a benefit in cooperating with the Palestinians. Not just to end the killing, but to create an environment of mutually beneficial productive activity which would lift the standard of living of people on both sides of the conflict. And on that basis, a two-state solution would be possible. That’s at the center of LaRouche’s ideas.

Now, what happened to that plan? Well, it was first killed by the World Bank, because by November 1993, the World Bank said they would not funnel money or provide funds that came from donors. President Clinton among others was trying to raise funds for this. There were donors who were prepared to give money, but the World Bank said they would not extend that money to the Palestinians because they didn’t trust them because of “corruption.” In particular, opposition to having Arafat having any possibility of receiving the funds. As a result, the money was just not there. This was a major problem for the follow through. Then, two years later, Nov. 4, 1995, Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a man named Yigal Amir, who was part of the settlers’ movement and in particular had been very active in Hebron, which was one of the major areas of confrontation between the Palestinians who lived there and the Jewish settlers who were using the power of the Israeli state to move in. The assassination of Rabin, on top of the shutdown of the potential for funds, ended the possibility of the success of Oslo. LaRouche has specifically stated in September 1993, after the handshake in Washington, that it’s urgent that the earth start being moved for these new projects immediately. Otherwise, there was a danger that this proposal would be drowned in the blood of both sides. He specifically identified the Sharon networks in the settlers’ movement as the threat to it. And that’s what happened; an opportunity was lost.

As we see, just project from 1995 to today. The Palestinians still have no state; in fact, they now are divided between two groups, one of which—Hamas, which Netanyahu is now vowing to exterminate—since 2009, Netanyahu and Israel have been providing funds to Hamas to build them up as a counter to the Palestinian Authority. Why? Because the Palestinian Authority is a nationalist movement that represents the interests of the Palestinians as a nation, as opposed to Hamas, which is a religious movement. As long as you have Hamas fighting with the Palestinian Authority, you have no unified government to negotiate with. That’s what Netanyahu said; he bragged about doing that. The estimate is that more than $1 billion was channeled from Israel through Qatar to the Hamas, which now Netanyahu says he’s going to exterminate and wipe out.

So, the solution here is that you have to identify what the problem is. The problem is not Israelis and Palestinians, though they may be the ones who carry out the desperate actions. But they’re not acting in their own interests; they’re acting in the interests of those higher up, who want to prevent any kind of break with the old axioms. We’re seeing this happening around the world. Why did this happen right now? Well, I can’t speak for the decision-making process of Hamas, but the timing on this is certainly worth looking at. You have the breakdown of support for the Ukraine war in the United States Congress. You have the Ukraine war going terribly. The counteroffensive fizzled out. You may be providing more weapons to Ukraine, but as Putin pointed out, that just means that there will be more deaths of Ukrainians.

The second point is that you have the emergence of a new counter pole to the unipolar order; namely, the BRICS. The emergence of the Global South with the commitment to the kind of development projects that Lyndon LaRouche has been writing about for 50 years; which means against the International Monetary Fund, against such projects as the Great Reset and the global Green New Deal, and so on. So, if you look at this from the standpoint of a Frederick Kempe and the Atlantic Council, and the people who bankroll that, a peace settlement in the Middle East would be a horrible for them. Just as a negotiated settlement of the Ukraine war, in which what Putin proposed for the last eight years—security guarantees for both Ukraine and Russia, and a recognition for the potential for the two nations to work together—this represents a threat to the continuation of what Blinken calls the rules-based order. And so, that’s why it’s so revolutionary and important to grasp what LaRouche is saying; both in terms of who’s manipulating this, what’s the hand above the scene that’s playing the two sides against each other? And secondly, how do you defeat that? You have a movement in the Western nations—the United States and Europe—that rejects the unipolar order and the so-called rules-based order and reach out their hands to the Global South to work on joint development projects in the benefit of the other.

So, there is a solution. Those who say there is no solution are just the victims of the psychological warfare which is designed to make you depressed. But the solutions rest with what we’ve been trying to do; what we’ve been working on for years, and which is coming together now in the International Peace Coalition and the overall movement of the LaRouche Organization. We can make these solutions happen, but it depends on we, the people; not elected officials who have proven to be too corrupt and too intellectually small to take up the task at hand.

That’s my presentation for today.




Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Sydvestasien og Afrika:
Afskrift af Hussein Askarys tale på Schiller Instituttets og EIR’s seminar på
Frederiksberg den 18. april 2016

Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background

Kommer senere på dansk.

Hussein Askary Speech in Copenhagen to the Schiller Institute-EIR
Seminar “Extend the World Land-Bridge to Southwest Asia and
Africa,” April 18, 2016

{Hussein Askary had fair number of graphics and charts, which he
used to illustrate his presentation.}

TOM GILLESBERG:  The next speaker is somebody very unique
and unusual,  Hussein Askary originally comes from Iraq and had
to get out under very nasty circumstances, as many others.  But
that became a blessing at least for our organization, because
Hussein, through Norway, ended up to become part of the
international LaRouche organization in 1994, and has since then
been contributing quite fantastically to our international work.
And he is one of the authors of the original {New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge} report; but then also made a
decision, that this cannot simply stay in the English language,
or Chinese.  This also has to be in the Arabic language.  So
Hussein took it upon himself to translate this into the Arabic
language and then also of course, write some extra parts to it,
which is necessary for the present circumstances in Southwest
Asia to have.
This report just came out.  It was release on March 17, in
Cairo, in a meeting presided over by the Egyptian Transportation
Minister who then introduced Hussein, and the hope of course is
that this will become something read and studied and acted on in
the whole Arabic world, as well as the rest of the world.  So
Hussein?

HUSSEIN ASKARY: You have heard Helga today, giving a very
stern and sobering warning about the state of affairs in the
world, the dangers are very real to the world today. What I am
going to do, and please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not going to
give you a picture of how rosy and nice things are, either in
Southwest Asia, the so-called Middle East, or in Africa, but, as
they say in sports, you have to keep your eye on the ball. What
Helga just said, is that there is a new paradigm in the world,
which can lead to a completely different, and new world order.
And it’s that paradigm, within which myself, the Schiller
Institute, and the people we are talking to, we want to direct
their attention to that new paradigm.
I’m thankful to Leena Malkki for her beautiful singing, and,
especially, the {Aida} aria. It was actually performed at the
opening of the Suez Canal, the second Suez Canal, last year.
The idea of great projects, the idea of great challenges,
like Hela was explaining, this idea of being in space, looking at
the world from space, and, also, the idea of major projects, like
the Suez Canal, like the Three Gorges Dam in China, the New Silk
Road, the effect they have on people, is that they challenge
their imagination, and challenge their creativity, because they
represent major difficulties, major technical problems,
intellectual problems, that have to be solved, before you achieve
these major projects. And that transforms the idea of people. It
also gives people an idea of a creative constructive identity,
and the position of man in the world, on this Earth, and also in
the universe. That is why we try to work on these concepts of the
New Silk Road, the extension of the New Silk Road, to {inspire}
people to think outside of the box, outside of the box of
geopolitics, which Helga was trying to explain. We have to get
out of geopolitics. We have to act {human} again. But that has
practical implications. There are practical problems, and other
issues, and even scientific issues we have to resolve.
So, for those who are not familiar, this is the extension of
the New Silk Road. The New Silk Road has existed as the new
strategic policy of China since 1996, but we want to expand this
into a global collaboration, a blueprint, as Tom said, a concept
for peace and cooperation among nations. We have to connect the
Economic Belt of the Silk Road (the one with the yellow), which
is already being built. As Helga said, the first train arrived
from China to Tehran last month. There are projects going on in
Siberia. So there are trains going from Asia to Europe. There is
no problem with that. We need to extend it into the Southwest
Asia region, the so-called Middle East (I can explain later why I
say Southwest Asia, and not the Middle East), and into Africa,
and of course, into the Americas.
So, you can see that the red lines are where we have the
biggest deficits, the biggest deficits in infrastructure, both
transportation infrastructure, but also in other needs, deficits
in water, and deficits in electricity.
What is different in the Arabic part, which I rewrote
certain parts of it, like the Southwest Asia part, we also added
the Arabian Peninsula, also, to the idea of the connection to the
New Silk Road. This is no longer simply a Silk Road; this is the
World Land-Bridge, which can unite all the continents of the
world.
In 1996, I had the great fortune to work with Helga
Zepp-LaRouche and the team of {EIR} to make the first major study
of the New Silk Road, and it was that one which was adopted by
the Chinese government as the strategic policy of China. It was
also a thick report like this.
This work is being done, mostly in East Asia, Central Asia,
Iran, Turkey, Russia, all these nations are involved, but what is
lacking is the connection to the rest. So it has been 20 years
since that idea emerged, but there was no response from the
countries in the Arab world, for example, or in Africa.
Now, the idea with all these lines is not only about trade.
We want to warn people, that we are not talking about moving
goods from China to Europe. That’s not our concept. That’s a
byproduct. What we mean by the New Silk Road, the World
Land-Bridge, that we need to create development corridors: a
development corridor where you bring power, water, and technology
to areas that are landlocked, that are far from industrial zones,
and, explore the resources, human and natural resources of that
region, to develop new centers of economic activity. Like
landlocked nations, like in Central Asia, or the Great Lakes
region in Africa. That’s the concept. It’s not about trade,
although trade is an important aspect of this.
In 2002, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, the American economist and
political leader, the husband of Mrs. LaRouche, was in Abu Dhabi,
in a conference about oil, and the role of oil in world politics,
and the future of oil.  And there were many ministers of oil
actually from the Arab countries — the gentleman to the right is
the energy minister of the United Arab Emirates — and Mr.
LaRouche shocked everybody, and said that the Arab countries, or
the Gulf countries, have to gradually stop exporting raw oil, and
actually use raw oil and gas as an industrial product, for
petrochemicals, plastics, where every barrel of oil will give
many times its value, rather than burning it as energy. He said
that you should use your position in the world, as a crossroads
of continents. You have to utilize that position as a crossroads
for world trade, but also, the connection between Africa, Asia
and Europe.
So I added these to the Arabic version, because I think that
this is a very unique area in the world,  not only that its
strategic location is very unique, no other part of the world has
that; you also have two-thirds of the world’s energy resources,
so-called, oil and gas in that region, but also, most
importantly, you have about 450 million people. Most of them are
young people. And actually, many of them have a good education.
You also have nations with a very ancient history and culture,
and a very historical identity, like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and
so on, and they also have an idea of themselves as becoming key
players in the world, but we hope that they will become key
players in the world in the economic, scientific and cultural
sense.
The problem is that all these advantages have been turned
into disadvantages. So this region has become a center for global
politics, for global geopolitics, and that is why we see the
conditions we have in the whole Middle East region becoming like
this.
Our idea is, now we have this new situation with the Russian
intervention, the prospect, the possibility of having a peaceful
political solution in Syria, the prospect of uniting many powers
to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda, and so on, both in Iraq and Syria,
and also in Libya. But this should be followed, as Helga said, we
need a Marshall Plan, we need an economic development plan, to
establish peace on a true basis.
The reason I joined the Schiller Institute in 1994, was that
I was in Oslo, and I was working as a translator, and there was a
Palestinian children’s delegation coming with Yasser Arafat; and
I was going around with them, and, at that time, you had the Oslo
peace agreement. A week later, I saw a sign that the Schiller
Institute was having a meeting in Oslo. They had a very
interesting title. They said in the meeting that if you don’t
start with the economic development of the Palestinian people,
the people in Jordan, Syria, Israel, and so on, if you don’t base
the peace process on a solid economic basis, this whole thing
will fail. And the peace process is, of course, dead now, both
because of that, but also because of geopolitics which has
prevented reaching a true peace.
So, therefore, to establish true peace, we need an economic
and scientific program. Helga referred to president Xi Jinping’s
visit to the region in January this year. I consider this as an
historic turning point, actually, because at that point, in late
January, Saudi Arabia and Iran were at the point where there was
a big risk of a direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, because
of the beheading of a Shi’a clergy in Saudi Arabia, which led to
demonstrations, the burning of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, and
so on. So the Chinese intervention came at a very crucial point,
where they said, “Look, all these religious conflicts and
problems you have with each other, can lead the whole world into
a disaster. Why don’t we work on our method? We offer you to join
the New Silk Road. We offer economic development, and technology,
and even financing, so we can connect all of your countries which
are in conflict with each other together into this global
process.” And this is very, very important. And nations in the
region have to really grasp that opportunity now, and, instead of
discussing the fate of President Assad, they should discuss what
kinds of economic projects they should work together on.
One of the issues that I didn’t mention, is that, for
example, even as Helga said, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they can
join this, if they stop this other policy, because we also have
one of the largest concentrations of financial power in the Gulf
countries; the so-called sovereign funds of the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries is about $2 trillion. This can be transformed
into credit.
In the report, I propose the establishment of the Arab
Infrastructure Investment Bank. A bank which will be financed by
these rich countries, which would have a capital of $100-200
billion, and that capital will only be earmarked for
infrastructure and development projects.
So every nation has a role in this. And in the report, we
have also added, which is not in the English report, a plan, a
general outline for the reconstruction of Syria, by utilizing
Syria’s position also as a bridge for the Silk Road, both from
Asia, and from Europe, into Africa. We also propose the
construction of a Syrian National Reconstruction Bank, which is
very important. We have a very important chapter in the report
about how nations can internally finance major infrastructure
programs. Because, the big question, which comes all the time
when I am in Arab countries, or in Africa, is, they say “OK. This
sounds good. Who will pay for this? Where will the money come
from?” Actually, you don’t really need money, in that sense. You
can create the money, but you have to know where to use that
money. As Helga said, the central banks in Europe and the United
States are pumping massive amounts of liquidity into the
financial and banking system. But none of that is transformed
into technologies or projects, public projects, or housing
projects, or industrial projects in Europe or anywhere. So money
is being printed, but it is not being used.
But there is a method, which we call the Hamiltonian
national credit system, which every nation can actually
internally generate credit to finance part of its national
development plans, and this is one thing we put in the Syria
plan. Because every time there is a war like in Bosnia, in
Lebanon, and so on, you have donor conferences, where every
nation says that we will give you so much money, 100 million, 50
million, but there is no centralized idea about how to rebuild
the whole country. It all depends on donations, small drops which
come. We want something massive. We want something big. Foreign
governments should contribute to that by exporting technology to
Syria, for example, which Syria cannot afford to build, or afford
to buy, in the current situation.
Also, a part of our plan for Southwest Asia is to fight
against desertification, by managing and creating new water
resources, stopping the expansion of the desert. This is the
Iraqi Green Belt project to stop the effect of sand and dust
storms, which actually is a big problem for many cities in Iraq,
sometimes even reaching into Iran, by building a Green Belt,
planting trees in a large scale, a belt by using both ground
water and water from the rivers.  This is a kind of national
program which can unite the people of Iraq for an idea of their
future together. Not Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, Turkish, and so on,
and so forth. These are the kinds of projects, real physical
projects, which will challenge people to work together in a
country like Iraq.
Now, I took this Egyptian model, because in Egypt, you have
a very terrible situation, which is the accumulation of 30 years
of destructive economic and financial policies, mostly caused by
former President Mubarak’s and Anwar Sadat’s collaboration with
the IMF and the World Bank. There should be a shift in the way
Egyptians consider their economy. Because Egypt always waits for
the IMF or the World Bank, the EU or the United States to give
some money so that they can start something new. And usually
money does not go to large scale. Europe, the United States, the
UN, the IMF and the World Bank will {never} finance large
infrastructure projects. That’s the policy.  Small, small, small
is beautiful. That’s what they say.
But in Egypt, with the new leadership in Egypt, you have the
focus on mega-projects, which is a necessity. If you want to save
Egypt’s economy, Egypt’s entire infrastructure has to be built
from scratch again. There should be new industrial and
agricultural centers, which they are focusing on.
Using high technology, they try to attract the highest
levels of technology, and internal financing. You know, President
el-Sisi, when they wanted to build the Suez Canal, there was no
money, as usual, they said. So what he did was something unique.
He went outside the central bank. He went outside the budget, and
said, “I will go on TV, and I will tell the Egyptian people that
we want to build this canal. It’s crucial for our nation. We want
you to give the money.”
In 2013 I wrote a memorandum for Egypt, an Egyptian Economic
Independence Document, I called it. Actually, inside Egypt, you
can raise more than $100 billion, because there are resources
inside Egypt. People, even today, buy dollars. They take part of
their salary, and buy dollars or gold, and keep it at home, so
that financing disappears from the system. It’s not reinvested in
the system. People keep their money because of the unstable
economic situation.
But if you encourage the Egyptian people with this kind of
national development projects, which will put their kids to work,
unemployed young people, they would come out with the money. And
this is what el-Sisi did. I wrote at the time, that they should
build a National Development Bank, not just one fund for the Suez
Canal, as they did. But as soon as President el-Sisi came on TV
and said, “We want to build this canal, but we don’t have the
money. We want the Egyptian people to pay for it.” So they went
out, and in one week they raised $8 billion. And people were
queuing late into the night; I met a banker last year, who said,
“We had to stay open into the night, because people were queuing
at the banks to buy the bonds!” Egyptians are real patriots. They
love their country, but if they are encouraged by good
leadership.
Of course, the Suez Canal is not giving back what was
supposed to be already from the beginning, because world trade
has collapsed. The level of transit in the Suez Canal has gone
down, not because of Egypt’s policy, but because the world
economy is going down. Global trade has been collapsing. But the
idea is to use the Suez Canal as a development zone. And this is
what I got from people in the Suez Canal Authority — that they
are not only thinking about transport of goods, but they want to
utilize that route to build new industrial zones around the
canal, like we showed in the development corridor idea. And, of
course, Egypt has a very key role, both in the Arab world — it’s
the most important Arab country — and also in Africa.
Now Egypt has one big problem — it’s the demographic
problem. People say that Egypt is overpopulated. That’s not true.
Egypt is not overpopulated. Cairo is overcrowded!  Ninety million
people live on only 5% of the land of Egypt; 95% of the land of
Egypt is empty. It’s not used, but it’s not overpopulated. The
United States and Europe have been financing the Egyptian
government with hundreds of millions of dollars for family
planning, so that women will have fewer children. But no projects
were built to expand Egypt’s economic potential to accommodate to
the new generations, so that they can have new agricultural and
urban centers out in the desert!
After I was in Egypt last year, I wrote a report for a major
economic conference in Egypt to attract investment; but these are
the ideas which came out of both the conference, and my
observations about Egypt’s role in the New Silk Road. In Egypt,
people were very negative to the idea of the New Silk Road,
because they said that the transshipment on the Silk Road will
take away trade from the Suez Canal — that shipments will go
from Asia to Europe by land, and we will lose. So there are a lot
of people in Egypt who are actually against the idea. But I was
telling people, “Look. It’s not about trade. If you have economic
development, you will need more Suez Canals to accommodate the
trade. But if the world economy is not growing, there is no
development, there will be no trade. And people will compete on
attracting trade into other areas.”
So the idea is to develop Egypt’s economy, but also
contribute to more development and more trade among nations. And
it’s in utilizing Egypt’s position to connect to Sub-Saharan
Africa, to North Africa, the Middle East, and to the Arabian
Peninsula. Interestingly, after I was in Egypt, last week the
Saudi King was in Egypt, and they decided to build this bridge.
At Sharm el-Sheikh, there is a connection over the Gulf of Aqaba.
I think that the Egyptian President invited the Saudi King to
support the building of this bridge between the Saudi territories
and southern Sinai, which will turn Sinai from an isolated area,
suddenly into becoming the center between two major economies.
There are now big problems in Egypt, because the President
made a terrible mistake by conceding sovereignty over the Tiran
and Sanafir islands to the Saudis. There was a dispute between
the two countries for many years, but President el-Sisi suddenly
declared that they are Saudi islands, and now there is a big
uproar in Egypt. And the mistake was that there was no public
discussion about it. The parliament didn’t have anything to say
about this. So, now there will be a review of the agreement.  But
the idea of this project is very important.
Now, for Egypt to get out of that demographic box, is for
Egypt to expand its economic activities into the desert. This is
the development corridor proposed by Dr. Farouk El-Baz, who is a
space scientist, and he is right now an advisor to the President.
And he designed this idea of creating the new valley, the new
Nile Valley, by building railways, roads, and new urban centers.
I added these green zones, because these are actually becoming
new agricultural areas that the Egyptian government wants to
invest in, by creating new farmlands — they are talking about 4
million acres of land, and settling young people into these
regions, and building new agro-industrial centers. But what is
needed is to extend the development corridor, the black line,
into the economic zones.
This is the Africa Pass. One of our Egyptian friends, an
engineer, presented this at our conference in 2012, it’s the same
idea, connecting Egypt to North Africa, to Europe, and into the
Great Lakes region of Africa. Now, the Great Lakes region
countries, like Rwanda, Burundi, the eastern Congo, Uganda, they
have massive problems of economic development, also because they
are very far from the transport corridors of the world.  We wrote
a series of reports two years ago about the cost of shipment of a
container. The Danish shipping company A.P. Møller-Mærsk has
statistics that the cost of a shipment of a container from
Singapore to Alexandria is $4,000, to Mombasa in eastern Kenya,
it becomes $5,000; but to the capital of Uganda, it goes to
$8,000, because there are no good roads to ship that container!
Into Rwanda and Burundi it reaches $10,600 per container. So they
cannot bear the cost of shipment of containers that maybe have
technology inside them, and machines, and that is a major problem
for these so-called land-locked countries. So you need to have
new lines of transport which will reduce the cost of the
transport.
Now these are ideas which the African nations, the African
Union, have had for many years. There are many very nice plans,
but the attitude of the rest of the world to Africa, because
Africa, by itself, does not have the technology, at least, to
build these projects, and there has been no willingness in
Europe, or the United States, to finance, or contribute to
building the projects proposed in any of these major reports, to
integrate the infrastructure of Africa and enhance economic
development. Because without infrastructure, you cannot have
economic development.
But some of these lines are now coming on the agenda, thanks
to the intervention of the BRICS nations, and also of China. For
example, the Cairo-Cape Town highway idea, President Jacob Zuma
of South Africa, presented this actually twice at the BRICS
summit in 2013 and 2014, and he said, “This is a crucial, a key
element in the development of Africa. We need to work with the
BRICS nations and China, Russia and India to build these
projects.” There are 400 road and rail projects involved in this.
But this is a big challenge, both in terms of financing, and in
terms of technology.
There is also the possibility of connecting the river
systems of Africa for river transport, like in Europe, the
Main-Rhine-Danube Rivers are an important transport artery, and
development artery. In the same way, you can connect the Nile to
the Great Lakes, to the Zambezi River through a number of canals,
and so-called trans-modal transport systems, where you can ship
from rivers to rail, and back to rivers, to lakes, and so on, in
an easy way.
Filling the gap which the United States and Europe have left
for many, many years, now the Chinese–.  Well, in Europe, we
have a very problematic and twisted relationship to poverty, to
poor countries, to underdeveloped countries. Europeans look at
Africa as a burden. It’s a problem. How do we solve this problem?
But the problem is that the whole focus has been on aid,
emergency relief, and so on, and so forth, but that really
doesn’t solve problems. I mean, people talk about genocide. In
Africa, every year there are 4 million children who die. Now,
talk about a war crime.  There are 700,000 children before the
age of five who die every year in Africa.  So, you cannot solve
these problems with small aid projects here and there. You need
to think big. You need to provide those people with adequate
transport, electricity, water systems, and this cannot be done by
so-called aid programs. In Africa 600 million people don’t have
access to electricity, out of 1 billion.
But you look at the Chinese, when they look at an
underdeveloped country, they see an opportunity. They see
potential. They see a “win-win” strategy — new markets, new
areas of development, and they should intervene in that
situation.
It is the same idea that President Franklin Roosevelt of the
United States had. All of his fights with Churchill were exactly
about this problem. Roosevelt told Churchill in the middle of
World War II, that you British are very stupid, because you suck
the blood of the Africans, and you get pennies, you get nothing,
by sucking their blood. But if you develop Africa, as independent
nations, as modern nations, as we did with the United States,
then you will gain much, much more; if you treat them as humans,
if you develop their infrastructure, schools and hospitals.
And this is exactly what the Chinese are thinking about. Out
of the problem, they see an opportunity. Prime Minister Li
Keqiang was in East Africa, and also Nigeria in May 2014, and
immediately said, “We want to help Africa to connect all the
capitals with railways,” which is a big deficit problem. And they
started from East Africa. And now there are projects being built
from Lamu, a new port, into the land-locked South Sudan, into
Uganda, into Rwanda and Burundi. And China is both financing
major parts of this, but also contributing to building it, to
solve the problems of the land-locked countries and the need for
development.
China recently completed, it’s not running yet, but part of
the railway is running, from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. There is an
old railway, which is not functional, built by the French
colonialists, but now there is a new, electrified railway, which
goes from Djibouti to Addis Ababa.
Two interesting things about this railway are, firstly, that
Ethiopia is always associated with famine and food problems. Some
of these problems still exist. These are on the way to being
solved, but to bring food from the ports to inside the country
usually took two months, because of the lack of infrastructure.
So starving people could not have food in time. Even if the food
existed in the port, coming from around the world to Djibouti, it
was almost impossible to bring the food to the people who needed
it. Now, that food can be shipped in 10 hours, to the capital,
and also to other areas. The other interesting fact about this
railway is that China is not just building the railway, and
financing it, but training and educating engineers and workers to
run these systems.
Now, Ethiopia has a massive infrastructure plan for
connecting all the major cities of Ethiopia, with the railway and
roads. The other thing about the railway is that it is all
electrified. And the Ethiopians will use all these new dams they
are building, to electrify the railway. So they don’t need import
oil, and gas and diesel to run the railway system. They will
domestically provide the energy to run the trains.
So, Ethiopia, I am very sure it will never be associated
anymore with famine and poverty. Ethiopia is a great nation, a
very proud nation. They have massive resources, but these
resources have been dormant, have not been utilized. But now,
with the Chinese intervention, and also India is active there,
these resources will be developed.
This is just a metaphorical picture. This is the
Mombasa-Nairobi railway being built by a Chinese and a Kenyan
worker. In Africa, the propaganda goes that the Chinese never let
the locals work in these projects. They bring their own workers,
they bring their own engineers, their own technology, they build
the thing, and then they leave. It’s not true. They always
involve local workers. They train them, because they cannot run
these systems; the locals will have to run these systems
themselves.
But they are also training the labor force in Uganda. They
are building an Army Corps of Engineers, so that the Army can
play a positive role in the development of the country.
Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers played a very
important role, even in advanced countries. So this is part of
the same project.
Another important infrastructure project for Africa is
Transaqua. Lake Chad is drying up, which is a known fact, and 30
million people are affected, because they live as fishermen, or
they have grazing land around the lake in Chad and Nigeria, and
Niger. All these countries are affected. There are 30 million
people around that region, and there will be massive migration
actually from the Lake Chad region. So there is an idea called
Transaqua, which was developed by one of our friends, an Italian
engineer, to bring 5% of the water from the Congo River, or the
tributaries of the Congo River, and build a 2,800 km.-long canal
into the Chari River, and then flow downwards into Lake Chad, to
refill the lake; but also to have a new economic zone, and build
the Mombasa-Lagos highway, which was one of the plans I showed
earlier.
So you can transform that part of Africa, which in people’s
minds is a complete jungle, into a new economic zone, but also to
bring water to the Lake Chad region.
Now, there are some other issues I want to address.   One of
the big deficits of course in Africa, is the energy consumption.
And as I said not everybody has that; the average international
level of energy consumption is about 2,800 [kw?] but that’s not
equal.  The only two countries which are exception are South
Africa and Libya, before that.  So the energy needs in Africa are
{enormous}!  I mean Africa has a lot of wealth, but also the
hydropower potential which has never been built.  But the
attitude of the Western countries, like the Obama administration,
they have something called “Power Africa Initiative,” that
certain nations in Africa will get energy provided.  But they’re
not talking about hydropower, they’re not talking about nuclear
power, they’re not talking about coal or gas or so on.  They’re
talking about so-called “renewable” or “sustainable energy.” And
the International Energy Agency has a criteria for access to
energy, which is a modern access to energy is about 100kw-hours
per year per person.  And this diagram shows very ironically,
that that amount will be consumed by an American in three days!
But they expect Africans to live with that for a whole year!
Here’s just one more ironical idea:  My refrigerator can consume
many times as much as an Ethiopian individual.
These are the criteria for President Obama’s Power Africa
plan, that the plan will eventually help these nations come to
this line, while the real needs are that big now, and they will
be that big in a few years.  So, all these ideas to help Africa
from the Obama administration, they’re not adequate!  It’s just a
complete bluff. It does not help, if you just look at the
numbers.
And this is also another irony of the Obama administration
policy. These are the sources of energy for the American people,
the American economy, and these are what the Obama administration
{doesn’t} want you to do.  So it’s “do as we say, not as we do.”
So the United States produced 37% of its energy from coal, that’s
forbidden for Africa; 30% produced by natural gas, that’s a very
suspicious policy, because there’s the carbon problem; 19%
nuclear — absolutely no nuclear for Africa; 7% hydropower — the
United States is very suspicious of hydropower projects, and so
on and so on.  So what is left is solar, so-called geothermal,
and biomass, which the United States produced only 0.1% of its
needs.  But that’s recommended for Africa. [laughter]
So anyway, the idea is that if Africa joins the new paradigm
shift, African nations, they have exactly, in African families
and African individuals, they have exactly the same needs as we
have; as we have in Europe or in the United States.  There is
absolutely no difference.  So they’re trying to convince the
Africans that they should just, maybe, if they’re lucky they
could get a lightbulb at home, so the kids can read, by having a
solar battery.  They will not bite!
I mean, if you bring electricity to a village, what people
will do, is not simply have a lightbulb, if you bring electricity
to a village,  — and one of our friends made a study in India —
is that people will start to want to use new devices.  They have
to have other appliances at home, you need to have a stove, so
women don’t have to many hours and cut trees and come home and
cook with the wood, and suffocate with the smoke.  Farmers will
have to have tractors.  They will need to have workshops which
use electricity; people will want to have TV sets, computers.
They want to build industrial projects.   They will need
refrigeration which is a big problem in Africa, because most of
the food produced in the Sub-Saharan goes wasted because there’s
no refrigeration.
So just to give yourself an illusion that you will provide
every African lightbulb, just forget about it!  Because the needs
of those people are so immense, and they will not give up on
their right to have a living standard which is similar to ours.
Why shouldn’t they have it?  And this is what — here, in the
ideology in Europe and the United States I know, they should not
have this kind of technology, they should not have this kind of
development in Africa, because that’s not “sustainable.” Which is
not true.  It is sustainable, if you provide the tools and the
technology to do that.  Actually in Africa, there are more
resources than in Japan or in the United States and Europe, to
sustain industrial development!
So the problem is in the policy.  The problem is how they
look at Africa, and how they look at the problem of poverty and
so on.   And that has also to change, exactly as we changed with
geopolitics, we have to change our attitude to the problems of
Africa, and have really the right methods to solving them, and
treating African nations as equal to us, and African families as
equal to us, and African individuals as equal to us.
Nobody here will give up their living standard, and live in
the forest — maybe some people who do, there are some Danes and
Norwegians… [laughter]  But we want to have education. We want
to have warm housing, we want to have clean water; we want to
have a future for our kids; we want to have trains which go on
time.  This is what the Africans want.  You know, there’s nothing
different, we’re all one human race!
So, when you design policy and you say, “No, Africans should
have ‘sustainable energy,’ not nuclear power,” then you are
breaking with that idea of a real human family and equality.  So
I think I’ll stop here. [applause]

 

Dias til talen:

20160418_askary_dias1 20160418_askary_dias2 20160418_askary_dias3 20160418_askary_dias4 20160418_askary_dias5 20160418_askary_dias6 20160418_askary_dias7 20160418_askary_dias8 20160418_askary_dias9 20160418_askary_dias10 20160418_askary_dias11 20160418_askary_dias12 20160418_askary_dias13 20160418_askary_dias14 20160418_askary_dias15 20160418_askary_dias16 20160418_askary_dias17 20160418_askary_dias18 20160418_askary_dias19 20160418_askary_dias20 20160418_askary_dias21 20160418_askary_dias22 20160418_askary_dias23 20160418_askary_dias24 20160418_askary_dias25 20160418_askary_dias26 20160418_askary_dias27 20160418_askary_dias28 20160418_askary_dias29 20160418_askary_dias30 20160418_askary_dias31 20160418_askary_dias32 20160418_askary_dias33 20160418_askary_dias34 20160418_askary_dias35 20160418_askary_dias36

 

 

 




Nyhedsorientering december 2015:
GLASS/STEAGALL – ELLER KAOS!

I denne nyhedsorientering har vi valgt at bringe en række uvurdelige, strategiske vurderinger vedrørende kampen imod Islamisk Stat, flygtningekrisen i Europa og det igangværende finanskollaps, som er fremkommet i løbet af december måned på de ugentlige webcast, der finder sted hver fredag aften amerikansk tid på www.larouchepac.com. LaRouchePAC er en amerikansk politisk aktionskomité, grundlagt og vedvarende inspireret af den amerikanske økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche. Jeffrey Steinberg (t.v.) er en ledende medarbejder til Lyndon LaRouche og er også efterretningsredaktør for tidsskriftet Executive Intelligence Review. Ben Deniston er leder af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteam.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Rusland udfordrer Obama for dennes fremstød for dræberkrig, militært og økonomisk

11. aug. 2015 – Der er en voksende erkendelse i visse internationale, politiske beslutningstagerkredse af en strategisk pointe, som Lyndon LaRouche længe har understreget: At økonomiske kriser er drivkraften bag krig – inklusive den aktuelle opløsning af det transatlantiske finanssystem og den umiddelbart overhængende fare for en termonuklear krig – og pointens modsætning, nemlig, at sand videnskabsdrevet, økonomisk udvikling er at ramme en pæl i hjertet af Det britiske Imperium. Forhenværende DIA-chef, gen. Michael Flynn, f.eks., understregede i sit interview den 4. aug. til Al Jazeera-Tv, at kernekraftbaseret, økonomisk udvikling i områder såsom Mellemøsten er nøglen til at stoppe krig. »Taktiske manøvrer«, sagde han, vil ikke få jobbet gjort.

I går udgav formanden for den russiske Duma, Sergei Naryshkin, der er kendt for at stå præsident Vladimir Putin nær, en artikel i Rossiiskaya Gazeta med titlen, »Provokationer i August«, i hvilken han advarede om sandsynligheden for dødbringende provokationer mod Rusland fra Obamas USA i de kommende uger og understregede, at det, der stod bag fremstødet for krig, var udplyndring af nationer med det formål at afstive en gigantisk gældsboble. Naryshkin bemærkede, at

»August er først lige begyndt. Men månedens indledende begivenheder giver på en sigende måde en fornemmelse af et dybt politisk efterår. Efter alt at dømme er en eller anden forværrende handling under forberedelse … Jeg er sikker på, at vi ikke vil bøje os for sådanne provokationer.«

I dag understregede Lyndon LaRouche, at den økonomiske og militære krigsførelse, som præsident Obama fører på vegne af Det britiske Imperium, er en og samme ting.

»Obama gør fremstød for krig. Det gør han efter ordre fra Det britiske Imperium. Dettes politik er en drastisk befolkningsreduktion, det størst tænkelige folkemord, og det er Obamas mission.«

Den britiske kongefamilie har også fået Paven til at alliere sig med deres politik for »grøn« affolkning.[1]

LaRouche påpegede den såkaldte ferskvandskrise i Californien som en del af den samme, overlagte politik: at fratage det meste af planeten den teknologi og de ressourcer, der kræves for at overleve.[2] Dette ser vi nu også spredes i hele Mellemamerika og Caribien. »Folkemordet er i færd med at ramme Sydamerika«, erklærede LaRouche, med den hensigt at reducere befolkningen. »Det her er blodigt; det er væmmeligt.«

Idet han kom tilbage til Rusland understregede LaRouche, at grunden til, at dette land er ved at få problemer med sin civile økonomi ikke skyldes Obamas sanktioner, men at de er blevet tvunget til at indlede en massiv forøgelse af militærudgifterne. »Der er intet, der har større prioritet over for en overhængende krig« for den russiske regering, sagde LaRouche, og derfor lider de under et enormt pres på deres civile økonomi.

»Vi står over for en fjende, der har forpligtet sig til folkemord på en massiv skala, en fjende, hvis hensigt er den brutale reduktion af den menneskelige befolkning«,

Konkluderede LaRouche. Vores politiske kampagne for at stoppe denne fjende, inklusive deres instrument, der aktuelt befinder sig i Det Hvide Hus, kræver etableringen af en ny form for regering i USA – ikke så meget en individuel kandidat eller en præsident, men snarere en præsidentiel institution, der er vendt tilbage til sit oprindelige forfatningsmæssige formål med økonomisk udvikling.[3]

Og det gør en udskiftning af sengetøjet i Det Hvide Hus til den første handling, der skal udføres.

 

[1] Se også: »Slutspillet mod det britiske monarki«, samt

TEMA: BEFOLKNINGSREDUKTION: »Den britiske kongefamilies plan om at skrue verden tilbage til stenalderen«, m.fl. 

[2] Se: »Memo til den næste præsident: Et nyt perspektiv for ferskvandskrisen i USA’s vestlige stater« 

[3] Se: »Det kommende overgangspræsidentskab under Glass-Steagall: Fremtiden hedder Alexander Hamilton« 

og »Glass-Steagall 1933: Franklin D. Roosevelts 100-dages program: Forfatningen i funktion« 

 

 




NASA’s overvågning via telemåling viser et
globalt mønster med udtømning af grundvandet;
det haster med det galaktiske perspektiv og handling

17. juni 2015 – Resultaterne af NASA’s satellitundersøgelse via telemåling af 37 af verdens største grundvandsdannende lag blev udgivet i denne uge og viste, at 21 af disse grundvandslag over en 10-årig periode i varierende grad havde et netto-vandtab.

Verdens befolkning er generelt set afhængig af grundvand for 35 % af det totale vandforbrug, iflg. aktuelle skøn, men procentdelen er langt højere nogen steder. I øjeblikket kommer 60 % af Californiens vandforbrug fra udtømning af undergrundskilder, hvilket ikke er holdbart.

Den nye undersøgelses bestemmelse af mængden af vand udgør den seneste bekræftelse på, at det haster med at få en indsatsbølge for til fulde at forstå de galaktiske processer, der påvirker vanddynamikken på Jorden, og at intervenere for at påvirke disse, inklusive regionale hastetiltag for at øge menneskehedens vandforsyning.

Den nye, 60 sider lange rapport har titlen »Quantifying Renewable Groundwater Stress with GRACE« (Mængdebestemmelse af stress på vedvarende grundvandsdannelse med GRACE), udgivet af Water Resources Research, en enhed under American Geophysical Union (AGU.org). GRACE står for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment – a NASA satellite mission. Der er otte forfattere, inklusive seniorforsker James S. Famiglietti, ved NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory i Californien.

Alt imens anvendelsen af, og fremgangsmåde med, telemåling er mere magtfuld end lokale grundvandsmålinger, så beskriver de store mønstre af nedgang i grundvandet, som detekteredes ved brug af GRACE i perioden 2003 til 2013, de samme ekstreme situationer, der allerede opleves som kriser i den lokale vandforsyning. Ekstrem udtømning af grundvand er f.eks. blevet registreret i Nordvestindien og Pakistan, Nordafrika og i Californiens Central Valley.

Undersøgelsens GRACE-system målte svage forandringer i trækket fra Jordens tyngdekraft på satellitterne, der var relateret til den stigen og falden af den vandmængde og det grundvandsniveau, der blev undersøgt. Disse målinger blev dernæst registreret i perioden 2003-2013.

Undersøgelsen fremlægger sine resultater og kort i form af grundvands-»stress«. »Vi mængdebestemmer stress i henhold til en grad af grundvandsforbrug i forhold til tilgængelighed, som vi kalder den Bæredygtige (egentlig: som kan fornyes) Grundvands-Stress-rate … Fire karakteristiske stress-systemer defineres: Overstresset, varierende stress, menneskeligt domineret stress, og understresset … «

De tre største, mest »stressede« grundvandsdannende lag, der på denne måde blev identificeret som værende udsat for hastig udtømning og med liden eller ingen genopfyldning, og med stor brugerafhængighed, er: Det Arabiske Grundvandsførende Lag (der bruges af henved 60 millioner mennesker); Indusbassinet (mange millioner mennesker); og Murzuk-Djado-bassinet i Libyen og Niger.

 

Foto: NASA-Satellitfoto over Californien

 

Læs også: EIR: Et nyt perspektiv for ferskvandskrisen i det vestlige USA

 




VERDEN EFTER VALGET: TG: … Velkommen
til vores første offentlige møde efter valget…
at det nu er deadline for det transatlantiske,
finansielle system. Og det er præcist så
dramatisk. Der er lige nu ’panik før lukketid’.

Video:

Lyd:

 




Introduktion til Schiller Instituttets konference i Paris,
»Genopbyg verden i BRIKS-æraen«

Teksten forekommer på konferenceindbydelsen.

(Se Program for konferencen her.)

Der er afgørende øjeblikke i historien, hvor en renæssance er nødvendig for at redde menneskeheden.

I dag har BRIKS-landene (Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina og Sydafrika) forpligtet sig til at lancere en renæssance. De har grundlagt den Nye Udviklingsbank (NDB), og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), og flere andre fonde til finansiering af det »Nye, økonomiske Silkevejsbælte«, både til lands og til vands, og promoveret af den kinesiske regering. De er i færd med at etablere en valutareservefond (Contingent Reserve Arrangement, CRA) for at beskytte deres valutaer, og de forbereder en ny, international, økonomisk og finansiel orden, i hvilken yuan vil være drivkraften. Sluttelig er de i færd med at etablere et universelt kreditvurderingsagentur som alternativ til de tre store, vestlige agenturer.

Deres store projekter er baseret på transformationen af menneske og natur, en ambitiøs rumforskningspolitik, en offentlig sundhedspolitik for alle, skabelsen af ’smartbyer’, samt tilplantning af »store, grønne mure« før at gøre ørkenen grøn. I løbet af de seneste 30 år har Kina løftet flere end 1,35 mia. mennesker ud af fattigdom, og Indien er nu i færd med at gøre det samme for 1,25 mia. mennesker.

Det er tydeligvis her, alternativet til et Transatlantisk Imperium, hvis finansoligarki sår krigens sæd, som stormskyer bringer stormen, ligger.

Vores konference vil være anledning til at mobilisere kræfter for dette alternativ, der afviser destruktive, geopolitiske magtspil og placerer os i fortroppen for kampen for menneskehedens fælles mål. Den vil således markere endnu et afgørende skridt i kølvandet på Schiller Instituttets konferencer i Frankfurt, 18.-19. oktober, 2014, samt konferencerne afholdt på Manhattan fra begyndelsen af 2015. Det er i realiteten en international mobilisering, du deltager i, ikke en engangsforsamling af ’whistleblowers’.

Vi vil først høre fra repræsentanter fra BRIKS og deres allierede, der vil fremlægge de store projekter, de planlægger, eller som de allerede er i færd med at gennemføre i deres lande. Dette er ikke en samling forskellige projekter, men udgør en verdensanskuelse, der er meget anderledes end den, der nu i over fyrre år har domineret Europa.

Medlemmer af Lyndon LaRouches videnskabsteam vil fremlægge den nye tilgang, der er nødvendig for at overkomme den tørke, der er i færd med at ødelægge Californien, ved at styre og skabe vandcyklusser ved at arrangere anlæg til afsaltning af havvand, og ved at arbejde på de lovende perspektiver, som ionisering af atmosfæren tilbyder for at skabe nye, mere effektive cyklusser.

Det kinesiske program for udvinding af helium-3 på Månen som brændstof til produktion af fusionsenergi på Jorden, eksemplificerer en ny identitet for mennesket, der strækker sig ud i en skala, der omfatter Solsystemet, og videre endnu, galaksen, med det formål at forstå og beherske virkningen af kosmisk stråling på vort klima, så vel som også den fare, asteroider udgør for vor planet.

Over for dem, der indvender, at en sådan måde at tænke på er »u-praktisk«, er det på høje tid at svare, at deres væren praktisk fører til alles krig mod alle.

Det er præcist her, vi må gentænke den nuværende opfattelse af, eller begreb om »økonomi«. Ægte økonomi handler ikke om at udføre finansielle udplyndringsoperationer for at opbygge hurtig, monetær rigdom, men snarere om at organisere midlerne til at finansiere de store projekter, der vil forme vores fremtid.

Vi må derfor bringe nationer sammen omkring en politik for statskredit til at finansiere opdagelser og udviklingsplatforme. At nedlægge det eksisterende monetære system i Vesteuropa og USA er ikke i sig selv et økonomisk spørgsmål, men et politisk valg: ønsker vi en fremtid eller ej? Ønsker vi at blive fri for en verden, hvor fascister og neonazister, såsom Dmytro Yarosh, promoveres i Ukraine med Victoria Nulands støtte? Ønsker vi at gå med i det »win-win«-system, som den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping gentagne gange har foreslået?

At svare »ja« til disse spørgsmål kræver, at man forlader euroens og NATO’s Europa, der tjener City of Londons og Wall Streets system, og etablerer samarbejdsformer mellem suveræne nationalstater, der har fælles kapaciteter og projekter, og bryder fri af deres monetære og finansielle lænker. Det betyder at vende tilbage til en kultur for fremtiden, inspireret af værkerne af Nicolaus Cusanus, Johannes Kepler og Vladimir Vernadskij, der i os atter vækker håb og optimisme, når vi tager del i det menneskelige sinds kreative processer.

Samtidigt må vi, som europæere og amerikanere, ikke længere frygte, at andre kulturer vil udfordre os, men snarere med glæde opdage, hvordan vi kan tage del i skabelsen af verdenslandbroen.

Dette er ikke en Ønske-ø, men en sammenkomst for at imødekomme kravene fra Veda’ernes Indien, Konfutses Kina eller vor jødisk-kristne tradition, for at skabe fundamenterne til det, Victor Hugo kaldte den »Universelle Republik«.

 

Konferencen sponsoreres af L’institut Schiller, 101 rue Mouffetard, 75005 Paris.

 

 




Tørkekrisen forværres i Brasiliens nordøstlige og sydøstlige del – Myndighederne frygter socialt kaos

12. maj 2015 – Tørken, der berører de syv stater i Brasiliens forarmede nordøstlige og sydøstlige del, inklusive Sao Paulo, Espiritu Santo og Minas Gerias, har nået et dramatisk omfang, i en sådan grad, at militære myndigheder i Sao Paulo arrangerede en særlig konference i slutningen af april for at drøfte, hvordan de og andre officielle myndigheder eventuelt skulle respondere i tilfælde af, at vandmangel fremprovokerer socialt kaos.

Paulo Massato, direktør for det statslige vandselskab Sabesp i Sao Paulo, advarer om, at vandet kunne slippe op i byområdet så tidligt som juli måned, hvis de nødinfrastrukturprojekter, der i øjeblikket er under opførelse, ikke er klar til den tid, rapporterer El Pais den 5. maj. Vandstanden i områdets reservoirer er lavere end sidste år.

Situationen i den nordøstlige del, landets fattigste region, er svar, et resultat af en fire år lang tørke, der fortsætter – og, ligesom Californien, resultatet af årtiers forsømmelser mht. at bygge den nødvendige infrastruktur, der kunne forbedre menneskets kontrol af biosfærens vandcyklus. I begyndelsen af april i år blev 56 byer i seks stater erklæret i en tilstand af »forsyningskollaps«, og dette antal forventedes at stige til 105 på kort sigt. Den eneste kilde til vand i disse byer er tankvogne, der kører vand ind. Et foruroliget Nationalt Integrationsministerium (NIM) undersøger opførelse af brønde og reservoirer – forsyningerne til sidstnævnte måtte komme udefra – tydeligvis utilstrækkelige løsninger.

Landbruget i regionen er ødelagt, idet nedbørsmængden i regntiden i de seneste fire år ikke har været tilstrækkelig til at fylde reservoirerne eller genopbygge grundvandet, rapporterer Globo. 862 kommuner befinder sig i nødretstilstand; siden 2011 er syv millioner dyr døde, og landbrug med malkekvægbestande, som er i nedgang, har været nødt til at sælge deres dyr pga. af fodermangel. Ifølge agronom Vlaminck Saraiva er mere end 50 % af kornhøsten gået tabt i de seneste år, og det samme gælder 40 % af dyreholdet.

I Sao Paulo sammenkaldte den militære kommando i den sydøstlige del af landet, som omfatter alle militærstyrker i staten, til en konference den 28. april med »problemet med vandforsyningen til forbrug i staten Sao Paulo« som eneste punkt på dagsordenen. Ved dette arrangement, hvor akademikere og folk fra industrien også deltog, sagde direktør Massato fra Sabesp, at hvis infrastrukturarbejder nu under opførelse blev færdige, ville det kun kunne garantere vandforsyningen frem til oktober, hvor den næste regntid starter. »Så må folk opsende bønner for regnens komme«, sagde han. Han forudsagde et »rædselsscenarie«, hvor der ikke ville være adgang til mad og elektricitet, og hvor alene Hospital des Clinicas ville få brug for 300 tankvogne vand om dagen for at opfylde sit behov – et antal vogne, som staten ikke engang er i besiddelse af.

Fordi folk opsamler vand i tønder og andre større beholdere – optimale steder for udklækning af myg – er myggebestanden eksploderet i Sao Paulo og har udløst en epidemi af dengue-feber, der spredes via myg. Denne epidemi lægger et hårdt pres på de i forvejen overbebyrdede sundhedsfaciliteter.

 

Foto: Storbyen Sao Paulo oplever den værste tørke i 80 år.




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
Kinas politik for Ét bælte, én vej.
Seminar i København den 27. apr. 2015 (dansk)

Mit dilemma stammer fra den kendsgerning, at jeg … med det samme må fortælle jer … , at verden er langt tættere på en ny, global krig, end de fleste mennesker har nogen anelse om. Denne nye politik for Den nye Silkevej … , er den eneste politik til at undgå krig, der er til rådighed.  

Download (PDF, Unknown)




LaRouchePAC-demonstration på Wall Street i anledning af 70-året for sejren over nazismen i Europa

Video, med dansk udskrift:

8. maj 2015 – LaRouchePAC fejrer sejrsdagen med en demonstration på Wall Street med at identificere USA’s historiske fjende og spørgsmålet om præsidentens afsættelse som værende af den største betydning.

 

Diane Sare: »God eftermiddag. Dette er Lyndon LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomites Manhattan-demonstration i New York City. Det er i dag 70-års dagen for sejren over fascismen i Europa, den 8. maj 1945, hvor de allierede styrker sejrede over fascismen, sejrede over Hitler og nazismen i Europa. I Anden Verdenskrig var der mindst 80 millioner mennesker, der mistede livet, og jeg vil gerne, at vi holder et øjebliks stilhed, mens vi mindes dem, der døde under Anden Verdenskrig; 20 millioner fra Kina, 27 millioner fra Rusland, over 400.000 fra USA, 500.000 fra Storbritannien, og mange flere millioner i Afrika, Asien. Så lad os holde et øjebliks stilhed; dette er V-E Dag, Sejren i Europa.«

(Der holdes et øjebliks stilhed.)

»Vi er her i dag på Wall Street, fordi, for de af jer, der ikke ved det, Wall Street er USA’s fjende. Wall Street er en forlænget arm af Det britiske Imperium, af London, og Wall Street, arven efter Det romerske Imperium, det, som Den amerikanske Revolution blev udkæmpet imod. Vi er her i dag på 70-års dagen for sejren over fascismen i Europa, fordi tiden er inde til, at amerikanere atter tilbageviser fascisme, én gang for alle. Vi har en præsident, Barack Obama, der nægter at deltage i højtideligholdelsen af V-E dagen i Moskva i Rusland, der vil finde sted i morgen. Præsident Obama boykotter dette, endskønt Sovjetunionen ofrede 27 millioner liv for at overvinde Adolf Hitler.

En af de mulige grunde til, at præsident Obama boykotter mindedagen i Rusland, er, at præsident Obama i øjeblikket støtter en genoplivelse af nazisme i Ukraine. Præsident Obama sendte sin ambassadør, Victoria Nuland, med 5 mia. dollars fra folk som George Soros, for at vælte den demokratisk valgte regering i Ukraine og uddelte cup cakes til folk, der kastede med Molotovcocktails, og for at installere folk, der rent bogstaveligt bærer Svastika-flag, som tæver jøder og russiske talere og begår hæslige grusomheder. Men præsident Obama, hellere end at indrømme, at han er nazisten, der støtter nazister med penge fra Wall Street, forsøger at lægge skylden på præsident Putin, hvilket er en kæmpeløgn i de amerikanske nyhedsmedier. Vi mener, at på vores V-E dag, 70 år efter sejren over fascismen, bør amerikanere erkende, at Rusland, eller Sovjetunionen, som det var under Anden Verdenskrig, gav en stor gæld på 27 millioner liv for at besejre fascismen, og amerikanere bør huske dette.

Den anden mulige grund til, at USA boykotter denne højtideligholdelse, er, at vi synes at have en arv igennem de seneste 15 år, hvor vi støtter fascisme, for hvem var præsident før Barack Obama? Forud for Barack Obama havde vi George W. Bush. Hvem er George W. Bush, bortset fra en person, der sandsynligvis havde nogle narko- og alkoholproblemer, men som i virkeligheden kontrolleredes af Dick Cheney? George W. Bush var sønnesøn af Prescott Bush. Hvem var Prescott Bush? Han blev dømt i Kongressen for at have hjulpet og støttet fjenden i krigstid. Prescott Bush finansierede Adolf Hitler. Prescott Bush, sammen med disse Wall Street-institutioner, Huset Morgan lige derovre, Prescott Bush med Brown Brothers Harriman bragte Adolf Hitler til magten. Så Bush-familien har også en svaghed for fascisme, og vi har nu Obama, der viderefører arven efter Bush-familien. Og det er Wall Street, der er blevet afsløret af veteran fra Anden Verdenskrig Lyndon LaRouche i en berømt debat fra 1971, hvor der var en Keynes-økonom ved navn Abba Lerner, og LaRouche argumenterede for, at IMF’s og Verdensbankens politik er fascistisk, og at den dræber mennesker. Og på et vist tidspunkt under debatten plaprede Abba Lerner ud med, at hvis man havde lyttet Hjalmar Schacht, ville Adolf Hitler ikke have været nødvendig. En ledende økonom siger, at Hitler var nødvendig. Hvorfor var Hitler nødvendig? For at knuse befolkningen for at få penge til Wall Street. Det er præcis, hvad Obamas job er i dag. Præsidenten, der dræber amerikanere med droner, uden forudgående retssag; som spionerer mod Tysklands regering; præsident Obama, der væltede oberst Gaddafi i Libyen og udleverede det meste af Nordafrika – ikke Egypten, for Egypten arbejder sammen med BRIKS – men Libyen, yngleplads for ISIS og al-Qaeda, og nu med tusindvis af flygtninge, der forsøger at komme med båd fra Libyens kyst til Europa, og hvad sker der med disse flygtninge? De drukner. 20.000, 25.000 mennesker, vi ved ikke, hvor mange, er druknet i Middelhavet. Så mens Obama og Jerry Brown ikke vil have vand til befolkningen i Californien, så vil de sørge for rigeligt vand i Middelhavet, så flygtningene, overskudsbefolkningen, kan drukne der. Dette er folkedrab. Dette er en politik, om hvilken folk for 70 år siden sagde: Aldrig mere! Og vi vil nu synge en patriotisk sang, som er passende til dette øjeblik.«

(Synger en sang).

Diane Sare: »For de af jer, der netop er kommet til, så er vi LaRouche-bevægelsen på Manhattan, og i dag, den 8. maj, og i morgen, den 9. maj, er 70-års dagen for sejren over fascismen i Europa. Det, som USA må vende tilbage til, er arven efter Alexander Hamilton, og der er et område, inden for hvilket dette ses meget tydeligt, og det er mht. spørgsmålet om vand. Som mange af jer ved, så oplever USA i øjeblikket en alvorlig tørke i Californien og andre vestlige stater. Og man har aviser, som New York Times, som er Wall Streets liberale, forlængede arm, der lægger skylden på de kapitalistiske kammersjukkers fråseri med ferskvandet. Hvad mener de? Landmændene. De siger, at det er oprørende, at landmændene insisterer på at producere 50 % af USA’s fødevareforsyning af frugter, nødder og grøntsager. Hvad er guvernør Browns plan for Californien? Fald død om. Og hvis man siger, at mennesker ikke er årsag til den globale opvarmning, vil han få dig arresteret.

Kendsgerningen, som Alexander Hamilton og John Quincy Adams og Benjamin Franklin i særdeleshed vidste, er, at hvad der sker på Jorden ikke forårsages af det, der sker på Jorden. Det, der finder sted på Jorden, forårsages af mægtige kræfter i vores Mælkevej, som vi endnu ikke er herre over. Kosmisk stråling, som vi først nu begynder at forstå, forårsager dannelse af skyer, forårsager nedbør, forårsager forandringer i vejrmønstre. Kina forsker i dette; Rusland forsker i dette. For at give jer et eksempel, så udførte nationen Mexico et eksperiment baseret på en russisk videnskabsmands arbejde, for at skyde ioner, dvs. elektrisk ladede partikler, op i atmosfæren. Det lykkedes dem at forøge nedbørsmængden fra 11 inches om året til 47 inches om året. Det lykkedes dem at forøge deres fødevareproduktion med 60 %. Så sandheden er den, at menneskeheden kan kontrollere vores vejr, til gavn for menneskeheden. Og vi kan gøre det muligt for 10 mia., eller 20 mia. eller 25 mia. mennesker at leve på denne planet med en højere levestandard, end vi har i dag. Men for at vi kan gøre dette, må vi afvise arven fra Wall Street. Vi må genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankloven og erklære disse kriminelle spekulanter på Wall Street bankerot. Og det amerikanske folk må ophøre med at være krystere og indrømme, at Barack Obama er en fascist, at Barack Obama bør smides ud af embedet, på samme måde, som vi besejrede nazisterne for 70 år siden. (Må jeg bede om noget vand! Undskyld, jeg mistede min stemme!)

Det er i dag 70-års dagen for sejren over fascismen. Og som afslutning vil jeg læse noget for jer fra en stor, amerikanske patriot og general, Douglas MacArthur. Dette er den tale, som Douglas MacArthur holdt på krigsskibet ’Missouri’ efter Japans kapitulation, og Japan ville under alle omstændigheder have kapituleret, vi behøvede ikke at smide atombomberne, en historie til en anden dag; men MacArthur gjorde det meget klart, som jeg sagde i begyndelsen, at 80 millioner mennesker døde i Anden Verdenskrig, 80 millioner mennesker mistede livet for Wall Street og London, fordi Prescott Bush og Brown Brothers Harriman bragte nazisterne til magten. Men ved denne krigs afslutning sagde Douglas MacArthur, i uddrag:

’Vi har fået vores sidste chance. Hvis vi nu ikke udtænker et større og mere ligeværdigt system end krig, vil Dommedag stå for døren. Spørgsmålet er grundlæggende set teologisk og involverer en spirituel genopblussen og forbedring af den menneskelige karakter, der vil smelte sammen med vores næsten (…) fremskridt inden for videnskab, kunst og litteratur, og alle materialistiske og kulturelle fremskridt i de seneste 2.000 år. Det må være af spirituel art, hvis vi skal redde det kødelige.’

Det er fra general Douglas MacArthur, september 1945.«

(Koret synger »Republikkens kampsang«, Mine eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the Lord)

"The Battle Hymn of the Republic" melody beginning  

Originalt trykt 1862 i The Atlantic Monthly

 

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:

His truth is marching on.

 

(Omkvæd)

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

Glory, glory, hallelujah!

His truth is marching on.

 

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,

They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;

I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:

His day is marching on.

Omkvæd

 

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:

“As ye deal with my condemners, so with you my grace shall deal;

Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,

Since God is marching on.”

Omkvæd

 

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;

He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:

Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!

His truth is marching on.

Omkvæd

 

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on.

Omkvæd

 




Helga Zepp-LaRouche i København den 27. april 2015: engelsk afskrift

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE ADDRESSES “CHINA’S ‘ONE BELT, ONE ROAD’
POLICY’ SEMINAR IN COPENHAGEN, April 27, 2015

Here is the transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s address to the
Schiller Institute seminar in Copenhagen, which was held
Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, Copenhagen Business
School. Click her for the audio and video from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s speech and the other speeches from the seminar.

TOM GILLESBERG: I have the great honor of introducing Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who has come here from a rather busy schedule both
in Germany and the United States, but also the whole world she’s
intervening to. Just as a short introduction, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche
has been since 1977 the wife and very close collaborator of
Lyndon LaRouche in the United States, the economist, philosopher,
statesman who is giving leadership in the U.S., for the U.S. to
return to the intentions of its founders, to be a promoter of
sovereign nations that can collaborate on an equal footing to
secure the benefits for all nations and peoples.
And Helga has a very, I think, close connection to China.
As a young journalist she traveled to China in 1971, in the
height of the Cultural Revolution as one of the first Western
journalists and actually saw on the spot what was going on. She
then became politically active with the LaRouche movement and
embarked on a life-long battle for a new just world economic
order, for the possibilities of development for all nations and
peoples.
She then founded, among many other things, the Schiller
Institute, in 1984. She is presently the chairwoman of the
German political party, the BüSo — the Bürgerrechtsbewegung
Solidarität, or Civil Rights Soliarity Movement. She was vry
active after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and one of the authors
of the Schiller Institute program for the development of the
world after the Iron Curtain had fallen of the program the
Paris-Berlin-Vienna Productive Triangle, a Locomotive for the
World Economy. And when that did not materialize, she was very
active in extending that program to the program for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, going from China and Asia to Europe and having a
development of the whole region. And as part of that, she then
became a visitor many times to China to speak on the need for a
New Silk Road and actually earned her nickname in China as the
“Silk Road Lady,” for her efforts to have China embark on this
policy.
And since then, she has been also the driving force in
holding many scores of conferences in Europe and the United
States on the need for creating a paradigm shift, to get the
Western world out of its long-term economic, strategic, and
cultural crisis. And, over the last couple of years, she has
been one of the architects of this report, “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” She has also been leading the
campaign to stop the present geopolitical games that threaten to
detonate thermonuclear war and instead get the United States and
Europe to accept the offer of the BRICS countries to join forces
in an inclusive world order, where all nations of the world, on
an equal footing, collaborate to secure the peace and development
of all nations.
So I think it’s very appropriate that you are here to
directly lay what’s going on, so please, welcome. [applause]

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Thank you, Tom, for these kind words of
introduction.
Well I have a certain dilemma, because I want to present to
you the potential, which lies in this program, and given the fact
that the Western media have reported very little about it, I have
a dilemma, that I need to tell you, that this is {the} most
important political initiative on the planet right now. The
dilemma comes from the fact that, by introducing this idea, have
to tell you immediately why this is the case, and that is the
reality, that the world is much more close to a new global war,
than most people have an inkling of. And this New Silk Road
initiative, which comes from China, but which in the meantime has
been joined by many countries, is the only available
war-avoidance policy.
Now there was just on the April 18- 19 in Moscow the Fourth
Moscow International Security Conference, and the main subject of
this conference was the danger of nuclear war. And this is a
reaction to the fact that NATO has been expanding eastward, up to
the borders of Russia. You have a whole bunch of strategic
doctrines which Russia regards as a threat to their security
interests, and naturally you have the horrendous situation in
Ukraine, which contrary to what the Western media have been
reporting on — or not reporting actually — is it’s really
something which the West must make up. I just participated in the
last two days, or Friday and Saturday in a conference in
Baden-Baden in Germany, the German-Russian Cultural Days. It’s an
annual conference, and there was a large gathering of German
industrialists and Russian speakers and Russian people. And we
had the fortune to have a videoconference connected to this
conference, which brought in a live program from the former Prime
Minister of Ukraine, Mr. [Mykola] Azarov. And he gave an
absolutely hair-raising report about the conditions in Ukraine,
the fact that the country is being torn apart. Political leaders
are either forced to go into exile or are threatened to be
assassinated; journalists are being killed openly in the street;
trenches are being built; and, as you know, American soldiers are
now training the National Guard, which has a lot of Nazi
components in it. And for the Russians this is extremely severe,
because we are shortly before the 70th anniversary of the end of
Nazism and the end of the Second World War, and the mood of the
people were really horrified to see this endorsement of Nazis 70
years after the Second World War.
Now, I don’t want to go into this in depth, we can do that
in the discussion if people have questions about it, but I think
this crisis, in Ukraine in particular, I could also point to the
Middle East, which is in a similar horrible condition, makes
very, very clear, that if we as humanity cannot move away from
geopolitics — geopolitics was the reason for two world wars in
the 20th century, and right now the continuation of geopolitics
is threatening a new global war. I just want to mention an
article in {New York Times} from 19th April, where two generals,
Gen. James Cartwright, who is former head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, and Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, who is the chief of
intelligence of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, they penned
together an article, In which they said that the world has never
been so close to the danger of nuclear war globally, and
therefore extinction, as right now. And the reason is obviously
that even the normal code of behavior among nations, which
existed in the Cold War, that you had a red telephone between
Kennedy and Khrushchev, this no longer exists; and you have the
two nuclear forces, from NATO and the West and Russia, all the
time on launch on warning. And launch on warning means there are
only a few minutes time, if one side perceives a launch, either
by intention or by accident, they have a few minutes, actually
it’s estimated three minutes’ time, to respond or be eliminated.
So that shows you how extremely close we are to the danger
of a global extinction of civilization. Because if this would
happen, we would not exist as humanity. And I’m saying it with
that gravity, to say that this calls all the more urgently, for a
different approach. And the different approach must be to move
away from geopolitics and move in the direction of the common
aims of mankind.
And it just happens to be, that the policies which are
proposed by President Xi Jinping, which he calls a “win-win”
policy, is exactly that. It’s the idea, that with the New Silk
Road, you have a policy where every country which participates in
it, will have a benefit for it. The New Silk Road, Maritime Silk
Road policy by China is {not} a new imperial policy replacing the
Anglo-American imperial policy, but it is a completely new model
of the nations among nations, where the enormous example of the
Chinese economic miracle, which China was able to develop in the
last 30 years — you know, where China in {30 years}, developed
as much as most industrial nations needed 100 or 200 years to
develop — and China is now offering to export that model and
have other countries benefit in a similar way from that kind of
economic miracle, which China did.
Can you move to the first slide?
So the world has changed since July last year, the summit of
the BRICS countries in Fortaleza in Brazil. And this is a
picture which was made at this occasion, showing the leaders of
Russia, India, Brazil, China and South Africa. And they basically
concluded a new strategic alliance — economic alliance, which
Prime Minister Modi characterized in the following way: He said,
“This is the first alliance of nations, which are not defined by
their current capacity, but by their future potential of
development.” And at another occasion, Modi said that the biggest
potential of India is, that 60% of its people are below 30 years
of age, and therefore, if they are well-educated and developed,
they can come to the help of other nations, which has demographic
problems, like Germany, for example.
What these countries did, is they concluded an enormous
amount of economic treaties, of economic cooperation, including
peaceful development of inherently safe nuclear energy, the
development of fusion energy, joint space projects, space travel,
and numerous other high-tech cooperation areas.
Then, the next day, they met with the leaders of South
America, the organizations of CELAC [Community of Latin American
and Caribbean States] and Unasur [Union of South American
Nations]. Then a little bit later they also had meetings with
countries of ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and
actually you have now a completely parallel system of economics,
which is really going to be the infrastructure development of the
world.
Now this here is an official picture of the New Silk Road
and the Maritime Silk Road, which shows you the old Silk Road
from Xi’an, actually it goes even farther to the west,
Lianyungang, where the end of that Silk Road is on the China Sea,
all the way through Urumqi, then Central Asia into Europe; and
then Maritime Silk Road is actually connecting even Africa and
much of the Pacific also into Europe. And this is modelled on the
famous Maritime Silk Road of the 15th century, which connected
the nations of the world already at that time.
Now, I want to very quickly say that this made us very
happy, when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in Kazakhstan
in 2013, we jumped that high — you know, in the Schiller
Institute — because we had promoted this idea. This was our
proposal when the Berlin Wall came down, in ’89, and the wall no
longer was there. So we said let’s connect Paris with Berlin and
Vienna, which is a triangular area of the size of Japan, and has
the highest concentration of industrial capacity in the world;
and let’s make corridors to Warsaw, to Kiev, to the Balkans. And
it would have been a perfect way to intervene.
Unfortunately at that time, despite the fact there was a
very good resonance, you had Bush Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, and they had completely different ideas: They wanted to
reduce Russia from a superpower to at Third World, raw
materials-exporting country, and therefore they introduced the
shock-therapy, instead, which dismantled the Russian industrial
potential between ’91-’94, to only 30% left.
But then, when in ’91, the Soviet Union collapsed, we
connected this triangle, Paris-Berlin-Vienna, and we said: OK,
now the Iron Curtain is gone, now we can have development
corridors connecting the population and industrial centers of
Europe with those of Asia, through corridors. And then we looked
at the best geographical conditions. I should say, we were
inspired very much by the railway program of Sun Yat-sen, the
founder of modern China, who had developed a whole network of
Chinese railways, and that went into this program. So, at that
time we said let’s look at the best geographical preconditions,
and we found, not so accidentally, that the old Trans-Siberian
Railroad and the old Silk Road, the ancient Silk Road, had the
best geographical conditions to build such infrastructure.
So at that point the shock therapy started to destroy
Russia’s economy, but we kept holding seminars — we had hundreds
of seminars, in Europe, in United States, and then, eventually,
in Warsaw, in Budapest, in Moscow. And in ’96 even in Beijing,
where the Chinese government had responded to our proposal to all
the governments, to hold a big conference promoting the regions
along the Silk Road. And I was there as a speaker, but then came
the Asia Crisis in ’97, and China, at that conference said, that
this will be the long-term strategy for China until 2010. But
then the Asia crisis brought chaos and then the Russian GKO
crisis [in ’98].
So in the mean time we kept working on this initial proposal
which grew. And the latest of this, is this report: It’s a
370-page study which is really the idea of connecting the world
through infrastructure corridors.
Now, here you see some of these projects, which are already
being built, by the BRICS, by some of the other countries — for
example China is now building a transcontinental railroad from
Brazil to Peru, this is letter A [on the map]. This has already
started — you know, Latin America does not have an
infrastructure network! It is still in the colonial condition,
where you have little railroads from the iron ore mountain to the
coast, but if you want to travel from Peru to Brazil, you have to
go via Miami. So this is the idea, to develop a continental
railroad system.
Then number 1 there is the canal built in Nicaragua, it will
be the second Panama Canal, which obviously is an extremely
important project, which will mean that Nicaragua has a very good
chance to become an industrial country, with improving living
standards of its population. Naturally the Greenies are going
crazy and they say there are two fishermen who have to be
resettled. But, first of all, these people will be compensated,
and secondly without infrastructure, there is {no} industrial
development; without infrastructure there is not even
agriculture, because without infrastructure you cannot transport
and process food.
So then, naturally you have the Bering Strait, this number
2. This has been recently announced by Vladimir Yakunin, who is
the head of Russian Railways. And he proposed (I don’t think I
have that slide), a fast train connection from London all the way
through the Bering Strait to New York. A couple of years ago, Mr.
LaRouche and I participated in a conference in Moscow where the
fathers of the Bering Strait Project were present. These were all
older men over 80, and they said: “Oh, in 20 years, we can go
with a maglev train from Acapulco through the Bering Strait to
Mumbai, and this will be much faster than you can go by ship
today,” and they had a very pioneering spirit.
So this is very important because this connection not only
would connect the transport lines of North America with those of
Eurasia, but it would be absolutely crucial to open up the Arctic
Region. In the Far East of Russia you have all the raw materials
which are in the periodic table of Mendeleyev, and they represent
for the next 100 years a very important raw-material potential
which will be important not only for Russia, but for Europe, for
the United States, for China, for Japan, for Korea. So this will
be the way to develop it, because these raw-material are in
permafrost conditions, and you have to build, you have to build
cities, which have a dome, because people have to live — you
cannot live in permanfrost conditions like that, you have to have
a special way of developing it.
Now, I could go into many other projects — the Seikan
tunnel between the Japanese islands does already exist, it
connects the two important islands in Japan. Then the Bohai
Tunnel will connect two Chinese cities and shorten the transport.
The brown line there, this is the actual Silk Road [Silk Road
Economic Belt], which is now being promoted by China; this larger
gray line is the [21st-Century] Maritime Silk Road; but as you
can see, it stretches all the way to Europe and into Africa.
Prime Minister Li Keqiang was several times last year in Africa,
and he proposed to connect all African capitals through a fast
train system. And I know from many Africans, leaders and leading
politicians, they are very happy about that, because Africa right
now urgently needs development. And I think, if you look at the
horrendous refugee crisis, the people drowning by the thousands
in the Mediterranean, it makes it {so} clear that to bring
development to Africa is the only way how you can overcome this
unbelievable tragedy. And if Europe would have a right mind, they
would join! You know, rather than sending the Triton boats to
chase the refugees back, which is a complete moral bankruptcy of
Europe.
Now this is very interesting, because the big question
always comes, “who should finance all of this?” As you know,
already at the Brazil Fortaleza summit, the BRICS countries
agreed, together with some of the other countries, to create new
financial institutions: the New Development Bank of the BRICS,
the AIIB [Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank] was already
founded in last October, but also a whole set of other banks.
And it came from the idea, that when the Asia crisis happened in
’97, in which speculators like George Soros speculated against
the currencies of countries like Korea, Philippines, Thailand, in
one week up to 60-80% downward, and these countries had no
defense; so they concluded, “OK, we have to protect ourselves,”
so they created the Contingency Reserve Arrangement [CRA], which
is a pool of currencies of a $100 billion, which will defend all
of the participating countries against speculative attacks.
Now, the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road
Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the bank of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization [SCO Development Bank], and the SAARC
[South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] Development
Fund, are all new banks which follow a completely different
principle than Wall Street and the City of London, or Frankfurt,
for that matter. They say, we do not participate in speculation,
but we will use these funds only for investment in the real
economy, into these projects. And this is urgently needed,
because as you know, despite all of the quantitative easing of
the Federal Reserve, and now [ECB President] Mr. Draghi, who are
printing money as if there would be no tomorrow, the money does
not arrive at the industries! Because the banks, the speculators
prefer to keep the casino going, and this is actually reaching a
point where at the IMF annual spring meeting which just took
place in Washington, the IMF itself put out a report saying that
we are facing a collapse {bigger} than 2008 with the collapse of
Lehman Brothers. And several economists from J.P. Morgan and
other banks warned that you could have a simultaneous stock and
bond crisis, causing a meltdown of the system; or, if the Federal
Reserve would increase the interest rate only by a tiny, tiny
amount it could blow up the whole derivatives bubble of $2
trillion. And if the Troika and the ECB are pushing Greece out
of the Eurozone, that could also trigger a collapse, because it
would not so much hurt Greece, but it would blow up the European
banks.
So therefore, the existence of these banks are de facto a
lifeboat in the face of the immediate danger of a collapse.
Now, as you probably have noticed, when the question came,
who would be a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, which was already constituted last October, but
the date until which countries could join as founding members was
end of March [2015]. And the United States put a lot of pressure
on the allies, not to join; they didn’t want Korea to join;
naturally, they didn’t want Europe to join, and they put maximum
pressure on Asian countries not to join. But then, it just so
happened, that the best ally of the United States, Great Britain,
was the first European country to join, and that caused a kind of
a dam break, and then Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland,
Austria, and all the Scandinavian countries joined. And the
actual founding members included 57 countries. And they
basically participate in different degrees in this new bank,
which obviously people realize that what China is offering with
the economic cooperation in these projects, is much, much more
attractive than to participate in more speculative bubbles which
eventually will pop. So, this was from the founding meeting in
October, already, but in the meantime, it become many more
states.
Now, this is also very interesting, because this is a
proposal which my husband made in 1975. It was called the
International Development Bank, and it was basically the same
idea as the AIIB, today, saying that the IMF and the World Bank
do not provide enough credit for Third World development. This
was a proposal he made in ’75, and it went into the final
resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976 in Colombo, Sri
Lanka, and it had the same idea as the AIIB.
The World Bank only spends per year $24 billion for
projects. But the actual requirement of the developing
countries, is about $8 trillion in the next years! So there is
no way the World Bank can manage that, and this bank, on the
other side, the AIIB, and the other banks will grow and will
become more productive.
Now, this is very important because what the AIIB and the
New Development Bank and this new economic system which is
emerging represent, is something completely different than
monetarism. Monetarism is the idea that you have to have maximum
profit, the real economy doesn’t count; as a matter of fact, you
all know, that if you have an industrial firm which lays of
10,000, the stock goes up! It doesn’t make any sense. In the
realm of monetarism, this is explained by the idea that the firm
becomes “more productive” because fewer workers work more, and
therefore the profit is greater; but from the standpoint of the
real economy this makes no sense at all.
And it is exactly that philosophy which has caused the
Troika to destroy Greece. What they managed to do is to reduce
the Greek economy by one-third, to increase the youth
unemployment to 65%, and people are extremely unhappy, not only
in Greece, but also in Italy, in Spain, Portugal and so forth.
What we propose, both the IDB and these new banks, is really
going back to a completely different model. It’s based on the
idea of this man, whom you all recognize, I’m sure — he is
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States. And he created, actually, the United States, by
creating the National Bank and the credit system, because, what
he did, was after the War of Independence, the different states
in the United States were totally indebted. So he unified the
United States by taking over the debt obligations of these
states, and basically saying, it’s no longer your business, we’ll
take these debts as a Federal state, as a national state, and we
will transform that into a credit mechanism, only aimed at areal
production.
And that was really the actual founding of the United
States. And this idea of a credit system which is not
monetarism, but it is the idea that credit can only be given for
future production in the real economy, not for speculation, that
model was what made the United States a great industrial power.
Because, despite the fact that some following Presidents then
tried to dismantle it, the United States went back to it, again
and again. It was the policies of John Quincy Adams; it was the
policy of Abraham Lincoln with the greenbacks; it was the policy
of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is how Roosevelt brought the
United States out of the Depression of the ’30s by building the
Reconstruction Finance Corp. which financed the New Deal, and
that’s how America got out of the Depression. And, also, it was
the basis for the German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the
state bank, which help to finance the reconstruction and the
economic miracle of Germany in the postwar period — which was
modeled on the Reconstruction Finance Corp.
So this is therefore, not something new. It’s a tested
model, it has always been the basis when there was progress in
the real economy, as compared to the financial markets. I’m not
talking about the financial markets, I’m talking about real
production for the livelihood and the common good of the people.
So the first step there, we have called for — Tom
mentioned it — that we think it is an absolute matter, actually
of war and peace, if we succeed to get the European nations {and}
America to join with this “win-win,” all-inclusive,
non-geopolitical system. And, as I said, the financial system of
Wall Street and the City of London {is} about to blow up, bigger
than 2008, and the only way how that can be avoided from leading
to a chaotic collapse, is by going back to the Glass-Steagall
legislation which was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in
1933, which was his answer to the collapse of ’29-’33 period.
And he separated the banks, by making the commercial banks
separate from the investment banks, so that the investment bank
could not have access to assets of the commercial banks.
And this exist from 1933 until 1999 in the United States,
and in Europe you had practically the same thing, because you had
a very regulated banking sector. But the Wall Street forces did
not like it, because naturally it reduced their profit, so they
worked very hard to eliminate it, which they were able to do in
1999, and the whole super-expansion of the speculative area only
occurred after this law was eliminated. And the good news, is
that there is a right now a Presidential candidate in the United
States, who has said that his first act if he would move into the
White House, would be to reintroduce this Glass-Steagall law: And
that is the former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, about whom many
papers are writing that he has a very good chance to take the
Democratic nomination, because many people think Hillary Clinton
has made too many compromises with bad policies, when she was
Secretary of State. But, O’Malley is not alone, but you have a
whole bunch of people around him, who say the United States must
go back to being a Republic; it must go back to putting the
common good above the interests of Wall Street. And that is
really the “to be or not to be” question of the whole world.
Now, if this reorganization would take place, then, the
United States could easily join with the BRICS countries in such
efforts as the AIIB and other such things. And, as you know, the
Greek government has also demanded that there is no way how they
can pay their debt, because as you know, of all the rescue
packages which went to Greece, only 3% of that money remained in
Greece, while all the rest really went to the European banks.
And therefore, to demand that Greece should pay back these debts,
it’s just impossible! And the Greek government has made the
point that they want to have a European Debt Conference, like
Germany in 1953, without which the German economic miracle would
never have taken place. So if this all happens, and that could
happen in the short term, Europe could easily participate in
that.
Now, I just want to say, the ancient Silk Road was not only
an exchange of silk, and porcelain, and paper, printing,
gunpowder, and many, many other goods, but much more important
than that, it was an exchange of ideas and technologies: Silk
making is more important than silk; how to print books is more
important than the book. So the ancient Silk Road was an
extremely important exchange of goods and culture, and ideas, and
understanding among people — and so will be the New Silk Road,
just with modern means.
Now, if you go back to the picture, this is why we have
said, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” where we
have the camels, sort of symbolizing the old Silk Road, and here
you see a maglev train, and here you see a rover on the Moon, to
give you an idea that the exchange of technologies and goods in
the modern world will be the most advanced technologies to the
benefit of all of mankind.
So going back to the problem here, is, obviously, if you
look at that map, you see, these are the deserts of the world: A
very broad desert band which goes from the Atlantic coast of
Africa, through the Sahara-Sahel zone, the Arab Peninsula, the
Middle East, all the way to China. And that desert is growing.
It’s expanding. And then you have the desert in the West of the
United States, which is right now ruined by a big drought in
California, in Texas, in all the states west of the Mississippi;
and naturally, Brazil has a drought.
In the United States this is very severe. Here you have a
global water scarcity map; here you have the water stress
indicator. In the United States, just to mention that, Governor
Brown of California has just announced that the water consumption
will be cut by 25% up to 36%! Now that is the death to
Californian agriculture; in the south of California, for example,
in the Central Valley, in this region, 40% of the entire
agriculture of the United States is produced, and this is now
being completely destroyed. Here you see, this is a former
reservoir, which is almost dried up. This is the snowpack: in
2013, it was relatively, a lot of snow, and last year, no snow,
so the drought is expanding, and obviously, to cut consumption
means you kill people. I mean, you cannot cut water — where
should these people go? There are already cities and towns where
people are — it’s not just not watering their lawn — it’s
taking public showers, of getting water rations, and then
eventually people have to move away, because if there is no water
there is no life. There were already herds being transformed, of
hundreds of thousands of head of cattle, and the idea to just
accept that, and as Governor Brown said, “California historically
has only a carrying potential of 400,000 people,” is ridiculous,
because there are presently 39 million people living in
California! And the idea to say there’s only room for 400,000 is
completely ahistorical about what is the role of human beings,
who differentiate themselves from animals by being able to
increase the living capability for more people by improving
productivity, by transforming the industry, the infrastructure,
and in that way, developing the planet.
So obviously, China has taken a completely different
approach. Here you see, China is actually the only country which
has taken a very big water diversification: There is on the one
side, the Three Gorges Dam, which is now producing, I think 22
gigawatts of electricity per year, and it has eliminated flooding
which killed many thousands of people in the past; and even more
important, is the water diversification project from the southern
area of the Yangtze River through a Northern Route into the
Yellow River and the desert area of China; and the Middle Route
to the region around Beijing.
So this is actually a model which is now being followed by
Narendra Modi for India, who just agreed to make gigantic water
projects to tame the water coming down from the Himalayas, and
also making canals out of 101 Indian rivers.
Now, what most people don’t consider is, that water is not a
natural resource like iron ore, or gold, or whatever: You can’t
use up, because water is organized in global cycles, where 90% of
the precipitation rains down over the ocean, only 10% rains down
over the land. And that water, the Sun causes evaporation, this
leads to cloud formation, and then the water rains down, and it
is human activity, which can make these cycles more efficient.
It’s not just, that it rains down over land and then flows back
into the ocean. You can use it in agriculture, you can use it in
industrial production, you can use it in other urban activities,
and it is actually the ability of man to make that more
efficient.
Here you see a very interesting comparison — you see here
the water diversion of the United States. Even though the water
diversion of China has started much more recently, it’s almost
double, which shows you the completely different philosophy.
This is a very important project, which is part of the
approach to fight the desert, and this is the Lake Chad Transaqua
project, which is the idea, that you could eliminate a lot of the
drought in the Sahel zone and around Lake Chad by bringing some
of the surplus water from the headwaters region of the Congo on
the one side, through rivers and canals into Lake Chad, which has
been reduced to less than 10% right now; and also through a
second canal along the Nile to increase the agricultural land in
Africa tremendously. And also now to bring real development to
these countries, without which you will have more people running
away from Boko Haram, which is now at Lake Chad and Nigeria. And
without a real development perspective, there is no way how you
can contain these projects.
Human beings are the only species, which can improve the
conditions of mankind again and again and again, and the last
10,000 years, or 20,000 years since the last Ice Age, just think,
what an enormous development mankind has made. We have increased
the population potential of the Earth from about 5 million at
most, to presently around 7 billion. This is due to the fact that
man, unlike animals, can make new discoveries, discovers the
universal principles of our physical universe, and think things,
which have never been thought before.
Therefore, the attack on the water crisis is not just a
question of using the aquifers, because the aquifers can — they
replenish, but this goes much too slowly. It’s not only
re-diverting the rivers, dams, but it’s especially influencing
the global cyclical process of water. There is a relationship
between what happens in our Solar System and the rain. Because
the Sun, which shines on the oceans, causes evaporation, but the
Sun is not the only solar impact on the weather; it’s also the
cosmic radiation, which comes from our galaxy, which leads to
cloud formation, ionization of moisture, and therefore to rain.
That is not just something where we have to wait passively until
it happens, but we can study, for example, what is happening in
our galaxy, which influences the weather, and then understand
better, how we can create more water.
Here, you see our Solar System in a 32 million year cycle,
moving along the Milky Way. The Milky Way is basically a flat
plateau, in which our Solar System is moving up and down in
cycles, and you have a complete change in the weather patterns,
which comes from the position of our Solar System in our galaxy.
I’m not saying, that we know everything about that yet. We
know, that there is a lot of connection between the Solar System,
the galaxy and the weather patterns on our Earth, and I can
assure you, that if you look at the long-term changes in our
weather patterns, then {these} things are a lot more important,
than whatever you use in your little car as CO2 production.
Because these are forces, which are of a completely different
magnitude, and naturally, the climate is changing, but galactic
processes are really what is the cause of it.
Anyway, the idea of using cosmic rays and ionization of
moisture is already successfully being done by Israel and by some
of the Gulf States; Russia is doing a lot of research on this,
and this is, what we have to do. The reason, why I’m saying this,
is, the Silk Road is not just building railways from Dunhuang to
Lisbon or wherever; it’s not just building roads, it’s not just
building canals. The modern Silk Road, the New Silk Road is,
exactly as the old Silk Road was, {an exchange of ideas, of
technology, for the common good of all.}
Obviously, today the big challenges are world poverty, are
the danger of war, are the danger of water scarcity, which could
become the reason for new wars. So the New Silk Road — and this
is what we understand with it, and I’m sure that our Chinese
friend will show his perspective — but that is the philosophy,
which we have taken as a basis in our approach, that the New Silk
Road is {a vision}, of how humanity can move away from
geopolitics and the stupid idea that we have to fight over scarce
resources, that we have to create wars because we don’t like
another system, that we have to eventually self-destruct, but
that we have to make the evolutionary jump to the idea of the
common aims of mankind and to define the next phase of evolution
in the interest of all.
If you look at this, the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
Rogozin of Russia just two days ago, pointed to the fact, that
the BRICS countries are all space travelling nations. China is
the leader in space travel. When China in December 2013 landed
the Yutu rover on the Moon, with was the idea, that in a few
missions later, I think it was in 2017, this Yutu — “Jade
Rabbit” — that they will bring back helium-3. Helium-3 is an
isotope, which is actually a fuel for fusion power. It’s much
more efficient than deuterium or tritium, because with this heavy
deuterium and tritium in the fusion process, you are still using
turbines, and you use turbines to create electricity in the old
way. But with helium-3 you can directly gain electricity from the
physical process of fusion power, and therefore, naturally, the
energy efficiency is much, much higher. And once we have fusion
power, for example, this will create for the first time energy
and raw materials security for the Earth. Energy security,
because on the Moon, you have several tons of helium-3, which
will be sufficient for many tens of thousands of years of energy
security on the Earth; and raw materials security, because with
the high heat of the plasma torch, you can take any waste,
including nuclear waste, including waste in your household, and
turn it back into isotopes, which you then can reconstruct and
make new raw materials.
So this is the vanguard of where mankind must go, and China
has made that its national pride. And China, contrary to Germany,
which is very stupid with respect to energy — you know, this
stupid exit from nuclear energy without having an alternative, is
completely crazy — but China has basically created a situation,
where they are in the right position to solve this problem, and
Rogozin, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, has said, that the
BRICS countries will cooperate in space to solve these problems.
So this is extremely important, because if mankind makes
that jump to not have war as a conflict resolution, which in a
time of nuclear energy, it should be obvious that we must move to
a different regime, that we must define the common aims of
mankind, that which is, — if you have seen these pictures with
astronauts and cosmonauts and taikonauts, they all report the
same: When they are in space and look at our little planet, this
blue planet, they realize that there are no borders. They also
realize that our planet is extremely small in a very big Solar
System, in an even bigger galaxy, and there are {billions} of
galaxies. So, there are dangers from space, like cosmic
radiation, like asteroids; there are all kinds of dangers, which
we don’t manage right now. But if we don’t want to have the same
fate as the dinosaurs, who became eliminated 65 million years
ago, because probably a meteorite hit the Earth and created so
much cloud cover, that all the vegetation stopped, and then the
dinosaurs, and 96% of all other species were eliminated; if we
as a creative species, {are} really the creative species, we
should put our efforts together and defend against common dangers
to our planet, common dangers to our civilization, and unite.
And there is no better image for that than space collaboration.
This whole question also has a philosophical dimension.
Because people think, China is just doing an imperial expansion,
they want to have their interests. Well, I have the deepest
conviction that what is working in China right now, especially
with President Xi Jinping, {is} the 2,500-year-old Confucian
tradition in China. And I go even so far to say the Chinese
people have Confucius in their genes. Confucius was a
philosopher, who reacted to a historical period in China, which
was characterized by war, by great unrest, by turmoil. And he
developed the Confucian philosophy, which is beautiful. I can
only advise you, in case you are not doing it, study Confucius.
Because Confucius has this idea that there must be harmony in the
world, on the planet. And that, for example, the best way to
have harmony is, there is one key notion, which is {li}, which is
the idea, that each person, each nation, should take its proper
place, and develop in the best possible way, and then you have
harmony. Because if everybody develops their creative potential
and their best maximum capacity, and takes the development of the
other as their own interest, and vice versa, then you have peace.
And that should also be based on the other notion of {ren}.
{Ren} basically means the same thing as love, or {agapë}, or the
Christian idea of charity.
And it happens to be that these ideas are also in the
European best tradition. There is a very important philosopher of
the 15th century, called Nicolaus of Cusa, who was the founder of
modern science, the founder of the modern nation-state, and he
was very important: He broke through the barrier from the Middle
Ages to modern times. Because he was actually the person, who
brought the Council of Florence into being by first finding
handwritings in Byzantium, which were then the basis for the
unification of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Church; but
when he brought the Orthodox delegation in 1453 to the Council of
Florence, he had a stroke of genius: He said, now, I am thinking
something, which no human being has ever thought before. He then
wrote his {De Docta Ignorantia}, and he developed this notion of
the coincidence of opposites, the {coincidentia oppositorum},
which was the idea, that the One has a higher quality than the
Many, and that the human mind is capable of synthesizing some
hypothesis, which gives you a deeper insight into the laws of the
universe, into Classical art — in other words, it’s the
creativity of the human mind, which is the driving force in the
development of the universe. And that’s for example, what the
Russian philosopher Vladimir Vernadsky called, that the
creativity of man is a geophysical force in the universe. Now,
what he did basically, is to say — he didn’t say it in this way,
but the effect of it was — that in order to move away from the
Middle Ages, from the Scholasticism, from the Neo-Peripatetics
and the Aristotelean ideas, you had to basically break with the
axioms of the Middle Ages thinking, and that you had to create
something basically completely new, a new method of thinking.
And I’m saying, that with the New Silk Road, we have to do
exactly that: We have to break away from money, greed,
monetarism, all of these things, which really are a decaying
culture. If you look at the European, American, Western culture,
it {is} a decaying culture. Just look at the youth culture. Look
at what our young people watch in terms of pop music, video
games, the violence, just the popular entertainment has become
really degenerate. And we have to break with that, and we have to
combine the New Silk Road economic model — which I did not go
into so much today, because I already spoke about it two months
ago here in Copenhagen — but we have to break with the whole
axiomatic of globalization and basically go for a New
Renaissance, a new cultural renaissance of thinking, which will
build on the best traditions of each country: on Confucianism,
on Vedic tradition of India, on Avicenna [Ibn Sina], and other
thinkers, Al-Farabi, Abu Al-Kindi in the Arab world; in Europe,
the great Classical music tradition, the Italian Renaissance, the
German Classical music. We just have to take the high points of
all civilizations, and study that, and start to love the culture
of the other countries, and then we will create out of this a
completely New Renaissance, which will bring mankind into a
completely new phase of evolution.
Because I do not believe, that the present condition of
mankind is, what we are here for! We are not here to kill each
other; we are not here to eat caviar, until we have it coming out
of our ears. We are here to be creative! We are here to discover
the laws of the universe, to write beautiful poems, to write
beautiful music, to celebrate the creativity of civilization. And
I think, that the idea of man in space, man going into the next
phase of the evolution of man, is really what will get us out of
this crisis. So that is, what the New Silk Road is all about.
[ovation]




Leder fra LaRouche-bevægelsen 4. maj 2015:
Det er »Win-Win« for at stoppe »Kill-Kill«

Mens verden har kurs mod nogle uger, der er afgørende for Det britiske Imperiums desperate forsøg på at fremprovokere et opgør gennem økonomisk fascisme og atomkrig, udstedte Hung Tran, direktøren for Instituttet for International Finans – IIF, også kendt som Ditchley-gruppen eller »bankierernes kartel« – en skarp advarsel om, at, hvis Grækenland skubbes ud af eurozonen ved at insistere på, at landets regering gennemtvinger umulige nedskæringsbetingelser, så »kunne der opstå tvivl om hele sammenhængen i den vestlige alliance«, og det kunne bringe hele det transatlantiske finanssystem til fald med kort varsel.

Dette er fuldstændigt sandt, lød Lyndon LaRouches kommentar i dag. Hele systemet kan falde, hvad øjeblik, det skal være, og Grækenland kunne bliver aftrækkeren. Men, forklarede LaRouche, man behøver ikke få denne krise; den vil kun fremkomme, såfremt Europa fortsat forsøger at forpligte sig til et svindelnummer, som består i de falske, finansielle værdier i forbindelse med den græske og tilsvarende gæld. Dette svindelnummer består af alt, hvad Wall Street foretager sig.

Alt dette kan forandres gennem en tilbagevenden til Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-politik. Glass/Steagall er toneangivende for alt det, der må gøres, og vi må presse på med det i USA og lægge alle vore kræfter bag et sådant fremstød, sagde LaRouche. Det er blevet gjort til det centrale spørgsmål i præsidentkampagnen af Martin O’Malley, hvis mission foreløbig er fin og kvalificerer ham til præsidentskabet. En sådan genindførelse af Glass/Steagall ville være meget smertefuld for Wall Street, men det er præcist, hvad landet og verden har brug for. O’Malley som potentiel præsidentkandidat med en kampagne for denne politik frembyder en global løsning.

Men vi kan ikke bare vente og se, om det sker, fortsatte LaRouche. Vi må gribe forebyggende ind, både mht. Glass/Steagall og den hermed tilknyttede politik for at løse den såkaldte »ferskvandskrise« gennem at rejse spørgsmålet om det galaktiske princip, som er blevet udarbejdet og fremlagt af LaRouches videnskabspolitiske team. Det er dette galaktiske, universelle, fysiske princip, der er årsag til vandcyklussen på Jorden, understregede LaRouche i dag, og ikke omvendt. Det, man skal tænke, er ikke på Jorden her og nu, men ud mod galaksen (mindst) og tænke frem 32 millioner år ud i fremtiden (mindst) for at danne sig et begreb om de universelle, skabende processer, der styrer de lokale, planetariske udviklinger i dag.

Som LaRouche erklærede det under drøftelser med sine medarbejdere her til eftermiddag:

»Der er ingen knaphed på vand. På planeten Jord er der ingen knaphed på vand! For knapheden på vand udgør en forbindelse mellem de overordnede kræfter, galaksen, og de lokale kræfter, som er planeten Jord. Planeten Jord er en mindre, underordnet enhed i det galaktiske system … Og det eneste, vi behøver at gøre, er at tænke over den teknologi, som vi må anvende for at udnytte de fordele, som det galaktiske system frembyder. Det betyder mange ting, og mange formodninger hos en masse mennesker, i USA og andre steder, må ændres.«

»Problemet er, at vi må få folk i USA i særdeleshed til at forlade den politik, som er den aktuelle politik under Obamaregeringen. Med andre ord, så må Obama fjernes fra [regeringsmagten i] USA. Det er den nødvendige handling … Vi må ganske enkelt ændre USA’s politik og USA’s relation til andre nationer i det transatlantiske område. Vi må ændre vores politik i overensstemmelse med denne forudsætning. Og det kan lade sig gøre. Spørgsmålet er, vil det blive gjort? Og hvad der er vigtigere: Vil vi, som nation, få lov til, få tilladelse til at tage de skridt, der kan tages for at løse dette problem?«

Denne krise, og den foreliggende løsning, er grunden til, at briterne og Obama ønsker at dræbe, dræbe og dræbe, sagde LaRouche. Folk indser ikke, at Obama blot er en farlig idiot. De er forvirrede, fordi han udviser de kendetegn på magt, som er forbundet med det amerikanske præsidentskab. Men han er ikke en intellektuel person, uanset, hvor meget man strækker sin forestillingsevne; han er en tåbe, om end en farlig én af slagsen.

Briternes/Obamas ’kill-kill’-politik er deres svar på Kinas ’win-win’-strategi. Den udstilles gennem de fortsatte mord på migranter i Middelhavet, som er en direkte konsekvens af Obamas krig og statskup i Libyen i 2011, der igen var en direkte efterfølger for den britisk/amerikanske promovering af den tjetjenske opstand mod Rusland, der så levende blev fordømt af LaRouche i hans videoberetning, »Storm over Asia«, fra 1999.

Dette tjetjenske spørgsmål er stadig afgørende i dag som omdrejningspunkt for fremvæksten af den britisk-sponsorerede jihadist-terror, som stedfortræderkrig imod Rusland, og imod et civiliseret menneskebegreb generelt.

Denne ’kill-kill’-politik ses også i den seneste nedslagtning af yazidier (kurdisk stammefolk, hovedsageligt i Irak, -red.), udført af ISIS-udyrene, som Obama har bragt til magten tværs over hele Nordafrika og Sydvestasien. Og politikken er skarpt udstillet i det ukrainske brændpunkt for krig mod Rusland og Kina, hvor det samme slæng, som frembragte Anden Verdenskrigs nazister – dvs. Det britiske Imperium og Prescott Bush og hans lige – er fanatisk besluttet på at sikre, at ingen i dag vil fejre 70-året for sejren over deres nazister, med mindre disse samme nazister stoppes igen i dag.

»Er der noget at fejre?«, kan man næsten høre Dronningen (den britiske, -red.) mumle, med en vis irritation.

 

Foto: Franklin D. Roosevelt, USA’s præsident 1933-45.

(FDR underskrev den 16. juni 1933 Glass/Steagall-loven, der var i kraft frem til 1999, og som indførte en skarp adskillelse mellem kommercielle banker med normal indlåns- og udlånsaktivitet, og så investeringsbanker, der promoverer hasarderet spekulation, der ikke investerer i et lands fysiske realøkonomi, herunder infrastruktur, og som, uden Glass/Steagall-loven, har adgang til almindelige indskydermidler til at spekulere med. (-red.))




Video: Vand for Livet
Animeret infografik
Dansk udskrift

Hvor meget vand er der i den globale vandcyklus?

Af alt det vand, der findes på jorden, er kun 2,5 % ferskvand.

Af dette ferskvand findes 68 % indesluttet i indlandsisen og gletsjerne.

30 % findes som grundvand, og kun 1,2 % er overfladevand.

Hvordan foregår strømmen af dette vand?

Groft regnet fordampes 413.000 km³ af Solen hvert år, hvoraf 373.000 km³ falder direkte tilbage i havet, og kun 40.000 km³ når landjorden, hvor det falder som nedbør. Andre 11.000 km³ fordamper over land og falder igen over land som nedbør; men planteliv gør mere end dette, idet det sender 62.000 km³ tilbage til atmosfæren, hvorfra det atter falder som nedbør over landjorden.

Med andre ord, så når 90 % af vandet, der fordamper over havene, aldrig frem til landjorden; men når det først befinder sig over landjorden, vil vandet fordampe eller transpirere og atter vende tilbage til landjorden som yderligere nedbør. Hvis man alligevel ser på den totale mængde ferskvand, som Solen producerer, så strømmer der 10 gange så meget vand fra havene op i atmosfæren gennem fordampning, end fra alle Jordens floder tilsammen. Dette svarer til 75 Mississippi-floder, der strømmer fra havene op i himlen, uafbrudt hele året. Men kun 8 af disse floder deponerer deres vand over landjorden.

Hvordan kan vi forbedre disse vandcyklusser?

Lad os undersøge tre metoder:

Afsaltning

Vejrmodifikation

Transport af overfladevand

 

Først: Afsaltning.

Vidste du, at havene udgør kilden til alt dit ferskvand? Omkring 60 mio. gigawatt energi fra Solen når havoverfladen, hvor det afsalter 413.000 km³ ferskvand om året. Dette svarer til en gennemsnitlig effektivitet på 1.300 kWh energi pr. 1 m³ ferskvand, der produceres. Mennesket anvender imidlertid kun 3 kWh til at producere 1 m³ ferskvand, ved at anvende omvendt osmotisk afsaltning, hvilket gør mennesket 430 gange så effektivt som Solen, når det drejer sig om produktion af ferskvand.

Den energi, der kræves for at afsalte vand til de store californiske kystbyer, ville kun udgøre 50 watt pr. person i hele delstaten og ville levere to tredjedele af borgernes aktuelle forbrug og 10 % af hele delstatens samlede forbrug, inklusive landbrug og andre anvendelsesområder.

Hvordan kan afsaltning forøge den globale vandcyklus? (Se grafik).

 

Den anden fremgangsmåde til forbedring af vandcyklussen: Vejrmodificering   

Husk, at 413.000 km³ vand strømmer op i atmosfæren fra havene årligt, svarende til 10 gange de 40.000 km³, der flyder gennem alle verdens floder. Dette udgør en enorm ressource, der venter på at blive udnyttet. Atmosfæriske ioniseringssystemer er i årtier blevet anvendt med held til at stimulere kondensering af atmosfæriske vanddampe, inklusive nedbør.

En version af atmosfærisk ioniseringsteknologi blev udviklet i Rusland i midten af 1980’erne og bragt til Mexico, hvor kommercielle foretagender fra slutningen af 1990’erne til 2008 resulterede i en forøget nedbørsmængde i hele stater på mellem 5 % og 50 %, genopfyldning af reservoirer og reduktion i antal skovbrande.

I Israel fyldte operationer mellem 2011-2013 således 7 reservoirer til deres fulde kapacitet for første gang i de fyrre år, reservoirerne havde været i brug.

En anden version af atmosfærisk ioniseringsteknologi blev udviklet i Schweiz og blev taget i anvendelse i De forenede arabiske Emirater.

Prøveforsøg med disse systemer i Australien mellem 2007 og 2010 forøgede vedvarende nedbørsmængden med mellem 10 % og 20 %, og et femårigt prøveprogram i Oman, der startede op i 2013, har forøget nedbørsmængden med 18 % i løbet af forsøgets første to år.

Lad os se på, hvordan ionisering kan forøge den globale vandcyklus.(Se grafik).

 

En tredje måde at forbedre vandcyklussen på: Styring af overfladevand, eksemplificeret af Det Nordamerikanske Vand- og Elektricitetssamarbejde (NAWAPA).

I den vestlige del af Nordamerika er distribueringen af vand vildt ujævnt fordelt, hvilket skaber en stor diskrepans i det vestlige område. Dette ses ved at sammenligne den årlige afstrømning af de nordvestlige floder med den årlige afstrømning af de sydvestlige floder. Det udgør 1.509 km³ for de nordlige floder mod 113 km³ for de sydlige floder. Det samme kontinent, og den samme kyst. Hvordan kan vi adressere denne store diskrepans i vesten?

NAWAPA XXI-projektet ville være det største vandprojekt i verdenshistorien, som ville omdirigere vand fra den nordvestlige del, hvor det findes i overflod, til den sydvestlige del, hvor der er en desperat mangel. En opdateret version af programmet kunne transportere groft regnet 10 % af afstrømningen i den nordvestlige del, 150 km³ om året, ned gennem den sydvestlige del, før dette vand atter vendte tilbage til havet. Tilføjelsen af denne vandmængde kunne fordoble det sydvestlige områdes fotosyntetiske produktivitet og forøge produktiviteten af hele cyklussen, uden at forandre dens nettovolumen.

 

Samlet set går afsaltning, vejrmodifikation og transport af overfladevand sammen om at muliggøre en forbedret og udvidet vandcyklus. Ved at integrere disse metoder kan menneskeheden forøge produktiviteten af eksisterende cyklusser, udvide eksisterende cyklusser, samt skabe helt nye vandcyklusser.

Intet af alt dette opbruger begrænsede vandforsyninger, men udgør i stedet en bedre styring af det cykliske system. Lad ikke nogen fortælle dig noget andet:

Vandet findes; lad os udvikle det!

Produceret af LaRouchePAC: Vand til Fremtiden.

 

 




Leder 30. april 2015:
Verden har valget mellem to systemer

I en helt ekstraordinær uge, hvor Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte ved tre, betydningsfulde »Ny Silkevejs«-konferencer i Europa, indledte hun sin tale til Cultural-Business Dialogue i Baden-Baden den 25. april på følgende måde: »Rent strategisk må vi tage to fuldstændigt forskellige systemer i betragtning.«

»Det ene system er baseret på geopolitisk ekspansion og på maksimering af profit for de få. Skulle dette system blive det fremherskende, kunne det føre til den menneskelige arts udslettelse.

Lykkeligvis, … er et fuldstændigt parallelt, økonomisk og finansielt system vokset frem siden sidste juli, et system, der bestemt ikke er uproblematisk, men som har en radikalt anderledes orientering; og som rent faktisk er baseret på fremtiden og på menneskelig kreativitet.«

Dette er BRIKS’ og deres allierede landes system. Det oligarkiske system domineres af City of Londons finansielle imperialister og truer med global affolkning og atomkrig. Se på situationen i Yemen – det seneste udbrud af krig med folkemord til følge, som er støttet af præsident Obama, i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika – hvor Røde Kors rapporterer, at 12 millioner af de i alt 20 millioner yemenitter, der nu udsættes for bombardementer og total blokade af Saudi Arabien, Qatar og Den amerikanske Flåde, mangler »sikkerhed for fødevarer«, eller mangler mad i det hele taget. De fleste mangler nu også vand, som ikke engang kan pumpes op, da der hverken er brændstof eller elektricitet. Dette sker samtidig med, at mange tusinde mennesker drukner i Middelhavet, mens de forsøger at flygte til Europa fra terroroperationer, der er sat i gang af Obamas og Camerons krige i Libyen, Syrien og Irak.

Se dernæst på den storstilede, næsten omgående og fuldt ud samarbejdende respons fra Kinas og Indiens side – BRIKS – til jordskælvskatastrofen i Nepal, en respons, der omfatter den kombinerede udsendelse af hærenheder fra begge BRIKS-magter for genopbygning, og Indiens ekstraordinære løfte om 10 mia. dollar til genopbygning af infrastruktur i et lille land.

Sammenlign Obamas Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – der i den grad er et svindelnummer fra Wall Street, at det er blevet en grundsten for den næste præsidentkandidat fra hans eget parti – med de seneste ti års serier af faktiske handelsaftaler mellem Kina, ASEAN-landene og Sydkorea. Det har resulteret i ekstraordinær vækst i den interne, asiatiske handel med varer i løbet af dette tiår.

Eller betragt engang den bolivianske præsidents ekstraordinære forpligtelse over for sin nation til at »frembringe idéer, eksportere idéer og skabe et videns- og videnskabssamfund«. Bolivia har omgående orienteret sig mod BRIKS-alliancen og har været blandt de lande på kontinentet, der har oplevet den hurtigste, økonomiske vækst.

Vi bekæmper to af det London-centrerede, oligarkiske systems fascistiske marionetter i USA, præsident Barack Obama og Californiens guvernør Jerry Brown. »Brunskjorte« (»Brownshirt«) konfronteres med modstand fra kommuner og selskaber i hele Californien mod hans påbudte nedskæring af vandforbruget på 25 %; nu har han anmodet om, at lovgivningsmyndigheden udsteder bøder til indbyggere eller erhvervsforetagender på 10.000 dollar pr. dag for ikke at opgive deres forbrug af ferskvand – når der er et helt ocean fuld af vand ud for statens kyster. Når LaRouche-bevægelsens politiske aktivister meget ligefremt mobiliserer indbyggerne til at »sætte denne nazist [Brown] i spjældet«, har disse aktivister fået en dynamisk respons fra Californiens borgere.

Obama er gået i en fælde med sit planlagte »TPP«-angreb på Kina og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), som har udviklet sig til et angreb på hans eget parti på vegne af Wal Street. Der er en intern revolte imod ham og planetens ressourcer generelt, for at besejre ham. Tiden er inde til at tvinge denne Londons marionet bort fra embedet.




Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale 16. april 2015 i New York:
USA og Europe skal samarbejde med BRIKS for at bygge verdenslandbroen.
Engelsk udskrift

The following is a transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks to an EIR diplomatic and business meeting in New York, Thursday, April 16th. A transcript of Deniston’s presentation will be available soon.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello. There is something very, very fantastic happening in the world right now, and those of you in America, who are only dependent on the mainstream media, may have absolutely no inkling of it, because the mainstream media are not reporting about the fact that a completely new economic system is emerging. And it is emerging with extremely rapid speed. And more than half of humanity is already participating in it.

BRICS leaders in Fortaleza, Brazil, July, 2014.

First slide. Now, the first system has been initiated by the leaders of the BRICS nations, at the Fortaleza summit in Brazil last July.

Next slide. And they proceeded very quickly to establish the New Silk Road and the Maritime Silk road, and a whole system of relations with South America, with ASEAN countries, with African countries, and in the recent period, even with European countries. And this new model is basically establishing a completely new system of relations; it’s what the Chinese President Xi Jinping often calls a “win-win” policy, or even a “win-win-win” policy, depending how many parties are participating in these projects. And it is based on the idea that, through the development of basic infrastructure, of scientific and technological cooperation, and an increase in connectivity among these nations, that this will lead to the mutual benefit of all participating countries.

China’s ‘New Silk Road’ and ‘Maritime Silk Road’ Initiatives

Now, this annual summit of the Boao Forum on the island of Hainan—the Boao Forum is the Asian equivalent of what normally takes place in Davos in Switzerland, except that the difference is that in Davos, you have a lot of bankers and a lot of monetarists coming together, while this Boao Forum brought together many, many leaders, especially of Asia, who were all interested in real economic development, in infrastructure, and cooperation. And there, at this forum, President Xi Jinping announced what they are now calling the “One Belt, One Road,” which is simply another word for the New Silk Road, or, as we called it, the Eurasian Land-Bridge in the past, and announced a global perspective for development.

This includes huge infrastructure programs, corridors; high-speed railway; waterways and ports. And this report was declared to be the official policy by the National Development and Reform Commission, as well as the Foreign Ministry and the Commerce Ministry of China.

As you can see here, this is a vast, vast network of corridors connecting China, Central Asia, Russia—all the way to Europe. Then another set of corridors from Central Asia, to West Asia, into the Gulf, and the Mediterranean. Then the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road involves sea and land corridors from China, to Southeast Asia, to South Asia, to the Indian Ocean, and to the Pacific. Then other corridors go overland from China to Mongolia, to Russia. Another one to Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar.

So, what goes along with that is a whole new system, a really world new system, of banks and financial credit institutions, to finance these and other projects.

Now, people were quite astounded about the sea change which recently took place when the AIIB went into the final negotiations about who would be among the founding members, basically which concluded a couple of days ago. And lo and behold, the AIIB had 57 founding members. Now the United States government, misjudging the situation dramatically, put utmost pressure on their allies, and also developing countries, under those circumstances, not to be part of the AIIB. And despite this heavy pressure from the U.S., the first country in Europe to join was, of all places, Great Britain, the firm ally of the United States. And when Great Britain joined, you had a complete avalanche of countries going in the same direction, wanting to become founding members of the AIIB: Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, all the Scandinavian countries—and naturally, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and many other Asian countries.

China was very emphatic to point out the fact that, despite the fact that the AIIB obviously has been created as a supplement to the IMF and the World Bank, that China does not want to turn the AIIB into a geopolitical confrontation with the United States, and they have reiterated, both from the government and also leading Chinese publications many times, the offer that the United States and European countries should join the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and also the projects of the New Silk Road and the Maritime Silk Road. Because China is developing a new model of international relationships, which is all-inclusive, which is overcoming and superseding the concept of geopolitics, which, after all, was the basis for two World Wars in the 20th century.

Now, the New Development Bank, which is also a similar bank, created by the BRICS in Fortaleza in Brazil last year—it was decided to found it—will be functioning this year in July, at the next BRICS summit, which will take place in Ufa in Russia. So, at that point, you will have basically two operational large infrastructure banks. But then you also have the New Silk Road development fund, which as $40 billion; the AIIB and the New Development Bank have initial capital of $100 billion each—but that is just the beginning, starting capital. The New Silk Road fund has $40 billion; the New Maritime Silk Roads Fund, $20 billion. But then also the countries of the South Asian region, the SAARC countries, are planning to build their own development bank. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is building a new bank.

And then, these countries have jointly decided to create something which is called the Contingency Reserve Arrangement. Now this is a pool of currency reserves, of $100 billion initially, which was obviously a response to the speculation which speculators such as George Soros conducted during the Asia crisis of 1997, where the currencies of Asian countries were speculated in one week, down by 80% by such people as George Soros, for example. And obviously, also, [a response] to the 2008 near-meltdown of the financial system in the Lehman Brothers crisis.

What these countries of the BRICS and related organization are now doing, is, they have created the Contingency Reserve Arrangement, to protect participating countries against speculative attacks, even new financial crises are to come—and they are shortly to come. It was also the reaction to the fact that the U.S. Congress absolutely refused to change the rules of the IMF and the World Bank, after the 2008 crisis.

Now, these parallel financial organizations were characterized by Mrs. Denise Leung, from the finance center of the World Resources Institute, this morning in the German government radio, Deutsche Welle. This woman said: “Development is absolutely not possible without the AIIB and the New Development Bank, because in Asia alone, there is a need for infrastructure investment, up to the year 2020, of $8.2 trillion.” Now, the entire investment of the World Bank, in 2014, is only $24.2 billion, and of the Asian Development Bank, only $21 billion. So, obviously, the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and all the other banks I named, have to fill this gap. And obviously, to have such independent financial institutions, will give the developing countries, also a much greater voice in determining their own economic policy in the advantage of their own population.

Now obviously the aim, explicitly and stated so by several BRICS leaders, is to use these banks to eradicate poverty from the surface of the plan in a very short period of time. And in Asia alone, you have presently over 700 million people who are still living below the poverty level. Now, Prime Minister Modi has made several absolutely exciting speeches, where he declared a national objective of India, to eradicate poverty from the Indian nation. Also, President Xi Jinping has proudly announced, repeatedly, that the Chinese economic miracle, which, nobody can deny, is one of the greatest miracles in terms of economics ever in the history of economies—because China was able to have an economic development in 30 years which most industrial nations in Europe, in the United States, and elsewhere, needed 100 or even 200 years to accomplish. And Xi Jinping has announced that that kind of development which has now transformed the poor population of the coastal regions, and the southern parts of China, to bring that into the inner regions, and into the Western parts of China, which are mostly desert, and therefore it’s not so easy—but to use this Chinese economic miracle as the model for the New Silk Road for every country which participates in these projects, to repeat exactly what China has accomplished.

Now, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which is the major Swiss financial daily, had this morning an article with the headline, ” Gold Rush Mood Thanks to New Silk Road, Investors Are Rushing To Buy Stocks in Chinese State-Owned Enterprises. They Are Investing in the New Silk Road.” Now, I have to say there is a certain amount of confusion in the editorial board of Neue Zürcher Zeitung, because they are looking at these developments with the spectacles of monetarism, but obviously, this is not what this is at all, because the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and the other institutions arecredit institutions, and are not part of the casino economy of Wall Street, or City of London, or Frankfurt, for that matter. But they go very explicitly back to the principles of the First Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Alexander Hamilton, who created the first National Bank, and with that, a credit-financing institution for the real economy. And that first National Bank, and that credit system, was the basis for the gigantic industrial revolution which occurred in the United States, and it was the policy to which good American presidents always returned, such as Lincoln, with the greenback policy; or Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the New Deal, and the Glass-Steagall separation, and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which happened to be not only the motor for the United States to overcome the depression in the ’30s, but it was also, in the form of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the basis for the German economic miracle, in the post-war reconstruction of Germany.

As Dennis already mentioned, this was also the basis of the proposal by Lyndon LaRouche to create an International Development Bank, which he made in 1975, and for which this organization has campaigned practically in all the years since, and we have now the development that this idea, to have a development bank, which is only there to finance development, is coming into reality. The Casino’s About to Blow

Now this is extremely urgent, because the transAtlantic region is based on a completely different idea, namely the profit-maximization of the casino, and that is totally bankrupt, and it is about to go bust.

The recently published Beige Book of the Federal Reserve, which is estimated to reflect the complete denial of reality by European economists, in fact pretends that there is an upswing in the United States, but what it shows, the real figures show—and these figures are still manipulated—that you have a collapse of the real economy in the United States. The New York Fed’s Manufacturing Index just went down by 1.19 points, to only 6.9 points. The industrial index went down by 2.4 points, to 6.8 points. The employment index collapsed from 18.6 to 9.6%. So, even by the fraudulent statistics of the Fed, the real economy is shrinking.

But the real crisis is naturally that the too-big-to-fail banks have a derivative exposure which is today 40 to 80% larger than it was in 2008, at the point of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. And this system could detonate at any moment. For example, if the Fed would go to increase the interest rate just a tiny amount, that derivative bubble would, almost certainly, explode. And if the European Union continues their hard line against Greece, a policy which is supported also by German Finance Minister Schäuble, and drives Greece out of the Eurozone, which is now on its way—for example, Standard & Poor”s just downgraded Greece from the B level (creditworthiness), a B-, to level CCC+, which is already junk bond level.

Now, therefore, in reality, we are looking at the upcoming explosion of the financial system of the transAtlantic sector, and these new banks are actually the lifeboat for a sinking Titanic.

The problem of the trans-Atlantic sector could be solved very easily, if the United States would go back to the Glass-Steagall separation of the banks laws, which was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, and repealed only in 1999, and that, by the way, makes the presidential campaign of the pre-presidential candidate Martin O’Malley the most important campaign, because he has said that the first action he would take, if he were to be elected into the White House, would be the implementation of Glass-Steagall: Protect the commercial and separate the investment banks, and do not finance them anymore through quantitative easing, or through so-called rescue packages, and they would go bankrupt, if they would be forced to rely on their own system.

Now, it is therefore— and because there is a connection between the pending collapse of the Wall Street banks, the City of London banks, and other related banks—there is a relation to the increasing war danger, which we have discussed many times, but the Empire collapse is what is driven by the pending collapse of the banks, and the war danger in Ukraine and the Middle East comes from that. Therefore, it is a life or death question of civilization, that we get the United States, and the European nations, to join with the BRICS, to join with the New Silk Road, and join the win-win perspective, as a conscious war-avoidance policy. Because if all the countries of Europe, the United States, and the BRICS countries—to which, for example, Russia belongs—are working together in these large projects, then, and only then, can you overcome the reason for war.

Because war has always occurred as a result of geopolitics, and we have to get the United States off the idea of the Project of a New American Century doctrine, which was introduced by the neo-cons at the end of the ’90s, which is the idea that they will not allow one nation, or a group of nations, to ever become stronger than the United States.

So, therefore, let’s look at the reality of the situation. Not only is the transAtlantic sector about to experience a bigger blowout of the system than in 2008; the most dramatic situation we have right now is in California, and in the entire Southwest of the United States, where you have a prolonged drought, and a huge water shortage.

On the 12th of March there was an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by J. Famigletti, who’s from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and he said that California today has only water supplies for about one year left in its reservoirs. You can see here on this picture the drought emptying the reservoirs and also reducing the snowpack, which means there will be no water flowing into these reservoirs and other water systems. And what was the reaction of Governor Brown? About a week ago, he announced a mandatory cut of water usage of 25%, except for agriculture, and fracking. I mean, this completely insane method of production of shale gas and oil.

Now already over 500,000 acres remained unplanted in the last year, and it probably will be more than 1 million acres, which will not be used for agriculture this. Several towns in California are already out of water. And soon, you will see a migration of people out of the largest and most productive state in the United States.

So, when we recently, about a week ago, presented in the state legislature in Sacramento the revolutionary new concept of how to deal with this water crisis, which has been worked out by Ben Deniston and Lyndon LaRouche, with the science team he’s working with, we have a very unusual shocking experience. Because when we presented this revolutionary proposal of Ben Deniston to Mr. O’Connor, who is the principal consultant to the State Senate Committee for Natural Resources and Water, and we went there with the expectation that they would be happy to find people concerned with solving the water crisis, the reaction—which was a complete hysterical denial that there is a water shortage [were water shortages before—ed.], cyclic development of weather patterns over thousands of years, that the drought is not the result of anthropogenic dealings of mankind, he completely freaked out, and what Ben Deniston had proposed—he will elaborate this later on himself—that you can have a combination of measures, like desalinization of ocean water, with the help of nuclear energy, in the tradition of what Roosevelt did with the Tennessee Valley Authority, like managing and changing the Colorado River, and similar proposals… But also you could revive aspects of NAWAPA—that is bringing down the plentiful water from Alaska and Canada, along the Rocky Mountains, with a system of channels all the way to Mexico. Or, use the fact that 90% of all precipitation does not occur over land, but over oceans, and that you could use the ionization of moisture in the atmosphere, over the Pacific Ocean, to develop more water.

Now, recent studies focused very much on the high-energy galactic, cosmic rays in controlling the ionization of the lower atmosphere, and that seems to influence the cloud formation, and is also catalyzing the condensation of water vapor in the atmosphere. That method has already been tested and applied by several countries in the world. But it was very clear that this Mr. O’Connor had absolutely no interest to even listen to these proposals, and then, by reviewing what the problem was, we found —which we had already known before, but it came now in the context of the reduction of the water use in California—crystal clear what is the intention.

The same too-big-to-fail banks, which are about to blow, including the different members of the Bush family and the American multi-billionaire T. Boone Pickens, all of these people had invested in the last 5 to 10 years, enormous amounts of money into everything that has to do with water. Land, which is over aquifers; lakes, but also water pumps, chemicals to purify water, membranes, bottled water—just everything which has to do with water—and not only in the United States, but all over the world. So it is very clear that what they have been trying to do is to corner the water market, in order to speculate on the scarcity of water, on rising prices, totally disregarding what would be the effect of depopulation, of destruction of agriculture, of increase of food prices—and actually killing people. And there’s no question that this is a Nazi policy, because you see the same support of Nazi policies, in Ukraine. You see it in the absolutely anti-human policy of the Troika in Greece, destroying one-third of the Greek economy, and you see it, naturally, in the absolutely horrendous condition of the developing countries.

Now, the consequence which these people take into account, is the death of millions and millions of poor people. Please go to the next slide.

Major deserts on the planet today.

On this slide you see the world deserts, which actually grow from the Atlantic Coast of Africa, all the way through the Sahel Zone, the Sahara, the pan-Arab peninsula, the Middle East—all the way to China, and naturally in the Southwest of America. But there are two completely different approaches to how you deal with that.

You have the speculation on the scarcity of water, on the side of Wall Street and the City of London, and other speculators. But then if you contrast that with what China has been doing, China has [next slide] in the recent years developed the two largest water projects in the world. There is, on the one side, the Three Gorges dam, which changed the water of the Yangtze, and has turned this into the largest power-production facility in the world, producing 22.5 gigawatts per year, and naturally it has protected thousands of people from drowning every year, and established efficient flood control. And then, secondly, you have the South North Water Transfer Diversion Program, of which two of the three parts have already been completed.

Now, the Eastern Route of this project, which brings water from the very water-rich spring region of the Yangtze River, to Anhui and Shandong and Jiansu provinces, basically filling up, on the one side, the Yellow River, and using irrigation from there. And then, secondly, the Middle Route, which brings water to Beijing and Tianjin. These two routes are already bringing large amounts of water to the dry areas, while the Western Route is still in the phase of planning.

caption

But the China is not the only country which is taking this productive approach. At the recent meeting of the SAARC summit, Indian Prime Minister Modi presented a similar program for India. [next slide] It is the idea of linking the Chadar river, which flows in the Himalayas, and brings it north-south along the India-Nepal border, and brings waters of the Yamura River, which goes from west to the east, into the Ganga Valley. And all of this goes back to the Indira Gandhi National Water Development Authority, which she established in 1982, and this was the time when we were working with her, together, on a 40-year development perspective for India. And this was naturally not carried out, because of her assassination, but it was a gigantic project, which had the idea of having 30 rivers linked through channels, creating 3,000 storage structures, projects which would create 34 gigawatts of hydropower, which would have provided 35 million hectares for the agricultural use of land. It would transferred 175 billion cubic meters of water per year, and naturally, massively increase the food production, protect the population against floods and droughts.

Now Prime Minister Modi has revived all of this, and he has created a taskforce on interlinking of these rivers. He announced plans to convert 101 rivers into transport channels, which will cut the transport costs by 30%, and naturally increase the capacity gigantically. With that together goes that several desalination plants in the coast of Tamil Nadu, and it also involves a plan to connect 14 rivers from the Himalayas to 16 other ones across the Indian peninsula, adding 35 million hectares of irrigated land, and 34,000 megawatts of electricity. That is three times as much as you need to provide electricity for New York City.

Obviously, there are many, many areas in the world which need that approach, taken by China and India, and which is lacking right now in California.

For example, the same approach must be taken for the Aral Sea, which has shrunk to only 5%. This is creating immense tensions between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, who have access to several rivers first, before they flow onto Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, and naturally tensions exist between these countries.

The Transaqua Plan.

It must be taken to Lake Chad, which has shrunk to less than 10% of its previous levels, and for which we have proposed for a very long time, the Transaqua plan, which has been worked out by the Italian physicist Dr. Vicchi, which has the idea to take the abundant water, actually too much water, from the Congo River, and bring it up through a system of channels and canals into Lake Chad, which obviously would transform the life of millions of people, and obviously this is not an option, but a bitter necessity. Because right now, we hear every week, the horrendous reports about thousands of people trying to flee over the Mediterranean, from Africa, and naturally also from Syria and Iraq, and many hundreds of them are drowning every week. And the EU has nothing better than to chase these people back, and to try to prevent them from coming, which underlines once more, the complete moral bankruptcy of the EU.

Now, next slide, the World Land-Bridge. Therefore, this proposal, which we have produced over a year study, and we published at the end of last year. This is a 370 page study, which not only outlines all the future projects, the tunnels, bridges, corridors, which are needed to turn the present world situation into a coherent connected world Land-Bridge, it also has all the scientific, or a lot of the scientific, conceptions provided by the scientific method of Mr. LaRouche, of physical economy, of the need why an increase in the energy-flux-density in the production process, is the absolutely necessary way to go, and why only with these principles, can you provide food and livelihood for the increased population in the world, and the increase in the relative population density is the law of the universe. And all of that you will find in this report.

Now, if you look at the various projects, which I only want to identify here very, very briefly, it is a network of bridges, tunnels, and channels connecting the five continents of the world, actually turning it into a coherent world transport and infrastructure system, so that in a few years, you could travel, for example, from the southern tip of Latin America, or South America, by maglev train, all the way up through the Americas, through the Bering Strait, all the way to Cape of Good Hope in Africa, or to Indonesia, if you want to take a different route, and that would be faster than to go by ship presently.

Projects of this include, for example: The second Panama Canal, which started to be built in Nicaragua—this is here, number one on the map. This already started last December, with the help of China. It’s a 278 kilometer canal. Then, number two is the building of the Bering Strait tunnel. Can you please now show the map from London to New York? This has been recently proposed by the head of Russian Railways, Vladimir Yakunin, which is to built a fast railway system from London all the way to the Bering Strait, and then, from there, to New York. And that has been adopted as the official policy of Russia.

Now obviously what is lacking right now is the American commitment, but I think that that is what we are campaigning for, to be adopted.

Number 3 on this map is the tunnel connecting the Sakhalin Island with Russia, which is supposed to be a tunnel of 7.3 kilometers. Number 4, the Sakhalin-Hokkaido tunnel, or bridge, which will be 45 kilometers. Number 7 is the tunnel connecting the Bohai Bay, shortening the distance to 100 kilometers connecting two Chinese cities, Dalian and Yantai. Number 10 is the building of the Kra Canal, which is supposed to be an alternative to the Malacca Strait, which is completely overworked. Number 12 is the expansion of the Suez Canal, which is happening at a very fast speed, with the help of the new el-Sisi government in Egypt, which has completely transformed that country, and cause total excitement of the population.

Now, this is a part of the World Land-Bridge, which we have produced in 2012, when it became clear that the policy of the Troika transformed all of southern Europe—Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal—into economic desert zones, reducing the real economy of Greece, for example, by one-third, causing two-thirds unemployment of the youth, increasing the death rate, increasing the suicide rate. The same picture for Italy and Spain and Portugal. And it was the idea to extend the New Silk Road/Eurasian Land-Bridge into Spain, into the Balkans, and then from there, build bridges and tunnels into Africa. And connect it with the extension of the New Silk Road into Africa.

Now, this is obviously all in the documents of the World Land-Bridge, and I can only advise you, you should acquire this report, because this is the blueprint for the next decades of human civilization.

The Principles To Be Followed

Now, Xi Jinping announced at the Boao conference the principles of this new policy, which basically is the five principles of the Bandung Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1955. It is in complete cohesion with the UN Charter. It is based on the respect of international law. It is the idea of non-interference, respect for the sovereignty of the other country, the respect for the difference in the social system of the other country, and to base the policy on the maximum development of the other — which happens to be also the principles of the Peace of Westphalia, and international law.

Xi Jinping made a speech on that occasion, where he said, “We have only one planet, and countries share that one world. To do well in Asia, and the world, we cannot do without each other. What China therefore needs most is a harmonious and stable domestic environment, and a peaceful and tranquil international environment. Turbulence and war run against the fundamental interest of the Chinese people. China has suffered from turbulence and war for more than a century, since modern times. and the Chinese people would never want to inflict the same tragedy on other countries, or peoples. History has taught us that no country that tried to achieve its goal with force ever succeeded.”

The proof of that, obviously, is the condition of Iraq, of Syria, of Libya, of Ukraine, and many other countries, in Africa for example.

What we have to accomplish, therefore, is to make an all-out effort to convince the United States, and the European nations, that they should join with the BRICS, and with the New Silk road policy.

Now, I believe that we have come to a point in human history, where either we bring the political and economic order in cohesion with the real laws of the universe, of the physical universe, or we are threatened to extinct ourselves in a nuclear annihilation. However, I think that in all great traditions, you have this idea about that the laws of the universe must be a guidance for our political order on the planet. You find that idea beautifully developed in the Confucian tradition, of 2500 years of Chinese history, the idea that politics must follow the Mandate of Heaven, that there must be a harmony of all nations based on the idea of Love, which is the Confucian notion of ren, and that each nation must fulfill its right place, and its right task in this alliance, which in the notion of li.

That same idea you find in Hinduism, that the cosmic order must be implemented on the planet, in the political order. You find it also in the Christian humanist tradition of European culture, of which, after all, America is a part. It’s based on the idea that concordance in the macrocosm can only exist if all microcosms develop in an appropriate fashion and way, promoting the interest of the other as if it would be their own.

So, I think we have an unbelievable optimistic situation. It is full of dangers. We are threatened with World War III, very immediately, but the solution is there. I mean, if we get the United States to really become a republic again, as it was intended by the Founding Fathers, as it was established by Alexander Hamilton and the idea of a National Bank and a credit system; as it was promoted by John Quincy Adams, who had the idea that America must be a republic in an alliance of sovereign republics; as it was reconstituted by Abraham Lincoln; and naturally, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and as it was echoed by John F. Kennedy. I think we have to revive that American tradition, and then I think Europe will follow, because, as you could see with the rush into the AIIB, and the excitement about Modi, about China in general, in Europe, I think we could really turn the tide. And I want to ask all of you, to join in this effort.




EIR: BRIKS – Skab ferskvands-ressourcer: Kina, model for hele verden

Kina er model for hele verden med hensyn til forpligtelse til at skaffe og bruge en voksende forsyning af ferskvand, baseret på princippet om, at »naturlige« ressourcer er menneskeskabte. Kina fører an i både geo-økonomiske projekter for at gøre mere vand tilgængeligt fra eksisterende ressourcemønstre på Jorden, og ligeledes med at forfølge fremskridt inden for rumforskning for at vinde viden og midler til at intervenere i planetariske vædecyklusser, for at forbedre ressourcerne på Jorden. Hvad målestandarden er? Menneskehedens fremgang.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




RADIO SCHILLER 20. april 2015:
Flytningekatastrofen er vores ansvar

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




LPAC-Video:
VAND TIL FREMTIDEN I.
Med dansk Udskrift

Ben Deniston: »Kendsgerningen er, at vandet eksisterer. Vandet, som Californien og de andre stater i det sydvestlige USA har brug for, eksisterer. Vandet, som andre egne af verden har brug for, eksisterer. Der er ikke knaphed på vand på denne planet. Menneskeheden må begynde at styre vandcyklussen på Jordkloden som helhed på en ny måde. Vi har løsningerne; de må udvikles; vi må skabe et nyt præsidentskab, der kan udvikle disse løsninger. Men for at gøre det, må vi komme af med affaldet, og det begynder med [Californiens guvernør] Jerry Brown.«

Jerry Brown: »Vi befinder os i en ny æra. Idéen med en dejlig lille græsplæne, der får masser af vand hver dag, hører fortiden til.«

Er Californiens ledere så bange for sådanne inkompetente myter, at de er villige til at tolerere en så åbenlys politik for affolkning og en tilsidesættelse af ægte videnskab og teknologi? Et svindelnummer, der umiddelbart truer Californiens fattigste mennesker på livet og nationens fødevareforsyning?

Barack Obama: »Jeg beordrer alle føderale faciliteter i Californien til at træffe omgående forholdsregler for at nedskære deres vandforbrug. Vi må gøre det klart. En forandring i klimaet betyder, at vejrrelaterede katastrofer, som tørke, potentielt set bliver dyrere og mere barske. Hvad betyder alt dette? Med mindre, og før, vi gør mere for at bekæmpe CO²-forurening, der forårsager klimaforandringer, og alle, fra landmænd til industri og beboelsesområder, såvel som også hele det vestlige område, må vi begynde at gentænke, hvordan vi håndterer spørgsmålet om vand i de kommende årtier.«

Tiden er kommet, hvor vi må sætte en stopper for guvernør Jerry Browns vanvittige affolkningsfantasier og resten af den miljø-Gestapo-bevægelse, der påstår, at for at løse Californiens ferskvandskrise må de drastisk reducere forbruget af ferskvand til en begrænset gruppe af mennesker. Det er ikke en løsning for Californien eller USA. Det er en dagsorden, inspireret af affolkning, og finansieret af Wall Street, der er gået ind i den forretning, der hedder at gøre knappe ressourcer mere knappe.

Ben Deniston: »Vandet eksisterer. Det der mangler, er en politik for at udvikle vandet, samt erkendelsen af, at det er menneskehedens rolle at styre disse systemer.«

Rent vand eksisterer, for Californien, for Texas og for andre stater i USA’s Vesten. Det skal bare udvikles. Det er ikke et job for de videnskabelige analfabeter. Denne krise er en af de største prøver for det næste, amerikanske præsidentskab. Tørken i Californien er typisk for den generelle, økonomiske krise i USA. Vil USA fortsat befinde sig i Wall Streets paradigmes greb, der består i nulvækst? Eller vil vi tænke stort og gå med i den nye, økonomiske orden, der anføres af Kina og dets BRIKS-partnere?

LaRouchePAC har lanceret en ny kampagne for at løse ferskvandskrisen. Fremtidens vand for Californien og verden afhænger af en ny forståelse af det globale vandsystem som værende drevet af solare og galaktiske processer. Vand er ikke en begrænset ressource. Det bruges ikke op og kastes væk. Jordens vandsystem er en cyklisk proces, og hele menneskehedens historie har været knyttet sammen med styringen og forbedringen af naturlige vandcyklusser. Menneskehedens fremtid afhænger ikke alene af en bedre styring af disse cyklusser, men også af skabelsen af nye vandcyklusser.

Vidste du, at, i mindst 7 forskellige nationer, har man med held anvendt landbaserede ioniseringssystemer til at øge nedbørsmængden? Vidste du, at nationer i Mellemøsten skaber ferskvand fra havene med afsaltningsanlæg, der er tre til fem gange så store som noget, der findes i USA? Vidste du, at Kinas Syd-Nord-projekt for omdirigering af vand allerede har overgået noget, der er blevet gjort i USA, og som transporterer vand over en længere afstand end noget andet projekt i verden? Og det tog dem under 15 år at gennemføre det!

Landbaserede ioniseringssystemer kan anvendes til at inducere atmosfærisk væde til at falde som regn. Gennemsnitligt når 90 % af havfordampningen aldrig ind til landjorden og falder simpelt hen unyttigt tilbage i havet. Ioniseringssystemer kan udvikles langs Californiens kyst og gøre det muligt for menneskeheden at begynde at tappe af de udstrakte reserver af væde i atmosfæren over Stillehavet.

Californien og Texas har nogle af USA’s længste kyststrækninger, og afsaltning, drevet af atomkraft, kan befri disse kyststater for at være afhængige af ustabile nedbørsmønstre. To tredjedele af Californiens befolkning bor i det sydlige Californiens kystområder og området omkring San Francisco-bugten, og hele deres vandforbrug kan opfyldes gennem afsaltning ved anvendelse af, hvad der svarer til energien i en 50 watts lyspære pr. person.

Et vandtransporteringssystem langs NAWAPA-ruten, Det Nordamerikanske Vand- og Elektricitetssamarbejde, kan forbedre den kontinentale vandcyklus’ produktivitet som helhed, idet det cirkulerer noget af det nordvestlige områdes overskudsafstrømning af ferskvand, hele vejen ned gennem det sydvestlige område, før det vender tilbage til havet.

Disse løsningsmuligheder tilsammen udgør et forenet program for udviklingen af vandcyklussen på et helt nyt niveau. Vi kan håndtere alle Californiens og Sydvestens ferskvandsbehov gennem denne styring på et højere plan med land-, atmosfære- og havbaserede aspekter af den nordamerikanske vandcyklus som en forenet proces. Men Jerry Brown siger til Californiens befolkning, at der ikke er noget vand, så se at vænne jer til det!

Jerry Brown: »… standse klimaforandringerne, og vi må radikalt ændre den måde, vi lever på og bruger vores penge, radikale forandringer.«

Vi du lade Jerry Brown fortsætte med dette morderiske falskneri? Vi du lade ham affolke staten og begynde med de fattigste og mest sårbare? Vil du lade ham præsidere over ødelæggelsen af Californien?

Løsningerne findes. Gå med i LaRouchePAC og gør dem til virkelighed.




EIR: MEMO TIL DEN NÆSTE PRÆSIDENT:
Et nyt perspektiv for ferskvands-krisen i USA’s vestlige stater

De objektive løsninger eksisterer; det er forpligtelsen over for fremtiden, der mangler. Blot i løbet af det seneste årti har Kina demonstreret, at succesfulde handlinger kan gennemføres, alt imens USA i realiteten intet har gjort. Bag ved denne skarpe forskel i manifesterede (eller ikke-manifesterede) handlinger ligger det dybere spørgsmål om den kulturelle erkendelse (eller mangel på samme) af menneskehedens unikke rolle som en skabende kraft, på planeten og, inden længe, videre endnu. Sammen med denne iboende kraft kommer ansvaret, ikke for at bevare, men for at forbedre.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Leder 16. april 2015:
Hvad der skal til for at bekæmpe Wall Street og fascisme

For to uger siden, med en tørke, der truer med at blive dødbringende, udgav Ben Deniston fra LaRouchePAC Videnskabsteam »Memo til den næste præsident: Nye perspektiver for ferskvandskrisen i det vestlige USA«[1], der påviser, at vandet til at løse krisen er der, hvis den menneskelige kreativitet mobiliseres til at skaffe det. Titlen på hans artikel gjorde det ligeledes klart, at denne præsident, Obama, må smides ud for at få denne løsning; og at Kinas store overlegenhed inden for infrastruktur må involveres.

Men i bogstavelig forstand netop, som Denistons rapport om løsningen på krisen blev cirkuleret, krængede Californiens grønne guvernør, Jerry Brown, i stedet over i retning af fascistisk nedskæringspolitik med en forordning den 31. marts om at nedskære vandforbruget i staten med 25 %. Nedskæringspolitik, der var beordret af Wall Street og City of London, har allerede fejet over Europa siden finanskrakket og har bogstavelig talt dræbt titusindvis af mennesker i Grækenland og i andre nationer, der er blevet betegnet som »Udkants-Europa«; nu viser denne nedskæringspolitik sig at være i færd med at blive dødbringende i USA.

Den politik, som Brown har forordnet, er hurtigt blevet optrappet til trusler om, at vandværker, der ikke gennemføre den pålagte nedskæring, skal betale en langt højere pris for vand, skrappe bøder eller vil få vandet til deres brugere helt afskåret. Priserne for vandforbrug er steget voldsomt til 20-30 gange det, de var for blot et par år siden – hvilket har medført, at mennesker, der ikke har [økonomiske] ressourcer, må undvære vand og måske også mad.

Med deres mobilisering for at konfrontere denne nedskæringspolitik med videnskab blev LPAC-leder i Californien Michael Steger og aktivister udsat for et vredesudbrud fra Browns håndlangere, der truede dem med anholdelse, for at have udfordret doktrinen ned knaphed på vand i det amerikanske Vesten.

Spørgsmålet er nu: hvor mange er modige nok til at bekæmpe dette? Og hvor mange vil stiltiende acceptere det »uundgåelige« tab af vand og mad, som vil ramme de fattigere mennesker i Californien, og som vil optrappe dødsraten blandt dem?

Folk er blevet skræmt fra at sætte sig op imod denne politik, som vil øge dødsraten. Det, som de californiske myndigheder siger om vandsystemet, er løgn. Det er, med sin virkning, en løgn til støtte for en fascistisk politik, der vil slå folk ihjel. De er i færd med at vedtage en politik imod befolkningen i Californien. Det må benævnes som en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden.

Til forsvar for befolkningen må Browns håndlangere for Wall Street udfordres og fjernes fra embedet, så denne krise kan blive løst: Vandet er der! Og Ben Denistons arbejde har demonstreret det.

I Ukraine, hvor det er Rusland og BRIKS-nationerne, som der de reelle mål for den samme dødbringende Wall Street/London-nedskæringspolitik, kan mange iagttagere på afstand bemærke, at nazister er ved at overtage landet under direktiver fra Obamaregeringens Victoria Nuland. EIR og Schiller Instituttet forsvarer en leder af denne nation mod Nuland. Lyndon LaRouche har udpeget Nuland som direkte ansvarlig for enhver overlast, som måtte overgå dr. Natalia Vitrenko, partileder og mulig præsident for Ukraine for tyve år siden, fra Nulands nazister.

Vi tager imod denne udfordring for at forsvare nationen og dens befolkning, overalt. Det betyder at ødelægge Wall Street og fjerne dets fascistiske håndlangere fra regeringen.

Vi har alternativet, der er skabt gennem BRIKS-alliancen af nationer, deres nye internationale udviklingsbanker og deres politik med videnskabeligt fremskridt. Vi fremlægger atter dette alternativ i dag for FN-diplomater og andre i New York City.

Vi må have modet til at kæmpe for det.

[1] Kommer snarest her på hjemmesiden på dansk (-red.)




Tørkeramt Brasilien burde affolkes, siger talerør for Wall Street

13. apr. 2015 – Brasilien burde affolkes. Sådan lyder budskabet i en artikel den 10. april i den britiske avis The Guardian af Amy Larkin, Greenpeace-veteran igennem 30 år, som nu er næstformand for Verdensøkonomisk Forums Råd for den Globale Dagsorden for Klimaforandring, mere almindeligt kendt som Davos-forsamlingen af den internationale finanselite og politiske elite. Larkin anses for at være en ekspert i forbindelsen mellem miljøkriser og finanskriser (og deres »løsninger«).

I sin artikel, der fokuserer på, hvordan Wall Streets »kortsynede fremgangsmåde« har forsømt at indregne tørkefaktoren ordentligt i sin prisfastsættelsesmekanisme (dvs., at krisen kunne have været undgået, hvis blot prisen på vand var blevet hævet tilstrækkeligt på et tidligere tidspunkt), argumenterer Larkin fra det udgangspunkt, at »São Paulo, Brasiliens største by og industricenter, er begyndt at rationere vandet og diskuterer, hvorvidt det vil blive nødvendigt at affolke [byen] i den nærmeste fremtid.« Brasilien har i øjeblikket en befolkning på 200 mio. mennesker.

Foto: Udsigt over Jaguari-dæmningen, en del af Cantareira-reservoiret, staten Sao Paulo, Brasilien. Ca. Oktober 2014.

 

 

 




Leder 14. april 2015:
LaRouche: Folkemord gennem mangel på vand

LaRouche-bevægelsens kampagne for at fremlægge en videnskabelig løsning på den dødbringende tørke og selvpåførte ferskvandskrise, som Californien – ligesom resten af planeten – står overfor, har allerede frembragt et dramatisk skift i den globale, strategiske situation.

»Pludselig opdagede vi, at spørgsmålet om vand havde et virkeligt ondt aspekt«, kommenterede Lyndon LaRouche under sin ugentlige webcast-diskussion med LaRouchePAC Komite for Politisk Strategi.

Det er mindre end to uger siden, at Ben Deniston fremlagde det positive, videnskabelige grundlag for en fremgangsmåde og løsning på problemet,[1] og vi ser nu en eksplosion af »Sataniske stemmer«, der taler på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. »Der er nu folk, der offentligt siger, at der ikke er nogen løsning. Man må slå folk ihjel en masse. De har til hensigt at begå massemord. Der er ingen forskel på det, de gør, og Adolf Hitlers operation. Og vi er ved at få en Hitler-operation på spørgsmålet om forbruget og forsyningen af og adgangen til vand.« LaRouche fortsatte: »Dette er ikke nazi-lignende; det er reel, nazistisk indhold … Vi befinder os i et kapløb for menneskeheden, og vi er på menneskehedens side. Wall Street og deres rejsekammerater er på nazi-siden.«

LaRouche forklarede, at dette er et globalt, ikke et nationalt eller regionalt spørgsmål. Sydamerika er fuld af det samme problem. Vi ser den samme, nazistiske tankegang i Ukraine, hvor vores ven og ledende politiske skikkelse Natalia Vitrenko konfronteres med fascistiske angreb og trusler.

Den enkle, videnskabelige sandhed er, at vandet er der, hvis vi blot udvikler videnskaben om at beherske vandcyklussen. Se blot til en begyndelse på planetens have. Som Ben Deniston har vist, så fordamper Solen uhyre mængder af vand fra havene hver dag og producerer ferskvandsdampe i atmosfæren. Omkring 90 % af det falder tilbage i havene som nedbør, men kun 10 % falder på landjorden. Og hidtil har menneskeheden kun beskæftiget sig med de 10 %, der falder over land, af hvilke den anvender omkring 9 % på globalt plan. Så vi bruger altså mindre end 1 % af den totale mængde ferskvand, som biosfæren, med Solens energi, producerer dag efter dag.

Men hvis vi opdager de solare og galaktiske, videnskabelige principper, der styrer den globale vandcyklus, som Deniston demonstrerede; hvis vi går frem efter samme fremgangsmåde, som Kepler brugte, så vil det åbne døren for et fuldstændigt nyt ressourcegrundlag for menneskeheden. For i modsætning til Det britiske Imperiums dyriske menneskesyn, så er ressourcer ikke begrænsede; de bestemmes og forøges af menneskehedens skabende, videnskabelige fremskridt.

»Problemet er, at oligarkiet er inkompetent, pr. definition«, forklarede LaRouche. »Det, de siger, er i realiteten et bedrageri. For eksempel er problemet i Californien, at myndighederne er inkompetente inden for emnet vand, og alligevel har de magten over befolkningens meninger og tænkning. Og det bruger de til at begå et massemorderisk bedrageri imod Californiens befolkning«, sagde LaRouche.

USA må bandlyse en sådan videnskabelig inkompetence og gå sammen med Kina og de andre BRIKS-nationer om at udvide menneskets beherskelse af Jorden, Solsystemet og videre endnu. »USA er, som det regeres aktuelt, en katastrofe, og vil fremover ikke engang eksistere, hvis denne politik fortsætter.« Det kommende præsidentskab må formes nu omkring Martin O’Malleys forestående meddelelse om sit præsidentkandidatur, for at frembringe dette skift.

[1] Artiklen er under oversættelse til dansk (-red.)




Rent vand er nødvendigt for det menneskelige liv

12. april 2015 – De gennembrud, som er gjort af Lyndon LaRouches Videnskabsteam, har vist, at menneskeheden kan opnå at få rigelige mængder af det rene vand, som det behøver. Vi behøver et forceret program for at forstå de galaktiske processer, der producerer vand, en udvidet afsaltning af havvand og evnen til at mestre ioniseringsteknologier til at flytte floderne af fugt i atmosfæren ind over land, hvilket vil gøre det muligt for menneskeheden at udnytte mere end den ene procent af vandet, der nu falder på land – menneskehedens aktuelle forbrugsomfang. Hvis disse gennembrud ikke gennemføres, vil det resultere i massedød på planeten, som tidlige advarsler viser nedenfor.

Alt imens Kina og andre BRIKS-nationer forfølger disse gennembrud, så præsenterer Vesten varianter af en rædselsforestilling med hensyn til udvikling af ferskvand og forbrug overalt, hvor vi i realiteten ser.

Sputnik News rapporterer i dag, at de barbariske kæmpere fra Islamisk Stat (ISIS, ISIL) nu er blevet ramt af et problem fra den mørke tidsalder, som de har bidraget til. I Raqqa, Syrien, som ISIS kalder sin »hovedstad«, har dårlig hygiejne og forurening af vandet ført til spredning af den ødelæggende sygdom Leishmaniasis (også kaldet »Jerikos Rose«, »hvid spedalskhed« og »Jeriko-knopper«).

Londonavisen Daily Mirror rapporterer, at der i øjeblikket er 100.000 tilfælde i Raqqa alene. Al Jazeera rapporterer, at rent vand bliver stadigt vanskeligere at få fat i, til dels, fordi elværker, der er nødvendige for at få pumper til at virke, og rensningsanlæg blev ødelagt under anti-ISIL-koalitionens luftangreb, der begyndte sidste september, og som dræbte hundreder af kæmpere og snesevis af civile.

Leishmaniasis forårsages af encellede parasitter, der spredes gennem bid fra hunnen hos sandfluen. Biddene forårsager store, åbne sår, og virussen kan angribe kroppens vitale organer, såsom lever og milt, og dræber dem, der er smittet. De fleste af ISIL-kæmperne har afvist behandling, og de fleste læger fra Læger uden Grænser og lignende organisationer er alligevel flygtet, og der er kun få lægecentre, der stadig er åbne.

I Sacramento, Californien, har det enorme, multinationale selskab Nestlé, midt under den californiske nødtilstand pga. tørke, fortsat tilladelse til ubegrænset at tappe vand til 2 eller 3 cent/galon fra grundvandskilder, mens borgerne tilbydes vand på flaske fra Nestlé til 16 dollar/gallon – borgere, der har fået deres hanevand begrænset af den anti-humane guvernør, Jerry Brown.

Med startdato 7. april vil 25.000 husstande i Baltimore pludselig miste deres adgang til vand, fordi de skylder 250 dollar eller mere, uden meget forvarsel og ingen offentlige høringer. En fattig mor sagde til Think Progress: »Loven i staten Maryland erklærer, at et barn, der er udsat for neglekt, kan fjernes fra hjemmet og anbringes i pleje. En ting, der karakteriserer neglekt, som det defineres af Marylands Socialministerium, er et barn med vedvarende dårlig hygiejne, som er uvasket, har snavset eller filtret hår eller påfaldende kropslugt.« 25.000 husstande kunne blive ramt af hurtig lukning af vandet og således følge Detroits eksempel.




USA: Vand for en pris – af selve livet

12. april 2015 – Midt i nødsituationen med det tørkeramte Californien leverer det enorme multinationale selskab Nestlé, der sælger vand på flaske til verden, et eksempel på det, der må stoppes. Guvernør Jerry Brown har – samtidig med, at han har givet ordre til, at offentlighedens vandforbrug skal nedskæres md 25 % i Sacramento, såvel som i resten af staten – ikke lagt nogen begrænsning på Nestlés aftapning af ferskvand fra grundvandskilder i nærheden. Nestlé (alias her: Arrowhead Mountain Water Company) aftapper fortsat vand i en mængde af 80 mio. gallon (ca. 303 mio. ltr.) om året til en pris af 2 eller 3 cent pr. gallon; det tapper vandet på flaske i Sacramento og sælger det for rundt regnet 26 dollar pr. gallon til byens befolkning, der har fået begrænset sit forbrug af vand fra vandhanerne.

Dette stemmer overens med Nestlés østrigske direktør Peter Brabecks verdensanskuelse, som han i 2011 gav udtryk for, som følger:

»For menneskehedens opretholdelse … er det vigtigste spørgsmål vand … Vi vil løbe tør for vand, længe før vi løber tør for olie.«

»NGO’er siger, på en simplificeret måde, ’Vand er en menneskeret; det er derfor ikke en kommerciel handelsvare.’ Mit svar hertil er, ’Ja, I har ret. Vand er en menneskeret. De 25 liter vand [omkr. 5 gallons, -red.], som man behøver som et minimum for at leve, er en menneskeret. Det udgør et par liter til rengøring, et par liter til at drikke, daglig hydrering og minimumhygiejne … Ud over dette, er det ikke en menneskeret.’

Vi har behov for 25 ltr. vand pr. dag. Men vi bruger – i USA – 400 ltr. pr. person pr. dag. Så disse 380 ltr. mener jeg ikke er en menneskeret, og det bør koste noget. Hvorfor? Fordi, hvis det ikke koster noget, vil vi ikke få de investeringer, der er nødvendige for at bruge den mest kostbare ressource på en mere ansvarlig måde …

Hvis man ikke fastsætter en værdi for vand, vil disse [infrastruktur]investeringer ikke blive foretaget, fordi man ikke har en økonomisk gevinst … Hvis vandet har i det mindste en anstændig pris, kan investeringen gennemføres.«

Den tydelige »lugt«, der udgår fra Brabecks erklæring, er den grundlæggende årsag til privatisering af vand: En prisstigning på vand (hvilket altid sker under privatisering, som det vises nedenfor) rammer de fattige vandforbrugere som en social forskel, idet nogle af disse helt vil miste adgangen til vand, mad eller hygiejne, blive syge eller fejlernærede, eller dø.

Befolkningsreduktion er privatiseringens raison d’etre.

Denne oligarks monstrøse påstand – at 1 % af det aktuelle vandforbrug udgør en »ret«, der bør stilles til rådighed af regeringer, og at tilgængeligheden af de andre 99 % af vandforbruget bør afhænge af vandets pris – har to grove løgne indlejret i sig. Den første løgn bevises hver dag af Nestlé i Sacramento. Selskabet bruger områdets naturlige vandforsyninger, ikke på en ansvarlig måde, men ekstremt skødesløst, fordi det kan indbringe en høj pris på det private salgsmarked. Dette er kort fortalt historien om privatiserede vandsystemer over hele verden i løbet af de seneste 30 år. Den høje pris afskærer mennesker med lav indkomst adgangen til vand, og muligvis også til livet, samtidig med vandspild.

Brabecks anden løgn handler om den menneskelige art. Han påstår, at menneskeheden ikke investerer tid og ressourcer i videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt – som det udtrykkes gennem ny infrastruktur – med mindre det giver private investorer et højt pengeafkast. Den ekstraordinært fremragende infrastruktur til vandforsyning og vandstyring i det amerikanske Vesten – for det mestes vedkommende bygget gennem Kontoret for Genvinding, Finansselskabet til Genopbygning, Styrelsen til Fremme af Offentlige Arbejder, Det Civile Bevaringskorps og Hærens Ingeniørkorps, og som fortsattes under JFK’s præsidentperiode, såvel som under daværende guvernør for Californien Pat Brown – beviser, at dette er falsk. Det, vi vil gøre for at revolutionere vandstyring omkring Stillehavsranden i fremtiden, beviser, at det er falsk. Og de historiske fiaskoer med privatisering af ferskvand beviser, at det er falsk.

 

Foto: Wilsondæmningen, der stod færdig i 1924 og spænder over Tennessee-floden i staten Alabama, var den første dæmning, der kom under TVA’s myndighed, som blev oprettet i 1933. Den er en af ni TVA-dæmninger på floden Tennessee.

 




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
Verden ved en skillevej: Win-win for alle
– eller ind i 3. Verdenskrig med geopolitik?

… Lad os i stedet tage imod den udstrakte hånd, der ligger i Xi Jinpings og BRIKS-landenes tilbud om at samarbejde om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej og det nye finanssystem, som for tiden hastigt er under udvikling – med AIIB … og en hel række af andre finansinstitutioner, der alle principielt har den samme funktion, som Kreditanstalten for Genopbygning havde for virkeliggørelsen af det tyske, økonomiske mirakel efter Anden Verdenskrig –, så kan vi løse alle de problemer, der i øjeblikket synes uløselige.

 

11. april 2015 – Den beslutsomhed, hvormed 50 stater, på trods af USA’s massive opposition, har bekendtgjort, at de ønsker at blive grundlæggende medlemmer af Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), som er initieret af Kina, demonstrerer, at det strategiske tidevand har nået det punkt, hvor det fundamentalt vender. Utallige internationale kommentarer refererer til, hvilken alvorlig fejltagelse det var af den amerikanske regering at gøre spørgsmålet om en regional bank til finansiering af infrastruktur til en strategisk magtkamp mellem Kina og USA – og så dernæst tabe kampen.

Stadigt flere kræfter i verden indser, at det kinesiske perspektiv med en såkaldt »Win-Win«-politik, altså et økonomisk samarbejde, der gavner alle deltagere, er langt mere attraktivt end den angloamerikanske politik med geopolitik, der har efterladt et grusomt spor af ødelæggelse i Sydvestasien, Nordafrika og Ukraine, og pga. hvilken tropper ved grænsen til Rusland nu står over for noget, der kan føre til en krig mellem atommagter. Dertil kommer, at selve USA har et fortvivlende presserende behov for en anden politik. Store dele af Californien, Texas og andre stater vest for Mississippi er udsat for en tørke, der har stået på i årevis, og som har ødelagt nogle af de vigtigste landbrugsområder i USA. Den radikale, grønne, californiske guvernør Brown har netop beordret en 25 % ’s nedskæring af vandforbruget for alle områder – undtagen landbrug og fracking (!) – uden at tage noget som helst perspektiv til overvindelse af manglen på vand i betragtning. Californien skulle angiveligt kun være egnet til et befolkningstal på 400.000, mener Brown – en bemærkning, der, i betragtning af, at der lever omkring 40 millioner mennesker i Californien, er en monstrøsitet og åbenbart tager en massiv affolkning med i købet.

Øjensynligt i forventning om en vandmangel, der længe har aftegnet sig, har Wall Streets store »TBTF«-banker og de internationale finanscentre – netop dem, der angiveligt skulle være for store til, at man kan lade dem gå bankerot – såvel som også medlemmer af Bush-klanen og multimilliardæren T. Boone Pickens, i de seneste ti år opkøbt alt, der har med vand at gøre: Jord, hvorunder der findes grundvandsførende lag, søer, alle områder inden for vandbygningsteknik, rustfri rør, pumper, kemikalier til vandforbedring osv. – simpelt hen alt, man skal bruge for at generere profit i en privatiseret vandøkonomi. Allerede i 2011 lovede Citigroups cheføkonom, Willem Buiter: »Vandmarkedet bliver snart varmere end oliemarkedet. Vand som fabriksanlæg vil, efter min mening, snart blive den vigtigste kategori af fabriksanlæg på basis af fysiske varer, og vil langt overgå olie, kobber, landbrugsprodukter og ædelmetaller.«

En ny Enron-svindel aftegner sig tydeligt, hvor prisen på el nærmest blev firdoblet over en nat, og hvor en hel række af Enrons bagmænd måtte gå i fængsel pga. insiderhandel. Med alle midler presser vandspekulanterne på for, med en tørke, der forværres, snart at få lov til at handle med vand på Markedet for Varefutures.

I betragtning af denne dramatiske situation vinder præsidentkandidataspiranten O’Malleys kampagne, med sin bebudelse af, at han som sit vigtigste fokuspunkt har at bryde Wall Streets magt gennem at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven for en bankopdeling, strategisk betydning. Bestyrelsesformændene for nogle TBTF-banker lod for omkring to uger siden førende medlemmer af det Demokratiske Parti true med, at de ville blive afskåret fra enhver finansiel støtte fra Wall Street – læs: at man ville købe det næste præsidentskab for det Republikanske Parti – ifald demokrater som senator Elizabeth Warren (O’Malley blev forsigtigvis ikke nævnt) ikke holdt op med sine angreb på Wall Street.

Det er endnu uvist, om det Demokratiske Parti vil blive splittet over dette spørgsmål: På den ene side opportunisterne fra det horisontale erhverv, der argumenterer med, at man i Amerika ikke kan vinde et valg uden Wall Streets penge, og på den anden side patriotiske demokrater som O’Malley, der har indset, at USA kun kan overleve, hvis Wall Streets kriminelle magt bliver brudt gennem Glass/Steagall-loven. Til denne gruppe hører også Robert Reich, tidligere arbejdsminister i Clinton-regeringen, og kongresmedlemmet Donna Edwards, der kæmper for den afgående Baltimore-senator Mikulskys plads i Senatet, og som har erklæret, at hun ikke vil modtage nogen penge fra Wall Street. Hillary Clinton, der vil annoncere sit kandidatur på søndag, har derimod taget folk ind i sin kampagnestab, der er kendt for at tage store bidrag – altså penge fra Wall Street – hjem, som f.eks. John Podesta.

Konfronteret med den fundamentale krise, som USA befinder sig i, drejede det sig ikke blot om embedet som præsident, selv om O’Malley utvivlsomt er den hidtil eneste kvalificerede præsidentkandidat, erklærede Lyndon LaRouche med eftertryk og lancerede en omfattende kampagne for at placere præsidentskabet som helhed på en kvalitativt højere platform og for dette formål at vinde et team af videnskabelige eksperter, der under et O’Malley-præsidentskab kan hjælpe med atter at gøre USA til en fungerende republik.

LaRouche understregede, at overvindelsen af ferskvandskrisen i det sydvestlige USA vil blive nøglespørgsmålet for dette nye præsidentskabs succes. LaRouche, der allerede for 40 år siden advarede om den ferskvandskrise, der allerede dengang aftegnede sig, og som påviste veje til løsning af krisen, har nu fastlagt en helt ny fremgangsmåde med et team af sine unge videnskabsfolk. Ben Deniston, der er en del af dette videnskabsteam, præsenterede et koncept, der er fuldstændig revolutionært i det aktuelle politiske klima i USA: I stedet for at affinde sig med, at den grønne ideologi og spekulanternes rovgriskhed affolker den nuværende mest folkerige stat i USA, må kimen til en videnskabelig løsning som forudsætning have, at der er tilstrækkeligt med vand på vores planet, men at dette vand ikke er til rådighed i en tilgængelig form; det vil sige, at det enten forekommer som saltholdigt havvand, er indeholdt i atmosfæren som fugt og regner ned over havene, eller flyder uproduktivt ud i havene (som smeltevand/afvanding fra floderne.)

Nye videnskabelige undersøgelser giver belæg for sammenhængen mellem vort Solsystems galaktiske cyklus over mange år og forandringer i vort vejrmønster, der i størrelsesorden overgår virkningerne af menneskeskabt aktivitet i en grad, der gør disse fuldstændigt negligerbare. Det afgørende spørgsmål er derimod, hvordan menneskeslægten bevidst kan udnytte de processer, der optræder i vor galakse og vort solsystem, såsom den kosmiske stråling og ionisering af fugten i atmosfæren, for at forandre vandcyklusserne på Jorden i en sådan grad, at de kan modvirke den tiltagende ørkendannelse.

Frem for alt har Kina, med to store vandstyringsprojekter, demonstreret menneskets evne til at overvinde oversvømmelser såvel som tørke. Projektet med de Tre Slugters Dæmning har allerede reddet tusinder fra at drukne og producerer årligt 98,8 mia. kWh (2014) elektricitet, og omdirigeringen af vandet fra Yangtzeflodens kildeområde til Kinas tørre områder i nord og området omkring Beijing er en model for overvindelse af vandmangel i andre egne af verden.

Hvis Tyskland og de andre europæiske nationer forbliver i EU’s spændetrøje og i slaveagtig, forudbestemt lydighed støtter Londons og Wall Streets geopolitisk motiverede politik imod Rusland og Kina, da kan man frygte, at opstillingen af våbensystemer og tropper på grænsen til Rusland, og Saudi Arabiens krig i Yemen, samt krige andre steder, der også promoveres af London og Washington, meget snart vil føre til udløsningen af en global, atomar udslettelse af menneskeheden.

Lad os i stedet tage imod den udstrakte hånd, der ligger i Xi Jinpings og BRIKS-landenes tilbud om at samarbejde om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej og det nye finanssystem, som for tiden hastigt er under udvikling – med AIIB, den Nye Udviklingsbank (NDB) og en hel række af andre finansinstitutioner, der alle principielt har den samme funktion, som Kreditanstalten for Genopbygning havde for virkeliggørelsen af det tyske, økonomiske mirakel efter Anden Verdenskrig –, så kan vi løse alle de problemer, der i øjeblikket synes uløselige.

Det altafgørende spørgsmål er: Kan vi i tide frigøre os fra geopolitikkens oligarkisk-snæversynede tankegang, som den netop på klinisk måde er blevet repræsenteret af vasallerne Norbert Röttgen i Maybritt Illners Talkshow fra den nye »Sorte Kanal Vest«[1]? Og kan vi i tide placere os på det højere standpunkt, der repræsenterer én menneskehed, og som tilbydes af Kina og BRIKS-politikken? Det er netop dette, som tilbydes af den græske regering, når denne tilbyder at blive en bro mellem BRIKS og Europa.

Ironisk nok afhænger såvel USA’s som Tysklands overlevelse af, at vi griber denne chance – også selv om hr. Schäuble, af kulturelle årsager, ikke kan forstå det.

 

[1] ’Den sorte Kanal’ var en serie af politiske programmer, der blev sendt hver uge mellem 1960 og 1989 af Østtysk Tv. Hver af udsendelserne blev lavet over optagede uddrag fra nylige vesttyske Tv-programmer, der blev genredigeret til at indeholde en kommunistisk kommentar.