Den Nye Silkevej former strategiske anliggender.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche i strategisk webcast, torsdag 5. april 2018
Introduktion: Den hysteriske og bidende retorik mod Rusland, der kommer fra Storbritanniens imperiale oligarker og deres efterretningstjenester og kanaliseres gennem Theresa May og Boris ’BoJo’ Johnson, narrer ingen. Alt imens nogle regeringer underdanigt er gået med i de farlige provokationer, så er andre, inklusive USA, blot kommet med symbolske handlinger. Mange nationer synes at ligge mere på linje med tankegangen hos den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, der om May-regeringens ubegrundede beskyldninger i Skripal-affæren sagde, at det er »kun alt for åbenlyst, at vore britiske kolleger har mistet deres realitetssans«.
De ledere, som derimod ikke har mistet deres realitetssans, har i stedet været engageret i et imponerende opbud af diplomatisk og økonomisk aktivitet og har indgået aftaler om at deltage i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ (BVI). Parallelt med disse bestræbelser er et russisk initiativ for at bringe fred i Syrien og arbejde sammen med Syriens naboer. De britiskdirigerede geopolitikere har uden tvivl bemærket, at, i takt med, at dette initiativ går fremad, har præsident Trump gentaget sit kampagneløfte om at afslutte al amerikansk militær involvering i Syrien og har gentaget sit ønske om et topmøde med Putin i den nærmeste fremtid.
Det, der ligger bag de britiske angreb mod Putin og Rusland, er ikke den svindelagtige påstand, at Putin beordrede forgiftningen af en tidligere russisk efterretningsofficer, lige så vel som at Mueller-efterforskningen intet har at gøre med »russisk indblanding« i det amerikanske valg. Målet for disse provokationer er det Nye Paradigme, der er knyttet til BVI, som City of London og dets Wall Street allierede korrekt har identificeret som efterfølgeren til deres fallerede system. Hvis USA tilsluttede sig Rusland, Kina og Indien sådan, som Lyndon LaRouche opfordrede det til i kølvandet på krakket i 2008, ville det være umuligt at forhindre fremvæksten af det Nye Paradigme.
Her følger engelsk udskrift:
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger
from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s Schiller Institute
webcast for April 5, 2018, featuring our founder and President
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
In the last couple of weeks, Helga has spoken about the
potential for a backfire as a result of the Skripal affair, that
Theresa May and her somewhat unhinged Foreign Secretary Boris
Johnson have been using as a way of attacking both Russia and the
United States. Now, we’ve seen this play out in a very big way
in the last couple of days: The fact that they came out in their
own name, and the name of their intelligence services and their
government, to attack Russia, has in fact, put “egg on their
faces” as some have said. So, Helga, why don’t you catch us up
on what’s happened in the last days, because this is quite
significant, in terms of shaping the strategic relationships?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. I think it is incredibly
serious, because now you have a situation where I think the whole
group of nations which committed themselves to sort of
unprincipled solidarity with May and Johnson, they really have to
reflect on what has actually happened. Just to mention some of
the recent developments: The head of the research lab Porton
Down, Gary Aitkenhead, came out actually and said they could not
find any proof that the origin of this nerve agent was Russia;
that they could establish that it was Novichok, or belonging to
the group of Novichoks, but that they could not say that it came
from Russia.
This has led to quite a series of events. One was that the
Foreign Office removed the tweet in which they had said very
clearly that there was no doubt that the origin was Russia, and I
think they even mentioned that the scientists of the Porton Down
lab had said so. So, they were obliged to remove the tweet,
because that also is evidence that Boris Johnson was lying,
because he had said that he had heard from the scientists that
there was absolutely unrefutable proof that this came from
Russia. This is the first thing.
Then the London {Times} had a comment about this, where they
say that the statement by Aitkenhead is threatening to bring down
the international coalition against Russia. Well, that’s indeed
the case, because now naturally everybody is reviewing this, and
I think in the case of the German government, for example, they
gave a press conference afterwards, in which journalists were
asking, did this statement mean that you’ve changed your
perspective? And they basically refused to do so, which shows
you really the absolute grip in which these people are in, namely
the grip of the British Empire.
So, I think this is now backfiring very clearly. The role
of the British government and the British Empire, for that
matter, is completely exposed, but they are not stopping the
confrontation with Russia, so that some of the Russian responses,
for example, people speaking at the Seventh Moscow Conference on
International Security which is now taking place in Moscow,
[Sergei] Naryshkin, who is the head of Russia’s foreign
intelligence [SVR], he said that this is basically as serious as
the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Others were saying, this time
these idiots went way beyond any line, and that is clearly the
case. But you also have a whole series of people who are saying,
look, we cannot continue like that, we have to resume a dialogue
with Russia; we have to go back to straighten out the relations.
And I want to really point to the fact that, despite the
fact that naturally the United States expelled 60 Russian
diplomats, which is clearly part of this escalation, that
President Trump himself, who did not at any point use this
incident to attack Russia as the origin. And I think this stands
clearly out. And people who are always totally freaked out about
Trump, they should really review this and ask if their
perspective and their optical approach actually the correct one?
Because in many cases, it turns out that Trump is actually the
one who is not going for confrontation, and some of the people
who are so much for “democracy and human rights” that they can’t
even walk straight, because they’re so heavily burdened with
their responsibilities, that they are the actual warmongers. So
I think this is really something to reflect about.
But I think the kind of procedure that NATO, however, the
European Union, the German and French government, they were all
immediately jumping on this, without evidence, condemning Russia.
And I think if you look at this, when the dust settles down, it
{is} a blow to the whole Western system, because if there is not
an establishment of scientific fact, first, and the condemnation
first so that basically Russia is declared guilty, and then maybe
you find the evidence sometime down the road, or not, I think
this does big damage to the Western system, because if you play
with these things lightly, it is contributing to the
discreditation of the governments that did that, and that is not
a good thing.
SCHLANGER: Well, minimally, we could say this is a rush to
judgment, but more importantly, this is part of an established
pattern of British intelligence. We’ve seen it with the repeated
charges, without evidence, that the Assad government was using
chemical weapons against his population; and of course, the
famous case of Tony Blair and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,
which turned out to be another fabrication of the highest levels
of British intelligence.
But there’s another aspect of this which I think you may
want to comment on, which is the case of David Kelly, because
this also hits at home, where there was opposition from within
the scientific community in the United Kingdom against the
actions of the government and the intelligence community.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. This is clearly a pattern. And
before the statement by the head of the Porton Down lab came out,
the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, had
actually said that he had from high-level sources in the
intelligence community or the science community, that the
scientists would not basically produce the evidence — and they
didn’t. And [Porton Down weapons inspector] David Kelly, at the
time of the Iraq war, had basically blown the whistle, saying
there were no weapons of mass destruction, and then he found an
early death under extremely dubious circumstances which were said
to be a suicide, but nobody really believes that.
So, I think this is really something — if you think the
Iraq War was based on lies, and I think Willy Wimmer, the former
vice president of the OSCE and former state secretary to the
minister of defense, pointed to the fact that the Iraq war, after
all, has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Europe, in the
Middle East, in North Africa, and that the Chilcot Commission,
which from our standpoint was a relative cover-up, but
nevertheless, pointed to the fact that Tony Blair had willfully,
intentionally exaggerated the danger coming from Iraq and Saddam
Hussein at the time. And then [Bush Secretary of State] Colin
Powell used the MI6 “dodgy dossier” [on Iraq’s alleged WMD] from
that period, to argue in the UN for the U.S. joining the Iraq
War.
I mean, the fact that governments can do these things which
cost — really — if you look at the totality of these wars,
millions of people’s lives, and then, it just goes by and there
is no accountability. And it’s a complete hypocrisy and
duplicity, when the people who are saying that they are the
defenders of human rights and democracy, then go around and make
these interventions into sovereign countries, which have these
horrible results. And then they are self-righteous and pretend
that they are the good ones, and the Russians and the Chinese are
the bad ones.
I think we need to have, really, a review of this, because
this cannot continue. It is very dangerous to world peace.
SCHLANGER: And another aspect of this is that this was a
major feature of President Trump’s election campaign in 2016,
where he, at a very important debate in South Carolina, openly
accused George W. Bush of lying to create the Iraq War, and he
said that his administration would oppose these kinds of wars.
Now, this week the President announced that he’s preparing
to remove U.S. troops from Syria, despite demands from some in
the military, and the CIA, that the U.S. remain in Syria.
Helga, this is a fairly significant departure from the
standard Bush/Obama policy of pursuing these wars, isn’t it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, yes! And, again, you can see certain
representatives of the U.S. military and others, who say, “no,
no, we still have a lot of fighting to do against ISIS,” but
Trump I think is clearly sticking to guns, and he has promised to
stop the interventionist wars, and I think he is going very far
to do so. Especially, if you consider that in in this middle of
this whole hysteria, he telephoned President Putin, and has
reiterated that he wants to have a summit with Putin in the near
future. And he was also meeting with the three Presidents of the
Baltic countries, who as everybody knows are extremely
anti-Russians, and he reiterated that to have a good relationship
with Russia “is a good thing and not a bad thing.”
So I think people should really review their slanders, or
their believing the slanders against both Trump, Putin and Xi
Jinping because it comes from the same circles: it comes from
the neo-con/neo-liberal geopolitical faction who are seeing that
their system is clearly in bad shape and who are obviously
stopping short of nothing, if you look at this recent affair.
SCHLANGER: You mentioned earlier the Moscow International
Security Conference. Clearly, there’s a discussion going on
there, about something that your husband Lyndon LaRouche brought
up many, many years ago, and that you’ve been calling for, which
is the establishment of a new security architecture. How is this
proceeding in Moscow? Do you have some reports on what the
discussion process has been, there?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s an extremely important event.
There are 95 countries represented, 840 guests, 700 media; and
obviously, this alone speaks to the fact that Russia is very far
from being isolated, as some people in the West are trying to
portray.
The discussions were very focussed on the need to have an
international alliance to combat terrorism. There was a warning
by the head of the FSB [Alexander Bortnikov], that there are
signs that ISIS and al-Qaeda are merging, and he basically said
this means you will have sleepers and cells in every country
around the globe, and the only way you can defend against that,
is to work together internationally.
Now, another very important aspect of this conference, is
that the Defense Minister of China went to this conference and
made a statement that this was meant as a signal to the West that
the Russian and the Chinese military are in an extremely close
strategic partnership, and that this is meant as a signal to the
West.
So there were many warnings, as I mentioned already, that
the present confrontation is approaching the danger of a Cuban
Missile Crisis, so people are obviously extremely attuned to what
is coming there from the British and their allies. But on the
other side, it also shows who is talking in favor of
international solidarity, cooperation; who is addressing the
real dangers of the world: It is clearly not the West, but it is
clearly Russia, China and the countries that are participating in
this conference.
And again, this is really something people should reflect
about, rather than believing the propaganda. If you read
{Bildzeitung}, this morning on page 2, they have a picture of
Putin, Erdogan, and Rouhani, and they say this is the “axis of
evil.” This is ridiculous! These three countries [Russia,
Turkey, Iran] have collaborated to bring about a solution to the
terrible crisis in Syria, and this is a very good thing. Now,
not all aspects of the policies of these countries I would
always subscribe to, — I mean, there’s the unresolved tensions
between the Kurds and Erdogan, between Turkey and Greece — so
not everything is perfect.
But I think on the larger picture, if you think that the
misery of the Syrian people who have had war for seven years [is
being addressed] because of the intervention of these countries,
and not to forget the cooperation between the U.S. and Russian
military under the leadership of Trump and Putin; I think people
should not just fall for these propaganda lines. Because there
are some people who have suffered with their lives and their
livelihoods and their happiness, as a result of these
[geopolitical] policies, and for Syria, this [intervention] is a
good thing.
SCHLANGER: Especially, this should have meaning for people
in Europe, because in 2015-2016, there was the explosion of the
refugee crisis, and with all the hand-wringing and crocodile
tears that were shed, nothing was done to support the Russian
intervention to stop the war in Syria. And the fact that the
Russians, the Iranians and the Turkish government were meeting to
discuss this, is something that should be welcomed, as opposed to
a source for criticism.
Now, on the Russia-Turkey cooperation, there was another
aspect to it, because when you deal with these problems in the
real world, there’s always an economic element, and there was
just an agreement between Putin and [Turkish President Recep
Tayyip] Erdogan to move ahead with nuclear energy development.
Helga, this is part of the broader package of the New Silk Road
and economic cooperation that you’ve been talking about, isn’t
it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think the remarks of President
Putin, who was at the opening ceremony of this [Akkuyu] nuclear
plant was to emphasize the extreme importance of nuclear energy,
giving a country cheap and secure energy, and leading to an
increase in the productivity of the entire economy; which is
absolutely the case. And you have many, many projects, Russia,
China, India, having with developing countries the building of
nuclear energy in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia.
So, soon, countries like Germany will be the only ones that
will not have nuclear energy, and if they keep this course, they
will be sidelined at the disadvantage of the population. So, I
think this is really something we should change.
SCHLANGER: The other story that’s getting a lot of coverage
internationally, and I think it’s being covered typically by the
media as a way of trying to drum up war, is this whole argument
that the discussion and the negotiations under way between the
U.S. and China on tariff policy is nothing but a trade war. Now,
there’s a danger to this, as the Chinese have pointed out, but I
think it’s important for people to hear your perspective on this:
Because obviously, there are problems in the U.S.-China
relationship, a huge trade imbalance, but it’s not just a trade
war, there’s actually a much broader discussion under way. How
do you see this evolving, from what you’ve seen over the last few
days?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: There are negotiations going on, and it must
not necessarily come to the execution of these tariffs, which
both sides have now drawn up, up to the value of $60 billion in
terms of products. One thing is that the Prime Minister Li
Keqiang has pointed out that there is another way to overcome the
trade imbalance: namely by increasing trade, by especially
investments in joint ventures in third countries, that there are
many ways how you can get rid of this trade imbalance.
And there is a renewed discussion, something which we have
brought into the discussion early on, namely, that you have the
possibility of Chinese investments in the infrastructure in the
United States. And that would also be a way to completely change
this dynamic. If the Chinese investment in American
infrastructure would create many, many productive jobs for
Americans, it would create the infrastructure precondition for a
real industrial revolution: for the building of new cities,
science cities, connecting all American cities with fast trains
systems.
There are so many ways of changing this dynamic for the
better, and I’m absolutely convinced that China is having this
mind. There was a program on the Chinese TV channel CGTN,
proposing exactly that, that there should be a dialogue on
infrastructure. Then you have some Americans, a Trump supporter
who had already made such a proposal early on, also. So I think
there is a discussion. And I would imagine that President Xi
Jinping, who will give a very important speech at the “Asian
Davos” as they call it, the Boao Forum for Asia, which will start
in three days, where he is expected to make a major speech on the
continuation on international reforms, and opening up. So I
think you can expect something important to come from there.
And I think the Chinese are also extremely aware of the fact
that we are sitting on a powder keg in terms the financial
system. Xi Jinping has defined three priorities: One, to
overcome the risks of the financial system; to alleviate poverty;
and to get rid of air pollution. So I think the Chinese are very
much aware of the dangers of this present Western financial
system. And you know, you had several articles warning that with
the outbreak of a new 2008 could happen at any moment, one of the
many new aspects which were mentioned is the difference between
the LIBOR rate and the Fed rate; and that was exactly the
beginning sign of the 2008 crisis.
So that really requires that the discussion which we and our
colleagues in the United States and in Europe have formulated, to
implement the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche — Glass-Steagall,
national bank, a credit system, and then cooperation of the
Western countries, with the financial systems of the New Silk
Road, the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund; all of these things need
to be urgently discussed. Because one danger which is clearly
there, that if you had now a financial crash, and some people are
even speculating that the same people who are making these
provocations against Russia, could also trigger, deliberately,
such a financial crash, to pull the rug out from underneath
President Trump, to bring the neo-cons back in, and just get rid
of this phenomenon of Trump.
So anybody who thinks this is conspiracy theory, or this is
totally over the top, well, look at the Skripal case, and learn
the lesson from that, how things can be manipulated and
orchestrated.
So I think the urgency is really to draw the lesson out from
all of this, and end this system of looting, which is only for
the privilege of the very few rich; it’s destroying the middle
class, it’s making the poor, more poor. And we need really a
return to Hamiltonian economics. This is what is the basis of
the Chinese economic miracle, as I have said many times: The
Chinese economic miracle, or Chinese economic model, is much,
much closer to the economic policies of the young republic of the
United States than people think. It’s no coincidence that the
distinction which Friedrich List, for example, made between the
American System and the British System, that that is exactly what
is playing out today, and we need {clearly} a return to the
American System of economy.
SCHLANGER: It’s also important to keep in mind that
President Trump has repeatedly referred to his great friendship
with Xi Jinping, and the strategic importance of a China-U.S.
relationship is also clear when it comes to the question of the
collaboration to bring a peaceful solution to the Korean
Peninsula. There’s a lot of diplomacy coming up: The Trump-Putin
meeting; Trump meeting with Prime Minister Abe of Japan; and also
the coming meeting with Kim Jong-un. So there’s a lot more at
stake here than just the question of a few dollars off the trade
imbalance.
And Helga, just to go back to one final note on the Belt and
Road Initiative: I’m sure you took note of the importance of the
visit recently of the Swiss government to China and also a very
large delegation heading to China from Austria. Maybe there’s a
lesson here for Germany, huh?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, one would hope so!
I mean, I’m very happy, because all the neighbors of Germany
are clearly joining the Silk Road, it increases the pressure on
those who are obviously too stupid or too arrogant to see the
potential for German industry which lies in this initiative.
Now, the Swiss Foreign Minister was just in China and he and
his Chinese counterpart, both [Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and also
[former Foreign Minister] Yang Jiechi, they declared that the
collaboration of China and Switzerland in the New Silk Road is at
the best historical level ever, and both emphasized the
importance of Xi Jinping’s visit last year to Switzerland, where
he addressed Davos as a keynote speaker, and then went to Geneva,
emphasizing the importance of Switzerland. So they’re deepening
the relationship between China and Switzerland.
And the Austrian government, they have a huge delegation,
the largest ever: It is President Van der Bellen, Chancellor
Sebastian Kurz; four cabinet ministers, and 170 CEOs from large
corporations, spending five days in China. And what Kurz said
is, there is no ceiling to improve the relationship between
Austria and China on the New Silk Road. The same, by the way, is
happening with Zimbabwe, where the new President [Emmerson
Mnangagwa] is going with a large delegation of 12 ministers and
also many, many CEOs. So, you can see almost every day, a little
breaking development. And as I have said many times, the Spirit
of the New Silk Road is, in my view, absolutely unstoppable,
except if we have World War III, which obviously some people are
risking.
But nevertheless, the idea of a new relationship among
nations, of respect for the sovereignty of the other nation,
respect for the difference of the social system, the ending of
internationalist wars, the idea of a win-win cooperation, this is
just a new model of international relations and a New Paradigm.
And the biggest problem is that because of the Western media
being so much in control of this geopolitical faction that most
people don’t know enough about it.
So, please, I would appeal to you: Join the Schiller
Institute, help us to spread the knowledge about the New Silk
Road, and also the options to solve the present financial crisis
and many other crises around the world with such an approach. I
would really appeal to you: Don’t sit on the fence. This is an
incredibly important historic moment, and the British have just
suffered a terrible defeat, which freaks them out, but it’s
visible for everybody and so therefore, it’s a good moment to
move forward and establish a completely different political,
social, and economic system on this planet.
SCHLANGER: And we will be launching a new membership drive
for the Schiller Institute, and if you want to increase the
misery of the British intelligence establishment and the City of
London, become a member of the Schiller Institute, and help us
build the audience for these webcasts, so people have an
alternative to the lying media that otherwise is the only option
they have to allegedly find out about the world.
So Helga, I think that covers quite a bit. Thank you for
joining us again, and we’ll see you next week.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Till next week.