Den Nye Silkevej – den
presserende nødvendige
modgift mod global krig.
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Webcast, 18. maj, 2018

Som I ser, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse, “Den Nye Silkevej – Den presserende nødvendige modgift mod global krig”. Dette er noget, Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget i løbet af de seneste par uger; at den eneste nøgle til krisen, som vi nu ser, konfronterer os over hele planeten, er omgående at gennemføre den Nye Silkevej. Initiativet for ét Bælte, én Vej, som Kina har indledt, og som indkapsler “win-win”-paradigmet, som er modgiften mod  geopolitikker, der kun kan føre til krig. 

Engelsk udskrift: 

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast,  May 18, 2018

THE NEW SILK ROAD: THE URGENT ANTIDOTE TO GLOBAL WAR

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It’s May 18, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our Friday evening
strategic overview from larouchepac.com.  As you can see, the
title of our show here today is “The New Silk Road: The Urgent
Antidote to Global War”.  This is something which Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing over the last several weeks.
That the only key to the crises that we now see facing us across
the planet is by immediately applying the New Silk Road.  The One
Belt, One Road initiative which China has started and which
encapsulates the “win-win” paradigm which is the antidote to
geopolitics, which can only lead to war.
Now, while there are many very positive developments afoot,
in this regard, emphatically the situation on the Korean
Peninsula; we are by no means in safe waters.  We are less than a
month away from the scheduled President Trump/Kim Jong-un summit,
which will be held in Singapore.  But a month is a very long
time, and all sorts of mischief can occur between now and then.
We saw a vivid example just this week, which demonstrates that
even within President Trump’s inner circle, there are individuals
who are still seeking to derail his efforts towards peace.  John
Bolton, one of the leading war-mongers inside this
administration, went on the Sunday talk shows this past weekend,
and said the very last thing that Kim Jong-un would want to hear
if you were Kim Jong-un.  He said that the model to be used in
North Korea for denuclearization is the Libyan model.
Now, we know that in the early 2000s, Libyan leader Muammar
Qaddafi voluntarily negotiated an end to his country’s covert
nuclear weapons program, and other weapons of mass destruction
programs in a bid to “come in from the cold” as they say, and
join the international community of nations.  Well, what did that
get him?  It got him a Western-backed insurgency which overthrew
his government and eventually cost him his life in a very brutal
murder that occurred outside of Sirte.  That is exactly what Kim
Jong-un is afraid of, and his regime has made very clear that
they have viewed their weapons program as the guard, the defense
against that kind of regime-change treatment.  It was only
through promises that there would be no regime change that the
situation has even advanced to this point.
President Trump did come out and contradict John Bolton in a
discussion with reporters yesterday, after a meeting between
himself and NATO Secretary Stoltenburg.  Trump said the Libya
model is not what he has in mind for North Korea; although he did
turn around and use the opportunity to threaten Kim Jong-un again
if he doesn’t make a deal.  Threaten him with Qaddafi treatment
in no less words.  But, this is what he said, and we can read
into it what we will.  What President Trump had to say to
reporters is the following:  “Well, the Libyan model isn’t a
model that we have at all, when we’re thinking of North Korea.
In Libya, we decimated that country.  That country was decimated!
There was no deal to keep Qaddafi.  The Libyan model that was
mentioned was a much different deal.  This would be with Kim
Jong-un something where he’d be there; he’d be in his country.
He’d be running his country.  His country would be very rich; his
people are tremendously industrious.  If you look at South Korea,
this would be really a South Korean model in terms of their
industry, in terms of what they do.  They’re hard-working,
incredible people.
“But the Libyan model was a much different model.  We
decimated that country!  We went in and decimated him, and we did
the same thing with Iraq.  But the model, if you look at that
model with Qaddafi, that was a total decimation.  We went in
there to beat him.  Now, that model would take place, if we don’t
make a deal, most likely.  But if we make a deal, I think Kim
Jong-un is going to be very, very happy.  I believe, I really
believe he’s going to be very happy.”  So, that was President
Trump in remarks to reporters yesterday.
Now the framework for creating prosperity on the Korean
Peninsula as Trump said, “harnessing the industriousness of the
people of North Korea,” and producing something equivalent to the
model of what we’ve seen in terms of the tremendous economic
success in South Korea with their industry.  The framework for
such an economic miracle in South Korea was actually, in effect,
an application of some aspects of the American System of
Alexander Hamilton, translated through the works of Friedrich
List and others.  That’s been discussed elsewhere on this
program, but the framework for applying that sort of economic
miracle to North Korea would be the new economic map for the
Korean Peninsula.  What you see here [Fig. 1] is exactly what
Moon Jae-in gave to Kim Jong-un on a thumb drive during their
recent meeting in the Demilitarized Zone.  As you can see, this
model, this economic map for the Korean Peninsula would really be
connecting the entire Korean Peninsula into the New Silk Road.
It’s this sort of H-shaped configuration where you can see North
Korea connected on the left side to China; and then on the other
side into Russia, connecting North Korea into mainland China in
terms of rail development and also other trade routes.  But also
connecting North Korea into the trans-Siberian railroad in
Russia.  You would see internal development across the Korean
Peninsula, developing the interior of the Korean Peninsula.  Then
you would see connected down, across the 38th parallel there,
into South Korea, on the one hand connected to the Maritime Silk
Road with the ports coming off the southern tip of South Korea.
Then on the other hand, bringing Japan into the entire mix, which
even be an incentive for Japan to develop the long-discussed
Japan-Korea tunnel or bridge.
So, this kind of configuration is an idea of bringing the
entirety of the Korean Peninsula into this New Silk Road.  It
would connect both Russia and China into this region, and it
would act as a bridge.  North Korea would have the opportunity to
act as a crucial bridge connecting South Korea and Japan into the
rest of Eurasia, and acting as a crucial hub for the New Silk
Road.  This is something that the LaRouche movement has discussed
for decades, and it’s something that has been on the table and
now is proving to be the key to actually bringing Kim Jong-un to
the negotiating table and providing the basis for a durable and
sustainable peace in that region.
This is emphatically the model that we need in the so-called
Middle East, Southwest Asia.  These nations where you seem to
have intractable conflict; where there is no solution in terms of
the situation on the ground.  You need to have something which
comes in in a global context and creates this kind of
connectivity in this region, where all the parties have a common
interest in embracing this sort of peace through economic
development.  This would be bringing the New Silk Road into the
Middle East.
Now what we’re seeing in this area of the world is a renewed
danger of war, which is set to explode.  Not just a regional war,
not just a war between different powers in that region, but one
which would very quickly threaten to become a global war.
Dragging parties across the world into this sort of war, exactly
in the way that it was described in the lead-up to World War I;
where all of the alliances would force parties to sort of
sleepwalk into such a global war.  The atrocities that were
committed on Monday, during the protests that occurred in Gaza,
where dozens of people were killed, and almost 2000 people were
wounded; these atrocities have caused widespread outrage across
the world, including here in the United States, notably.  A
statement was released by 13 US Senators — all of whom are
Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth
Warren, Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Ed Markey, and numerous
others — calling for urgent action in addressing the crisis in
the Gaza Strip.  Both the humanitarian crisis, but also the
urgent lack of economic development.  Here’s an image [Fig. 2] of
the letter which they sent to Secretary [of State] Pompeo.  You
can see in this open letter what they say is the following:
“Dear Secretary Pompeo,
“We write to urge the administration to do more to alleviate
the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.  The
territory’s lack of power, clean water, adequate medical care,
and other necessities not only exacerbates the hardships faced by
Gaza’s population, but redounds to the benefit of extremist
groups who use this depravation and despair to incite violence
against Israel.  The United States should also encourage the
easing of restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and
equipment in and out of the territory, especially for materials
and supplies related to critical infrastructure such as water
projects, and health essentials such as medicines and hospital
supplies.  Multiple parties should also be engaged to insure
greater electricity flow into Gaza to meet the territory’s
desperate need for energy.
“The United States should also put its weight behind
proposals to build Gaza’s economy through bold initiatives, such
as the proposed Gaza sea port.  The new port facility could boost
Gaza’s economy by vastly improving the territory’s access to
goods and markets worldwide.  The political and security
challenges in Gaza are formidable, but support for the basic
human rights of its people must not be conditioned on progress on
those fronts.  For the sake of Israelis and Palestinians alike,
the United States must act urgently to help relieve the
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.”
So, while that statement may be limited in its particulars,
I think it’s very significant that this appeal includes a demand
for economic development as a pathway to alleviating the
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.  But also, to creating the
basis for real peace; a peace which would benefit the Israelis
and the Palestinians alike.
As Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche have repeatedly
emphasized, nothing can be done locally to secure peace in this
region.  But rather, this region must be understood in a global
context; both in a negative sense as a playground geopolitics in
a new Great Game where geopolitical interests have sought to
divide this region and to keep it at war against itself; but also
from a positive standpoint, where you understand that peace is
only possible through collaboration of the great powers.  A great
powers alliance between the United States, Russia — which plays
a very large role in this region with its allies — and also
China.  China which has the New Silk Road as the key, which would
be the key to developing this region.  If these three great
powers would be able to collaborate to bring the New Silk Road to
this region, it could be transformed from a crucible for war to a
new crossroads of civilization.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed this in detail in her
international webcast this week.  I would like to play just an
excerpt from one of her statements during that webcast, where you
can see that she goes right at the core of the issue.  That the
only way you’re going to resolve this crisis in Southwest Asia,
is by bringing the New Silk Road Spirit to bear and using the
pathway of peace through economic development.  So, here’s what
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say.  [Technical difficulties playing
video.]  We apologize for that technical error.  The gist of what
Helga LaRouche got at in this statement, was that you have an
atrocity which was committed, but by no means is this to seen as
limited to the parties in this region.  What you have to
understand is that there is a long history in which this region
has been at war.  There have been several potentials for peace
agreements.  Most significantly was Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal
going back to the 1970s, but very crucially revived in the 1990s
as we reviewed during our show here on Monday afternoon.  This
was the idea of an Oasis Plan for Peace, where you would have all
the parties in this region would be guaranteed their own
security, but also would be guaranteed the benefits of the
economic development which this Oasis Plan would provide.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, during this clip, which unfortunately
we’re not able to play for you, brought up the way that Mr.
LaRouche has always posed the crisis in this region.  That you
have to not have a myopic view of this region, but you have to
zoom out and see this region in the big picture in terms of the
historic crossroads of civilization and the cradle of
civilization going back thousands and thousands of years; but
also currently as this sort of playground for a new Great Game,
where you have British imperial interests and others carving up
the region and playing one ethnic group against another in order
to ensure that this region does not become a positive cradle for
the dialogue between these civilizations and a crossroads between
Europe, Asia, and Africa.  Lyndon LaRouche delivered a speech at
Connecticut State University, which is a state school in
Connecticut, in May of 2009, which he titled “Only Dismantling
the Empire Can Stop the War Today”.  Here, you can see, this is
the cover [Fig. 3] of the {Executive Intelligence Review}
magazine which contained the text of that speech.  But let me
just read you a few excerpts of what Lyndon LaRouche had to say,
and I think you’ll see that he gets directly at this question of
placing this region in a global context.  So, Mr. LaRouche said
the following:

“I shall suggest it is an error to talk a Middle East
policyâ¦. Instead of talking about a conflict in the so-called
Middle East, we should talk about the Middle East as conflict
that is largely globalâ¦. Because the conflict is not determined
by the Israelis or Arabs.  It’s determined by international
forces which look at this region.  How?  As a crossover point
between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the relationship
of Europe to Asia, the relationship of Europe to East Africa, and
so forth.
“Therefore, what you’re seeing is thatâ¦.
“We get so involved in the issues of the Middle East that we
can never solve them.  The way we’re playing it, we’ll never
solve themâ¦.
“There is a solution, a solution in principle.  And the
solution is, end this blasted imperialist system!…
“But don’t believe that’s there’s some solution for the
Israeli-Arab conflict per se.  There is no solution in that, per
se.  That’s why I said at the beginning here: Don’t look at the
history of the Middle East; look at the Middle East in history.
There, you find the solution.
“Because it’s being played!  The whole region.  It’s being
played like a puppetâ¦.
“So now we’re in a situation where we have to change our
monetary system.  We could reorganize our monetary system and the
world monetary system.  We can cooperate with Russia, with China,
India, and other countriesâ¦.
“So, how do you do this?  Well, we have a system.  We call
it the American System, defined by Hamilton.  We can shift the
world economy from being a monetary economy to being a credit
system, as specified by Alexander Hamiltonâ¦.   “We go to a
credit system: We can organize credit agreements like treaty
agreements with Russia, China, India, and other countriesâ¦.
“We have to move, therefore, from thinking about conflict
among nations and regions, to the alternative to conflict.  By
finding that which unites us through our common purpose as
independent nations rather than seeking resolution of a conflict
we are now enjoying among ourselves.  That’s the only chance we
have.  And when you look at the possibilities for this region,
like Southwest Asia, the only chance will come {not} from inside
Southwest Asia.  We will do, and must do, what we can, for that
area, to try to stop the bloodshed, the agony, to prevent the
war.  But we will not succeed until we change the history, change
the world in which this region is contained.
“And that’s my mission.  Thank you.”

Now, that speech was delivered in 2009, well before Xi
Jinping announced the New Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  But looking at this idea of changing the world
within which this region is situated, that is the attitude that
Lyndon LaRouche has always had.  That you needed to create a new
international system, a system which he discussed there in credit
terms, monetary terms.  A Hamiltonian credit system, where you
can have credit for infrastructure development, credit agreements
among sovereign nations.  He also discussed it in terms of a
revived treaty of Westphalia; where you don’t try to resolve
conflicts between countries in terms of the conflicts per se.
But you resolve these conflicts by saying what do our nations, as
sovereign nations, have in common, and what can we do to benefit
the other.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche took this question up again in her
webcast this week, and the following clip I believe should
function.  And you’ll hear Helga Zepp-LaRouche discuss the
specific projects which are necessary to connect this region of
Southwest Asia into the movement for great project development
which is now sweeping the globe in the form of the One Belt, One
Road Initiative.  So, here’s what Helga LaRouche had to say:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Now, what you need, is, if you
have a very complex situation like that  — and obviously, the
many things which have happened, the terrorisms, many wars —
emotions are hurt, people have an incredible accumulated rage:
You need something big, and the only way how you could get it, is
if you had all the neighbors, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt,
the United States, and hopefully European nations all agreeing
that the only way how this can be solved, is, you have to have
the extension of the New Silk Road into the region and develop
every country as part of one, integrated, industrial
infrastructure development program.
There are already the beginnings of that.  When President Xi
Jinping was  three years ago in Iran, he agreed already with
President Rouhani at the time, that the New Silk Road would be
extended into Iran.  You had the Afghanistan President demanding
that the New Silk Road should be applied in Afghanistan.  And at
the recent Wuhan meeting of President Xi Jinping and India’s
Prime Minister Modi, they agreed that China and India would
cooperate in bringing the Silk Road into Afghanistan, by
building, as a first step, a large train connection between
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, China, and that way
start to connect Afghanistan to the Silk Road.
That same approach must be taken for Iraq, for Syria, for
the situation in Yemen, and naturally Egypt will have to play a
very important role as a bridge between Asia and Africa.  I think
Egypt is absolutely thinking in this direction, already.  And
however, naturally, these are gigantic projects and they cannot
be done by any one country alone; even if China has a special
envoy for Syria, they have said they want to play a leading role
in the reconstruction of Syria.  You have the earlier commitment
of Russia to supply energy, of Iran to help in the industrial
development.  But that needs to be presented as a comprehensive
proposal.
And I’m sure that there are people in Israel, as well, who
will not agree with the present course of Netanyahu — who, by
the way, faces his own problems and may look into not such a
bright future for his own political career.  But there are people
in Israel who agree, that you need to come out of this terrible
paradigm of the present configuration.  And if there would be an
agreement, between Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, and Modi, and then
other leaders joining with them, to go in this direction, even
this very difficult situation of Southwest Asia could be
approached and a solution could be found.  But it does require an
extraordinary intervention.

OGDEN:  So that kind of extraordinary intervention as Helga
LaRouche just described there, must come in the form of bringing
the Silk Road to bear in this region.  On Monday, we featured an
extensive clip from a LaRouche PAC video which was produced two
years ago, which was called “Operation Phoenix”, which discussed
how to rebuild Syria, but in a broader context, how to bring this
entire region of Southwest Asia into the New Silk Road.  If we
look at this map [Fig. 4] on the screen here, just as we saw the
map of the new economic map of the Korean Peninsula, where you
could see North Korea being connected into China, Russia, the New
Silk Road, and being used as a crucial bridge, a hub in that New
Silk Road route; now we can see the same thing here in Southwest
Asia.  As you can see outline, is coming in from Eurasia, a route
of the New Silk Road which could originate in South Korea and
come up through North Korea and plug into three of the main
channels of the New Silk Road across Eurasia.  But this one would
come in and would arrive in Tehran in Iran.  You see that there
would be extensions going both south and north.  South to the
Gulf region, and then north up to the northern route going up to
the Caucuses and ultimately towards Russia, Scandinavia, and the
Arctic.  But then coming out of Tehran to the east, you would
have two different routes.  One would be the route which continue
on through Turkey and then across the straits into Europe.  But
then the other one would go southeast into Iraq, connecting into
Baghdad; where you would have a connection along the Tigris and
Euphrates Rivers down to the Persian Gulf in the southwest.  But
then proceeding upwards through the devastated regions of Syria
which have been liberated, and then to Aleppo, across to the
Mediterranean Sea at Latakia; and then a route proceeding
southward towards the Red Sea — the famous Med-Red connection —
and then into Egypt and then further into the rest of Africa.
So, with this image in mind, you can see that this region
would be a crucial crossroads of civilization and is the crucial
connection between these three great continents — Europe, Asia,
and Africa.  This is the reason that this region has been
subjected to endless wars in this kind of geopolitical Great
Game, in order to interrupt the potential for this sort of
development.  But this development perspective is the only means
by which you can resolve these conflicts.  Not in the terms of
the conflicts themselves per se, but in terms of creating a new
zone of mutually beneficial cooperation among all the parties
involved.  That kind of economic development can take place if
you have the sort of great powers arrangement among the four
powers — Russia, China, India, and the United States.
This is the core of what we continue to campaign for here in
the United States.  We must defeat this coup against President
Trump.  We are now one year into what President Trump has
characterized as the Mueller witch hunt.  Nothing has been found
so far in terms of collusion.  This attempted to coup to
undermine President Trump is not aimed at Trump personally; it is
rather aimed at Trump’s inclinations towards just such a great
powers relationship.  The second pledge in this Campaign to Win
the Future is that the United States should emphatically,
wholeheartedly endorse and join China’s One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  This is for both the benefit of the planet, this One
Belt, One Road Initiative as we discuss here, is the key towards
unlocking these conflicts around the globe; but it’s also to the
benefit of the United States itself.  Extending this kind of
great projects development perspective into the United States,
with a Hamiltonian principle — what Lyndon LaRouche discusses in
the Four Economic Laws; this is the agenda of LaRouche PAC here
in the United States.
As you can see on the back cover of this pamphlet [Fig. 5],
this is the map of the World Land-Bridge.  One of the crucial
aspects of this map is a new Marshall Plan for a New Silk Road to
rebuild the Middle East.  So, this has to continue to be kept
first and foremost in view, when we’re looking at how to resolve
this crisis and how to prevent just such a regional crisis from
exploding into a global war.  As you can see here, LaRouche PAC’s
“2018 Campaign to Secure the Future” is available on the LaRouche
PAC website if you visit action.larouchepac.com.  We encourage
you to become involved; to volunteer; and to help us circulate
this pamphlet as widely as we can.
Thank you very much for joining us here on larouchepac.com.
The world is moving very quickly, and we encourage you to stay
tuned and to visit larouchepac.com regularly.  Thank you for
tuning in, and please stay tuned.