Jeg vil indlede vores diskussion med at påpege, hvad hr. LaRouche i de seneste dage meget klart har sagt: Vi befinder os i en ekstraordinært farlig periode i verdenshistorien. Det kan ikke ses tydeligere end af disse militærmanøvrer, der finder sted på de østeuropæiske grænser (Ruslands vestlige grænser). Disse kombinerede NATO-øvelser, der finder sted hele vejen op og ned langs Ruslands grænse, fra De baltiske Stater, ind i Polen og derfra mod syd. Dette er en kombination af fire forskellige, angiveligt uafhængige krigsspil, men det involverer live troppemanøvrer, af hvilke den største hedder ”Anaconda 2016”. Denne manøvre involverer 30.000 tropper fra 24 forskellige lande, inkl. 14.000 amerikanere, 12.000 polakker, 1000 faldskærmstropper og den virkelige krydsning af nøglefloden dér, Vistuta-floden; samt træning af natlige angreb, tungt militærisenkram, 35 helikoptere, 3.000 militærkøretøjer, flådemanøvrer osv.

Engelsk udskrift.

 WE MUST BECOME TRUE AMERICANS AGAIN!

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast; June 10, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's June 10th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. As you'll notice,
we're taking a little bit of a different format than customary
today. We have a roundtable format, joined in the studio by Megan
Beets and Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC basement science
team; and also Kesha Rogers and Mike Steger are both joining us
from the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee via video. So, we're going
to have a little bit of a freer kind of roundtable discussion
here.
        I'd like to begin our discussion by just pointing out, what
I think has been said very, very clearly in the recent days by
Mr. LaRouche, that we're in an extraordinarily dangerous period
of world history. This couldn't be made more clear than seeing
these military maneuvers which are happening on the eastern
border of Europe (the western border of Russia). These combined
NATO maneuvers which are happening all the way up and down the
border of Russia, from the Baltic States, into Poland, and then
south from there. This is a combination of four different,
supposedly independent, war games, but it involves live troop
maneuvers, the largest of which is called "Anaconda 2016." That
one involves 30,000 troops from 24 different countries, including
14,000 Americans, 12,000 Polish soldiers, 1,000 paratroopers, the
actual crossing of the key river there, the Vistula River; and
the exercise of nighttime assaults, military hardware, 35
helicopters, 3,000 military vehicles, naval maneuvers, and so
forth.
        If you take that, together with the three other maneuvers
that are happening right now, you have approximately 60,000
troops that are engaged in military maneuvers all along the
border of Russia. As Helga LaRouche pointed out, this the
greatest troop and military hardware maneuver that you've had on
Russia's border since World War II — the mobilization by Hitler
of the Nazi forces prior to the invasion of what was then the
Soviet Union. Obviously, this many troops engaged in live
military maneuvers, not only creates a very strong possibility
for some accident occurring, which could trigger a rapid
escalation towards a very hot war, which could escalate very
quickly; but also it's very clearly a provocation, which is being
taken by NATO with Obama in the leadership, directly towards
Russia. And it's being seen as such in the context of other
things, by the Russian President and other leading members of the
Russian military. It's also being recognized as such by various
forces within Europe. {Der Spiegel}, one of the leading news
magazines in Germany, put out a story on Wednesday, saying these
war maneuvers along the Russian borders, are "going too far", and
"are playing at real war". Clearly, any war that were to break
out between NATO and Russia would very quickly lead to not a
limited, not a tactical, but an all-out strategic, thermonuclear
war.
        If you combine this with Obama's upcoming to trip to attend
the NATO Heads of State Summit in Warsaw, Poland, while these war
games are actively taking place, along with his refusal to sit
down with President Putin to discuss the deployment of these
AEGIS anti-missile systems along the Russian border, which have
been characterized as a "Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse," along
with the trillion dollar allocation that Obama has recently
signed off on, to modernize the U.S. military arsenal, including
these B61-12 nuclear warheads, and the long-range LRSO [Long
Range Standoff] cruise missiles; all of these, taken together,
along with the simultaneous provocations that are happening by
U.S. forces against China in the South China Sea.
        Any sane person should be asking themselves, "Why are we
driving the world towards the point of a war of extinction, when
we could be taking up Chinese President Xi Jinping's offer to
engage in a new strategic and economic architecture for the
planet, based on win-win cooperation?" This danger, and also the
very real possibility of a paradigm shift, were both put on the
table at a very significant seminar sponsored by the Schiller
Institute that occurred on Wednesday in San Francisco,
California. Both Kesha and Mike were participants. It was titled,
"Will the U.S. Join the New Silk Road? Global Scientific
Development, or Nuclear War?" Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave an
extensive and very thorough overview of this war danger in her
keynote address; and Mr. LaRouche, in his remarks, said very
clearly — this is the very beginning of what Mr. LaRouche said,
"The key thing I'm concerned about, is the threats to the
existence of the human species in the total area right now;
because right now, at this time, the existence of the entire
human species continues to be on the edge of jeopardy. And
therefore we have to attune ourselves to understanding what the
problems are that are involved in this, and what are the remedies
for which we can get an escape for humanity in general. Humanity
in general right now is under serious threat of jeopardy on a
global scale." So, that's very clearly said by Mr. LaRouche.
        Also, I consider very significantly, in response to a
question which was posed from former United States Senator Mike
Gravel, who was also a participant, a speaker in this seminar. He
posed a question to one of the other participants, Sergey Petrov,
the Consul-General of the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, to
which Mr. Petrov said that there is no such thing as a limited
nuclear war, as some as some people would be delusional enough to
believe. What the Consul-General of Russia said at the Schiller
Institute gathering in San Francisco, is the following: "I share
the understanding that we are very close to a major conflict. And
I add that there is no possibility of a 'limited nuclear war.' If
that starts, it will be the end of the world."
        I think the starkness of this statement, combined with what
Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche both had to say, really
underscores the sobriety with which we have to approach the
discussion which we will have here today. Since both Kesha and
Mike were participants in that seminar, I'm going to leave a
little bit of the further discussion of the proceedings of that
event until a little bit later in the show. The seminar also
involved Mr. Howard Chang, an internationally renowned expert on
water projects.
        But before we open up the discussion, I would like to play a
short — approximately 10 minute — excerpt from the keynote
speech that Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave. This is the concluding
excerpt of her remarks. She asked two questions: (1) How did we
get here?; and (2) What is the solution to the crisis we now
face? I just want to underscore, what you'll hear Mrs. LaRouche
say in this excerpt, is what Mr. LaRouche reiterated, and I think
is the subject that we have to pay attention to here today: that
both the LaRouche movement in general, and Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
as individuals, {have played the crucial, central, historical
role} in not only creating the possibility for a solution to this
crisis, going all the way back to their proposal for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, in the aftermath of the collapse
of the Soviet Union; but also continued to play the crucial role
in providing the possibility for humanity to escape this crisis.
        This seminar in San Francisco was a crucial element of that,
but it's part of an ongoing series of interventions
internationally, which include a very prominent conference in
Europe that the Schiller Institute is sponsoring, coming up
within the next two weeks. So, we'll have more discussion on all
of that after we hear this short except from Mrs. Helga
LaRouche's keynote speech.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Okay, now, let me introduce the third
[subject I want to talk about]. The solution to all of this would
be a piece of cake. It is already there! A New Silk
Road is integrated. We called it at that time, first, the
Productive Triangle; in 1991 we called it the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, which was the idea that when the
Iron Curtain had fallen, [to integrate] the populations in the
industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia, through
development corridors. This New Silk Road program would have
changed the world in the direction of a peace order already in
'91, but, unfortunately, you had Bush, Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, you had François Mitterrand, who all had completely
different ideas. They [wanted to reduce Russia] from a superpower
into a Third World, raw-material-producing country, and they
imposed the "shock therapy" in the Yeltsin period. They
dismantled the Russian potential in three years , and
they had no intention to allow Germany to have any kind of
economic relation with Russia. So it did not happen.
        You had the '90s, which were genocide against Russia. You
had all of the consequences of the Bush period. You had the eight
years of Clinton, which was a certain interruption; but then with
Bush, Jr. and Obama, you went back to the old project of an
American Century doctrine and the idea of a unilateral world.
        Fortunately, in 2013, President Xi Jinping announced a New
Silk Road to be {the} strategic objective of China. In the almost
three years which have passed since, this idea to end
geopolitics, to establish in the tradition of the ancient Silk
Road, a win-win cooperation among all nations on the planet, is
progressing extremely quickly. Remember, the ancient Silk Road
was a fantastic cooperation in terms of exchange of culture,
goods, paper, technology, porcelain, silk, silk-producing, and
many other cultural manifestations. It led to a tremendous
benefit for all the countries which participated, from Asia to
Europe.
        The New Silk Road, obviously, is doing exactly that. The
amount of projects which have been concluded between China and
ASEAN countries, China and Latin American countries, China and
Europe, China and African countries, China and East European
countries, and now, in a very clear fashion, the economic
integration between the Eurasian Economic Union, headed by
Russia, and the New Silk Road, [is progressing very well. An
alliance] has been formed between Russia and China, with India
being the third factor in the situation. Many, many other
countries have been joining.
        Contrary to what you read and hear in the mass media, China
is not doing badly. They are shifting their economic orientation
from an export orientation, because the export markets in the
trans-Atlantic sector are shrinking. They are now going more in
infrastructure investment in many countries in the world, and to
develop the inner region of China. [To raise the] consumer [to a]
higher standard of their own population, since they have lifted
600 million people out of poverty, [into a] decent living
standard in China. This is indeed the absolute correct policy, to
say we will uplift the remaining people who are still poor, and
also make them participate in the Chinese economic miracle.
        Xi Jinping has [offered] to President Obama that the United
States [should] not only by helping to ,
which I think is the moral obligation of the United States, given
the fact that they were the key reason why these countries are
now in such disarray; by participating in the building of Africa,
which I think the West has an absolute moral obligation. The
reason why you have millions of people as refugees, not only
risking their lives, drowning in the Mediterranean, dying in the
Sahara, which has even more victims than even the Mediterranean.
Fifty years of IMF policy has denied economic development to
Africa! The reason why people are taking a risk of a 50% chance
that they will die, to cross the Mediterranean, is because they
are running from war, from hunger, from epidemics, and this is
the result of Western policy denying this continent economic
development! We have a moral obligation to join hands to develop
southwest Asia, to develop Africa.
        The United States also needs a Silk Road. If you look at the
figures of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity has
collapsed over seven years in a row. All the indexes are going
down. The United States population is in a terrible condition, or
at least in the poorer parts; while the rich become more rich and
Wall Street is having a heyday with cocaine parties and plotting
destruction for the rest of the world.
        The United States needs an infrastructure project. The roads
are bad, the traffic is ridiculous. People spend hours and hours
every day in commuting, risking to disappear with their cars into
a pothole. They have no rail system. China has built 20,000 km
fast train system up to the end of last year; they plan to have
50,000 km by the year 2020, uniting every major city in China
through a fast train system, which are fantastic — they're
smooth, they're fast, they're quiet. How many kilometers of fast
train systems has the United States built? Zero!
        So, for the United States to build its own Silk Road, to
connect with the global development perspective is a question of
its own best self-interest. We have to get the United States off
this confrontation course, and simply say, we have to shift this
policy and all this trillion-dollar investment in modernization
of nuclear arsenals and the largest military budget in the world,
trying to maintain an empire which is collapsing anyway.  Rather,
shift, get rid of Wall Street, impose Glass-Steagall, get back to
a policy of Alexander Hamilton, a credit policy; invest in
infrastructure and go in the direction of a win-win cooperation
with the other nations of the world — with Russia, China,
European nations, India; build up Latin America, build up Africa
and Southwest Asia.
        This is really the choice before the United States. I know
this is very difficult for you to think how this should be done,
but you know, think about Kennedy; think about the kind of
optimistic country the United States used to be. Think about the
idea that America was built to be "a beacon of hope and a temple
of liberty," where people from the whole world would go and try
to be free. The U.S. singing the National Anthem, "the land of
the free." Is the United States the land of the free today? I
don't think anybody who is in their right mind would say that
today.
        Go back to the values of the American Republic, as it was
founded by people like Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington;
go back to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King. I think if the
United States could mobilize itself to bring back that nation,
the whole would world would love to be friends of the United
States again. Right now, I can tell you, the rest of the world
has almost given up on the United States, and when they look at
the election process, the choice between a very, very irrational
Donald Trump and unfortunately a very, very predictable Hillary
Clinton, given her statements about confrontation against Russia
and China. I think you have to really mobilize now. And I think
the 28 pages, Glass-Steagall — these are flanks which can derail
the situation long before this election is going to take place.
        We have to have a completely new world. Remember, mankind is
not a beast, and mankind is not bound to do what seems to be
inevitable. Mankind is the only species capable of reason,
capable of free will, of defining and designing a beautiful
future, and then going to implement that. The last time was with
Kennedy, the Apollo Project. I think we can absolutely do it
again! I think you have a great possibility in front of you. I
would encourage you — be American! Be true Americans again, and
the whole world will be the most happy and embrace you!

OGDEN:  So, that was a short excerpt from Helga LaRouche's
opening remarks at the San Francisco seminar; and the full
proceedings of that seminar will be made available as they are
processed.  The first panel is available on YouTube now.  And as
I said, both Kesha and Michael Steger were participants in that
event; so maybe I can just throw the discussion open to one of
the two of you guys right now, to follow up on what we just heard
from Helga.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Sure, thanks Matt.  One of the most
interesting, one of the key aspects of this whole process and
what our organization does, was demonstrated at the discussion
process in San Francisco on Wednesday.  You have key people in
their areas:  Obviously, Senator Mike Gravel represents what is a
true American political tradition; to recognize that you fight
for what's true, you go against popular opinion and peer
pressure.  And he was very clear on that question; you don't go
along to get along.  As Lyndon LaRouche often says, "You can't
fight politically and go along with the popular opinion."
        Dr. Howard Chang is a leading civil engineer; obviously the
Consul-General of Russia was someone who spoke on behalf of his
country.  But the key question is that the standards our
organization represents in this existential crisis is something
unique; it gives these individuals an opportunity to wage a
political fight at the level necessary that inspires them towards
what mankind can accomplish, and also addresses the real crisis
in the world today.  It's far too often that people who want to
address the economic crisis, people who want to address the
increasing and escalating war danger, fall far short of the
necessary to want to work with us.  And two, to recognize the
quality of method which is necessary to address these problems.
These problems are of great scope and magnitude; it's not fixing
a pothole, although we have many potholes to fix as Helga points
out.  And apparently, the Chinese won't even be allowed to build
— they wanted to build a small segment of high-speed rail
between Los Angeles and Las Vegas; very easy.  Actually, east of
Los Angeles in the desert.  And I guess apparently they won't
even be allowed to build that in the United States.  So, we can't
build any high-speed rail; it's just been outlawed basically.
This just came out.
        But the size and scope of these problems cannot be — steps
cannot be taken that simply alleviate one's guilt; or the tension
on one's own identity regarding the dangers of nuclear war, or
the increasing crisis that the economic collapse presents to many
Americans.  Too many people want to look for a quick solution; an
easy mechanism that "Maybe I can vote for this person, or that
person."  At this point, I think most people realize they can't
vote for either of these people; yet you'll still find them
consumed to discuss "Well, who do you vote for, though?"  They're
not willing to recognize that there's a higher method which is
required to act to address this kind of crisis.  And I think if
you look at Lyndon LaRouche's comments at the discussion, he
makes this somewhat clear in his remarks.  Because there is
something unique towards mankind's ability to advance.  Mankind
does not advance — unlike any other animal species on the planet
— simply because it doesn't like the problems it sees.  It's
able to advance and evolve because of a unique creative capacity;
essentially to become more beautiful, to become more creative. To
make the discoveries about the Universe that have not been
discovered before.  And that commitment, that approach is
oftentimes what's lacking; and as Helga said, we need real
leadership in the United States, we need leadership in Europe
today.  The problem can be solved so easily.
        The New Silk Road, the Eurasian development projects are so
extensive, they're ongoing; there are collaborations between
China, India, and Russia.  And then the nations of central Asia,
of Southeast Asia; the strategic intervention in the war domain
in Southwest Asia; all of these are now being addressed in a
fundamentally different way than they were by the United States
and NATO for the last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks.  Which has
just been ongoing war and destruction.
        So, there's a comprehensive picture that the United States
and Europe could participate in.  So, why aren't we?  Why don't
we take those steps?  Simply raising red flags that we're near
nuclear war, or simply complaining and trying to figure out which
of the lesser evils you vote for, are just obviously
insufficient.  So, why does that remain the discussion?  The
discussion has to take on a higher standard; and I think that's
what Lyn has already recognized over these 50 years.  Because if
you think of it, 50 years ago, there was a quality of leadership
of this nature.  John Kennedy recognized that the way you uplift
and strengthen a country is to set out on a mission that's never
been accomplished before; but it wasn't just the Moon.  It was
the largest water projects, and the development of Africa.  John
Kennedy's view of the world and of the Universe had a great scope
and magnitude to it, to help uplift the population; it wasn't a
practical campaign.  Someone like Martin Luther King had a
similar outlook; and you saw that inspire people like Bobby
Kennedy and Malcolm X, but there was a resonance.  You saw the
same thing from the great scientists like Krafft Ehricke; the
visionaries in the space program didn't look at it as kind of fun
engineering projects.  They saw it as something of a cultural
advancement of the human species. And there was a resonance with
this quality of leadership politically, that unfortunately, I
think what was made clear by the seminar, is that many people are
attracted, they gravitate towards this quality of leadership if
they have a sense of honesty; but that the ability to demonstrate
this method, to act upon that quality of the human mind and human
creativity is a challenge for much of the population in the
United States and Europe today.  And the standard that they have
to come up to, is not just acknowledging the dangers, but a
standard of operating to embolden and strengthen the population
to solve these problems and to move our civilization upwards.
        And I think that really was the culminating nature of the
discussion on Wednesday at the seminar; and it really is to bring
more people into this quality of an organization.  Of what we are
as a political organization, but that we are must become what the
nation is.  And that requires our population must become better;
they must become more courageous, more intelligent, and more
beautiful if we're actually going to address these problems.
Because they're not going to be addressed from any simple
mechanisms; and I think that really was the fight we waged here
for the seminar, and I think the only way to deal with the
current crisis you presented at the beginning.

KESHA ROGERS:  I want to continue with that theme, and add that I
think what we have to look at is the unique role of Mr. LaRouche
over these years to identify a science of physical economy; which
characterizes him in a way that was the understanding of both
Krafft Ehricke and other leaders from the standpoint of the
rejection — shall we say people that Michael brought up, such as
John F Kennedy, such as Lincoln, Martin Luther King.  A rejection
of a limits to growth policy.  And this is what Mr. LaRouche has
organized as the founding principle of his economic policy in
terms of what is the essential role of the advancement of
mankind.
        During the presentation, I had an opportunity to actually
work with Michael and others there for the conference that was
just held in San Francisco.  And I presented on the unique role
of Krafft Ehricke, the German space pioneer; and what he
represented from the standpoint of putting forth the epistemology
and the philosophy on human nature's identity in terms of
creating an open world system.  Which was this idea that you
reject the Club of Rome meadows and foresters limits to growth
population reduction; the Malthusian policy that human beings are
nothing more than small lily pads, mindless beings.  That they
have no conception of advancing human creativity.  And this is
what was the unique role defining Krafft Ehricke from the
standpoint that he knew that is was not just a matter of
promoting technological advancements; but what do these
technological advances do to improve upon the conditions of human
life and the progress of mankind overall.
        And this has been something that Mr. LaRouche understood is
crucial in his science of physical economy, from the standpoint
that you're not just looking at technological advancement from
speaking of just one leap.  But you're talking about a succession
of leaps in economic progress in society.  And during the
relationship that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche developed with the
identity and role of Krafft Ehricke as a scientist and genius of
his time, is really exemplified in what Mr. LaRouche continued to
develop around his policy for a Moon-Mars colonization program. I
think that people who have not actually studied the significance
of Mr. LaRouche and why he became a threat to this zero-growth
policy, because he continued to push the limits, push mankind
beyond the so-called limitations that have been put on mankind;
just as Krafft Ehricke understood that our extraterrestrial
imperative was to actually remove all limitations and barriers
from the progress of mankind.  And the best way to do this was
through the advancement of man into the colonization of space.
        And I think it's important to note, that some people start
to put themselves into this smallness of thinking, in this
mindless thinking.  "Well, how are we going to travel into space
if we can't actually solve the problems here on Earth?"  And Mr.
LaRouche made it a priority to actually organize an understanding
of what real technological advancement is; this was exactly the
thinking of John F Kennedy in the progress of the commitment of
the Moon landing, of sending a man to the Moon and bringing him
safely back to Earth.  That this was going to lead to
technological advancements that would pay themselves off several
times over; but what was going to be essential for it, is that
you had to have breakthroughs as Mr. LaRouche called for, in
several categories of technology that was actually going to be
essential for bringing about an increase in the productivity of
society.  You take the example; you look at this massive
undertaking of what Krafft Ehricke did in the design and
development of what took men to the Moon, in terms of the Saturn
V rocket.  It wasn't something that was just thrown together on
the cheap; you couldn't have just Wall Street and Elon Musk going
in there and saying, "OK, let us just throw a spacecraft up."
This took some real engineering; it was a total transformation in
terms of the economic conditions of society.  Thousands, millions
of people were put to work; the spin-off technologies that went
into it.  Mr. LaRouche called for the advancement of four
categories of technology, in thermonuclear fusion and related
plasma technologies; or development of electromagnetic radiation
of high energy density.  Basically promoting new synthetic
materials or the production of the colonization of Mars; that you
were going to actually have to have flotillas in developing
low-Earth orbit.  And putting materials on the Moon to actually
lead to the colonization of Mars.  How are we going to get there?
We had to have engineers, we had to have astrophysicists.
        The technical considerations are all laid out very
prominently, but I think what it really represents is a
transformation of the human species; and that's what Mr. LaRouche
was very crucial in, saying that you had to actually have a
different identity of who we are as human beings.  That we are
actually distinct from the animal species; and that no
limitations can be put on mankind to keep them in a state of
bestiality.  And the question of technological advancement is,
are these advancements being made in a so-called barbaric society
that wants to keep human beings down and keep them enslaved; and
promote a policy of limitations on growth and population
reduction so these policies would not be advanced.  Or, are we
talking about a cultural Renaissance, where these advancements
are made as Krafft Ehricke understood, from the standpoint of a
new conception of mankind.  This is what has really brought
together the minds, and why Mr. LaRouche sees Krafft Ehricke as
extremely fundamental to how we overcome the threats facing us
today in society.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think that's something that certainly you
elaborated very clearly in your speech at the conference, and I
think as we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche yesterday;
everybody who is on this show was engaged in that discussion. Mr.
LaRouche put a very emphatic emphasis on the personality of
Krafft Ehricke and his courage in fighting for a vision which was
not a popular vision even among the people in the space
community.  And Mr. LaRouche asked that more research be done on
this; and I know that both you, Ben, and Megan have been immersed
in this a little bit in the recent few days and weeks.  So, maybe
you want to give people a broader idea of some of this.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I can say something briefly.  I was just
looking back at comments that were made by both Helga LaRouche
and Lyndon LaRouche at the memorial conference that was held in
honor of Krafft Ehricke in 1985, following his death in 1984. And
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche reflect something which I think
really does go to the essence of the importance of the
personality of Krafft Ehricke in what we were able to achieve in
the space program.  And what they both reflected was the fact
that his life made a contribution to moving the species as a
whole forward; but why?  It's exactly because he was not
motivated by the kinds of practical considerations that were
impinging on most of the population at the time; and both Lyn and
Helga reflected the fact that Krafft Ehricke was motivated by a
total cultural optimism.  That not only was it necessary, but it
was also possible to move mankind forward into the Age of Reason;
to move man into a paradigm where we completely left the cultural
vestiges of the beast behind us.  And if you look at Krafft
Ehricke's work, which ranges from extremely technical papers on
the use of liquid hydrogen fuel to fictional stories which are
envisioning the first manned mission to Mars; but all of them I
think are motivated by this passion and vision for a better
mankind as a whole.  And he came to the conclusion himself as a
young man, that the way to realize that had to be space travel;
had to be space colonization.
        Just to add one more thing, Mrs. LaRouche was reflecting on
a speaking tour that Krafft Ehricke did with the Schiller
Institute in the 1980s in Germany.  And what she reported was,
that at that time, the resistance from the Greenie movements was
so intense at some of these meetings, the police had to be called
in.  What Krafft Ehricke reflected on at the time was that these
Greenie movements were very reminiscent of the fascist movements
of the 1930s; and that's why the only way to move forward had to
be by addressing exactly what you just raised, Kesha.  The
essence of the cultural morality of mankind; is mankind a culture
of beasts, or is mankind actually representing a culture of what
Schiller would call beautiful souls?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think highlighting the fight for that;
he fought for that.  He went against the opposition even within
the scientific community for that kind of idea; and I think that
also goes back to something that Michael was saying about what's
needed today.  It's people like that; it's people who are going
to fight for what's true.  Not because they think it's what their
neighbors will like, or because they think it's what will make
them popular; it's because they have an internal drive that they
know that's what's needed.  You pulled up this quote — it's just
one thing among many — I just thought it was indicative; this
quote of Krafft testifying in Congress in, I believe it was in
1960, the early '60s.  And really emphatically pushing the need
for nuclear power for space; he said, the Universe runs on
nuclear power.  The stars are run by nuclear power; this nuclear
power is an inherent part of the Universe and mankind is going to
be obsolete in his attempt to be part of the Universe more
broadly — go beyond Earth, fulfill this extraterrestrial
imperative — if we reject nuclear power.  That's one thing.
Already in the early '60s, he said, if we don't do this by the
end of the decade, we're going to be obsolete in terms of our
space efforts.  Nuclear power is one issue; one critical issue,
obviously, for mankind as a whole, for space development.  But
you see this visionary quality of fighting against the opposition
to these breakthroughs; and being the force that says, "No, this
is what's needed," against massive opposition.  The tragedy is
that the opposition has taken over.
        We had, under the leadership of Krafft Ehricke and people
working with him, we had a nuclear rocket pretty much built by
the early '70s; it was basically a few steps away from being
ready to go, and it was just cancelled.  It was not found to be
too difficult; it was not found to be some failure; it was not
found to be too expensive; it was just cancelled.  And we've had
this zero-growth policy take over at that crucial pivot point —
the late '60s, early '70s — when Lyn really came on the scene
and started to continue this fight.  Obviously, Krafft resonated
with that, and came to work with the LaRouches directly based on
that; but you see the failure of departing from this visionary
quality and this fight to move into the future.  But I think he
exemplifies what's needed from the US population right now;
you're not going to find solutions from the existing cultural,
social framework.  It's failed; that's expressing the failure of
society.
        We heard at the beginning, one of the things that strikes me
in discussing this whole war danger and the fact that we're
taking steps towards nuclear war, which I think it's important,
it was stated clearly.  There's no limited nuclear war; there's
no small nuclear war, you don't take small steps.  If it happens,
everything's over; it's gone.  But what's potentially even more
striking than that actually being a reality on the table?  Who's
talking about it?  We have a Presidential election; are these
candidates raising this as an issue?  Is there any discussion
about this?  I think it just underscores the importance of that
quality of leadership needed; and exemplified by what was done in
San Francisco.  We're going to be having, coming out of the
Schiller Institute conference in Germany coming up; and what
really this movement represents in the United States.
        And I think this should also be an appeal to our viewers.
Really, this is a time when we need escalation; we need increase;
we need more support; we need more people to be these type of
creative leaders like Krafft Ehricke, like Lyndon LaRouche.
That's the only thing that's going to save the country at this
point.

OGDEN:  Yeah, Michael made a point which I thought was very
significant.  That, at a time like this, when it's very clear how
huge the dangers are, you cannot allow yourself to be any less
than the magnitude of the crisis challenges one to be.  And the
magnitude and scope of thinking which is necessary to solve a
crisis of this sort, of a civilizational scale, must be huge in
those terms.  And I think one thing out of this discussion about
Krafft Ehricke, that occurred to me is, when you're thinking
about where the entire idea of the geopolitics of the last 70
years has been rooted; it is rooted in the zero-growth
technology, no development kind of paradigm.  The idea that there
are limited resources that a growing population is fighting over,
and these territories and so forth; that is the fundamental tenet
of the geopolitics that has dominated this paradigm which has now
failed.  When you talk about a New Paradigm, when you talk about
"win-win" as Xi Jinping says it, instead of winner take all, all
are winners.  That fundamentally requires, it begs a new attitude
towards our concept of growth; that there is no idea of limits to
growth, of fixed natural resources.  But that you have an
ever-expanding possibility of ever-increasing potentials of
growth.  I think as very demonstrated, China, in a certain way,
does understand that in the way that Krafft Ehricke understood
it; is a central element of their current policy, is not only the
One Belt, One Road policy, but it is also this exploration of the
Moon. Now just going to the Moon, as a sort of space race or
setting your foot on a foreign body or something like that; but
saying we're going to discover fundamentally new about the
Universe.  And as Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing, this Chang'e
mission to explore the far side of the Moon and everything that
is there to be discovered.  We don't even know; we don't know the
extent to which we will discover brand new things about the
structure of the Universe when we explore this new territory.
That, I think, speaks to this idea that the idea of a New
Paradigm, a new "win-win" system, is rooted in overturning the
last 70 years of this Malthusian concept of zero-growth, zero
technological development, and fixed resources.
        And it's only natural that Krafft Ehricke understood it in
those terms.

        DENISTON:  Anything else just goes to the longer legacy of
the Zeus vs. Prometheus fight.  You talk about this zero-growth
paradigm; where did this come from?  The British; the British
royal family.  People like Prince Philip; people like Prince
Bernhard.  This oligarchical mindset.  These guys are so
explicit, their view of mankind is just disgusting cattle to be
managed.  Zeus would just pal up with these guys; they wouldn't
even need to introduce themselves.  They would just get together
like they've know each other for ages.  That mentality of this
imperial conception of the management of mankind as a bestial
species; that's where this zero-growth paradigm came from in this
recent period, but it stretches back through history.  You look
at the writings of Aeschylus on the Prometheus vs. Zeus fight;
the attack on Prometheus.  And you see that as a reflection of a
true negative principle of society at the time, which is carried
through to today.  This hatred of human progress; this hatred of
creative development; this desire to keep mankind suppressed to
this lower level.  What angered Zeus wasn't just that he had
something stolen from him; it's that he had a whole class of
people he was managing, that Prometheus then gave an ability to
uplift and realize their own humanity.  And for that, Zeus
punished him.
        It's the same fight today; but today, Zeus has thermonuclear
arsenals at his fingertips.  We're at a clear, and I think this
was very well expressed even in the discussions back in the '80s
that we're talking about, with the need to move to the Age of
Reason.  We're at the point where mankind has developed
technologically to the point where if we allow that type of
process to continue, you're talking about mankind annihilating
himself; and that's what we're talking about right now, with
these NATO deployments.  It's complete insanity.  But again, as
we're saying, it's not going to be solved in the negative, by
just saying, "Stop that. Don't do that."  It's going to have to
be resolved in the higher realization and actualization of the
true nature of mankind as a Promethean force; as Krafft Ehricke
represented.  Today, as much as then, this need for an Age of
Reason is the imperative; and space is emblematic of the Age of
Reason, the age of mankind, really.

OGDEN:  Well, I think it's important in the context of everything
that we've discussed, also to note that we really are on the edge
of a meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  It was
noted this week that now major European banks are beginning to
cease their investment into the ECB, because of the ECB's
negative interest policy.  They said, why should we be putting
money into the ECB if they're just going to be charging us for
putting our money there?  So, Helga LaRouche said, there's a lot
of European bankers who are sleeping with billions of dollars
underneath their pillows in the current days.  But this is, even
without the instability of what could happen in the build up to
the Brexit vote at the end of this month.  I know our
institutional question for this week, which we haven't addressed;
was on the subject of the Brexit.  And Mrs. LaRouche said, if
this means that Ireland and Scotland are going to leave the UK,
and the UK will break up; then sure, I welcome this.  But in
seriousness, we are on the verge of the meltdown of the
trans-Atlantic financial system; the productivity of the United
States is through the floor; unemployment in this country is
unbelievable, especially youth unemployment.  It's at levels that
are unprecedented in the modern history of this country.  And at
the same time, you have the possibility of an entirely economic
paradigm presenting itself in the form of the New Silk Road;
everything that's coming out of the BRICS.  We have the visit by
Narendra Modi to the United States this week; he spoke to a joint
session of Congress.  There's a lot that could just happen; as
Helga LaRouche said, it would be very easy.  It would be a piece
of cake for the United States to join this New Paradigm; and I
think that's the ongoing of the LaRouche Movement
internationally, is making that possibility very, very real.  It
requires a policy revolution in the United States to bring that
about; but as was clear from the seminar in San Francisco this
week — and I think will continue to be clear in our
interventions in New York City around the Manhattan Project that
Mr. LaRouche has initiated; and then this upcoming conference
that's being sponsored by the Schiller Institute in Europe in the
coming weeks.  The activities of the LaRouche Movement
internationally are crucial; and it's very significant that we're
at the breaking point in terms of several aspects of this.
        Mrs. LaRouche also put a big emphasis on the continued fight
around the declassification of the 28 pages, because of what this
would imply in terms of the potential to bring down the entire
Anglo-Saudi empire.  And also everything that was contingent on
the lies that were told in the aftermath of 9/11; and what that
has led to in terms of the perpetual war policies, the refugees
who are coming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East.
        So, all of these things taken together, represent a
situation which is dynamic, it's changing very rapidly, and it is
fertile ground for the types of interventions that the LaRouche
Movement is making internationally right now.
        So, let me invite Kesha or Mike, if you want to say anything
more, in terms of reflections at the conclusion of this
discussion, you're welcome to.

        STEGER:  I'd say, let's get rid of Obama and join the New
Paradigm.

        ROGERS: Yeah.  I think it's true; we are at the end of an
era of representation of barbarism, war, and these limits to
growth consequences that Krafft Ehricke was very well aware of.
We're seeing the emergence of a new system of cooperation, a new
collaboration and dialogue among civilizations that's being led
by Russia and China.  And I think the continued question being
presented by our activity is, will people actually join with
LaRouche and join with the nations who are representing this new
direction for mankind?  And that means doing what Krafft Ehricke
did, and breaking with all practicality, and as you said Ben,
popularity; and actually going out and doing that which is
seemingly impossible.  I think China gives us the light and the
inspiration as to human beings; that is our mission, that is what
we do.  We do those things which seem almost impossible.  And we
do those things that actually help to bring about the solutions
that are going to lead to a greater condition for mankind.  So, I
think that's what we're representing right now, and we're on the
brink of a total breakthrough; unlike anything that's been seen.
But also, as Mrs. LaRouche said in her opening remarks, this
breakthrough is going to come with rejecting the absence of any
discussion on the threat of this thermonuclear war and what
mankind really faces.  Because the question is, what kind of
society are we going to actually demand be brought into
existence?  What kind of future are we going to actually bring
about for those generations not yet born?  And Mr. LaRouche is
committed to that, and many more people as we've stated, need to
do the same.

        OGDEN:  OK.  Well, thank you very much, Kesha.  With that,
I'm going to bring a conclusion to this webcast here this
evening.  I'd like to thank both Kesha and Michael for joining
us; and also thank you to Megan and to Ben.  So, please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; and as I think you can tell, we have a
very busy few weeks ahead of us, and a lot of responsibility. So,
thank you very much; good night.

Schiller Instituttets Strategiske Seminar i San Francisco den 8. juni tiltrak 70 gæster og eksperter for at diskutere det presserende nødvendige spørgsmål: »Vil USA gå med i Den Nye Silkevej? Global, videnskabelig udvikling, eller atomkrig«. Denne plan går ud på at tilslutte sig en plan for infrastruktur i hele verden, med navnet Ét bælte, én vej, og som Kina har fremlagt, eller også blive sammen med de kollapsende, vestlige økonomier, hvis bankerot leverer ved til det bål, som er en global atomkrig. Listen to the entire seminar on SoundCloud

De højtplacerede talere inkluderede Lyndon LaRouche, berømmet strategisk og økonomisk tænker; Helga Zepp-LaRouche, også kendt som »Silkevejsladyen« pga. sin verdensomspændende kampagne for at skabe den »Silkevejspolitik«, som Kina nu har fremlagt, og for at få denne politik vedtaget på verdensplan som alternativet til krig; den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (senator 1969-1981), der indlæste de hemmeligstemplede »Pentagon Papers« ind i Kongresprotokollen i 1971; honorære konsul Sergei Petrov, generalkonsul for det Russiske Konsulat i San Francisco; dr. Howard Chang, internationalt kendt ekspert i vandsedimentering, samt Kesha Rogers, to gange demokratisk kandidat i Houstons 22. C.D. (kongresdistrikt) – hjemsted for NASA. De stedlige russiske, kinesiske, japanske og filippinske lokalsamfund var repræsenteret blandt publikum.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede tilhørerne for det faktum, at NATO’s deployering på Ruslands grænser, med AEGIS-systemet i Rumænien, og krigsskibet USS Ross i Sortehavet, efterlader russerne i en position, hvor NATO-missiler kunne nå Moskva på fem minutter – hvilket nødvendiggør en politik med »Affyr ved varsel«. Ulig i 1980’erne, hvor tusinder af mennesker demonstrerede imod atommissilerne i Europa og Rusland, der var sat til »affyring ved varsel«, så har de neokonservative i Obamaregeringen genskabt denne fare, uden nogen protester i Vesten. Faren for en konfrontation med Kina i Det sydkinesiske Hav er også til stede.

I dette klima traf Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i 2013 beslutningen om at gøre en ende på geopolitik og at genetablere den Nye Silkevej, og at bygge infrastruktur for vand, elektricitet og transport i hele verden. Zepp-LaRouche påpegede Kinas 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer, som er bygget i løbet af 2015, hvorimod der ikke findes nogen hurtigtog i USA. Hun konkluderede: »Gå sammen med Kina i jeres egen interesse, eller stå over for atomkrig.«

Fr. LaRouche adresserede problemet med, at Obama fortsat er præsident, ved at påpege den presserende nødvendige frigivelse af de klassificerede »28 sider« af Den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, 2001, og Obamas afvisning af at frigive disse sider, der vides at indeholde bevis for saudiernes finansiering og sponsorering af terrorangrebet 11. september, hvilket kunne sprænge hul i amerikansk politik og gøre det muligt at vælge en kvalificeret kandidat, af samme støbning som Franklin D. Roosevelt eller præsident Kennedy. Herefter fulgte spørgsmål fra tilhørerne.

Efter Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et indlæg fra den russiske konsul i San Francisco, Sergei Petrov: »For et stort land som USA, er det gavnligt at se på verden.« På et spørgsmål fra senator Mike Gravel om, hvorvidt han (Petrov) var enig i Helga LaRouches vurdering, svarede han: »Jeg er enig i den forståelse, at vi er meget tæt på en storkonflikt. Og jeg tilføjer, at der ikke er nogen som helst mulighed for en ’begrænset atomkrig’. Hvis den begynder, bliver det verdens ende.«

Hr. Petrov beskrev USSR’s opløsning i Statssamfundet af Uafhængige Stater, med alvorlige, økonomiske problemer, og trinnene i den lange proces med at opbygge den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union. EAEU søger nu at indgå aftaler med Mercosur, SCO og EU om økonomisk og humanitært samarbejde. Næste skridt bliver at indgå forbindelse til Nordamerika. På denne dag, sagde hr. Petrov, »vil jeg føle, jeg har været en god diplomat«.

Show Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynote and Q&A
Show Lyndon LaRouche Q&A

Jeg tror, at, hvis man ser på verdenssituationen, især på den amerikanske offentlighed, der næsten intet ved om situationen; folk i Europa ved lidt mere, men, hvis man sammenligner den umiddelbart forestående fare for en eskalering af konfrontationen mellem NATO, USA og Storbritannien og så Rusland og Kina på den anden side, så er viden om det så svag, at dette for mig står som det mest skræmmende aspekt; for, fraværet af en offentlig debat om den mulige udslettelse at hele civilisationen, om det så skyldes mange folks ligegyldighed, fordi de simpelt hen er ligeglade, eller det skyldes, at de er for bange til at tænke tanken til ende¸ men manglen på en offentlig debat er det, vi må ændre.     

7. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Lederskabet af verden er, med rette, blevet overtaget af det voksende samarbejde mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien, og med andre eurasiske nationer, der entusiastisk går med i de nye udviklingsplaner, der er legemliggjort i programmet med ’Ét bælte, én vej’. London, Wall Street og Obama er alle desperate over dette ægte, igangværende paradigmeskifte.

I sin kommentar til dette skifte advarede Lyndon LaRouche om, at Obama er ved at blive afsløret som intet andet end en svindler og et falsum. Faren er, at et sådant falsum kan detonere på en farlig måde. Udfordringen består i fuldt ud at konsolidere skiftet over til udviklingsparadigmet, der ledes af Rusland/Kina/Indien, uden at fremkalde, at Obama og kompagni flipper voldeligt ud. Det betyder, understregede LaRouche, at »Obama og kompagni må forkrøbles«, så de ikke er i stand til at leve deres desperation ud i handling.

Dette står mere og mere klart: Verden har ikke brug for Obamas, eller briternes, eller Wall Streets klovneshow. Det, der behøves, er en virkningsfuld, økonomisk organisering, der erstatter disse desperate svindlere og dræbere. Vi befinder os ved et punkt, hvor hele det britiske system er i færd med at gå ned, netop nu. Det er oprindelsen til krigsfaren, og intet andet. »Dump disse elendige karle«, erklærede LaRouche. »Giv disse ledende, eurasiske nationer, sammen med de sydlige nationer, lederskabet, og støt dem i deres udviklingsplaner.«

Frem for alt andet, som Lyndon LaRouche gentagne gange har understreget i løbet af den seneste uge, så byg Kra-kanalen! Det ville markere en revolutionerende forandring for verden, der i enorm grad ville forøge handel og udvikling over hele Eurasien og ind i Afrika og videre endnu. Kra-kanalen ville skabe et fuldstændigt nyt billede af verden som helhed.

Flere og flere nationer er parate til at deltage i denne fremtid. Japan er nu i færd med at genoplive koordineringen med de andre hovednationer – Rusland, Indien, Kina – for eurasisk udvikling, at genoplive programmer, der tidligere blev legemliggjort i Mitsubishi Global Infrastructure Fund (GIF), der arbejdede for Kra-kanalen tilbage i 1980’erne. Kina er hen over de næste seks år parat til at investere $3,5 billion i store infrastrukturprojekter, der rækker langt ud over det umiddelbare asiatiske Stillehavsområde, iflg. en nylig undersøgelse fra Asia Society. Japan har annonceret sin egen, $110 milliard store investeringsplan for det asiatiske Stillehavsområde.

Den russiske præsident Putin kommer til Kina senere i denne måned for at indgå de sluttelige aftaler om 52 rapporterede fællesprojekter; og russisk-kinesiske forhandlinger skrider nu frem om den planlagte bygning af en 7000 km lang højhastighedsjernbaneforbindelse mellem Moskva og Beijing. Indien er i færd med at udvide sine planer for handelskorridorer, der strækker sig fra Iran gennem Afghanistan, og med nyligt annoncerede planer om også at bygge en dybvandshavn i Bangladesh, tillige med Chabahar-havnen i Iran ved Oman-golfen. Indien og Kina støtter alle disse investeringer, der vil udvide hele det asiatiske Stillehavsområdes produktive evner, hvor Kina og Indien alene udgør en tredjedel af verdens befolkning.

Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel skal besøge Kina i næste uge. Den netop færdiggjorte Gotthard Tunnel gennem de Schweiziske Alper, verdens længste jernbanetunnel, åbnede officielt den 1. juni, og projektet, som det tog 17 år at færdiggøre, har udløst entusiasme over hele Europa. Denne entusiasme for store projekter må videreføres til, at ledende, europæiske nationer går med i fremtiden med ’Ét bælte, én vej’-programmet, på en langt mere seriøs måde. Det betyder at bryde med de britiske royale og med Obama.

Projekterne, der fremmes af Kina og Indien, vil samlet set accelerere udviklingen og legemliggøre ideen om det »win-win«-samarbejde, der er et varemærke for skiftet væk fra geopolitikkens imperiekrige og til ægte, menneskelig udvikling. Vi har ikke brug for krig. Faktisk ville endnu en storkrig betyde udslettelse. Det ved og forstår Putin, lige såvel som også Kina.  

Titelfoto: Premierminister Narendra Modi med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og førstedame Peng Liyuan, der fejrer deres nationers voksende samarbejde og løsning af tidligere konflikter. [flickr/narendramodiofficial]

6. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Den amerikanske forsvarsminister Ashton Carters præstation ved den netop afsluttede Shangri-La Dialog om sikkerhed i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde gør det klart, at, med mindre præsident Obama fjernes fra embedet længe før januar 2017, står verden over for en umiddelbart forestående, global krig. Ikke alene promoverede Carter aktivt behovet for at skabe en NATO-lignende struktur i Asien, for at konfrontere Kina. Han har også gjort fremstød for lignende, endda mere umiddelbare trusler mod Rusland. Om nogle få uger, når Obama mødes med andre NATO-stats- og regeringschefer i Warszawa, vil NATO-bataljoner blive deployeret til De baltiske Stater og Polen. I Rumænien er der allerede installeret landbaserede Aegis BMD-systemer, og nogle mentalt sunde røster i Vesten har sat lighedstegn mellem alt dette og nazisternes opstillinger langs de sovjetiske grænser, før de lancerede Operation Barbarossa i 1940 under Anden Verdenskrig.

Parallellerne mellem nazismens og fascismens æra og nutiden går længere end til denne »snubletråds«-deployering, som NATO har planlagt. Stemningen af kulturel pessimisme og xenofobi, der har fejet hen over hele Europa, i lyset af det økonomiske kollaps, Trojkaens program med ondsindet nedskæringspolitik, flygtningekrisen og truslen om gentagne, blinde terrorangreb, udgør i sig selv en alvorlig fare. Og stemningen i USA er ikke bedre.

Under en dialog med kolleger søndag understregede både Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche kraftigt behovet for at genoplive princippet om individuelt menneskeligt geni, og for at lancere en ægte dialog mellem civilisationer, hvor de store bidrag fra alle kulturer og civilisationer fremføres som lysende eksempler på, hvad menneskeheden kan præstere, når samfundet organiseres omkring princippet om menneskets kreative evne til at gøre opdagelser af nye, fysiske principper, man tidligere ikke havde nogen forestilling om. Billedet af den store rumforsker, dr. Krafft Ehricke, er til særlig inspiration i takt med, at USA står over for udfordringen med at genoplive rumprogrammet, der er blevet skambeskåret og stort set ødelagt af præsident Obamas antividenskabs-ideologi og -politik. Krafft Ehricke, en af genierne bag det forgangne NASA-program, opstillede menneskehedens »udenjordiske forpligtelse«, eller imperativ, som fortsat er menneskehedens primære, uopfyldte mission i det 21. århundrede.

Dette tema om menneskeligt geni blev uddybet af Lyndon LaRouche i en hel time under ’Manhattan-Projekt Dialogen’ den 5. juni (videooptagelse), som værende den eneste løsning for menneskeheden.

»Indse blot, at der findes mennesker, der har geni-egenskaber, og ikke tværer dem ud!«, sagde LaRouche. »De erkender geniet i sig selv, og de indser, at dette talent, der er kommet til dem, er noget, der er af en meget seriøs natur, til gavn for menneskeheden. Det er, når menneskeheden ser sig selv som et opdagende væsen, hvis arbejde er uundværligt for menneskehedens fremtid – det er dér, skønheden kommer.«

Som respons på Ashtons Carters konfrontation med Kina, krævede admiral Sun Jianguo, vicechef for Kinas Centrale Militærkommissions Afdeling for Generalstaben, en fundamentalt ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for det asiatiske Stillehavsområde, baseret på samarbejde, gensidig forståelse og dialog. Alt imens det står klart, at flertallet af nationerne i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde afviser Obamas og Carters krigsprovokationer, som det reflekteres i det faktum, at admiral Sun havde 17 bilaterale forhandlinger på sidelinjen af Shangri-La, så kan faren for et faktisk krigsudbrud, det være sig enten direkte imod Kina eller imod Rusland, ikke undervurderes. Det tyske forsvarsministerium er, iflg. Die Welt, i færd med at udarbejde en ny regeringsrapport, der vil definere Rusland som truslen – og ikke længere en partner.

Det er ikke overraskende, at de russiske medier rapporterer om en appel, der nu cirkulerer i både Europa og USA, om, at mentalt fornuftige nationer nu fuldstændigt må trække sig ud af NATO. 

Sputnik bemærkede, at den fremtrædende franske, »venstre-gaullistiske« præsidentkandidat, Jacques Cheminade, allerede har underskrevet appellen.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i går, »For at undgå Tredje Verdenskrig er det nødvendigt, at folk indser, at menneskeheden er én, og at alle kulturer har frembragt juveler«, der demonstrerer det potentiale for genialitet, der holder nøglen til menneskehedens fremtid i sin hånd. Lyndon LaRouche var endnu mere ligefrem: Med mindre, man organiserer samfundet omkring en forståelse af menneskelig kreativitet som den afgørende faktor, ved at fremlægge det for befolkningen, »er man ikke andet end en galning«.

Titelbillede: Grafisk fremstilling af Verdenslandbroen iflg. Lyndon LaRouches og Helga Zepp-LaRouches vision.                  

Ben Deniston gennemgår bl.a. de mange, internationale tiltag, med grafiske fremstillinger, der støtter alternativet til det anglo-amerikanske imperiums fremstød for global atomkrig, og Kesha Rogers fra Texas taler om afdøde tysk-amerikanske rumforskningspionér Krafft Ehrickes filosofi omkring menneskets indtagelse af rummet, og mennesket som et 'multi-globalt' væsen, der ikke er begrænset til blot én planet, m.m.

Engelsk udskrift. 

WE MUST GO OUT INTO SPACE AND REALIZE OUR COMMON DESTINY

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast
        June 3, 2016

        MEGAN BEETS: Hello! It's June 3rd, 2016. I'd like to welcome
all of you to our regular Friday broadcast here at LaRouche PAC.
My name is Megan Beets. I'm joined tonight in the studio by Ben
Deniston, and I'm also joined, via video, by LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee members Kesha Rogers, joining me from Houston Texas and
Diane Sare, joining us from New Jersey and Manhattan.
        To start things off tonight, I'm going to read the question
that came in to Mr. LaRouche from our institutional contact in
Washington, and then turn it over to you, Diane, to deliver Mr.
LaRouche's response, as well as some opening remarks, to start
our discussion off.
        The question reads: "Mr. LaRouche, the U.S. Senate passed a
controversial bill known as the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act (JASTA) that would allow the families of 9/11
victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged
financial support of al-Qaeda. The bill now goes to the U.S.
House of Representatives for a vote. What are your
recommendations to the House of Representatives?"

        DIANE SARE: Well, I can report what Mr. LaRouche had to say
about that, specifically, and then more in the background. He
said that "We must state the case straightforwardly. It must be a
clean bill with no loopholes, i.e., loopholes which would allow
the Obama administration, or whatever administration that's
covering up for the Saudis, to claim that there's negotiations
going on with them that would prevent the families from being
able to sue." He said, "It must not only be passed, but with a
veto-proof majority. The issue is clear. The British and the
Saudis were behind the crimes of 9/11 and should be held legally
accountable."
        I think this is extremely important with what I wanted to
say, in terms of starting off the discussion this evening, which
is that the American population is in somewhat of a quandary.
They're in an unfair position because, thanks to our terribly
controlled news media, they're operating without full knowledge
of the situation that they're in. They're thinking that we're in
a presidential election campaign where they have to choose
between Hillary Clinton, who is nothing but a lying, killer clone
of Barack Obama; maybe Bernie Sanders, who's really just a fraud,
and who has never met an anti-Russian policy that he has not
supported; or Donald Trump, who is an FBI agent with a glorified
toupee.
        Actually, this is simply not the case. There's a much
greater dynamic in the world right now, which is that the
trans-Atlantic system is completely bankrupt. That means the
British Royal Family and their Saudi and American puppets like
Barack Obama, like the Bush family, are in a mad scramble to
somehow maintain their grip, even as their system completely
disintegrates. What Ben is about to present is the new dynamic of
the planet, which is absolutely huge. It involves over half of
the world's population and it involves over half of the world's
population actually moving in a progressive, future-oriented,
direction, which is something completely anomalous to most people
and most people's thinking in the United States today.
        So, what I just wanted to give a sense of is (1) the danger,
in terms of the urgency of yanking down Obama by exposing his
collusion with Saudi Arabia and Britain, the very people who
committed the atrocities on September 11, 2001 in our country, so
that we don't have thermonuclear war; and (2) that the United
States can be brought to join this greater paradigm, which is
actually what's affecting everything inside the United States,
not the local affairs as you see them.
        I'll just say, people may recall that our Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter a couple months ago actually said that we should
quadruple our defense spending in Europe. He said that we had to
be prepared for a threat from Russia — which is not threatening
us. But, what we are in fact doing is aggressively moving against
Russia, by supporting NATO military drills in the Baltic nations.
Germany has sent 1,000 troops into Lithuania for these drills.
NATO is erecting anti-ballistic missile systems. They have
already been placed in Romania. Now we're talking about placing
them in Poland. These systems can easily be converted to carry
{offensive} weapons; they're not just {defensive} systems. You
can equip any of these rockets with nuclear warheads.
        Putin has addressed this very directly. I'll just share what
Putin had to say about that. He talks about these compact launch
pads. "At the moment, the interceptor missiles installed have a
range of 500 km (310 miles), soon this will go up to 1,000 km
(621 miles), and worse than that, they can be re-armed with 2,400
km (1,491 mile) offensive missiles even today, and it can be done
by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians
themselves won't know. How can this not be a threat to us? It
certainly is. That is the reason why we have to respond now, and
if yesterday some areas in Romania did not know what it is like
to be a target, today we will have to take action to ensure our
security. Let me repeat, these are response measures, a response
only. We were not the first to take such steps. The same will be
done with regard to Poland. We will wait for certain actions to
be taken in Poland. We are not going to do anything until we see
missiles on the neighboring territory. And we have the necessary
resources. You saw, the whole world saw our capabilities in term
of our medium-range sea- and air-based missiles." He's referring
to what Russia just did with regard to Syria, the phenomenal
accuracy of missiles launched from the Mediterranean and
elsewhere on wiping out ISIS targets. "We are not violating
anything, but our ground-based Iskander missile systems have
proven themselves as superb."
        This is what Putin is now saying, and then our Defense
Secretary Aston Carter went on to give a raving speech in a U.S.
Naval Academy Commencement Address, where he talked about the
great technological superiority of American weapons, which is
simply not the case. Kesha will elaborate further [that] since
Obama has dismantled out space program, we simply do not have the
science and research to produce accurate and effective defense
weapons systems. It's simply a fraud. I'm sure we are spending a
lot of money. It's probably like our health care system, where
we're spending more money than anyone else on the planet, and
doing the worst job of producing anything.
        I'll just say that there was just this study that came out
from a fellow at Dartmouth College, and the Bush School of
Government at Texas A&M University. Secretary of State James
Baker III, at the time when negotiations were being held with
Gorbachev for the reunification of Germany, was {lying to
Gorbachev at that time} [in 1990] — that the United States was
already engaged in plans for expansion of NATO, even as we were
telling Gorbachev that we were not, in terms of the conditions to
reunify Germany.
        So, it is no wonder that Putin is responding in this
fashion. The aggressor is NATO and Obama, as tools of a bankrupt
British Empire system. And what Americans need to know, and what
the world needs to bear in mind, is the strength of the new
paradigm, which is actually huge. It is the actions of Putin and
Xi Jinping which are the reason why we've not plunged into
thermonuclear war earlier. I think, as you'll see, they
definitely have the upper hand in this situation. This is
something that Americans should actually be acting in concert
with, as opposed to the myopic focus of the current U.S. election
campaign.

        BEN DENISTON: Thanks Diane. We were discussing with Mr.
LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche yesterday, and had some discussions
earlier in the week, and I think maybe just to reference what
Mrs. LaRouche defined as just two stark directions the world is
going in. On the one side, as you're saying, you have this
insane, frankly imperial-style push, still, as long as you have
Obama as this Puppet-in-Chief for the British, they're going for
this threat of war drive. Every step they take is just further
and further to insanity.
        I think part of what we're facing in the United States is
people are not going to understand what's really going on unless
they look at the global picture, and unless they look at the
global picture from the right perspective. I think you're
absolutely right. These elections are a joke unless you see them
in the context of where the world's actually going right now.
Obviously, the United States plays a critical role, but you're
not going to define what the United States does, or where the
United States goes, from within the United States. People have to
look at what's happening in the world, to know how to act here in
the United States to actually achieve something.
        So, we want to take some time today and just put a little
bit of depth — and I think we're going to be doing more of this
in additional shows, additional segments in the future — but we
want to put some depth on this new paradigm that is emerging. I
just want to reference some of the developments, some stuff
recently, some stuff from the months and years, but look at it
together as one picture of an emerging — I would really call it
this "win-win" paradigm to reference the refrain and the concept
of China's President Xi Jinping, where he said that what China is
pursuing is a "win-win" policy.
        What we've seen recently, over years, but also just in the
recent days and weeks, is a real consolidation of other nations
coming around that policy, coming around the idea of a win-win
principle. Maybe different nations are approaching it in
different terms, or they have different words for it, or
different expressions, or maybe stated in different languages,
but I think there's a clear unification around this principle —
that we have to move beyond the idea that every nation is
competing for some finite set of resources, and the gains of
another nation are somehow implicitly and inherently going to be
a loss for your nation. In other terms, sometimes, this general
"geopolitical view," as some people discuss it and think about it
— the idea that the world is this big game being played and you
have to ensure that you get the biggest slice of the pie, and any
gains made by another nation are somehow going to be detrimental,
because that's less potential gains for you.
        You've seen a very clear and explicit break from this, not
just in words, not just in statements, but in actual action from
this new paradigm, centered around China, China's alliance with
Russia, and increasingly, cooperation with India. And you're
seeing a clear commitment to the idea that the future of mankind
depends on cooperation in common progress, in common development
— that progress and development in joint cooperation between
nations benefits both parties and other parties involved in, in
the nearby area: this idea of win-win cooperation. It's not
win-loss cooperation. Just because you win doesn't mean the other
guy loses. We need to rise to a real mature understanding of how
mankind progresses, what the nature of progress is for the human
species — that mankind creates wealth, creates progress, by
creative development, and the only way we're going to have a
stable, progressive, future-oriented world — or any world at
all, frankly, at this point, at the level of thermonuclear
technologies — is a policy based on this principle, this
recognition: that we can no longer tolerate the suppression or
the denial of progress of other nations, and we must embark on
policies that ensure cooperative development among nations.
        These are nice ideas. We could talk about this. Everybody's
heard politicians saying these kind of things. Maybe not in the
U.S. so much even, these days. The point is this is actually
happening. These are not just "nice ideas." This is where the
world is going. This is happening now. This is the dynamic taking
over the world. This defines what we have to do in the United
States to ensure that we can be part of this process.
        On the first graphic here we have displayed [Fig. 1], a lot
of this centers around China's pivotal role with their One
Belt-One Road program, comprised of a land-based revival of the
Silk Road orientation, as a real development corridor, bringing
development into the interior regions of Asia and Eurasia, but
also coupled with their Maritime Silk Road initiative. This has
kind of been a keystone of an expanding development of Asia as a
whole, bringing in more and more nations, again, not in a
competitive way necessarily, but in a way of a win-win policy.
        I do want to illustrate, just give a quick sketch, on some
of the developments that have been occurring. But I'd like to
premise this by just referencing some of the recent statements by
the leaders of these nations. Again, Russia, China, and India
coming along as a critical third partner in this whole process.
        Just to highlight a few things, the President of India was
in China just this past week; and while he was there, he gave an
address on India-Chinese relations. And just to quote what he
said, he said: "India and China are poised to play a significant
and constructive role in the 21st Century. When Indians and
Chinese come together to address global challenges and build on
their shared interests, there is no limit to what our two peoples
can jointly achieve." He went on to say, "Both sides should work
with the aim of insuring that we do not burden our coming
generations, by leaving our unresolved problems to them." So,
that was the President of India speaking in China.
        Also earlier this week, you had a former Chinese ambassador
to Russia travel to Moscow and speak about Russian-Chinese
relations. And he just said quite frankly, bilateral relations
between Russia and China are now at a 400-year high. You hear
politicians in the United States, you're lucky if they talk about
a 4-year perspective or a 4-year analysis; let alone a 400-year
assessment. This former ambassador to Russia from China said
there's obviously differences; anytime you have two major
nations, you have differences. But he said, these are of a
secondary level; and he said it's his assessment, as somebody who
deals with top-level relations between these two nations, that
the Presidents of the two nations — Xi and Putin — have a clear
conceptual understanding, a clear conceptual agreement. So that's
significant; again, reflecting this orientation.
        Just this past Tuesday, the Premier of China was speaking to
media editors and newspaper editors for various Asian
publications; and then speaking to an Indian editor, he really
emphasized that Chinese-Indian cooperation not only benefits
China and India, but all of Asia. So again, here's the Premier of
China, you had the President of India saying similar things; the
Premier of China saying similar things. It's a reflection of
Russia being a part of this. These are clear statements just in
the recent period of this move towards this integration
perspective. China's Premier also said — as an interesting note
— that China welcomes India's leadership and role in this new
development project linking India, Iran, and Afghanistan; we can
see this on the next image here on the map [Fig. 2]; centered
around Iran's Chabahar port. This new proposal for water
transport, shipping, the development of this port; the
development of the rail lines and related industry, and
stretching up into Afghanistan. So, this is a new development
project that India's partaking in; Iran's partaking in; and is
going to bring critical development also into Afghanistan. And
this is just typical; this kind of project — if you look at it
in the old paradigm, maybe China could say this threatens our
interests, because it's insuring other nations are gaining more
power and that might be more threatening to our geopolitical role
in the region. But no, this is a different paradigm; this is a
new paradigm.
        That kind of thinking applies in the US and London still; it
still dominates the trans-Atlantic. But you go to Asia, and the
Chinese Premier is saying, great; this is excellent. We encourage
India's role in this type of development; we want more of this.
So, I think this project is just one of a number of projects that
I think are moving closer and closer to what the LaRouches
defined with their Eurasian Land-Bridge perspective. A lot can be
said, but just to highlight a few things. You have this Chabahar
port project, linking India and Iran into Afghanistan. You have
the One Belt, One Road, including the New Silk Road program going
through the heart of the Eurasian continent. You also have just
within the past year, the completion and upgrading of some of
these rail lines; where now you can travel directly from China
all the way to Germany, faster than you could by shipping route,
by direct rail connections through the whole heart of Asia into
Europe across Eurasia. You have the prospect of regular upgraded
rail connections and transport from China down into Iran, now
that the Iran sanctions are lifted; and we have the prospect of
Iran playing a larger role in the development of this region.
        These are just a few examples of building off of China's One
Belt, One Road, further related development projects; just
reflecting the overall orientation towards growth, infrastructure
investment, scientific investment, development throughout the
Eurasian continent, led by these nations.
        I think also indicative of this whole New Paradigm
orientation, very interesting and illustrative of what we're
talking about; you also have in the last two years, the creation
and emergence of another economic development bloc — the
Eurasian Economic Union — highlighted here in yellow. Of which
Russia is the largest component of this economic agreement, this
new economic zone which includes Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus,
Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan. So, this is kind of central north Asian
bloc of economic development.

        So again, if you're thinking like a British geo-politician,
you might think this is a competition to China's One Belt, One
Road program. Here you have Russia coming in, working with these
other nations in the northern regions, trying to expand their
economic development; while China is leading the way with their
One Belt, One Road program. But in Asia, in the New Paradigm, in
the way these leaders are thinking in a real sane, human fashion,
they're not thinking about it in those terms. You had President
Putin recently explicitly saying that they're looking towards
integration and cooperation with the One Belt, One Road program
explicitly. He said they're even working on specific projects as
part of the Eurasian Economic Union, which will directly
integrate into the New Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road program.
It's not competition; it's not a geopolitical perspective. It's a
perspective of win-win cooperation of development, or progress;
and this is what has the trans-Atlantic powers, these
geopolitical mindset people all freaked out.
        Just to highlight a few other things, you have space. You
have a Renaissance of space exploration in Asia, while the US is
decaying under Obama's cancellation of the manned space program
and his cuts and his complete lack of leadership in space; you
have rapid progress being made in Asia. Just within the recent
period, you have two new space launch centers, advanced space
launch centers now open in Russia and China; as indicated here.
[Fig.3]
        You have major water projects; massive south water north
projects, which is remarkable. They've made manmade rivers of a
large scale, directing water from the abundant waters of the
south to the water-starved regions of the north. And they've made
major steps in managing and developing their water system as a
nation as a whole; and they've got plans to further that with
some of the more challenging aspects going further west with some
of the western routes. So, they've already accomplished certain
parts of this; and they're taking further steps.
        But again, they're looking at positive developments for the
whole region; they're recently said that they're looking towards
helping the development of the Mekong River valley down in
Southeast Asia. Where you have the Mekong River running through
Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam — this region here — and
there's been recent droughts, major water shortages and
difficulties; largely just from lack of development, lack of
doing what the US did under Franklin Roosevelt with the TVA
[Tennessee Valley Authority]. Lack of developing basic dams,
irrigation reservoirs, water management systems to actually
manage this river valley as a whole to insure regular, steady
water supplies are available to the people. So, China's saying
they want to look into helping to facilitate that process as a
new project.
        You have India now re-raising the prospects for another
massive water transfer program — their river inter-linking
project; where they can actually interlink some of the major
rivers and again manage their water system as a national
territory as a whole in a much more efficient and much more
productive program.
        And I'd just like if you look at these projects together,
and this is just a sample of some of the stuff that's either in
process, or is becoming likely, or is being coming discussed and
could be a future orientation. If you look at this together,
you're looking at the greatest and development and management of
the water cycle in this entire East Asia, South Asia, Southeast
Asia region, to be the greatest management of water that mankind
has ever undertaken in the history of our species on this planet.
        So, these are the kinds of things you see happening, in a
win-win cooperative paradigm. And I want to end with just one
last project; something very close to Mr. LaRouche specifically,
because he's played a major role in supporting this. Which is the
Kra Canal proposal; and this is a canal for water transport
that's been proposed to cut through the Kra Isthmus in Thailand.
To facilitate greater trade between, as you can see here, the
South China Sea and obviously stretching into the Pacific and
China and Japan and Korea and into the Indian Ocean. From which,
India is obviously a major player there; but then also, those
routes obviously go up through the New Suez Canal — constructed
by Egypt in a remarkable amount of time — and up into Europe.
These major anchor points of world trade — in the Pacific with
China, Japan, Korea on the one side; and then in the Indian Ocean
and over into Europe on the other side. This entire trade process
suffers a massive bottleneck currently, as all this trade has to
currently go through the Malaccan Strait; which is this narrow
passage between Malaysia and Indonesia.
        Right now, something on the order of one-fourth of all
global trade goes through these narrow straits; not one-fourth of
the trade in this region, or one-fourth of the Asian trade.
One-fourth of all trade globally goes through this region. I've
seen different estimates, I'm not sure; that might be one-fourth
of total ships or one-fourth of tonnage, or one-fourth of value,
I'm not sure exactly. I've seen other estimates say that it's 40%
of global trade; I think it probably depends upon exactly how you
count. But this is a major chunk of all trade occurring on the
whole entire planet; going through this one congested, some parts
very shallow and narrow, region down around Singapore in the
Malaccan Straits. And this has been known now for many years to
be major bottleneck constraining cheap, efficient, rapid trade
between these sections of the world. So, in the '80s, Mr.
LaRouche became very involved in this proposal to make a new
canal through this relatively narrow passage; this narrow isthmus
in Thailand. And enable a dramatic increase in the volume;
reduction of the cost; increase in the speed of trade through
these regions. Despite having been fought for for many years, now
in this new paradigm, this is now being put on the table again.
        You just had an official advisory board of the Thailand
government endorsing this program. China has made it clear it
would like to do this program, and maybe even finance the whole
thing if it goes forward. You have official experts in the United
States recognizing the importance of this program as kind of a
keystone; relieving this bottleneck, and another major component
of facilitating this vast expanse of economic growth, trade, and
development in this whole region.
        So, this is a very exciting, singular project, but it's
emblematic and I think an example of the whole perspective we're
talking about. And again, I think the theme is win-win. You have
China, you have Russia, you have India; they've had conflicts,
they've had wars, they've had tensions. But you have leaders now
in these nations — typified by Xi Jinping, typified by Putin,
Modi's role in India. They're now saying, we as mankind, as
nations, as participants in humanity, need to move beyond this
geopolitical approach to our existence on this planet. We have to
move to a policy where we recognize growth, development,
progress; all these things we're talking about here are necessary
for everybody. Not just for us. We can no longer tolerate the
suppression of this kind of development for others; we have to go
to a global system centered around this kind of development. And
again, that's not just being talked out, as you saw here, as you
see what's going on with these developments.
        Again, this is just a sketch; you could spend weeks going
through what's happening in the world. And by the time you got
done, you'd have a whole other set of things to catch up on;
because a lot would have happened since the time you started. But
this is now the center of what's happening in the world; and this
defines how we need to think about what's happening. This is what
has these London-Wall Street imperial faction people freaked out.
Because how have the British existed? Well, it existed on
geopolitics; they've been the geo-politicians. They've been
existing based upon looting; if there's nations they can't loot
directly, I'm sure there's perpetual conflict between different
regions. And especially under Obama, the United States has come
under this geopolitical imperial orientation.
        And to just come back to what you said Diane, the opposition
from this imperial faction couldn't be clearer. They're taking
step after step towards what would be thermonuclear annihilation
in response to this emerging New Paradigm. This NATO summit
coming up; the exercises being started now by NATO. Putin
couldn't be clearer or saner in his response; saying, we've been
talking about this for years. You guys are making clear overt
military threats to us with your expansion of NATO, with the
development of more advanced weapons systems closer and closer to
our borders. What do you expect us to do? We have to respond for
our own safety, and for the safety of the world, quite frankly.
        So, I just think the situation couldn't be more stark; but I
think especially here in the United States, we have to uplift the
level of discussion to this global perspective. What's happening
in Asia now, what's happening between Putin and Russia and China,
increased collaboration with India; that is now increasingly
becoming the defining factor for the world situation.

        ROGERS: I think that what we're seeing going on in the world
right now, and what you just laid out, really puts the
perspective on the table of the decades-long fight of Mr. and
Mrs. LaRouche now coming to fruition. I thought that it was
important that you brought up Mr. LaRouche's fight around these
development projects; around the Kra Canal in the '80s. And the
fact of the matter is, at that very time, he was also fighting
for the development of space exploration; around the "Woman on
Mars" Mars mission, and the importance of mankind in space.
        Now, I think what we're seeing right now can really be
characterized from the standpoint of what the German-American
space pioneer Krafft Ehricke described as the emergence of
mankind into a poly-global world. And I think when you think of
this conception of a poly-global world, where mankind is not
confined to the limited resources of one globe, but moves out
into the expansion of space; that's what we're seeing happen
right now. What Russia and China represent is a move away from —
we're not just talking about one globe; we're talking about one
globe that has been dominated by a British Empire, a policy of
murder. A population reduction, and defying this conception of
the creative nature of human beings and the human mind. When you
think about Russia and China are doing to pull together over 50%
of the world, this is quite remarkable; and it can only be looked
at from the standpoint of a new species of mankind. It's a real
force of good versus evil; and the evil is completely being
destroyed and losing. Because the drive right now for
thermonuclear war being pushed and perpetuated continuously by
the stooge Obama in the White House; who's been pushing the
murderous policy to protect the British Empire, protect the
Saudis. And to continue to push a policy that's going to lead to
not just a continuation of a confinement to one world; but a one
world where people are on the verge of being exterminated and
blowing themselves up, unless we change our attitudes now. And I
think the matter is, is what Diane and you both presented; which
is that we have a real clear choice and opportunity before us. I
think it's very important as to the very important fight that our
international organization is leading right now, that we have to
put an end to Obama, to this drive for thermonuclear war, and to
NATO and what it represents in terms of its escalations and
provocations of war towards Russia and China.
        But I think to continue to look on the optimistic, positive
side, which most of the world is moving toward, we have to give
the United States and American people a sense of what we must be
participating in, in terms of our mission to join in this drive
toward peaceful cooperation and progress. I think it's very
important to note that today is the 51st anniversary of the first
American to walk in space — Ed White; which was June 3, 1965.
        As I was stating, you take the conception laid by the German
space pioneer Krafft Ehricke; what he conceptualized was not
something that was confined to one people or one nation. But that
was going to be the intention that was going to unify all people
in a common interest that our destiny and mission as mankind was
to break with the confines of Earth that put limitations on man,
and that bestialized human beings and pit human beings against
each other; to find our common interest in the development of
space. And you're seeing more and more people starting to
recognize this intention and this need for cooperation. It was
just reported today that at an international air show in Germany,
the head of the European Space Agency, Johann-Dietrich Wörner,
actually made the point of manned missions being indispensable
for space and planetary research. He said because human
astronauts can access and act independently — unlike robots. He
also talked about the need for building permanent lunar bases;
and he called this a Moon Village. And he said that this Moon
Village can be constructed with a lot of material already
existing on the Moon; and that the Moon Village would be a
stepping stone to reaching other planets such as Mars and so
forth.
        Now, I wanted to say in that context, that I attended an
event last night, and the speaker was speaking on the Curiosity
mission; which most people remember landed on Mars in 2012. What
I brought up at that time was that the excitement around the fact
that — as Mr. LaRouche conceptualized it — that the mind of man
and the extended sensorium of man had now been put on Mars; but
that there are limitations to that. And the speaker recognized
those limitations and he said something to the effect of what Mr.
Wörner said in Germany; which is, we have an obligation as
mankind to actually go out into the reaches of space. To colonize
the Moon; to colonize Mars. And to build these colonies because
of the limitations that are put on mankind. And he said that we
have to look at it from the standpoint that this is our destiny.
        This is exactly what Krafft Ehricke recognized as he
presented a principal work called {Lunar Industrialization and
Settlement; Birth of Poly-Global Civilization}. In the work, he
summarizes "the major aspects of lunar industrialization and
settlement, and identifies that scientific and evolutionary facts
leading to a definitive justification of why man must
industrialize space. Changing our present closed world into a
present world. He also establishes the philosophy of the
extra-terrestrial imperative as a defense of justification for a
long-term based on mankind's ability to transcend the limits of
one small planet." And that is what Russia and China are
representing; the transformation and transcendence of this one
small planet being controlled by an imperial policy which is
ready to be ended and to be destroyed, {if} we do the right thing
and we take the right actions.
        If you look at this from the standpoint of the continued
aspect of what you presented, Ben, as the objective of what China
put forward as a win-win strategy of cooperation. They're
continuing to do that, as the Chinese space leaders have just put
forth an additional perspective to that win-win strategy of
cooperation, international collaboration on the future Moon
missions. The first Chinese astronaut presented that a study is
being conducted to justify the importance of lunar exploration;
and Russia and the European Space Agency are already discussing
collaboration on lunar missions. The intention is that there
would be astronauts sent to the Moon by China by 2036; and he
presented this speaking at a conference on manned space
exploration in Russia. I think that that is quite extraordinary,
because when you look at the fact that Obama has continued to
push a murderous policy against our space program, and to
continue to drive and perpetuate an extermination war for
mankind. The question is, why are the American people still stuck
in a completely insane world of lies and fraud; thinking that an
election actually has some real bearing on the future of mankind,
when it doesn't?
        What is going to determine the future is that the United
States has to join with this perspective of a poly-global world,
a world not confined by limitations; as Krafft Ehricke laid out.
I think what we're going to witness — and Megan has presented
this on many occasions — within the next two years with China's
mission to the far side of the Moon, puts a real perspective on
the development of space. And building the permanent colonies;
but more importantly, it puts a perspective on that which is
going to determine what the future of mankind is going to be.
It's not going to be this election; it's not going to be this
bankrupt British Empire and Wall Street system. It's going to be
the emergence of a new human species that — as Mr. LaRouche has
defined — is actually focusing on what type of future do we want
to create and must we create for our children and grandchildren.
And that's the way that Russia and China and 50% of the world is
joining them; they're not taking up these projects just because
they want to build infrastructure and new projects. No lower
intention of our perspective as a species can be taken up, except
for the one which actually transforms the conception of who we
are as a human species. That's what this political election is
missing; that's what we've been missing in society as we've sat
back with our eyes closed, blindfolded. Doing nothing about the
injustices, the murderous policy, the war and so forth that has
been dominating our society for far too long. Now that you're
seeing that this drive for evil is about to end now, we should be
a part of participating in that perspective for mankind; which is
the alternative that's being presented right now.

        SARE: Well, I think that's great. And to return to what was
brought up at the very beginning, one of the flanks on this
matter is the question of the Saudi role and Obama's protection
of them in the 9/11 attacks. If you think about all of the wars
that the United States has been engaged in since September 11,
2001, if that could be addressed in a sharp fashion; and if Obama
were to be brought down, jailed, impeached, indicted. That
obviously would have a dramatic impact on what the future of the
United States looked like, and the potential for our nation to be
a welcome partner in this phenomenal change of direction for the
world.

        DENISTON: Yeah, that's definitely the critical flank we
have. And I know, Diane, that you've expressed the importance of
this obviously in New York in particular; obviously the major
epicenter of these attacks. But the other aspect of this is,
Obama has to go; the idea that we're going to wait for the
election or something. This is bigger than that; this is about
freeing the United States from this 9/11 dynamic as a whole. You
look at this British-Saudi operation; it wasn't just something in
and of itself. It was the event that was used by these British
assets, who were created well before the event and had been
operating well before the event, for these types of activities.
Something that LaRouche has been going after since the '80s in
terms of these covert, irregular warfare-type operations the
British have created; including these Saudi fundamentalist
factions.
        I was just looking back at Putin's statements recently; how
he was referencing the threat Russia is being faced with in
regards to this NATO advancement. And he again referenced the US
pulling out of the ABM Treaty in 2002. What was the ostensible
reason for us doing that? 9/11. Now are we worried about
ballistic missiles coming from the mujahideen in Afghanistan? Is
that why we had to pull out of the ABM Treaty; because we worried
about Osama bin Laden out of some case we can't even find,
operating ballistic missiles? It's been the cover to really
pursue this whole insane perpetual war policy; this police state
policy in the United States. The things you hear — "It was Bush,
not Obama. So, how are you blaming Obama?" Obama is actively
covering up for the worst atrocity committed against Americans on
American soil in American history; and he's protecting that. And
he's protecting the continuation of that as a process to ensure
that the United States continues to act in this post-9/11 mode.
        So I think breaking this issue, like you're saying, there's
nothing else that needs to happen but that at this point.

        BEETS: And on that, I think people are beginning to wake up
to the war danger, which is becoming impossible to ignore
especially in places like Europe. You had on Thursday night, a
significant television segment on German TV which was titled "The
Backers of 9/11; The Secret of the 28 Pages". Which centered on
an interview with former Senator Bob Graham; going through
exactly how the Bush and Obama governments have covered up what
was clearly known to be Saudi government involvement in funding
9/11. And poses the question that not only do the past 15 years
have to be re-examined and understood from a new perspective; but
also raising the question of what this means for Germany. And I
think that's very important from the standpoint of what you just
raised, Diane. What are the flanks; what are the things we can
pull? And we have this petition featured on the LaRouche PAC site
right now, which is beginning rapidly gain signatures
internationally; which is called "The Warsaw Summit Prepares for
War; It's Time to Leave NATO Now". And I would encourage
everybody to get on the site, sign it, and circulate it. I do
think this discussion has been very important, because it really
does pose the question to the American people: Are we going to
continue in this perpetual state of childhood, adolescence?
Closing our eyes and sleepwalking into what would be the biggest
disaster for mankind in all of history — complete extinction
warfare — will we permit that? Or will we choose a more
beautiful and better future? Which I think you laid out
beautifully, Kesha. And it reminded me, I just finished the
memoirs of the astronaut Michael Collins last night; the third,
sometimes forgotten member of the Apollo 11 crew. And he says at
the end of the book, I wish every member of government could get
out into space and look down onto our planet; because borders
completely disappear. And you begin to realize that the so-called
"conflicts" between people on Earth amount to nothing and that we
have a common destiny. So, I think what you laid out there,
Kesha, really is what people need to be thinking about.
        We need to forget our commitment to this dangerous insanity
and silliness; and decide that we're committed to building a
future.
        So, unless there's anything else, we could leave it there
for this week.

        DENISTON: We have a lot more coming. I know there's going to
be a rather exciting conference in the San Francisco Bay area,
coming up in the middle of next week; June 8th. So, I think we'll
look forward to getting reports on that, and more focal points of
focus on getting the United States shifted to the direction we
need.

        ROGERS: If you're in the area, you should attend this.

        DENISTON: Absolutely. It's to be seen as another follow-on
after the excellent conference we had in Manhattan just recently.
There's a lot going on; we're going to be doing a lot more. And
again, this petition; we can post a link to it in the description
below. People should be circulating it, signing it; getting as
many signatures as possible. This is certainly a critical flank
right now in the build-up to the upcoming NATO summit.

        BEETS: Good. Thank you Diane and Kesha; thanks Ben. And I'd
like to thank all of you watching; so stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

2. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Mennesket skriver historie lige for øjnene af os i dag, fra dag til dag og endda fra time til time i takt med, at alle de forskellige, gensidige forbindelser mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien bliver stadigt tættere og stadigt mere talrige, og som trækker 70 eller flere nationer tættere sammen, hvilket faktisk omfatter godt og vel halvdelen af menneskeheden – som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i sit interview med TASS den 31. maj. 

Det er som en ring af sammenkædede magneter, der trækker hinanden ind i en stadigt tættere kæde. Tænk på den genoplivede interesse for Kra-kanalen, der forbinder Det sydkinesiske Hav med Det indiske Ocean (via Den thailandske Golf og området omkring Andamanerne i Den bengalske Bugt).

I sin nuværende inkarnation er dette et projekt fra Lyndon LaRouche og Japan. Det vil forbinde Indien med Sydøstasien og Kina; det vil revolutionere disse farvande; Lyndon LaRouche har sagt, at det vil blive en af de største revolutioner i moderne historie.

Den 31. maj sagde den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang til asiatiske redaktører, at

”Hvis Kina og Indien arbejder sammen og smeder synenergi, vil det kaste nytte af sig ikke alene for det kinesiske og indiske folk, men også til Asien og videre endnu.”

Med henvisning til Indiens nylige annoncering af en aftale om en handelskorridor med Iran og Afghanistan, via Irans Chabaharhavn, sagde Li, at Kina ”hilser den velkommen”.

Indien og Kina samarbejder for første gang omkring Tibet, hvor Kina tidligere har været særligt ømfindtlige mht. Indien i betragtning af Dalai Lamas tilstedeværelse i Indien, samt det derværende betragtelige, tibetanske samfund.

Ligeledes den 31. maj talte den forhenværende kinesiske ambassadør til Rusland, Li Fenglin, ved en todages konference i Moskva om de kinesisk-russiske relationer. Han sagde her, at den bilaterale relation stod på sit højeste i 400 år, men at Kina ønsker, at Rusland skal have større tiltro til den.

”Det er min fornemmelse, at Putin og Xi har en begrebsmæssig forståelse af, hvordan vi bør samarbejde, men at der er forståelsesproblemer på mellemlederniveau”,

sagde ambassadør Li, der talte perfekt og idiomatisk russisk.

”Det gør ingen ting, at vi har forskellige fremgangsmåder. Det er helt normalt for sådanne store og forskellige lande at have forskellige fremgangsmåder. Det væsentlige er, at disse ikke fører til modsigelser.”

Alt dette minder os om, hvorfor (den amerikanske) LaRouchePAC-leder Kesha Rogers fra Houston, Texas, så viseligt valgte afdøde tysk-amerikanske rumpionér, Krafft Ehricke, som den personlighed, der skulle være omdrejningspunkt for hendes kamp for at genoplive USA’s rumprogram. 

Krafft Ehrickes fremgangsmåde er, i lighed med Lyndon LaRouches, ikke den mindste smule ’praktisk’ (dvs. begrænset af, hvad der ’tilsyneladende’ kun er muligt), men alligevel viser sig at være ekstremt virksom, som det er blevet demonstreret, så det er hævet over enhver tvivl. Krafft Ehricke var en af de ledere inden for udforskning af rummet, som også tidligere Konstantin Tsiolkovskij og Hermann Oberth var det, hvis mod og intellekt bragte mennesket til nye verdener, som endda overgik det, som Christoffer Columbus gjorde. 

Krafft Ehricke var en forsker; men hans forskning udgør ægte videnskab, og ikke den afskyelige, matematiske erstatning for videnskab, der i dag undervises på vore skoler, og som repræsenteres af Obamas degenererede forsvarsminister, Ashton Carter. Ashton Carters falske version af videnskab gav os F-35-flyet, til sandsynligvis $200 mio. dollar stykket, og som ikke virker, og aldrig kommer til at virke.

Krafft Ehricke forudså derimod, blandt mange andre dristige, videnskabelige præstationer, med præcision Apollo 13-missionen i 1970 i en artikel, skrevet i 1948. Typisk for ham stod der i hans artikel fra 1948, at han havde skrevet den i 2400 med et tilbageblik over de seneste 350 år, til den første, bemandede Marsmission i 2050, med navnet ”Ekspedition Ares”. Terence Norton, lederen af denne mission, havde været nødsaget til at svare på den indvending, at de i 2050 til rådighed stående teknologiers begrænsninger – her hovedsageligt det forhold, at der kun var kemisk propulsion til rådighed for rumrejser – forøgede sandsynligheden af en ”afvigelse fra den normale plan”, og hermed også missionens fiasko, og endda missionsmandskabets død. Hvad var så hans svar? Var det at annullere missionen? I sin rapport til ”Rumfartsstyrelsen” skrev han:

”Når man betragter problemet fra et hvilket som helst standpunkt, rejser spørgsmålet sig: På hvilken måde kunne man imødegå udfordringen med afvigelse fra den normale plan, ved hjælp af de til rådighed stående ressourcer? Tilbyder en sådan ikke særlig sandsynlig situation ikke chancer for at vinde for sig, de storslåede resultater af menneskelig dristighed; eller, betyder en manglende evne til at kunne overkomme denne situation den visse død, et sted ude i rummet, for alle ombordværende?”

”En undersøgelse af de følgende sider vil vise, at den tekniske gruppe har øget sikkerhedsfaktoren til et tal, der er langt større end det tal, der ansås for at være maksimum, da projektet blev startet op. Resten kan overlades til gruppens karakter og åndrighed. Det må åbenhjertigt indrømmes, at mulige farer, som ikke kan forudses, findes, men gruppen er fast overbevist om, at mod, ressourcefuldhed og opnåede præstationer hos de mennesker, der er blevet udvalgt til at foretage rejsen, med succes vil imødegå rumrejsens udfordringer.”

En anden faktor var virkelighedstro, grundig og omfattende træning, træning og atter træning – meget af den i selve rummet. Bemærk, at meget af den tekniske gentagelse, der var indbygget i ”Ekspedition Ares”, var identisk med den, der var at finde i Apollomissionerne: nemlig, en ophobning af forskellige moduler, der kunne overleve uafhængigt af hinanden, hvor hver af dem var skræddersyet til et specifikt formål, men samtidig til generelle formål.

Og, ligesom med Apollo 13, forekom der et uheld med ”Ekspedition Ares” og en ”afvigelse fra den normale plan”. Ligesom Apollo 13 måtte missionen opgives, men ligesom med Apollo 13 blev hele besætningen reddet og kom tilbage til Jorden.

Kesha Rogers ved sandelig, hvad hun taler om.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche besvarede den 6. maj spørgsmål fra det camerounske tidsskrift "Intégration’s” korrespondent i New York, Celestin Ngoa Balla, der havde deltaget i Schiller-instituttets konference i New York den 7. april.

Intégration: De har lige arrangeret en konference i New York. Hvad drejede den sig om? Hvad blev der sagt? Og hvad skal vi forvente som det næste?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I Midtpunktet for denne konference i New York stod krigsfaren, de fantastiske gennembrud under udbygningen af Den nye Silkevej i forskellige lande, fremtidens videnskab og dialog mellem kulturerne. Det bedste er at kikke ind på vore internetsider og selv se det. (www.schillerinstitute.org, newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com). Og vi vil fortsætte med at arrangere flere af den slags konferencer.

Intégration: De holder foredrag over hele verden, men ikke i Afrika eller Cameroun. Hvornår kommer de og besøger os?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg har allerede deltaget i konferencer i Khartoum (Sudan) og Abuja (Nigeria), og jeg har arbejdet siden begyndelsen af 1970erne på et udviklingsprogram for Afrika. Det skyldes altså ikke mangel på interesse, men på lejlighed.

Intégration: Hvorfor prøver De at fremme en ny økonomisk verdensorden?

Zepp-LaRouche: Fordi den nuværende verdensorden, der almindeligvis kaldes 'globalisering', er fuldstændigt bankerot – finansielt såvel som moralsk. Nødvendigheden af en ny, retfærdig økonomisk orden er endnu mere påtrængende i dag, end den var for 50 år siden, da den blokfrie bevægelse krævede en ny økonomisk verdensorden. Den store humanitære krise, der kommer til udtryk ved, at mange millioner mennesker nu om dage flygter fra krig, sult og fattigdom i Sydvestasien og Afrika og sætter deres liv på spil for at forsøge at komme til et Europa, der lukker sine grænser, er en sønderlemmende dom over alle dem, der prøver at opretholde et system, der kun gavner nogle få og skader milliarder af mennesker. Menneskeheden er ankommen til en skillevej, hvor vi enten finder et nyt mønster, der tager hensyn til alle de menneskers interesser, der lever på denne planet, eller hvor vi styrter endnu dybere ind i en mørk tidsalder eller sågar en tredje verdenskrig.

Intégration: Har den internationale konference om korruption ikke givet nogle retningslinjer for denne nye økonomiske verdensorden?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg kan ikke se, at denne konference har udrettet noget i praksis, der kan ændre noget ved det nuværende systems korruption. Tænk bare på den uhyre mængde af forbrydelser, som det transatlantiske finanssystem er delagtigt i, sådan som de såkaldte 'Panama Papers' afslører det, hvor bankerne systematisk har arrangeret skatteunddragelse og andre illegale aktiviteter, hvad der kun er toppen af isbjerget; eller manipulationerne med LIBOR-renten, hvor folk bedroges for trecifrede milliardbeløb; eller bankernes hvidvaskning af penge, som for eksempel HSBC. Så disse retningslinjer er indtil videre blot tomme ord.

Intégration: Tror De, at vi kan forvente regimeskift i flere lande, især i Afrika, hvor man har dette fænomen med 'præsidenter på livstid', der kan sno sig uden om ethvert tilløb til demokrati?

Zepp-LaRouche: Tragedien er, at mange statsmænd i Afrika, der har sloges for almenvellet, er blevet myrdede og erstattede af stikirenddrenge for det koloniale system, som stadig eksisterer, for eksempel i form af de økonomiske fondes kreditbetingelser. I sin bog 'Confessions of an economic hitman' beskriver John Perkins rigtigt godt, hvordan dette system arbejder helt op til i dag. Og man bør også huske på, at velklingende ord som 'demokrati' og 'menneskerettigheder' ofte bruges som synonymer for udenlandske indgreb for at bringe sådanne folk til magten, der tjener det transatlantiske finanssystem.

Intégration: Camerouns statschef Paul Biya har ofte krævet en marshallplan for Afrika. Tror De, at det er nødvendigt og muligt?

Zepp-LaRouche: Absolut! Det er mere end nødvendigt i betragtning af den ekstreme fattigdom i mange regioner og lande i Afrika. Og det er en realistisk mulighed for den nære fremtid. Kina er begyndt at bygge Den nye Silkevej og Den maritime Silkevej, som allerede mere end 60 lande arbejder med på. Min organisation, Schiller-instituttet, har udarbejdet et 370 sider langt studium over, hvordan Den nye Silkevej bliver til en verdenslandbro, og den indeholder et stort afsnit om afgørende udviklingsprojekter i Afrika, der vil forvandle situationen fuldstændigt. Det er først og fremmest store infrastrukturprojekter, som er en ufravigelig forudsætning for udvikling af landbruget og økonomien, men også vandprojekter, energiproduktion og -fordeling og nye byer.
Dog vil jeg ikke kalde dette for en 'marshallplan', for forlængelsen af De nye Silkevej til Afrika bør ikke have nogen bismag af Den kolde Krig, men udgøre et win-win-perspektiv for samtlige deltagere.

Intégration: Den internationale presse har givet Dem tilnavnet 'Silkevejskvinden'. Hvad er grunden for dette tilnavn, og nøjagtigt hvad er dette silkevejsinitiativ?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, jeg har fået dette øgenavn, fordi jeg i 25 år har arbejdet for Den nye Silkevej. For det var det, min ægtemand og jeg foreslog, da Sovjetunionen brød sammen i 1991. Dengang kaldte vi det for Den eurasiske Landbro eller Den nye Silkevej, og det var et forslag, der skulle forbinde Europas og Asiens befolknings- og industricentre med hinanden gennem udviklingskorridorer og derved åbne det eurasiske kontinents indelukkede områder. Vi har siden da bogstaveligt talt arrangeret hundreder af konferencer og seminarer i hele verden om dette emne.
Den gode nyhed er, at Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i 2013 udnævnte Den nye Silkevej til Kinas officielle politik, der i den antikke silkevejs tradition skal forbinde folkene med hinanden gennem udveksling af varer, teknologi, kultur og ideer. I løbet af de to et halvt år siden da har projektet opnået et enormt tempo, og det er for tiden det eneste positive aspekt på planeten.

Intégration: Vi må spørge Dem: Hvad betyder initiativet med Den nye Silkevej for Afrika, eller hvilket bidrag kan Afrika yde til silkevejs-initiativet?

Zepp-LaRouche: Når man kikker på et kort over Afrika, kan man se, at den grundlæggende infrastruktur mangler. De få jernbanelinjer og veje er ikke meget bedre end i kolonitiden, hvor de kun tjente til udplyndring af råstoffer.
I det væsentlige vil det altså betyde opførsel af integrerede højhastighedsbaner, motorveje, vandkanaler, men også investeringer i fremskreden teknologi og uddannelse. Det vil ikke blot overvinde fattigdom, sult og sygdomme på meget kort tid, men også frembringe et spring til den mest moderne teknologi og gøre det muligt at lære af den kinesiske økonomiske model, der i de sidste 25 år har frembragt dette bemærkelsesværdige økonomiske mirakel.
Denne model hviler netop på den samme økonomiske model, der også var grundlaget for den tyske økonomiske model i efterkrigsårene. I princippet kan denne model anvendes overalt, når man fremmer den bedst mulige uddannelse af befolkningen og kreativiteten.
Afrika kan anvende sin enorme menneskelige kapital til gavn for hele menneskehedens udvikling. Jo flere mennesker, der studerer projekterne og tankegangen bag Den nye Silkevej, des hurtigere kan den sættes på programmet. I nogle lande er der allerede studiegrupper, der mødes én eller to gange om ugen for at studere teorien bag den fysiske økonomi, der går tilbage til Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz og videreudvikledes af min mand Lyndon LaRouche.

Intégration: Hvorfor advarer de hele tiden om, at en tredje verdenskrig truer? Hvem ville have gavn af en sådan katastrofe?

Zepp-LaRouche: Som enhver let kan erkende, bedriver De forenede stater og NATO for tiden en indkredsningspolitik over for Rusland og Kina, der har nået et meget farligt punkt. Grunden til det er, at det transatlantiske finanssystem er fuldkomment bankerot, og at nogle oligarkiske kredse ser deres magt truet af Kinas fremvækst.
Ingen vil få gavn af det. En tredje verdenskrig med termonukleare våben vil føre til menneskeartens udslettelse.

Intégration: Og som middel mod dette foreslår De det, som De kalder for en 'kulturel og videnskabelig renæssance'?

Zepp-LaRouche: Nuvel, man har også brug for et nyt finanssystem til at erstatte det nuværende, bankerotte system med et kreditsystem, med en Glass-Steagall-bankopdeling, sådan som Franklin Roosevelt indførte den.
Men den nye økonomiske orden vil kun virke, hvis det lykkes os at forandre den nuværende ondartede og hæslige kultur, der præger menneskenes tankegang i en meget destruktiv retning.
Vi må genoplive de bedste traditioner i alle kulturer og så føre en dialog mellem de bedste produkter fra alle civilisationer og kulturer. På den måde vil menneskene atter kunne begynde at lære af hinanden. Chauvinisme og fremmedhad vil forsvinde, og gennem denne genoplivning vil jorden så være gjort rede til skabelsen af en ny renæssance.

Intégration: Hvordan vil denne videnskabelige og kulturelle renæssance udtrykke sig? Hvilken rolle spiller Afrika her?

Zepp-LaRouche: Der er ganske tydelige pionerområder inden for videnskaben, der vil føre til en helt ny platform for den videnskabelige aktivitet. Et sådant felt er udforskningen af kernefusion. Der er gennembrud lige på trapperne, både hos Stellarator-modellen i Greifswald i Tyskland – hvor det i februar lykkedes for videnskabsmændene at opretholde et flere millioner grader varmt plasma i en tiendedel sekund. Og målet er inden 2020 at kunne opnå et stabilt plasma i 30 minutter, der er meget varmere end vor sol – og et nyt gennembrud er også på vej i en anden reaktortype i Kina, den eksperimentelt fremskredne superledende Tokamak (Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak EAST) i instituttet for fysik i Hefei. En videnskab på fusionens grundlag vil betyde energi- og råstofsikkerhed for hele menneskeheden. Et andet område er udforskningen af verdensrummet og rumfarten.
En kulturel renæssance betyder, at samfundet endelig bliver menneskeligt igen, hvilket i fortiden kun har været tilfældet i korte perioder: Gupta-perioden i Indien, bestemte dynastier i Kina som Song-dynastiet, Abbasidernes tidsalder i Den arabiske Verden, den italienske renæssance, den gyldne tidsalder i Timbuktu eller den tyske klassiske tid. En ny renæssance vil betyde, at denne tænkemåde bliver målestokken og grundlaget for nye gennembrud af kreativitet inden for alle områder af videnskaben og kulturen.

Anmærkning

1. Interviewet gennemførtes på engelsk og udkom den 16. maj i fransk oversættelse i Intégration.
Se: http://www.journalintegration.com/index.php/dossier/item/477-helga-zepp-larouche-en-regardant-la-carte-de-l-afrique-on-observe-un-manque-flagrant-d-infrastructures-essentielles

23. maj, 2016 – Mens han var i Kasakhstan d. 21. maj for at gennemføre samtaler med regeringsembedsmænd, gav den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi journalister fra Kina og Kasakhstan et overblik over, hvad der er opnået fra Silkevejens økonomiske Bælte- og Den maritime Silkevejs-initiativer, siden præsident Xi Jinping først foreslog Det økonomiske Bælte i 2013.

Xinhua gav en detaljeret rapport om hans bemærkninger:
Udenrigsminister Wang identificerede mange vigtige ”foreløbige høstudbytter” fra "Ét bælte, én vej-"-initiativet, som han karakteriserede som "værende i overensstemmelse med folks fælles håb om udvikling og samarbejde i forskellige lande i Asien og Europa…. en yderst vigtig offentlig service tilvejebragt af Kina til det asiatiske og europæiske kontinent." De næste skridt vil fortsat følge princippet om "gensidig diskussion, gensidig konstruktion, gensidige privilegier," sagde han.

Det første "høstudbytte", som Wang pegede på var, at "en rammestruktur for internationalt samarbejde" er ved at blive sat sammen, hvori mere end 70 lande og organisationer har udtrykt villighed til at slutte sig til projektet, og samarbejdsaftaler mellem regeringer er blevet underskrevet med 34 lande og internationale organisationer. Finansielle støttemekanismer, såsom AIIB og Silkevejsfonden, begynder at arbejde." Projekter til forbedring af transportopkobling er undervejs, inklusive en jernbane mellem Ungarn og Serbien, et højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekt i Indonesien, jernbaner til at forbinde Kina med Laos og Kina med Thailand.

I Wangs optik er den "internationale industrielle kapacitets samarbejds-modus", der er sat i gang ved aftalerne underskrevet af mere end 20 lande, vigtigere end de specifikke aftaler på grund af den "vigtige demonstrationseffekt", som det vil resultere i.

Økonomiske korridorer begynder at manifestere sig. Den "kinesisk-pakistanske økonomiske korridor startede tidligt og udviklede sig hurtigt; Kina, Mongoliet og Rusland "arbejder hastigt på at udarbejde planer og skitser" for en korridor; og den økonomiske korridor mellem Kina-Bangladesh-Indien-Myanmar udvikler sig støt.

Tog mellem Kina og Europa spiller en større og vigtigere rolle i at forbedre den økonomiske udvikling og handel langs med forbindelserne, sagde Wang. "Indtil nu har mere end 1500 tog succesfuldt rejst mellem Kina og Europa. Alene sidste år blev 815 tog sendt af sted mellem Kina og Europa," med togafgang fra 10 byer i Kina til syv lande.

Wang rapporterede, at, som et resultat af alt dette, har der været en "heftig vækst i regional handel og investering" – dobbelt så meget som den gennemsnitlige globale vækst, siden "Ét bælte, én vej"-projektet blev påbegyndt, alt imens "der er opnået tættere menneskelig kommunikation" fra de mange kulturelle festivaler og projekter, der ledsager projektet.

Den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier holdt åbningstalen ved OSCE's økonomiske konference "Connectivity for Commerce and Investment", der fandt sted i Berlin den 18.5.2016. Her understregede han betydningen af et økonomisk samarbejde som grundlag for en varig sikkerhedspolitik og henviste især til den kinesiske silkevejspolitik og den eurasiske økonomiske union. Steinmeier sagde blandt andet:
"…For to år siden kom den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping på besøg i Tyskland. Og han rejste dengang ikke blot til Berlin for politiske samtaler, men tog også til Duisburg. Det er måske ikke alle her i salen, der kender
Duisburg. Det bebrejder jeg Dem ikke. Men et besøg lønner sig! For der ligger én af de største indlandshavne i hele verden. Og: Byen er endestationen for godstogsforbindelsen mellem Chongqing i Kina og Tyskland – en forbindelse på over 10.300 kilometer! Præsident Xi tog dengang til Duisburg for at byde et tog på denne forbindelseslinje velkommen.
Hans besøg og denne jernbaneforbindelse – fra Chongqing over Khorgos og Moskva til Duisburg – den gør det tydeligt for mig i flere henseender, hvorfor vor konference er så vigtig lige nu!
– Denne forbløffende togstrækning – der gennemløber flere klimazoner – viser, hvilke geografiske udfordringer, der er forbundne med at udforme vort fælles rum, et rum, der strækker sig fra vore transatlantiske partnere over Europa og lige til Asien.
– Samtidigt tydeliggør denne strækning den store økonomiske dynamik, der allerede udfolder sig i dette rum, eller som stadig kan udfolde sine muligheder.
– Og ved den kinesiske præsidents besøg i Duisburg viser det sig, hvor vigtigt det er, at politik beskæftiger sig med de økonomiske spørgsmål – og omvendt.
– Og en anden ting bliver symbolsk synlig for mig ved denne skinnestreng, ved denne virkeligt "belastelige" forbindelse, nemlig betydningen af visionen om et fælles sikkerhedsfællesskab – fra Vancouver til Vladivostok. Og det, mine damer og herrer, er en vision, som vi bør engagere os i! …"

Den fuldstændige tale kan findes på: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/DE/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2016/160518-BM-OSZE-Wirtschaftskonferenz.html

D. 11, maj 2016 – De ugentlige sessioner med studier af den arabiske oversættelse af EIR specialrapporten Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen har udviklet sig til at blive nationale begivenheder, der overværes af ministre, universiteter, digtere, intellektuelle, forretningsfolk, civilsamfunds-organisationer, og de mest prominente nationale og internationale massemedier i Yemens hovedstad, Sanaa . Alt dette finder sted alt imens det anglo-amerikanske-saudi bombardement af byen og invasionen af landets sydlige del aldrig er ophørt. Disse begivenheder er organiseret af Rådgivningskontoret for Koordinering med BRIKS, som ledes af Fouad Al-Ghaffari. Et tusind kopier af rapporten blev trykt i sidste uge til distribution blandt institutioner og individuelle statsborgere.
D. 10. maj afholdtes den 8. læsesession af rapportens 3. del, ”Kina: Silkevejen til Udvikling of Fred,” og sessionen blev overværet og adresseret af den fungerende minister for kommunikation, Hr. Muslih Muhsin Al-Azir. Mødet blev også overværet af formanden for Yemens Center for Strategiske Studier og Forskning, Dr. Abdul-Aziz Al-Muqalih, som også er en af de bedst kendte af Yemens digtere og romanforfattere, samt en anden prominent poet, Al-Gharbi Amran. Kopier af den frisktrykte rapport blev uddelt som gaver til nogle af de prominente gæster. Et stort banner viste rapportens omslagsside samt kortet af Verdenslandbroen fra bagomslaget, og et portræt af præsident Xi Jinping, prydede mødets baggrundsbanner.
Mødet blev også via video adresseret af Hussein Askary, medforfatter af EIR rapporten og oversætter af den arabiske version. Askary forklarede den kinesiske rolle i den Nye Silkevej, hvilken, – som forkvinde for Schiller Instituttet og ’den nye Silkevejsdame’ Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har beskrevet det, – er det største projekt for fred og udvikling i historien. Askary redegjorde for historien om den fælles indsats siden 1996 af Kina og Schiller Instituttet, for at promovere og opbygge dette projekt. Han redegjorde også for grundpillerne af den Konfucius-baserede kinesiske filosofi bag den Nye Silkevej: Kærlighed, harmoni og gensidige fordele, idet han påpegede, at disse er diametrale modsætninger til det nuværende destruktive og inhumane anglo-amerikanske system.
Fungerende minister Al-Azir roste de historiske bånd mellem Yemen og Kina, der strækker sig fra den præ-islamiske periode (før det 6. århundrede A.D.), samt den kinesiske støtte til det yemenitiske folk siden den republikanske revolution d. 26. september, 1962, samt for Kinas støtte til alle aspekter af udvikling. Hver yemenitisk statsborger føler hver især virkningen af Kinas bidrag til hans eller hendes liv i dag, især til Sanaa-Hudaida motorvejen. Al-Azir understregede også vigtigheden af, at udbygge de gode relationer med Folkerepublikken Kina, og roste den rolle, som Rådgivningskontoret for Koordinering med BRIKS har spillet, for at forbedre Yemens relationer med venlige nationer, såsom Kina.
Den 9. Maj holdt Rådgivningskontoret et arrangement i fællesskab med Sanaa Universitetet og dets tilknyttede Center for Strategisk Forskning, for at underskrive en samarbejdsaftale om den Nye Silkevejsrapport, og anden forskning relateret dertil.
Foregående læsesessioner har behandlet LaRouche’s ideer om fysisk økonomi inkluderet i Del 2, ”Metrikker for Fremskridt.” Efterfølgende diskussionen om vigtigheden af kernekraft, udtalte viceminister for elektricitet og energi, Dr. Hareth Al-Amri, at den Yemenitiske regering burde genoplive det kernekraftprogram, som blev opgivet i 1990’erne.
Mediedækningen af disse begivenheder har været konstant. Interessen for den Nye Silkevej og Yemens forbindelse med både Silkevejens økonomiske Bælte og det 21. århundredes Maritime Silkevej (Et bælte, En vej) er blevet vækket i brede dele af landet, både gennem forståelse af vigtigheden af disse ideer, og visioner for rekonstruktion af Yemen efter den igangværende ødelæggende krig. I denne krig har saudiske krigsfly, med amerikanske og britiske våbensystemer, fokuseret på at ødelægge den basale infrastruktur og eksisterende industrier, for at tvinge befolkningen til at knæle for det anglo-amerikanske imperiums magt. Men det er ikke sket.
Disse aktiviteter er også blevet en kilde til håb for folk i Yemen, der betaler en høj pris på grund af denne sataniske geopolitiske krig. I øjeblikket er der forhandlinger undervejs i Kuwait mellem de Sanaa-baserede nationale kræfter, og den saudisk-støttede eksilregering, under protektion af FN. Den russisk-kinesiske indsats for at afslutte krigen i Syrien og genopbygge landet, mærkes også i Kuwait. De forskellige parter bliver fra alle siger presset til at standse kampene og genoprette den politiske proces, der skred godt fremad, før saudierne saboterede den i marts-april 2015.
Uanset udfaldet af disse forhandlinger, og uanset hvilken regering der endeligt etableres, vil den være nødt til at tage ideerne indeholdt i EIR specialrapporten med i betragtning. Og de visioner, som yemenitterne skaber fra deres læsning af disse ideer, vil nødvendigvis danne basis for genopbygning af landet, og bringe fred og udvikling til nuværende og fremtidige generationer. Kina og Rusland må bidrage til disse visioner med deres støtte og indflydelse, fordi Yemens skæbne vil få stor indvirkning på den vej, som det Nye Silkevejs Freds projekt vil tage.

D.30. april – I en tale d. 29. april til det kinesiske kommunistpartis politbureaus studiegruppe for den antikke Silkevejs historie sagde præsident Xi Jinping, at han håbede at Bælte og Vej – initiativet ville være til fordel for alle lande, såvel som for Kina. Præsident Xi har påbegyndt disse studiegrupper med henblik på at invitere eksperter indenfor hos politbureauet, for mere grundigt at studere spørgsmål af vigtighed for nationen, om hvilke der må tages beslutninger.
Eksperten ved fredagsmødet var professor Li Guqiang fra det kinesiske Akademi for Sociale Videnskaber (CASS).
Præsident Xi henvendte sig også til gruppen om emnet: “Konstruktionen af Bæltet og Vejen er, under de nye økonomiske omstændigheder, vores flerstrengede udspil, for at skabe en vigtig, gensidig fordelagtig, win-win platform. Vi må tilgå det fra et højere synsvinkel, vedtage en bredere vision for at assimilere og tage ved lære på basis af historisk erfaring. Vi må bruge kreative idéer og innovativ tænkning til at skabe en sund basis for vort arbejde, og for at lade folk i alle landene langs med ’vejen’ opleve de konkrete fordele ved Vejen og Bæltet. Denne gang studerer politbureauet dette emne, vigtigst er det at begribe den antikke Silkevejs – og den maritime Silkevejs – historiske kultur, for at opsummere den historiske erfaring, med henblik på at skubbe konstruktionen af Bæltet og Vejen fremad under nye givne rammer, og at drage lære af denne historiske erfaring.
”Da Bæltet og Vejen blev fremlagt, vakte det stor interesse i mange kredse, og vandt genklang verden over, og der kom respons fra alle sider. Grunden til den stærke respons var primært, at forslaget svarede til tidens krav. I hvert land opvaktes ønsket om udvikling, hvilket har dybe historiske rødder og basis i menneskelighed. Set fra vore rammer er dette forslag i overensstemmelse med kravene til vort lands økonomiske udvikling, men også befordrende for at drive udviklingen i vore nabolande. Bæltet og Vejen fremkalder en fornemmelse for vore nabolandes historie. Den klassiske Silkevej var ikke bare en handelskorridor, men nok så meget en venskabskorridor. Med de venlige kontakter mellem det kinesiske folk og vore nabofolk bevæger vi os skridt for skridt mod vilkårene for fred og samarbejde, en opblomstring af tolerance, af at lære af hinanden, mod en gensidig gavnlig win-win ånd, der karakteriserede den klassiske Silkevej.
“Vi er begyndt på Bæltet og Vejen; men at bygge Bæltet og Vejen er ikke vores opgave alene. Det kan ikke ses som blot midlet til at opnå vores egen udvikling, men vi må bruge vores udvikling som et historisk vendepunkt, der tillader flere lande at komme med på vores eksprestog, og at hjælpe dem med at realiserer målene for deres egen udvikling. Det må være til fordel for vores land, men også for andre lande. Vi må vedtage princippet om retfærdighed før fordel, opnå retfærdighed først, og fordel sidenhen, ikke være utålmodige efter succes og umiddelbar profit, ikke udføre kortsigtede handlinger. Vi må planlægge projekterne som et hele, tage vore egne interesser og også interesserne af landene langs vejen i betragtning, hvilke muligvis kan være forskellige, søge efter flere afgørende sammenfald i fælles fordele og lade vores entusiasme affødes i landene langs Bæltet og Vejen.”
Xi tilskyndede også kinesiske firmaer til at sætte pris på ikke kun økonomiske afkast på deres investeringsprojekter i fremmede lande, men også deres omdømme som lovlydige og ansvarlige enheder.

Den 18. april 2016 afholdt Schiller Instituttet og Executive Intelligence Review et seminar på Frederiksberg med deltagelse af repræsentanter fra ambassader, institutioner, erhvervsliv og interesserede samfundsborgere. Seminaret blev indledt med musik … Derefter fremlagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og international præsident for Schiller Instituttet, et billede af den uhyggelige strategiske, finansielle og politiske krise verden befinder sig i, men præsenterede samtidigt det nye paradigme, der kan give menneskeheden en gylden fælles fremtid. Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, præsenterede derefter en vision for de fantastiske muligheder, der er for at udvikle Sydvestasien og Afrika i forlængelse af Schiller Instituttets Verdenslandbro og Kinas program for Den Nye Silkevej. Sidste taler inden diskussionen var Hr. Abbas Rasouli fra Irans ambassade i Danmark, der i en tale om Silkevejen og Iran-faktoren fortalte om landets planer om at forbinde Europa og Asien. Videoer og lydfiler med musik, alle taler og dias findes på www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=12525.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

København d. 19. april, 2016 – I går holdt Schiller Instituttet og EIR et seminar med et fremmøde på omkring 60 mennesker. Hovedtalerne var Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og international præsident for Schiller Instituttet, og Hussein Askary, arabisk redaktør af EIR, og mellemøstlig koordinator for Schiller Instituttet. Der var desuden en introduktion med klassisk musik, og en tale af Hr. Abbas Rasouli, førstesekretær ved den Islamiske Republik Irans ambassade i Danmark.
Video- og audiofiler på engelsk er nu slået op på: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=12525
Fremmødet inkluderede diplomater fra mindst syv ambassader, heraf to ambassadører. (fra Sydvestasien, Nordafrika, Asien, Østeuropa og en CIS nation.) Andre VIP’er inkluderede en bankmand, en infrastruktur-ingeniør, ledere af et dansk-arabisk og et dansk-kinesisk selskab, en syrisk aktivist, såvel som mange medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet samt unge og gamle kontakter fra Danmark og mange andre lande.
Litteraturbordet prægedes af stakke af den printede version af rapporten om Landbroen på alle tre sprog – engelsk, kinesisk og arabisk, såvel som dansksproget materiale.
Eftermiddagens begivenhed blev åbnet smukt med to sange, ”Fischerweise” af Schubert, og ”Ritorna Vincitor!” fra Aida af Verdi, fremført af Leena Malkki, svensk sopran, og Dominik Wijzan, polsk pianist. Valget af musikstykket fra Aida var specielt passende til lejligheden, og var ekstremt bevægende. Aida, en etiopisk prinsesse, der holdtes som slave i Egypten, er splittet mellem hendes kærlighed til den egyptiske general, og hendes kærlighed til hendes far, Etiopiens konge, og hendes fædreland. Sangene blev introduceret med et sammendrag af følgende historie: ”Som en del af fejringerne omkring åbningen af Suezkanalen d. 17. november 1869 byggede statholderen i Egypten et nyt operahus i Cairo. Indvielsesforestillingen var Verdis ’Rigoletto.’ I maj 1870 indvilgede Verdi endeligt i at skrive en opera specifikt for Cairo over et egyptisk tema. Aidas premiere i Cairo d. 24. december 1871 blev forudsigeligt en kæmpesucces.” (fra en internet-blog af Mavi Boncuk)
Helga Zepp-LaRouche leverede derefter en magtfuld strategisk briefing, af hvilken en udskrift blev bragt i EIR’s briefing torsdag d. 19. april, 2016. Efterfølgende var der to spørgsmål om hvad der ville ske, hvis nogen af de centraleuropæiske lande, eller ligefrem Danmark, ville forlade NATO, for mere helhjertet at tilslutte sig det nye paradigme; og om vesten er oprigtig i dets kamp mod Islamisk Stat.
Bagefter talte Hussein Askary om Schiller Instituttets, EIR’s og, også, hans personlige mission – at udvide Verdenslandbroen til Sydvestasien og Afrika. Han betonede, at idéen ikke blot er at transportere varer, men at bygge udviklingskorridorer. Han citerede LaRouche’s ide (indgriben i Abu Dhabi med henblik på at bruge olie til fremstilling) om at udnytte Sydvestasiens strategiske position til at forbinde tre kontinenter. Han beskrev, med fokus på Syrien, den mere detaljerede plan fra Schiller Instituttet om økonomiske udvikling af Sydvestasien, der forekommer i den nyligt oversatte arabiske udgave af EIR’s specialrapport. Dernæst fokuserede Hussein på den egyptiske model med at gå til folket, for finansiering af mega-projekter, og behovet for at udvide den økonomiske aktivitet ind i ørkenen.
For det andet, startende med Egypten som en bro mellem Sydvestasien og Afrika, bibragte Hussein lidenskabeligt tilhørerne en vision om fremtidig afrikansk økonomisk udvikling ved at fremtage ambitiøse perspektivplaner, der har ligget klar i skufferne. Dette i kombination med nogle af de projekter, som kineserne aktuelt er ved at bringe til live. Han sluttede med en polemik imod ”vedvarende” økonomisk udvikling, og opfordrede til et lynprogram for at sætte afrikanere i stand til at indtage deres retsmæssige plads i fremtiden. Hans tale vil også blive afskrevet. Del 1 af Husseins tale findes i denne briefing.
Efterfølgende beskrev Hr. Abbas Rasouli Irans tilsagn om deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej og udlagde, at de nord-syd og øst-vest forbindende jernbaneprojekter, der er færdiggjort og de der er planlagt, vil sætte Iran i stand til at forbinde Østasien og Centralasien med Sydvestasien, Afrika og Europa og endvidere forbindelser mod nord.
Spørgsmåls-perioden inkluderede spørgsmål om implementeringen af det afrikanske program, fulgt af et spørgsmål om Marokkos rolle. Svarene fra Hussein samt fra Helga på en henstilling om at beskrive den islamiske renæssances vigtighed for verden, og give et bud på hvordan en verdensomspændende renæssance kan skabes i dag, tjente som en smuk afslutning af seminaret.
Alle, som vi talte med i pausen og efter mødet, var meget begejstrede for seminaret, og vi har megen opfølgning at gøre.
Over en periode på to uger op til seminaret, har vi lavet et stort opsøgende arbejde, og nået ud til nye folk. Vi ringede til næsten alle ambassaderne beliggende i København, mange danske institutioner, og nåede ud til mange folk i Schiller Instituttets netværk, inklusiv unge kontakter. Ydermere intervenerede vi ved forskellige andre seminarer: Demokrati i Tunesien (se briefing d. 8. april); et specielt seminar om Kinas et bælte, én vej; og et seminar om handelsforbindelser mellem Kina og Danmark, hvor vi uddelte invitationer i pauserne. Vi foretog også en tur rundt i relevante universitetsafdelinger, og holdt adskillige private møder på højt niveau. Nu vil vi sørge for, at optagelserne, afskrifterne og oversættelserne kommer ud, for at forøge seminarets effekt maksimalt.

Kommer senere på dansk.

Abbas Rasouli, the First Secretary at the Embassy of the Islamic
Republic of Iran in Denmark: Address to {EIR}-Schiller Institute
Seminar “Extend the New Silk Road to the Middle East and Africa”
April 18, 2016

THE SILK ROAD AND THE IRAN FACTOR

ABBAS RASOULI: In 2013 China proposed to build an “economic belt
along the Silk Road,” a trans-Eurasian project spanning from the
Pacific Ocean to the Central Asian countries all the way to
Europe.
The New Silk Road already have momentum. In early 2015 China
announced $62 billion of its foreign exchange reserves will be
made available to the three state-owned policy banks that will
finance the expansion of the new Silk Road.
Beyond Central Asia the economic belt along the Silk Road
can also provide the vehicle for China’s expansion of its trade
relations with both the Middle East and Europe. And here is when
the Iran link comes into the equation.
In February 2016 a freight train from Yiwu in China’s
eastern Zhejiang province arrived in Tehran. The China-Iran “Silk
Road train” is a part of the overland component of China’s One
Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative.
The train used the existing rail links from China through
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan before entering Iran. It took the
train just 14 days to cover the roughly 10,399 km long journey to
Tehran whereas ferrying cargo via the sea from Shanghai, which
lies 300 km north of Yiwu, to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas
takes 45 days in comparison.
It is expected that construction of new high-speed rail
links through Central Asia will enable trains carrying goods to
run further on to European markets. Besides facilitating
Sino-Iran trade, these railway lines will contribute to Iran’s
emergence as an important Eurasian trade hub. Iran will thus be
integrated more into the economies of East and Central Asia as
well as Europe.
Bilateral trade between Iran and China grew from $4 billion
in 2003 to $53 billion in 2013. In January 2016, during the visit
of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Iran, the two sides agreed to
increase trade to $600 billion over the coming decade. So the
operation of this railway link will prove an important factor in
the development of trade between Iran and the countries along
this economic belt.
The important thing about the Iran corridor is that existing
road and rail links between China, Central Asia and Iran only
needs to be modernized whereas some parts or all of the other
corridors have to be constructed from scratch, each with their
own security and geographical challenges.
The Yiwu-Tehran railway is just one of the many projects
that enhance regional connectivity, bringing together China,
Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and West Asia.
India, has also been eyeing overland access via Iran to
Central Asian and European markets too. In this connection the
North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC), a multi-modal trade
transport network that includes sea and rail transport from India
via Iranian ports on the Persian Gulf to as far as the Baltic Sea
via Russia, was initiated by Russia, India and Iran in September
2000 to establish transportation networks among the member states
and to enhance connectivity with the land-locked region of
Central Asia. Among the few routes in this corridor the
Mumbai-Chahbahar or Bandar Abbas (Persian Gulf)-Anzali-Astara
(Iran Caspian Sea)-Astara (Azerbaijan)-Baku-Russia-Kazakhstan is
receiving much attention. With the completion of this route Iran
will emerge as another important transit hub in the Asia-Europe
trade giving India overland access to Europe as well.
Of the 1500 km Bandar Abbas-Bandar-Anzali railway link only
50 km remains to be completed, but the 164 km Anzali-Astara link
is still at negotiation stage. A working group made up of India,
Iran, Azerbaijan and Russia has been formed to look into raising
finance to construct the Anzali-Astara (Iran)-Astara (Azerbaijan)
railway connection. All parties appreciate the urgency of moving
this project forward and as recently as last week, Russia,
Azerbaijan and Iran agreed to speed up the project.
The North-South corridor, when completed, is expected to
significantly reduce the time of cargo transport from India to
Central Asia and Russia. At present, it takes about 40 days to
ship goods from Mumbai in India to Moscow. The new route will be
able to cut this time to 14 days.
The primary objective of the NSTC project is to reduce costs
in terms of time and money over the traditional route currently
being used between Russia, Central Asia, Iran and India. With
improved transport connectivity their respective bilateral trade
volumes are most likely to increase tremendously. According to
various studies the route, once fully operational, will be at
least 30% cheaper and 40% shorter than the current traditional
route.
Though every country is important in any transport chain,
Iran, neighbor with 15 countries, is not only a hub for
distribution to the neighboring countries of about 400 million
but has the added advantage of being a strong economy between
giants at each end of these corridors namely China, India, Russia
and Europe.
Some of the economic advantages of Iran are:
* The 18th largest economy in the world by purchasing power
parity (ppp);
* A diversified economy with a broad industrial base;
* Resource-rich economy;
* Labor-rich economy;
* Young and educated population;
* Large domestic market;
* An increasingly sophisticated infrastructure and human
capital base providing the foundation for an emerging
knowledge-based economy.
* A market of 80 million with easy access to another market
of 400 million.
In a global world where international trade is taking on
greater significance, transport costs and delivery time are two
of the most important factors in the choice of the mode and route
of transporting goods.
The completion and modernization of the North-South and
East-West Transport corridors will cut transport costs and
delivery time thereby enhancing trade between East Asia, South
Asia, Central Asia, Middle East and Europe.

Kommer senere på dansk.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Addresses Seminar in Copenhagen,
April 18, 2016 [unproofed draft]

We Need a New Paradigm for Humanity

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, thank you very much for this
kind introduction.
Dear Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to
start my presentation with showing you a point of view which may
be unusual to discuss the strategic situation, but I think it is
quite adequate.
This is a time-lapse video where you can actually have a view
from space. This is the kind of view normally only astronauts,
cosmonauts, taikonauts have. They all come back from their space
travel with the idea that there is only one humanity, and that
our planet, which is very beautiful and blue; however, it is very
small in a very large solar system and an even larger galaxy, not
to mention the billion galaxies out there in our universe.
With that view comes, naturally, the question of the future.
Where should mankind be in 100 years from now, in a 1000 years,
in 10,000 years? Well, you have to exercise your power of
imagination. In 10,000 years, we probably are well beyond having
colonized the Moon, we have completed very successful Mars
missions, we will have a much, much better understanding about
our solar system, our galaxy, and we will have gotten a much
deeper understanding about the principle of our universe.
Just think, that it took 100 years before modern science
could confirm that Einstein's conception about gravitational
waves was correct. Ten thousand years of the past human history
has brought tremendous progress. But just think that this growth
can go on, exponentially. And since there is no limit to the
creativity and perfectibility of the human species, in 10,000
years we can have a wonderful world.
So, let's look from that view, into the future, to the
present, to have the right perspective.
Yesterday, the {New York Times}, in the Sunday edition, had
an article saying "The Race Escalates for the Latest Class of
Nuclear Arms," portraying in detail that the United States, and
Russia, and China are developing new generations of smaller and
less destructive nuclear weapons, which would make them more
useable. They quote in the article James Clapper, the Director of
the National Intelligence of the United States, that the world
has now entered a new Cold War spiral, where, basically, totally
different laws and rules govern, than it used to be the case with
Mutual Assured Destruction.
The previous NATO doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction
proceeded from the assumption that the destructive power of
nuclear weapons is so horrible, because it will lead to the
annihilation of the human race, that nobody in their right mind
would ever use it. And therefore, it was a deterrence that these
weapons would never be used.
This is now no longer valid. What they are now discussing,
openly, on the front page of the {New York Times}, is that what
we, for a very long time, only we and a few of military experts,
have said, namely, that these modernized tactical nuclear
weapons, like the B12-61, in combination with stealth bombers,
with hypersonic missiles, can actually lead to the winning of a
nuclear war.
Ted Postol and Hans Kristensen, very respected military
analysts, have detailed at great lengths, why the idea of a
limited nuclear war is completely ludicrous, and it is the nature
of the difference between thermonuclear weapons and conventional
weapons, that once you enter a nuclear exchange, that it is the
logic of such a war that all weapons will be used, and that will
be the end of mankind. We are closer to that possibility than
most people dare to even consider, because if they would, they
would not remain so passive as they are now.
This is why I want to make emphatically the point–and this
is the purpose of conducting meetings like this seminar and many
other conferences we are engaged in–that we have reached a point
in human history where geopolitics must be superseded with a
completely new paradigm. And that is why I started with the view
from space. We need a new paradigm, basically saying goodbye to
the very idea of geopolitics, which has caused two world wars in
the 20th century. That new paradigm must be completely different
than that which is governing the world today.
We have, right now, rising tensions in the South China Sea.
Policymakers and the neighboring countries are extremely worried
about what will happen in the period between now and the trial in
The Hague. You have the largest maneuver around North and South
Korea right now, where people in the region are extremely worried
that the slightest provocation could lead to an exchange of
nuclear weapons.
You have the NATO expansion up to the Russian border.
Countries like Poland and Lithuania are asking to have these
modernized nuclear weapons located on their territory, even that
makes them prime targets.
The United States is continuing to build the anti-ballistic
missile system which, supposedly, was against Iranian missiles,
but after the P5+1 agreement has been reached, it is obvious this
was always a pretext and the aim was always to take out the
second strike capability of Russia.
Then you have the entire region of Southwest Asia, still
being a terrible destruction and consequence of failed wars.
North Africa is exploding. You have new incidents between NATO
and Russia, all of a sudden in the Baltic Sea, which was, up to
now, a calm region where there are no conflicts, or, there have
been no conflicts.
In the Middle East briefing, discussing President Obama's
trip to Riyadh on the 21st of this month, they say that this trip
will open up a new page of NATO in the relationship to the Middle
East, that what Obama will try to establish is a new relationship
between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
So, we have a situation where the {New York Times}, also
yesterday, and I'm quoting these papers to say that these are not
some opinions of us, but this is now the public discussion, that
what is really at stake in the South China Sea is not so much the
fight around some uninhabited reefs and cliffs, or some tiny
islands, but it is the American effort to halt China's rise. And
not only China's rise, but that of Asia. China, Asia arising; the
trans-Atlantic region is in decline.
Just now, we are heading towards a new financial crisis, and
all signs are, that we are going into the same kind of crash like
2008. Already since the beginning of this year, $50 billion
corporate defaults were taking place, which is on the same level
like what happened in 2009.
What the United States is trying to assert under this
conditions, where the trans-Atlantic world is in decline or
marching towards collapse, to insist that nevertheless a unipolar
world must be maintained. The problem is, that unipolar world,
effectively, no longer exists. But still, what carries American
policy to the present day, is the Project for the New American
Century, the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is a neocon idea
which says that no country and no group of countries should ever
be allowed to challenge the power position of the United States.
In the age of thermonuclear weapons, the insistence to maintain a
non-tenable world order could very quickly lead to the
annihilation of civilization.
It is a fact: China has made an economic miracle in the last
30 years which is absolutely breathtaking. And it is continuing,
despite all the media rumors about China's economic collapse.
India has by now the largest growth rate in the world; it's above
7%. Many other Asian countries have explicitly formulated the
goal for themselves to be developed countries in a few years. The
Chinese economy right now is rebounding. They just announced that
in the next five years China is going to import $10 trillion
worth of imports. They will invest $600 billion worth of
investments abroad. Every day 10,000 new firms are being created
in China.
So, if you look at the development, especially since
President Xi Jinping announced in September, 2013 in Kazakhstan,
that the New Silk Road, the One Belt One Road, is put on the
agenda. In the Two and a half years since that time, more than
sixty nations have joined with China in this development. They
have created the New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road; these
nations have created a whole set of alternative
economic-financial institutions, such as the AIIB, which, despite
massive pressure from the United States not to do so, immediately
was joined by sixty founding members. The New Development Bank
also started just now its functioning. The New Silk Road Fund,
the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the Shanghai Cooperation Bank, and
many more. All of these were created because the IMF and the
World Bank had not invested in the urgently required
infrastructure.
These banks are now engaged in very, very impressive, large
projects. For example: China invested $46 billion in the
China-Pakistan corridor. When President Xi Jinping recently went
to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, consequently Iran,
fool-heartedly, declared that they are now part of the One Belt
One Road, New Silk Road development. Greece is now talking about
that after China is investing in the Port of Piraeus, that Greece
will be the bridge between China and Europe. The 16+1, that is
the East and Central European countries, just declared that they
absolutely want to participate in China helping to build a fast
train system in these countries. Those projects which the EU has
not bid, China is now building. Part of it is, for example, the
Elbe-Oder-Danube Canal, which will connect the waterways of these
countries. When President Xi recently was in the Czech Republic,
President Zeman announced that the "Golden City" of Prague will
be the gateway between the Silk Road and Europe. Also, Austria
and Switzerland are now fully on board and see the benefits of
their country's joining with the New Silk Road.
When President Xi Jinping at the APEC meeting in October
2014 offered to President Obama to cooperate in all of these
projects in a "win-win" perspective, he not only proposed
economic cooperation, but he put on the agenda a completely new
model of international relations exactly designed to overcome
geopolitics. The new model is supposed to be based on the respect
for sovereignty, non-interference into the internal affairs of
the other country, respect for the different social system the
other country chooses to adopt. It would really be, in a certain
sense, a fulfillment of the principles which are laid out in the
UN Charter anyway.
How was the Western response?  Very, very ambiguous.  The
United States in spite of this, never really responded to
President Xi's offer.  They keep insisting on an unipolar world.
For example, in the TPP, like in the TTIP for Europe, it is said
very, very clearly, the U.S. sets the rules of trade for Asia and
not China.  Recently, the American Defense Secretary Ash Carter,
and also NATO commander General Breedlove, declared the enemies
#1 of the United States are, first, Russia, second, China, third,
Iran, fourth North Korea, and only fifth terrorism.
Now that is in spite of the fact that many other statesmen,
such as United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign
Minister Steinmeier, and many others, have recently also stated,
that all crucial problems of the world cannot be solved without
the cooperation of Russia, and China.  For example, the P5+1
agreement with Iran, would never have come into being without a
constructive role of {both} Russia and China . Without Putin's
very intelligent intervention in the military situation in Syria,
this situation could not have come to the potential of a
political solution.
Also, apart from the military pressure, there is massive
pressure on the new institutions such as the AIIB and the New
Development Bank, to {not}  be outside of the casino economy but
to follow the "international standards."
Now, in these times of the Panama Papers, of the various
LIBOR scandals, of the money laundering of many of these banks,
it is a sort of laughable thing, what should be these
"international standards" of the Western financial system.
Now, let's be realistic.  At the IMF/ World Bank meeting
which just concluded in Washington over the weekend,  behind the
scenes there was complete panic, but nobody dared to speak about
it openly,  behind the scenes people were talking, what former
IMF boss Strauss-Kahn has said repeatedly, publicly, that we are
heading towards the "perfect political storm."  That if one of
the too-big-to-fail banks collapses, it will lead to a crisis
much, much worse than 2008.
At the recent Davos Economic Forum, the former chief
economist of the BIS William White said that the world system is
so utterly overindebted, that there are two roads only possible:
Either you have an orderly writeoff of the debt, like in the
religious Jubilee, so that you just say "these debts are not
payable," and you write them off, or it will come to a disorderly
collapse.
Now, the situation is all the more urgent, because unlike
2008 when everyone was talking about the "tools" of the central
bank, like interest rate reduction, rescue packages, bailouts,
all of these tools don't function any more. As a matter of fact,
when the competition for more zero interest rate, or even
negative interest rate, when into high gear in the last month,
when, for example, the Bank of Japan or the central bank of
Norway, or the ECB declared a zero interest rate policy, or even
a negative interest rate policy, it boomeranged!  It had the
opposite effect:   Rather than leading to more investment, in the
real economy, it led to a deflationary escalation of the
collapse.
When Mario Draghi, the chief of the ECB, recently announced,
"yeah, yeah, we have a discussion about helicopter money."  And
Ben Bernanke echoed it and said, "yes, now we need helicopter
money," meaning electronic printing of {endless} amounts of
worthless money, virtual money, they de facto announced that the
trans-Atlantic financial system is absolutely in the last phase.
Because after helicopter money comes only evaporation.
But this is only the most obvious of the crises.  Another
one, which is in a different domain, but equally systemic is the
refugee crisis in Europe.  Now,  I supported Chancellor Merkel
when she initially said, we can manage that,  we can give refuge
to these people, and for the first time, I was  saying "this
woman is doing the right thing."  I know there was a lot of
international criticism, but she acted on the basis of the Geneva
Convention on refugees, but it was the right thing to do.  But
the reactions from the other European countries, revealed an
underlying, basic flaw of the EU, a flaw which was not caused by
the refugees, but it was revealed by the first serious challenge,
that in the EU, as it has been conceptualized in the Maastricht
Treaty going up to the Lisbon Treaty, there is no unity, there is
no solidarity; and with the collapse of the Schengen agreement
which allows free travel within the internal borders of the EU,
the closing of the so-called Balkan routes, to prevent refugees
from coming, the basis for the European common currency is also
gone, because without the Schengen agreement, the possibility to
have the euro last is extremely dubious.
Now, with the recent response by the EU to basically have a
deal with Turkey, I mean, this is beyond the bankruptcy of the
whole EU  policy if you can top it.  At a point when the Russian
UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, presented the UN Security Council
with evidence that the Turkish government, is continuing up to
the present day to supply ISIS with weapons and other logistical
means, to then say, we pay Turkey EU6 billion, for what?  To have
them receive refugees; and Amnesty International has already
said, there is no guarantee that these people will be protected,
but rather that Turkey is sending them back to the war zones,
like Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
So, if you look at the pictures of Idomeni, where the
Macedonian police are using tear gas against refugees who are
absolutely desperate; if you look at the fact that Greece is now,
rather than having refugee camps which would somehow process
these unfortunate human beings, they have, on pressure of the EU,
been turned into detention centers.  Pope Francis was just in
Lesvos, together with the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew, and this
Patriarch said, the present EU policy on the refugee crisis, is
the completely bankruptcy of Europe.  The Doctors Without Borders
left their job in Greece, because they said they cannot be
accomplices to the murderous policy of detention, where the
police decide who is a patient and not doctors.  Instead of
protecting the people running away from wars and persecution,
they are now being treated as criminals.
Immediately, days after this disgusting EU-Turkey deal, it
turned out that it's a complete failure, the so-called "European
values," human rights, humanism, well–they're all in the
trashcan, because now the refugees, obviously still fleeing for
their lives, go to Libya trying to get into small boats to Italy.
And just yesterday the news came that another 400 people drowned
in the Mediterranean.  And this will keep going on.  And it will
haunt the people who are refusing to change their ways.
Now, there is a new element in the situation which may cause
sudden surprises, and that is a program which was presented by
CBS, a week ago Sunday, in the so-called "60 Minutes" program
portraying the coverup, of the U.S. governments from Bush to
Obama, of the famous 28 pages omitted in the publication of the
official Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 by the U.S.
Congress; and as many people have said, and was said in this
program, this pertains to the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11.
Yesterday, {all} the U.S. talk shows, and all the U.S. media,
pointed their finger to the coverup of the Bush administration
and even to the present day of the present government, that there
is a coverup of criminal activity.
Now, the Saudi Arabian government reacted very unnerved, and
this was again reported in the {New York Times}, that they would
sell off $750 billion in U.S. Treasuries, if the U.S. would allow
a bill that would allow Saudi Arabia to be held responsible in
court, for their role in 9/11.  Now, that's not exactly a sign of
sovereignty, but of despair.  There are several U.S. Senators,
among them Mrs. Gillibrand from New York, who demand that this
whole question of the Saudi Arabian role in 9/11 must be on the
agenda when President Obama goes to Riyadh this week.  Which in
any case, may not happen, but it will not be the end of the story
because the genie is now out of the bottle.
OK:  How do we respond to these many, many crises? Well,
there is a solution to all of these problems.  The trans-Atlantic
should just do exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933, in
reaction to the  world financial crisis at the time.  Implement
the full banking separation — Glass-Steagall — and the whole
offshore nightmare which is being revealed in the Panama Papers,
and remember, that this firm Mossack Fonseca is only the fourth
largest of such firms, and 11 million documents still need to be
read through, and processed.  But we have to go back to the kind
of international credit system, as it existed in the Bretton
Woods system, before Nixon ended the fixed exchange rate in 1971,
opening the gate for  floating exchange rates and especially the
creation of offshore money markets for the unlimited creation of
money and other illegal operations as it now is coming out.
Then we need a writeoff of the absolutely unpayable state
debt, which has accumulated and ballooned after the bailouts of
2008 and afterwards. And we have to basically get rid of the
toxic paper of the whole derivatives markets, because they are
the burden which is eating up the chance for the investment in
the real economy.
Then, we need a Marshall Plan Silk Road; and the only reason
I'm  talking about a Marshall Plan, despite the fact that China
is {emphatic} that they do not want a Cold War connotation to the
New Silk Road, it gives people in the United States and Europe a
memory, that it is very possible to rebuild war-torn economies,
as it happened in Europe after the Second World War.
Now, with the ceasefire which was negotiated between Foreign
Ministers Kerry and Lavrov, you have now a still-fragile, but you
have the potential for a peace development in Syria, and soon
other countries in the region.  But it is extremely urgent, that
the peace dividend of this ceasefire is becoming visible for the
people of the region, immediately.  That is, there has to be a
reconstruction and economic buildup, not only of the territory
and the destroyed cities, but the entire region, has to be looked
at as one:  From Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the North
Caucasus to the Persian Gulf.  Because you cannot build
infrastructure by building a bridge in one country.  You have to
have a complete plan for the transformation of this region, which
mainly consists of desert.
Now, the idea is to have a comprehensive plan, greening the
deserts, building infrastructure, creating new, fresh water from
desalination of ocean water, of tapping into the water of the
atmosphere through ionization, and various other means. And then
build infrastructure corridors, new cities, and give hope to,
especially, the young people of the region, so they have a reason
not to join the jihad, but to become doctors, to become
engineers, to care for their family and their future.
Now this is not just a program any more, because  when
President Xi Jinping visited Iran about two months ago, he put
the Silk Road development on the agenda for this region.  So, all
you need to do, is extend the Silk Road, and the first train has
already arrived in Tehran; you have to continue to build that
road, from Iran, to Iraq, to Syria all the way to Egypt.  Other
routes should go from Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to India. From
Central Asia to Turkey to Europe, and this obviously can only
work because the problem is so big, that all the neighbors of the
region, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, but also the countries
which are now torn apart by the refugee crisis such as Germany,
Italy, Greece, France, and all other European countries must all
commit themselves to work on such a Silk Road Marshall Plan for
the reconstruction and economic buildup of the Middle
East/Southwest Asia, {and} all of Africa, because the economic
situation is equally dire in that continent.
The United States must be convinced that it is in their best
interest to cooperate in such a development, and stop thinking in
terms of geopolitics.  Now, the United States should only be
encouraged to cooperate in the development of these regions, but
the United States needs {urgently} a New Silk Road itself.
Because if you look at the condition, not only of the financial
sector in the United States, but especially the physical economy;
if you look at the social effects of the  economic collapse, like
the rising suicide rates, in all age brackets of the {white}
population, and especially rural women in the age between 20 and
40, the suicide rate is quadrupling and even beyond.  This is a
sign of a collapsing society.
Now, China has built as of last year, 20,000 km of fast
train systems.  Excellent, top-level technology fast-train
systems;  it wants to have 50,000 km by I think the year 2025.
How many miles of  fast train as the U.S. built?  I don't any.
But if the United States would join the New Silk Road and
participate  in the economic reconstruction, as Franklin D.
Roosevelt did it with the Tennessee Valley Authority plan, with
the Reconstruction Finance Corp. in the '30s, the United States
could very, very quickly be a prosperous country, and could again
be regarded by the whole world as "a beacon of liberty and a
temple of freedom," which was the idea of America when it was
founded.
So, the whole fate of the whole world will depend if we all
succeed to get the United States to go back to its proud
tradition of a republic, and stop thinking like an empire,
because that cannot be maintained in any case;  because all
empires in the whole history of mankind always disintegrated when
they became overstretched and collapsed.  There is not one
exception to this idea.
Now, therefore, let's go back to the idea from the
beginning:  Let's approach all problems in the present from the
idea, where is the future of mankind?  Where should mankind be?
Do we exist, or will we destroy ourselves.  And that requires a
change in paradigm, which must be as fundamental and thorough,
like the paradigm shift from the European Middle Ages to the
modern times.  And what caused that shift was such great figures
as Nikolaus of Cusa, but also Brunelleschi, Jeanne d'Arc, and
many others; but what they introduced was a rejection of the old
paradigm–scholasticism, Aristotelianism, all the wrong ideas
which  led to the destruction of the 14th century, and they
replaced with a  completely {new} image of man, man as an {imago
viva Dei}, which was a synonym for the unlimited creative
potential and perfectability of the human being.  It led to a new
image of man which created a blossoming of science, of modern
science, of the modern sovereign nation-state;  it made possible
the emergence of Classical arts.
And that is what we have  to do today:   We have to stop
thinking in terms of geopolitics, and we have to focus on the
common aims of mankind.  Now, what are these "common aims of
mankind"?  It is, first of all scientific cooperation to
eradicate hunger, poverty, to develop more and more cures for
diseases, to increase the longevity of all people.  We have to
study much more fundamentally, what is the principle of life?
Why does life exist?  How does it function?  What, really, is the
deeper lawfulness of our universe?  And that must define the
identity of human beings, which is unique to the human species.
And I have an idea of the future, which will be full of joy.
Because we will discover new principles in science and in
classical art, and we will create a new Renaissance.  As the
Italian Renaissance superseded the Dark Age of the 14th century,
what we have to do today, is we have to revive the best
traditions of all great nations and cultures of the world; and
make them known to the other one.  Have a dialogue of the most
advanced periods of Chinese, of European, Indian, African, other
cultures, and revive–and that is being done in China,
already–the great Confucian tradition, which is in absolute
correspondence with the best neo-Platonic humanist ideas of
Europe.  We must revive the great Vedic tradition in India, the
Gupta period; the Indian Renaissance of the late 19th to the 20th
century.  We must revive the Abbasid Dynasty of the Arab world;
the Italian Renaissance; the Andalusian Spanish Renaissance, the
Ecole Polytechnique in France, the great German Classical period.
The great Italian method of singing in Verdi tuning and the bel
canto method.  And if all of these riches of all the different
countries become the common good of all children of this planet,
and everyone can learn universal history, other cultures as if it
would be their own, I can already see how humanity can make a
jump, and how we can create the most beautiful Renaissance of
human history so far.
I think everybody who is thinking about these questions, has
a deep understanding, that we are at the most important crossroad
in human history. And it is not yet clear which way we will go,
but it is clear to me, that we will {only} come out of this
crisis if we mobilize the subjective emotional quality, which in
the Chinese is called {ren}; and the European equivalent, you
would call {agapë}, love.  And we will only solve this problem if
we are able to mobilize a tender, maybe even {passionate} love,
for the human species.  [applause]

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:

Schiller Instituttet og Executive Intelligence Review holdt et seminar mandag den 18. april 2016 på Frederiksberg på engelsk.

Inkl. en diskussion om EIR’s specialrapport Den Nye Silkevej Bliver til Verdenslandbroen

Introduktion:Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Musik:
Fischerweise af Schubert
Ritorna Vincitor! fra Aida af Verdi
Leena Malkki, soprano fra Sverige
Dominik Wijzan, pianist fra Poland

Teksterne på originalsprogene med engelsk oversættelse 

Video: Introduktion og musik

Talere: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets internationale præsident, kendt som “Silkevejsdamen” (via Skype video)

Video: Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Audio: Introduktion, musik og Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Afskrift: Et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden: Afskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale 

Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Mellemøsten og Afrika: Hussein Askary, EIR’s Mellemøstredaktør, som lige har oversat den arabiske version af rapporten.

Den Nye Silkevej og den iranske rolle; Hr. Abbas Rasouli, først sekretær på Irans ambassade i Danmark.

Video: Hussein Askary og Hr. Abbas Rasouli.

Audio: Hussein Askary og Hr. Abbas Rasouli

Afskrift: Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Sydvestasien og Afrika: Afskrift af Hussein Askarys tale 

Afskrift: Den Nye Silkevej og Irans rolle: Afskrift af Hr. Abbas Rasoulis tale

Mere om Den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen på dansk:

Specialrapport: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Den Nye Silkevej fører til menneskehedens fremtid! Oktober 2014
Den kommende fusionsøkonomi baseret på helium-3. En introduktion til en kommende EIR-rapport om Verdenslandbroen.

Nyhedsorientering december 2014: Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen; Introduktion v/Helga Zepp-LaRouche

BYG VERDENSLANDBROEN FOR VERDENSFRED
Helga Zepp-LaRouche var taler ved et seminar for diplomater, der blev afholdt i Det russiske Kulturcenter i København den 30. januar 2015, med titlen: »Økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde mellem nationer, eller økonomisk kollaps, krig og terror? Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Nyhedsorientering febr. 2015.

Nyhedsorientering maj 2015 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Tale ved seminar i København: Den Nye Silkevej Kan Forhindre Krig

Tema: Den Islamiske Renæssance var en Dialog mellem Civilisationer, af Hussein Askary

Genopbygningsplan for Syrien: Projekt Fønix: Diskussionspunkter om Syriens genopbygning

Link: Homepage about the EIR report The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge
The English, Arabic and Chinese versions of EIR's report are available from EIR and The Schiller Institute in Denmark.
Prices for the 400-page report:
English: printed 500 kr.; pdf. 300 kr.; Arabic: printed 500 kr.; Chinese: pdf. 300 kr.
Please contact tel. 53 57 00 51 or 35 43 00 33, or si@schillerinstitut.dk

Invitation:
Terror in Europe, and elsewhere. Waves of refugees leaving countries racked by war and economic ruin, from Afghanistan to Africa. Threats of financial crash in the trans-Atlantic region. Dangers of escalating confrontation and war against Russia and China.  Is there any hope for the future?

The Schiller Institute and Executive Intelligence Review, led by the ideas and efforts of Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, have been working for decades to create a paradigm shift, away from "geopolitics," to a new era of cooperation between sovereign nations, based on an ambitious infrastructure-driven economic development strategy — a plan for lasting peace through economic development.

In 2013, this New Silk Road and Eurasian Land-Bridge strategy was adopted by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who called it the “One Belt, One Road” policy, which now includes agreements with 60 countries. In addition, the economic development alliance among the BRICS countries, and the establishment of new credit institutions, constitute an alternative in the making.

In December 2014, EIR published a ground-breaking special report in English, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, the sequel to its 1996 report, which elaborates the new set of economic principles needed for world economic development. The Chinese version was issued in 2015.

Now, if there is to be a solution to the heart-wrenching suffering of the people of the Middle East and Africa, and the effects of the crisis in Europe, the New Silk Road must be extended to those regions, on its way to becoming the World Land-Bridge. The recent negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State Kerry (despite opposition from other factions in the Obama administration), and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, regarding Iran and Syria, have also helped to create the political preconditions for such a new “Marshall Plan” to immediately come into effect.

There are already moves in that direction. An example of “win-win” cooperation was demonstrated during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, where he confirmed China’s support for real economic development in the region, backed up by $55 billion in loans and investments.

And on March 17, the Arabic version of EIR's report was presented in Cairo by Egyptian Transportation Minister Dr. Saad El Geyoushi, and EIR Arabic desk chief Hussein Askary, who translated the report, at a well-attended launching at the Ministry. An expanded chapter on proposals to rebuild Southwest Asia is included.

The Copenhagen seminar will present the vision of a new paradigm, instead of geopolitics, terror, war and economic collapse.  Mustering the creative efforts of populations collaborating to rebuild their nations, is the only way forward.

We hope that you will be able to attend this important seminar, and join in the discussion about how this alternative can be brought about.

Links:

Introduction to the arabic-version of EIR's report by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (in English, Arabic and Danish)

Here are links to information about EIR's March 24, 2016 Frankfurt seminar, co-sponsored by the Ethiopian consulate, including the speeches of Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Hussein Askary.

Report about the Frankfurt seminar 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's speech

Hussein Askary's speech 

Homepages:
Danish: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com
www.schillerinstitute.org
www.larouchepub.com/eiw
Arabic:  www.arabic.larouchepub.com/
Other languages: Click here

Schiller Instituttets konference i torsdags i New York City, “At bygge en Verdenslandbro – og realisere en ægte menneskelig menneskehed”, markerede en succes for Lyndon LaRouches idé. Selvom flere og mere fyldige rapporter vil følge, så kan så meget allerede nu siges med sikkerhed; nærværende rapport reflekterer kun en del af begivenhedsforløbet.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche åbnede konferencen med en omfattende og inspirerende tale med titlen, ”Hinsides geopolitik og polaritet: En fremtid for den menneskelige art”, i hvilken hun blotlagde den umiddelbare trussel om en udslettelseskrig og viste, at alene idéen om Verdenslandbroen, som hun sammen med sin mand udviklede i perioden under Warszawapagtens sammenbrud, kan tilvejebringe en varig garanti for fred. Hun gik videre med at skitsere en dialog mellem civilisationerne, hvor alle civilisationer i verden vil blive repræsenteret ved deres historiske, kulturelle højdepunkter, så som Weimar-klassikken for Tysklands vedkommende og et USA, som det først blev udtænkt til at være af Benjamin Franklin og Alexander Hamilton.
Helga efterfulgtes som taler af den tidligere amerikanske justitsminister Ramsey Clark (1966-67), der sammenvævede sin egen mangeårige erfaring til en redegørelse om den nyere verdenshistorie, og som understregede et alternativ til den krigspolitik, som de fleste amerikanske regeringer efter Kennedy-tiden har ført.
Den næste taler var en aldeles enestående person fra Kina, nemlig landets ledende professor i journalistik og tilligemed leder af meget andet, Li Xiguang. Professor Li har anført en pilgrimsfærd, der har varet i årtier, for Silkevejen – tværs over Centralasien og ned langs hver af de tre nord-syd ruter, og tilbage igen. Ikke færre end 500 af sine studerende har han siden 1990 ført med sig på denne pilgrimsrejse, og han har skrevet et tobindsværk om den Nye Silkevej. Skønt hans mål med Silkevejen ikke er af religiøs karakter – hans mål er de samme som LaRouche-bevægelsens – så modellerer professor Li sig selv efter de store kulturelle, kinesiske helte, buddhistmunkene Xuanzang (602-664) og dennes forgænger Faxian (337-422). Begge foretog vidstrakte og anstrengende rejser langs Silkevejen og bragte den første, reelle viden om meget af verdenscivilisationen, der især omfattede sanskrit-sproget og kulturen, samt originale, buddhistiske skrifter, med tilbage til Kina.
Xuanzang tilbragte intet mindre end 16 år på denne rejse og vendte tilbage med 600 indiske tekster. Efter ønske fra Tangdynastiets kejser, færdiggjorde han i 646 sit 12-binds værk, ”Krøniken om det store Tangdynastis vestlige områder” der er blevet en af hovedkilderne til studiet af Centralasien og Indien i middelalderen, og som danner grundlag for romanen fra det 17. århundrede, ”Rejsen til Vesten”, en af de fire store, klassiske, kinesiske romaner.
Der vil senere komme rapporter fra eftermiddagens session, der satte fokus på rumprogrammet, og som blev indledt af Kesha Rogers med en levende præsentation. Sessionens højdepunkt var en spørgsmål-svar-session over Skype med Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche førte de fleste af spørgsmålene tilbage til kardinalspørgsmålet, nemlig, at forandringer i det fysiske system, og i menneskehedens fremtid, skabes af selve det tænkende menneskelige intellekt; det er der intet dyr, der er i stand til. Menneskeheden organiseres gennem sine egne handlinger af denne art; det er disse, der leder til enten succes eller fiasko. Dette er kendetegnende for den sande videnskabsmands intellekt, som Einstein eksemplificerer. Men denne redegørelse er blot en karakteristik; de faktiske svar bør studeres i detaljer.
Flere end 200 mennesker var mødt frem, kernemedlemmer ikke medregnet. Omkring et dusin fremmede lande fra Europa, Asien og Afrika var repræsenteret, enten ved diplomater, kulturelle forbindelser eller på anden vis. Mange musikere deltog, og mindst fem mennesker fra Brooklyn kirken, hvor vi opførte Messias i påsken. Dette er muligvis den største konference, vi nogensinde har holdt.
Som konklusion skal det siges, at denne konference markerer en sejr for en af Lyndon LaRouches ideer: nemlig Manhattan-projektet, som han præsenterede tilbage i oktober 2014. Og dog blev han dengang, i lighed med Einsteins berømte udtalelse om Kepler i 1930 på 300 års dagen for dennes død, ”ikke støttet af nogen og kun forstået af ganske få”. Lyndon LaRouche, der skabte det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ og senere sammen med sin kone skabte den Eurasiske Landbro, har endnu engang skabt en ny og fuldstændig anderledes original idé. En idé, som atter har vist sig at være gyldig.

Klik her for videoerne og afskrifterne på engelsk.

København d. 6. april, 2016 – Ved et seminar i København i tirsdags, med titlen ’Udfordringer for Tunesiens demokrati’, der blev holdt ved det Danske Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), gav Mahmoud Ben Romdhane, minister for sociale affærer i den siddende tunesiske regering og tidligere menneskerettighedsaktivist udtryk for en politik, der hænger sammen med den Nye Silkevej/Verdenslandbro. Til trods for det faktum, at Schiller Instituttet ikke blev opfordret til at stille spørgsmål, sagde ministeren i respons til et spørgsmål fra en kinesisk fotograf om forskelle mellem de tunesiske og den kinesiske økonomier (frit oversat):
Verden er under forandring. I løbet af de næste 20 år vil verdens centrum bevæge sig fra det Atlantiske Ocean til Stillehavet. Kina og Indien, begge nøglenationer, er allerede de største lande. På grund af vores gode relationer med Europa kan vi blive en platform for forbindelser mellem Indien, Kina, Asien, Europa, Afrika og den arabiske verden. Vi skulle begynde at undervise i kinesisk i vore skoler, og jeg er frustreret over, at vi ikke allerede er startet. Vi har haft møder med kinesiske firmaer, og vi diskuterer mange projekter, overvejende om infrastruktur. Kineserne udtrykker deres ønsker, og vi er åbne over for deres forslag. Vi ser frem til muligheden for investeringer og jobskabelse.
Et andet højdepunkt under seminaret var da Houcine Abassi, formand for Tunesiens indflydelsesrige fagforening, UGTT, en af de fire organisationer, der har modtaget Nobelprisen, angreb ”stormagterne”, der står bag terrorismen. Som svar på et spørgsmål om hvorfor økonomien ikke er blevet bedre siden revolutionen for fem år siden sagde han (frit oversat):
Arbejdsløsheden er 15 %, hvilket skaber vrede blandt ungdommen. Det skyldes en fejltagelse af den tidligere regering. Om Gud vil, vil vi finde løsninger. Men vi kræver hjælp fra verden udenom os. Hvad er grunden til, at terroren har ramt vores land? Vi lykkedes med at udvikle en forfatning. Verdens stormagter skabte terroristerne. De mente at de kunne gøre situationen værre. Vi ændrede spillet. De lande, der skabte terroristerne, er nu selv under angreb fra terrorister. Hvad vil det internationale samfund forpligte sig til at gøre? De sydlige middelhavslande vender sig til Europa. Se på de flygtninge, der kommer fra Syrien. Hvis det samme sker i Tunesien, vil der komme millioner af flygtninge til Europa. Europa må arbejde sammen med Tunesien om at forsvare Europa. Det ser vi intet af på nuværende tidspunkt.
Minister Mahmoud Ben Romdhane sagde videre, at revolutionen var en kamp for jobs, værdighed og frihed, men folket har kun fået frihed. Han pegede også på problemet med at leve som nabo til det største våbenlager – i Libyen, hvilket får tuneserne til at øge deres forsvarsbudget, og truslen om terrorisme har påvirket deres økonomi. Dette skal ses i en geopolitisk sammenhæng, sagde Abassi, og påpegede stormagternes rolle. Det er i hele verdens strategiske interesse at forhindre Tunesien i at blive et nyt Libyen.
Seminaret blev også adresseret af en leder fra en industri-sammenslutning, der også har modtaget en Nobelpris; han sagde, at der aldrig kom direkte europæiske investeringer til Tunesien. Tunesien behøver Europa, og nu, efter terrorangrebene i Frankrig og Belgien, er det klart, at vi alle er i samme båd.
Ved den efterfølgende reception blev de to første talere præsenteret for den nyligt trykte arabiske udgave af rapporten om Verdenslandbroen, og de øvrige deltagere blev inviteret til det kommende Schiller Institut-/EIR-seminar om udvidelsen af den Nye Silkevej til Mellemøsten of Afrika.

I dag stod den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og den tjekkiske præsident Milo Zeman side ved side i Prag, og roste den Tjekkiske Republik som værende den nye port for ’Bæltet og Vejen’ til CEEc (central- og østeuropæiske lande), og dermed til hele Europa. De overværede underskrivningen af økonomiske samarbejdsaftaler og talte om kulturelle udvekslinger og en ny lys fremtid.

Hvad der højt og tydeligt, omend usagt, kom frem, er den stærke kontrast mellem denne vind-vind situation, og så det selvdestruktive spor, som Europa og den Transatlantiske verden ellers er opsat på med det igangværende finansielle nedbrud, nedskæringspolitikken, lidelserne, militariseringen og et potentielt kernevåbensholocaust. Og i dag annoncerede EU’s Jean-Claude Juncker en pseudo ”Silkevejs-plan” for EU, blottet for indhold, og med sølle ressourcer.

Igen, i modsætning til denne døds- og ødelæggelsespolitik, havde den russiske præsident Putin en lang telefonsamtaler med Irans præsident Rouhani, om opfølgende aktioner mod ISIS i regionen, nu da den syriske hær, med russisk luftstøtte, har drevet ISIS ud af Palmyra, og generobret den antikke by. Den syriske hær er begyndt at bevæge sig støt mod øst, imod terroristerne. Russiske eksperter har meldt sig frivilligt til at hjælpe med at genoprette de antikke historiske vidnesbyrd i Palmyra. Billederne af de befriede antikke byer, Palmyra og Aleppo, mobiliserer millioner af mennesker verden over, mennesker, som længes efter at besejre terrorismen totalt, og genoprette håbet.

Realiteten i at dette kan gøres – og at vi befinder os i et verdensomspændende faseskifte – blev i dag understreget af Hussein Askary, arabisk redaktør for EIR. Han iværksatte en oversættelse til arabisk af den nyligt udgivne arabiske version af EIR’s specialrapport Den nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen. Askary, der talte ved en telekonference med kolleger fra hele Europa, pegede på eksemplet i denne uge i Yemen, hvor en læsegruppe under krigslignende betingelser er gået i gang med ugentlig læsning af Landbro-rapporten. Dette indikerer et skifte, sagde han. I Yemen mødes folk, der bombarderes af den ’gamle orden’ for at læse materialer om den ’nye orden’!

Askary tilføjede: se hvad vi har opnået. Vi giver ikke folk ’gode’ nyheder, vi skræmmer ikke folk med ’dårlige’ nyheder; vi giver dem ikke gode nyheder for at de skal føle sig bedre tilpas. Vi skaber en ny geometri i verden, med Rusland, Kina og andre. Vi er nødt til at få folk væk fra denne ide, med at den britiske orden har så og så mange penge, så og så megen mediemagt. De tager fejl. Der er en ny dynamik i verden, og vi vil tilvejebringe ideerne for denne dynamik. Vi må formidle til vore støtter, at vi forandrer verden. De burde slukke deres TV, og holde op med at lytte til de kommentatorer, der tog fejl af økonomien, tog fejl med hensyn til Syrien, tog fejl af det hele. Vi må formidle til folk, at vi opererer i en ny geometri.

Askary refererede til den instruktion, som chefen for den finske modstandsbevægelse imod Nazi-besættelsen gav til hans kæmpere; læs Platons dialoger mens I hviler jer, for det vil bestyrke jer i kampen mod fjenden.

Det seneste eksempel på denne, Den nye Silkevejs større tiltrækningskraft i forhold til den geopolitiske konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, har vi netop set i form af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings besøg i den Tjekkiske Republik. Præsidenterne Xi og Zeman undertegnede en omfangsrig liste af aftaler inden for områderne højteknologi, infrastruktur og realøkonomi og fejrede den »Gyldne Stad« Prags rolle som »porten« ind til samarbejdet mellem Kina og Europa.

Netop dette samarbejde er ligeledes nøglen til løsning af flygtningekrisen, der blot har bragt frem for dagens lys, hvilket skrøbeligt fundament, EU er bygget på.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Foto: Prags astronomiske ur er et af de ældste og mest omfattende ure, der nogensinde er bygget. Det blev først installeret i 1410, og senere genopbygget af Mester Hanus i 1490. Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings besøg i den Tjekkiske Republik, med underskrivelse af mange aftaler om samarbejde, fejrede den »Gyldne Stad« Prags rolle som »porten« ind til samarbejdet mellem Kina og Europa.

FRANKFURT, d. 23 marts, 2016 – Seminaret, ”Løsning af den økonomiske krise og flygtningekrisen med den Nye Silkevej!” organiseret af EIR i samarbejde med Generalkonsulatet for Etiopien i Frankfurt, blev overværet af et publikum på 75, bestående af repræsentanter for adskillige diplomatiske kontorer, af abonnenter og EIR-kontakter i regionen, og af omkring 10 syrere (studerende såvel som flygtninge, der afventer optagelse på universiteter). Adskillige kontakter kom så langt væk fra som Berlin og byer i Schweiz. Hen over eftermiddagen bød seminaret på præsentationer af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for Schillerinstituttet; Hussein Askary, arabisk redaktør for EIR, Stockholm; Mehreteab Mulugeta Haile, generalkonsul for Etiopiens Føderale Demokratiske Republik; Marcello Vichi, forhenværende direktør for udenrigsafdelingen af Bonifica selskabet, forfatter af Transaqua-konceptet; Andrea Mangano, vicepræsident for det italienske selskab af vandingeniører og bidragsyder til Transaqua-skitseforslaget. Til det udvidede panel i anden del af seminaret, sluttede Mohammed Bila, Tchadsø-Bassin Kommissionen, og Ulf Sandmark, Schiller Instituttet Stockholm og Svensk-Syrisk Demokrati Komite sig til talerne. Seminaret blev ledet af Claudio Celani fra EIR’s europæiske center i Wiesbaden.

I sin hovedtale understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at det ikke vil være et akademisk seminar, men snarere en diskussion af det faktum, at i denne, for menneskeheden eksistentielle krise, der kommer til udtryk med flygtningekrisen, krigene, samt det finansielle sammenbrud, er der løsninger indenfor rækkevidde, som må realiseres nu. I kølvandet på terrorangrebene i Bruxelles i går, er det mere end passende at genkalde den tidligere amerikanske senator Bob Grahams udtalelse fra november sidste år, efter terrorangrebene i Paris, om, at var de klassificerede 28 sider fra den fælles kongres-undersøgelse af d.11. september blevet gjort offentlig tilgængelige dengang, kunne og ville sådanne grusomheder være blevet forhindret.

Det er hævet over enhver tvivl, at den russiske militærintervention i Syrien har ændret spillereglerne. Den har afsløret den rolle, som alliancen af Saudi-Arabien, Qatar, USA og Storbritannien har spillet til fordel for IS, og i særdeles Tyrkiet, hvis politikker er blevet hårdt angrebet af to tidligere amerikanske ambassadører i Ankara. EU aftalen med Tyrkiet om flygtninge er en parodi, der passer i det generelle billede af vestlige og amerikanske overtrædelser af menneskerettigheder, der netop er blevet udstillet i en kinesisk dokumentation. I modsætning til i Vesten, hvor der tales om vanvittige ”helikopterpenge” til redning af dets egne spekulative banker, repræsenterer det kinesiske ”et bælte, én vej’s” -initiativ et realøkonomisk tilbud om en win-win strategi. Det er ikke kun i Kinas, men også i andre landes interesse, at alene reel udvikling vil hjælpe med til at udtørre grundlaget for terrorisme. Enten arbejder Europa sammen med Rusland, Kina, Indien, Iran, Egypten og andre nationer om at lancere en Marshallplan for Syrien og Afrika, eller Europas bankerotte økonomi vil smadre mod muren, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Idet Hussein Askary præsenterede EIR’s rapport om Verdenslandbroen i dens første arabiske oversættelse, påpegede han, at samtidig med at dette seminar afholdes i Frankfurt, finder også en anden begivenhed sted i dag i Yemen, hvor den arabiske rapport bliver præsenteret, under tilstand af fortsatte saudiske luftangreb på yemenitiske byer. Ideen om den Nye Silkevej omfatter mere end at bygge nogle få veje og jernbaner: det er et koncept om udviklingskorridorer, der forbedrer livet for 450 millioner mennesker i den sydvestasiatiske region, med Syrien som værende i centrum. Dette involverer megaprojekter for accelereret udvikling, finansieret af nationale udviklingsbanker, der er fri for forpligtelsen til betaling af gæld, som forlangt af de vestlige monetaristiske institutioner. I lighed med Egypten vil Syrien fokusere på industrielle zoner, transportkorridorer og landbrugsudvikling, med Kina til at vise vejen med dets massive infrastrukturelle engagement som for eksempel i Østafrika.

Den etiopiske generalkonsul fulgte op med en præsentation af sit lands økonomiske strategi, karakteriseret ved politikker, der har forbedret den gennemsnitlige indkomst pr. indbygger, forbedret befolkningens læse-/skrivefærdigheder og forbedret den offentlige sundhedstilstand siden 1990’erne. Med en påtænkt årlig vækst i BNP på 11 %, ønsker Etiopien at blive et middelindkomstland i 2025, hvilket skal muliggøres ved at give Etiopiere mulighed for at starte et landbrug eller en forretning til en pris, som mange i dag betaler til menneskesmuglere for at blive bragt til Europa som flygtninge. Etiopien selv, er det største flygtningeværtsland i Afrika, med 800.000 flygtninge fra Sydsudan, Somalia og Eritrea – et faktum, som ingen i Europa taler om. Etiopien vil blive transformeret fra at være eksportør af primær-produkter til en nation med højværdiproduktion og infrastruktur, og landets samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Indien og Brasilien om togprojekter er vigtigt i den forbindelse.

Så gav Marcello Vichi en historisk gennemgang af diskussionen om Transaqua-projektet gennem de sidste 35 år, fra de første forslag blev præsenteret af Italiens Bonifica selskab 1982-1985, til afrikanske regeringer såvel som Forenede Nationer, der peger på en overførsel af vand fra den gigantiske Congoflod, som den eneste gangbare mulighed for genopfyldning af Tchadsøen. Forslaget er stort set blevet mødt med manglende interesse eller pessimisme med hensyn til dets chance for at blive realiseret, og det er blevet affejet som angiveligt ”storhedsvanvid”. Men den nylige flygtningestrøm har fået Europa til at gentænke dets syn på Transaqua-projektet, som altid har været mere en blot vand til Tchad – snarere en bredere ramme for udviklingen af hele Centralafrika. Det er den eneste mulighed, der kan tiltrække den unge generation af afrikansk arbejdskraft, og fjerne tilskyndelsen til at blive flygtning.

Andrea Mangano gav så en oversigt over, hvad Tchadsøen var for 35 år siden, og hvad den er i dag, hvor 90 % af dens vand er gået tabt. Den deler problemet med andre fordampende indlandssøer i verden, der ikke længere forsynes af deres traditionelle bifloder – Aralsøen, Urmia Søen, Tukanasøen, Det Døde Hav. Det eneste der kan forbedre situationen, er vandoverførsel og reduceret forbrug ved overrisling med nye teknologier. Dette gøres med Transaqua-projektet, der vil tappe 5 % af vandet fra de øvre bifloder til Congo floden, der ellers vil flyde ubenyttet ud i Atlanterhavet, med volumener 14 gange vandet i Tysklands største flod, Rhinen. Genfyldning af søen vil blive foretaget med konstruktion af infrastruktur, der vil give hele Centralafrika vandkraft, overrisling for landbrugskultur, og vandvejstransport, og lette regionen for dens nuværende situation som indlandsstat.

Mohammed Bila uddybede Transaqua-spørgsmålet i det udvidede panel, og påpegede den store igangværende migrationsbølge sydpå fra Chad siden den store tørke i 1973, under hvilken Chad søen allerede mistede 40 % af dens vand. Farmere og deres kvæg, der migrerede sydpå, vil ikke returnere til Chad, medmindre søen genfyldes, og medmindre terroristbevægelsen Boko Haram knuses.
Ulf Sandmark rapporterede om hans to besøg til Syrien i 2014 og 2015, hvorunder det blev indlysende klart, at rekonstruktionen af Syrien rent faktisk indebærer udvikling af hele den sydvestasiatiske region, og en integration i denne del af den Nye Silkevej – til hvilket syrerne stillede sig åbne. Og da ”Phoenix” genopbygningsplanen, udarbejdet tilbage i Stockholm, blev præsenteret for syrerne under det andet besøg, modtog den bred dækning i landets medier
Under diskussionen mellem tilhørerne og paneldeltagerne optrådte flere aspekter af, hvad der var blevet sagt i præsentationerne, rækkende fra den folkemorderiske tradition af det Britiske Imperium, der har saboteret reel udvikling i Afrika og Mellemøsten, håbløsheden af det monetaristiske system, og den forøgede trussel om termonuklear krig, hvis chancen for at skifte kurs i retning af samarbejde med den Nye Silkevej ikke tages af Europa og USA. Det er et kapløb med tiden, om at gå ind i et nyt paradigme, før det totale kollaps destruerer alting. Også – i modsætning til vestlig sort propaganda – at Kina ikke er engageret i Etiopien på grund af råmaterialer, eftersom Etiopien ikke har nogen, men i stedet er en reel partner for udvikling.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche insisterede gentagne gange under diskussionen på, at deltagerne i dette Frankfurt seminar tager en forpligtelse til at fyre op under de politiske beslutningstagere med hjem, for fundamentalt at få disse ting ændret, og at der nødvendigvis må skabes en virkelig massebevægelse for udvikling. Vichi kom med en passioneret appel om at være optimistisk, som et ”must” for folk, så at ting kan blive ændret. Et nyt og kreativt billede af mennesket, som det blev udviklet i den store italienske renæssance, er også påkrævet i dag, påpegede Celani. Sandmark insisterede også på, at den Nye Silkevej ikke kun er til studium for ingeniører, men er for alle og enhver ved at deltage i flere seminarer og lokalafdelingsmøder. Det første lokalafdelingsmøde om den arabisksprogede rapport i Yemen i dag, blev aktuelt præsideret over af landets ledende poet, tilføjede Askary.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Tak, og velkommen til. Alt imens dette seminar er helliget løsninger til verdens presserende problemer, kræver de dramatiske begivenheder naturligvis at jeg kommenterer dem. Og idet jeg berører disse forskellige eksistentielle trusler mod vor civilisation, ønsker jeg blot at sige, at løsningerne er indenfor rækkevidde, og afhænger helt og holdent af vore handlinger. Så dette er ikke noget akademisk seminar, men et udkald til virkeligt at gå over til at implementere, hvad vi vil præsentere i løbet af eftermiddagen.

Nu er det helt åbenbart vigtigt at korrigere nogle udlægninger af, hvordan visse udviklingsforløb bliver præsenteret for offentligheden. Og lad mig blot kort berøre, hvad der skete i Bruxelles i går, og som klart vedrører enhver – truslen fra terrorisme – hvilken nu præsenteres af de officielle regeringer, som at vi er nødt til at opgive datasikkerhed, at vi må have mere centralisering, at vi må opgiver friheder. Og jeg vil modsætte mig dette med henvisning til, at da angrebet på Charlie Hebdo fandt sted for godt et år siden i Paris, sagde tidligere formand for det amerikanske senats 9/11 kommission Sen. Bob Graham [D-FL], at hvis de famøse klassificerede 28 sider vedrørende Saudi Arabiens rolle i det oprindelige september 11.-angreb var blevet offentliggjort, ville Charlie Hebdo terrorangrebet ikke være sket.

I lyset af hvad jeg lige sagde, er også det faktum, at EU lægger alle sine æg i aftalen med Tyrkiet om at løse flygtningekrisen, totalt latterligt. Selv de neokonservative Eric Edelman og Morton Abramowitz, begge tidligere amerikanske ambassadører i Tyrkiet, sagde, at Erdogan-regeringen ikke fungerer, at det er et autoritært regime, der er ved at kollapse økonomisk, og som fører borgerkrig mod deres egen befolkning, nemlig Kurderne.

Så hvis EU derfor siger, at vi er nødt til at løse flygtningekrisen gennem en aftale med denne regering, mens FN højkommisæren allerede har sagt, at den massedeportation af flygtninge, der nu foregår, fra Grækenland til Tyrkiet er ulovlig. Og at det desuden ikke fungerer, idet der på førstedagen efter at denne aftale trådte i kraft, landede 1662 flygtninge i Grækenland, der søgte nye ruter, nye øer og især [ den syriske ] befolkning af flygtningene er meget bange for at blive sendt tilbage i armene på ISIS.

Nu har FN’s Menneskerettighedskommission samt Læger uden Grænser stoppet deres arbejde med flygtningene i protest, fordi de siger at det er uholdbart, og at det ikke fungerer. FN’s Menneskerettighedskommission sagde også, at de såkaldte ’hotspots’, der ifølge EU antages at løse flygtningekriser, er blevet gjort til detentionslejre. Familier har ikke tilladelse til at forlade deres indkvartering, der de facto er blevet gjort til fængsler.

’United Left’ i Spanien forfølger en kriminel retssag imod premierminister Rajoy på grund af hans forsvar af EU-Tyrkiet aftalen, idet man siger, at dette er en undladelse af at hjælpe, dette er deportation af mennesker, der har ret til, i det mindste, et check af, om de har ret til asyl, og dem kan man ikke bare sådan deportere.

Andre medier, som dem i Ungarn, der er under angreb af EU, siger, ”hvad skete der med de humanistiske rettigheder og værdier i den Europæiske Union?”

Vores præsident Joachim Gauck for indeværende på tur til Kina, hvorunder han bringer overtrædelser af menneskerettigheder i Kina op. Hvis det ikke var så tragisk for folk, der er ofre for EU’s politik, ville det være en farce.

Lad mig om Kina blot sige dette: Som svar på anklager om krænkelser af menneskerettigheder udsendte Kina deres egen rapport om overtrædelse af menneskerettigheder i USA, som går ind i fortsatte krige i Mellemøsten baseret på løgne og dræber med droner, og siger, at det i lyset af alt dette er latterligt, at USA stadig spiller rollen som dommer i menneskerettighedssager.

Så derfor, har man brug for at anlægge et andet synspunkt, end hvad, der præsenteres af medierne.

Den Nye Silkevej, som Schiller Instituttet har ført kampagne for igennem 25 år som vores svar på Sovjetunionens kollaps, er en komplet anderledes model. Den er baseret på, hvad præsiden Xi Jinping kalder ”win-win” politik: at lande samarbejder om fælles projekter på basis af indbyrdes interesse, komplet respekt for andre landes suverænitet. Naturligvis forfølger Kina det i sin egen interesse, men tilvejebringer så hvad der også er i de deltagende landes interesse.

Nu sagde Udenrigsminister Wang Yi fornyligt, at ”den Nye Silkevej er Kinas idé, men at den skaber muligheder for hele verden.” Og det er afgjort den nye model for relationer mellem alle lande. For indeværende går den kinesiske intra-asiatiske handel frem med høje vækstrater. Imidlertid lider relationerne med Europa og USA, ikke på grund af Kina, men på grund af den økonomiske og finansielle tumult indenfor EU og USA. Men det kinesiske lederskabs respons herpå er, at vende krisen til en mulighed ved at fremme den interne kinesiske økonomi til det næste kvalitative spring gennem innovation og skabelse af nye industrier samt opgradering af det teknologiske niveau af arbejdsstyrken, og ved den nyligt afsluttede Nationale Folkekongres, hvor man præsenterede den 13. femårsplan, brugte premierminister Li Keqiang ordet ”innovation” 61 gange i hans tale. Han sagde, at hans sigte er at vende Kina fra at være en kvantitets-forhandler til at være en kvalitets-forhandler, grundlæggende at gøre Kina til en videns-intensiv økonomi. Og hvis man for eksempel ser på et af kinesernes eksport-flagskibe, dets højhastighedstog, har Kina bygget 125 km. normal jernbane, men omkring 20.000 km. hurtigtog. De ønsker at have 50.000 km hurtigtog i år 2025, og vil forbinde hver større by i Kina med hurtigtogs-systemet.

Jeg kan fortælle jer, at jeg rejste med hurtigtog på forskellige måder i Kina: Disse tog kører med omtrent 310 km/timen, de løber meget jævnt, de ryster ikke, man hører ingenting. Det er en excellent teknologi, og det er et af Kinas eksport-flagskibe.

Så konceptet med bygningen af Ét bælte, én vej, hvilket i Asien også kaldes den ”asiatiske konnektivitet” er særdeles meget attraktivt. Det betyder grundlæggende særdeles høj teknologi. Wu Ji, som er direktør for CAS – det Nationale Rum Videnskabs Center, har netop sagt ”rumvidenskab er uadskilleligt fra Kina innovationsdrevne udvikling. Hvis Kina ønsker at være en stærk global nation, må det ikke alene forfølge sine egne umiddelbare interesser, det må også bidrage til menneskeheden. Kun på denne måde kan Kina opnå virkelig respekt i verden.”

Hvor avanceret det kinesiske rumprogram er, kan man for eksempel se af det faktum, Kinas næste månemission til næste år vil gå til bagsiden af månen, hvilket betyder at landingsfartøjer og månebiler vil lande der, hvilket aldrig har været gjort før. Og bagsiden af månen vil give et nyt vindue til rummet, fordi man der, fri for udstråling og støj fra Jorden, på en meget konkret måde kan udvikle en langt bedre forståelse af, hvad der foregår i det nære univers.

Nu, for bare to uger, eller 10 dage, siden, kom jeg tilbage efter en stor konference i New Delhi. Det var Raisina Dialogen, der nu overgår til at blive en årlig konference organiseret af den indiske regering, og der, kan jeg forsikre for, ønskede mange af talerne fra asiatiske lande, fungerende udenrigsministre, tidligere præsidenter, ledere af førende institutioner, alle ønskede de integration med Ét bælte, én vej – politikken, fordi de har indset, hvad den Nye Silkevej betyder for lande som Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, at det indebærer, at de kan importere den kinesiske model for økonomisk udvikling, og gentage hvad Kina har gjort, med den rivende økonomiske udvikling, de har gennemgået i de seneste 40 år, i særdeleshed i de sidste 25 år.

Schiller Instituttet foreslog allerede for nogle år siden, nemlig i 2012, at den eneste måde hvorpå man stopper terrorisme, og nu i de seneste år, hvorpå man stopper flygtningekrisen, er ved at bringe udvikling til Sydvestasien, til Afrika. Fordi kun hvis man har et omfattende udviklingsprogram for de lande, der er blevet destrueret af krig eller mangel på udvikling, som det er tilfældet i Afrika, kun hvis metoden med den Nye Silkevej tages i anvendelse for Mellemøsten og for Afrika, kan disse problemer løses. Og dette er nu på bordet.

Jeg tror, at med besøget af præsident Xi Jinping i Teheran for fire eller fem uger siden, hvor han præsenterede den Nye Silkevej. Kort efter hans besøg ankom det første Silkevejstog fra Yiwu, i Kina, til Teheran med 32 containere, tror jeg og Xi Jinping sagde, at den Nye Silkevej er et koncept, der kan udvides til at omfatte hele den Sydvestasiatiske region. Irans præsident Rouhani sagde umiddelbart, at Iran ønsker et samarbejde. Ved denne konference i New Dehli, hvor jeg deltog, sagde den tidligere Afghanske præsident Karzai, at Afghanistan må blive et knudepunkt i den Nye Silkevej, og forbinde Asien med Europa, og andre ledende talere var inde på det samme.

Så dette var, hvad jeg til at begynde med, ønskede at sige.

Engelsk udskrift. Vi begynder vores udsendelse i aften med at oplæse en kort erklæring fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i Belgien, Agora Erasmus, om bombesprængningerne i Bruxelles. Erklæringen fordømmer gerningsmændene til disse angreb og sørger over ofrene for angrebene. Men erklæringen opfordrer os også til, konfronteret med denne fornyede nødvendighed, at arbejde sammen med vore mulige samarbejdspartnere i Rusland og andre lande for at besejre ISIS én gang for alle; men også til at fjerne roden til denne terrors årsager én gang for alle.

NATIONS MUST WORK TOGETHER TO FURTHER MANKIND! –

International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, March 25, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's March 25, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast with the
LaRouche PAC Friday evening webcast. I am here tonight in the
studio with Jason Ross and Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team. We had a chance to have a discussion earlier today
with Mr. LaRouche.
We are going to begin our broadcast tonight by reading a
short statement that was issued by the LaRouche movement in
Belgium, Agora Erasmus, which is a statement on the Brussels
bombings. It's a statement condemning the perpetrators of these
attacks and also mourning the victims of these attacks. But it's
also a statement which is asking us to renew our sense of urgency
in the face of the urgent necessity to work with our possible
collaborators in Russia and other countries, to defeat ISIS once
and for all; but also, to root out the causes of this terrorism
finally once and for all. The statement reads as follows: It is
titled, "Brussels Bombings: Let Us Be Firm and Coherent Against
Terrorism and Its Sponsors".
"Today Brussels is in tears. At this tragic juncture, our
thoughts and heart goes to the victims, their families and
friends. Our affection and support goes to the first aid workers,
the police forces, the security services, the authorities of the
government and to all those simple citizens who kept calm and
showed solidarity in this horrible hardship.
"However, we cannot but call on the Belgian government to
draw the lessons of these attacks, and to act immediately to
uproot immediately both the known networks, as well as the
godfathers of this barbarism:
"First of all, the decades-long, evil role of Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, in spreading the Wahhabite and Salafist ideologies and
the financing of terrorist organizations, towards which the
Belgian, as well as the US, the British, and the French
governments, have all turned a blind eye.
"Second of all, the complicity with Daesh of Turkey, a
member state of NATO whose headquarters are 8 km from the
attacks. While Erdogan and his family buy Daeschs oil and provide
them with weapons and equipments, the EU submits itself to
Turkeys wishes by exchanging refugees, and offering it billions
of Euros.
"Finally, there is the financing of terrorism, which would
be impossible without the banking facilities of the fiscal safe
heavens offered by the City of London and Wall Street; as
documented in a US Senate report in the case of British bank
HSBC. In Belgium, an investigative parliamentary commission on
the financing sources of terrorism, if allowed to do their job,
would quickly arrive at the conclusion that an orderly banking
reorganization, through a banking separation law based on the
Glass-Steagall Act, would be an excellent weapon in the war on
terrorism.
"In addition to those three concrete measures, we need a
shift in our overall political orientation. Instead of seeking
endlessly for confrontation and geopolitical domination, Belgium,
as well as other member states of NATO and the EU, have
everything to win from detente, entente, and cooperation with
Vladimir Putins government in Russia, who happen to be the only
heads of state sticking to principles of really being committed
to defeating Daesh.
"Let us also deepen our cooperation with China, with which
Belgium is celebrating 45 years of very good relations, and is
working for mutual development with its New Silk Road vision.
Only economic development shall create better living conditions
and cultural exchanges between peoples that will allow us, for
real, to eliminate the threat that hit Brussels today."
Now, the context of these attacks obviously is something
which we here at LaRouche PAC have been continually coming back
to after the January 7th attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo,
then the November attacks later in Paris, and then the attacks on
March 22ns in Brussels. As former Senator Bob Graham, who is the
co-chair of the 9/11 investigation into the Joint Inquiry Report,
has continually emphasized, only be declassifying the 28 pages of
that report and bringing the spotlight to who actually funded the
logistical and created the support network apparatus to make 9/11
possible — the Saudi government and others connected to the
Saudi Royal Family — will we be able to shut down these
logistical networks and these financing networks. The fact that
the George Bush administration and now the Obama administration
has continued to fail to release those 28 pages, has allowed the
Saudi government to continue to act with impunity financing first
al-Qaeda, now ISIS, and any other organization that pops up based
on the same ideological orientation. So, that is absolutely
clear.
However, there is a broader context as well; and this is
what I'm going to ask Jason Ross to discuss a little bit with us
here tonight. As the statement out of the Agora Erasmus
organization in Belgium stated, what is absolutely necessary is a
political paradigm shift; a shift in our political orientation.
We must continue what is now begun, preliminarily, with the
association between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov;
and the agreements that have been drawn up between the United
States and Russia to defeat ISIS on the ground in Syria. This is
a good direction, but it must go much, much further. And also, a
collaboration with China; and the working together of the United
States, the EU, and China is something that Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing very broadly. Both with a trip
that she recently made to India, where she was one of the
featured speakers in a prominent international forum that
occurred there; and then at an event that occurred this past
Wednesday, March 23rd in Frankfurt. An EIR seminar where the
continuing discussion of the extension of the Silk Road — the
development perspective that China has initiated — what is being
discussed in Europe now as a new Marshall Plan for the Middle
East and North Africa — is the context for economic development
and a culture of hope and a culture of commitment to the future.
And optimism as opposed to perpetual war, which is required to
change the conditions on the ground in Syria, Iraq, in Libya, and
in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. This was the
subject of a very prominent forum that occurred the previous week
in Cairo, Egypt; where Hussein Askary, a representative of EIR,
presented with the representatives of the Egyptian government,
the first Arabic-language version of the EIR Special Report, "The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge". This is something
that we covered in our broadcast here last week.
So, to discuss that very important conference that occurred
in Frankfurt, involving Helga LaRouche and many other prominent
individuals, I would like to ask Jason to come to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, this was really a tremendous
intervention that took place in Germany; and as Matt said,
follows on the other recent successes of Helga Zepp-LaRouche in
India and Hussein Askary in Egypt. This event, which took place
this Wednesday in Frankfurt, had 75 attendees and a very high
level discussion of the paradigm that is necessary to build a
future and eliminate the war and economic collapse, which is
otherwise the direction that the trans-Atlantic is heading in,
potentially to drag the world with it.
Among the speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who we'll get
into some more detail on that in particular; Hussein Askary gave
a report on what he had done in Egypt, as well as announcing that
at the same time that the seminar was taking place in Frankfurt,
a seminar was also taking place in Yemen. Which had been
organized there to work through the Arabic version of the World
Land-Bridge report; despite being under Saudi bombardment
literally in a very real way, this future orientation was taking
place in that nation. Other speakers included the Ethiopian
Consul General, who spoke about development in his nation and
about the 800,000 refugees and displaced persons currently living
in Ethiopia; and the government's plans for developing a future
through such projects as the Millennium Dam. Two speakers from
Italy — Marcello Vichi and Andrea Mongano — spoke about the
Transaqua Project; a decades-old proposal which would be able to
replenish Lake Chad, which is far below half of its previous
capacity. And in drying up, it is eliminating a source of
livelihood for people in the adjoining nations, and making it
much more difficult or impossible to root out terrorism by
replacing it with a positive economic policy. Ulf Sandmark was
also a speaker. His trips to Syria in the last couple of years
led to the formation of a Phoenix proposal, as he called it, for
the redevelopment of Syria. That gives you a sense of what the
overall tenor of the meeting was.
In her presentation, Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked whether we
are morally fit to survive. Given the crisis that we're facing
and given the response to it, are we morally fit to survive?
Referencing the recent events in Belgium, she pointed out that
terror can affect anybody; she also pointed out that in that same
time period, there was a Saudi Arabian bombing of a marketplace
in Yemen leaving 120 people dead, including 20 children, and 80
people wounded. These are people, too. People in Yemen also do
not deserve to be killed and blown up. To root this out, an
opening up of those 28 pages, the classified section of the 9/11
Report that covered over the role of Saudi Arabia in that crime;
these 28 pages have to be released, and the real source of
terrorism — namely involving nations that the United States and
Britain are working with, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, this has
to be cleaned up.
You contrast that with what is happening. Cooperating with
Turkey; where the dictatorial president has recently shut down
one newspaper, and there is talk of another one being closed
down. And an extortion operation to get money from the EU to
prevent the motion of asylum seekers; to deport those seeking
asylum — that is not a solution. What is a solution? She says,
where is our humanity; where is humanity going? What's the
potential for dealing with this? [Mrs. LaRouche] says, look at
China. China is a nation which, over the recent generations, has
pulled 900 million people out of poverty; and in their current
five-year program, calls for eliminating poverty entirely in
China by 2020; and playing a role in eliminating poverty in the
world by 2025. Now that is an objective for a nation to have.
The One Belt – One Road policy that is official Chinese
government policy at this point, represents a real victory for
the New Silk Road — the World Land-Bridge proposal that the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement have been
championing for over 20 years now. This is Chinese policy. China
is moving away from simple labor towards more complex forms of
exports; high-speed rail, a replacement of "Made in China" with
the motto of "Created in China". And of course, their efforts in
space. The tremendous efforts of the Chinese space program, which
go beyond replicating feats performed by other nations — some
many decades ago — to doing the entirely new; going to the far
side of the Moon, as planned in an upcoming mission. Something
that has never been done — a landing on the far side of the
Moon; representing a unique environment for various types of
astronomical researches.
So, how can terrorism be stopped? Clearly, you have to not
hide the sources of it; not hide the funding of it. Tell the
truth about Saudi Arabia. But that's not enough; the long-term
solution, of course, requires development. The only plan for
peace is not a negation of war and conflict; it's an affirmation
of what a peace looks like among nations and among peoples.
So, this theme was also the subject of Hussein Askary's
presentation; and he recounted for himself and the beginning of
his involvement with the LaRouche movement, taking place in 1994.
When, with the Oslo Accords and the potential for peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians, LaRouche had said at the time, if
there is not an economic development program, this peace will not
succeed; which was true. And there was not an economic
development program, and that peace did not succeed as it could
have. Hussein remarked on his recent trip to Cairo; where, as
viewers of the website are familiar, he was a primary participant
in a conference sponsored by the Egyptian Transport Ministry
itself, to launch the Arabic edition of the New Silk Road Special
Report. In doing this, not only was this a top-level endorsement
from the Transport Minister himself — who headed the meeting;
but it represents a potential for cooperation within the region
as a whole.
Among the World Land-Bridge concepts is included an
up-shifting of the quality of development. For example, Hussein
brought up Mr. LaRouche's 2002 trip to the region, when he
attended a conference held in Abu Dhabi, among oil ministers and
others. And LaRouche said at that time that the future for that
region could not be one of a raw materials exporter, an oil
exporter; but rather processing and industry would have to take
place as an idea of a future orientation for the economy there.
So, there are many old cultures within this region; ancient
civilizations with an historical grounding. The potential for
cooperation there is tremendous; and it's not about local
interests being played against each other. Some people in Egypt,
for example, might have thought that building the connectivity of
the New Silk Road would lessen the payback on their investment in
the new Suez Canal. If land routes are possible, won't that
reduce shipping? But, that's not the way to look at it. As a
general sense of connectivity and improvement in conditions of
economy, these things aren't mutually exclusive. So, just as
Egypt raised $8 billion from within the nation to complete the
construction of the new Suez Canal within the astounding period
of one year, the Transport Minister announced at this meeting
that Egypt was prepared to invest $100 billion — a trillion
Egyptian pounds — over the next 14 years into roads, rail,
logistics centers, into connectivity in the Southwest Asian
region, as well as with Africa. He spoke about the plans for
cooperation between Egypt and South Africa and other nations, for
rail and road connectivity crossing the entire continent from the
north to the south. Something which does not currently exist;
there is not strong connectivity among these nations of East
Africa in this way.
Hussein spoke about the fact that 95% of Egypt's territory
is currently empty; and the potential with water resources to
totally transform the nation. So that, among these projects —
many of which China is eager to cooperate with — there lies a
sense for stability. Does terrorism have to be stopped? Do people
willing to kill others have to prevented by military means at
times? Yes. But the only way you're going to have a stable future
and progress and happiness for that, is through a legitimate
program for development.
So, what can we do here? Well, we've heard a lot of good
news recently. Helga Zepp-LaRouche's trip to India was excellent
news. Hussein Askary's trip to Cairo and the various seminars and
meetings that he held there — about which you can read more on
our website. The conference just this week in Frankfurt; these
represent positive developments increasing the potential for this
new paradigm taking over as directing the course of human
affairs.
Here in the United States, we have a number of
opportunities. Let's take a look at Manhattan, for example. Every
Saturday, there's an opportunity for direct discussion with these
Manhattan dialogues with Lyndon LaRouche himself. Coming up very
soon, on April 7th, there will be a very important conference
held in Manhattan, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, about
which you can read more and find registration information here on
our website. A conference in the US, dedicated to the principle
of how we can join this orientation; what kinds of concepts have
to guide relations among nations, and about the scientific
mission for mankind, and about the culture that's commensurate
and assists in bringing about these kinds of developments.
So, there's no amount of good news from around the world,
although it's good to have good news; but there's no amount of
good news that can replace the obligation of us in the United
States to oust Obama to prevent conflict, war, the direction
we're going right now. Without ousting Obama and repudiating that
policy orientation, the good news around the rest of the world
isn't going to be enough to prevent a commitment towards
conflict, to prevent its coming into being.

MEGAN BEETS: Earlier this week, Secretary of State John
Kerry travelled to Moscow for a series of meetings, including
with President Putin of Russia; and also for extensive dialogue
and discussion with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov. These discussions obviously centered around the
ongoing US-Russian cooperation in resolving the conflict in
Syria. Going into the meetings and press conferences, both Kerry
and Lavrov stressed strongly that the successes in Syria are due
to the close collaboration between the United States and Russia;
and also expressed the hope that this cooperation can continue
and extend beyond Syria to address other urgent challenges and
conflicts in the Middle East, such as the ongoing atrocities in
Yemen and also beyond.
Now, after the conclusion of what were many, many hours of
meetings, Kerry began the joint press conference with Lavrov with
a statement which goes to something which is much more important
than cooperation among nations to resolve existing conflicts and
dangers, as urgent as the solutions of those conflicts may be.
And his statement points to the essence of the real meaning and
purpose of cooperation among nations. So, he said, "Let me just
say that earlier today, I had the privilege of meeting with Scott
Kelly, the American astronaut who spent 340 days in space with
his counterpart, Mikhail Koryenko. I had a chance to talk to both
of them about their time in space together; where they spent that
remarkable period of historic time cooperating and working
together. Two astronauts, one American one Russian, who were
working to study the effects of long-term space flight on the
human body. And as I listened to both of them talking about their
time, it emphasized to me the fact of close collaboration being a
demonstration of what not just two astronauts can do; but what
nations can do when they work together, whether it's on the
International Space Station, or international diplomacy."
Now in that context, we look to China and the leadership
that they have taken in their lunar program, as Jason mentioned a
moment ago. We look at the accomplishments of the recent past,
such as their 2013 landing on the surface of the Moon with a
lander and a rover; which is the first time in nearly 40 years
any nation has done that. And we also look forward to the
achievements that are planned for the next two years; their 2017
sample return from the Moon, and their 2018 landing on the lunar
far side — the first time ever, for any nation. These kinds of
things represent real value for mankind; both economically and
elsewhere.
So, what I'd like to do now is invite Jason to the podium to
elaborate on that point.

JASON ROSS: At least in the United States, growth really
stopped in the 1960s and '70s. Now, this is point that Lyndon
LaRouche had made at the time, that he makes in his economics
courses; that he has in his economics textbook. And one that many
people may not agree with, saying there's been a tremendous
amount of development since then. However, a comparison of the
rate of growth from the 1930s until after the assassination of
Kennedy — the close of the 1960s — reveals a rate of growth of
productivity, of power consumption, of water consumption, of
markers of physical economy that have taken a tremendous turn
downwards since that time, over the last 45 years. So, why is
that? Partly it has been a lack of a commitment or even an
antagonism to economic development; a deliberate reduction of
economic output. Something that was sped [up] with the collapse
of the Soviet Union — growth; or limited or bounded by certain
conditions. And if we don't change those bounding conditions,
there is simply a limit to what economic growth will be possible.
Let me give an example. China; we've seen the tremendous
success of China in lifting people out of poverty. This is a real
achievement; especially over the last generation or so. This
achievement, this incredible success, utilized — in the main —
technologies which existed; much of it was not based on new
technologies. That doesn't take away its being a tremendous
accomplishment; and one that shouldn't be taken for granted.
India, for example, is another large nation similar in size to
China, which has not seen the same success in eliminating poverty
and in getting economic development within that nation. So, China
has definite claims to a sense of pride in the success that
they've had in that sense.
But let's think about what it is that really drives economy
forward. And if we look on the large scale, developments such as
a couple of centuries ago, the liberation of power created by the
steam engine; the ability to use combustion and heat to turn that
into motion, completely transformed mankind's relationship to
nature. Totally transformed the economy. It took some time to be
implemented; but the economy that resulted from the
implementation of that new technology was, frankly, in many ways
incomparable to what came before. This wasn't just about
improving production by having machinery so there'd be less
workers required to do the actual physical muscle labor of moving
things, or using animals for a similar purpose. It also
transformed what we were able to do. The transportation afforded
by the steam engine — trains, for example; this is something
totally new.
Think about the materials advancements that were made since
that time with the incredible developments of chemistry in the
late 1800s; the new understanding we had of the world around us.
There were further materials science breakthroughs made in the
middle of this past century; and which continue to some degree
today. But let's consider the real progress in science and in
power that is required to set a new level for what could be
accomplished; that moves forward what those limits to economic
growth are. We're not currently even near the limits of what we
could do, even with current technology. Poverty can be completely
eliminated on this planet with current technology. But to move
the level of what's possible, that requires something
fundamentally new.
Something of that level would be represented, for example,
in breakthroughs on fusion. Fusion, which as we've discussed many
times over the course of decades in the LaRouche movement, is a
complete transformation in our relationship to the natural world.
If we had accomplished the useful implementation of fusion power,
both for the types of electrical power that we use today as well
as for transforming our relationship to materials by allowing the
refining and processing of ores on a totally different scale than
currently exists. The introduction of fusion as a scientific
breakthrough, will represent a really new era in the power of
mankind.
Space; this is another place to look, in terms of what is
going to move the frontiers of science itself forward. We have to
develop a greater understanding of the Universe as a whole; of
these large, large-scale systems to develop new insights and to
make new scientific discoveries. Not every discovery that we'll
ever make in the future depends upon being in space; but if you
don't have that orientation, you're definitely limited.
And what do we see, for example, with China? With the
super-conducting tokamak that they have, the East Tokamak; as
we've discussed a couple of times on this show today already —
the plan to go to the Moon. The plan to go to the far side of the
Moon; to do something new. This goes beyond playing catch-up;
this is playing leap-frog. This is, as a nation, having a
commitment to a universal role as the society of organized
people, towards achieving things that will have a
world-historical importance. Like the development of the steam
engine; like other breakthroughs that transformed humanity as a
whole. A nation has to have that mission — barring incredibly
dire poverty conditions — a nation has to have that as its
mission; otherwise it simply has no legitimacy to exist. It has
no mission; it has no purpose. And then, people are not connected
to a sense of achievement that lies far outside of their own
lifetimes.
What we need to do, among nations, is have that social
commitment to developing a new future for everybody; and of
allowing our citizens, our society, to actively and knowledgeably
play a role in bringing that about. So, this goes far beyond
removing a few bad things, getting bad people out of office. We
need to have an affirmative idea of what we want to achieve and
what we want to be as a society, as a nation, among societies and
nations of the world.
And again, this upcoming April 7th conference will represent
the highest level discussion of these types of issues in the
United States — from economics, science, culture; this will all
be covered. I highly encourage people to find out more about it
on our site; the registration information is there. And the
conference will also be available on our website.

OGDEN: Wonderful; thank you, Jason. So, I would encourage
you to please register and encourage other people to register for
this event. Also, coming up this weekend in New York City, if you
are in the area, on Easter Sunday at 6pm, there will be another
concert of portions of Handel's {Messiah}; which will be offered
by the Schiller Institute at a church in Brooklyn. And many
people may have seen the recording of the December 12th and
December 13th concerts. This, I'm sure, will be even better than
those. So, if you are in the area, or if you can make it to New
York this weekend; I would encourage you to come. And you can get
more information about that concert also, through the Schiller
Institute. So, thank you very much; thanks to both Megan and
Jason for joining me here today. And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.