3. maj, 2017 – Den portugisiske økonomiminister Manuel Caldeira Cabral sagde i går under det første Kinesisk-portugisiske Økonomiske Forum (der afholdtes nær Lissabon), at Portugal »insisterer på at alliere sig med, og være til stede i, denne kinesiske strategi, som vi er enige i«, med Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Han foreslog, at Portugal kan spille rollen som et »land, der er omdrejningspunkt, som bygger broer mellem Asien og Europa, og som også er porten til Europa«. Der er dog stadig intet nyt om, hvem, der deltager i det forestående Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing.

Den spanske præsident Manuel Rajoy vil deltage, og Spaniens ambassadør til Kina, Manuel Valencia, promoverede entusiastisk Spaniens deltagelse i det »ubestrideligt fordelagtige« Bælt & Vej projekt i et interview med Xinhua den 27. april. Han understregede, at Spaniens store infrastrukturselskaber kan være et aktiv for, og ønsker at deltage i, BVI. Faktisk overgås Spanien kun af Kina med hensyn til totale antal kilometer højhastigheds-jernbaner, og landets jernbaneselskaber har udviklet innovative teknologier (f.eks. vogne, der kan klare forskellig sporafstand).

Ambassadøren nævnte spanske firmaers deltagelse i udvidelsen af Panamakanalen, højhastighedsjernbaner, der forbinder Mekka og Medina i Saudi-Arabien, samt byggeriet af verdens største raffinaderi i Kuwait sammen med kinesiske selskaber. Begge vore landes selskaber »kan blive helt komplementære« i dette »initiativ, der udvikler infrastruktur og konnektivitet«.

Spaniens største havne – Algeciras, Barcelona og Valencia – er klar til arbejdet, tilføjede han. »Spanien har naturlige betingelser for inter-konnektivitet i sig selv. Det, der er interessant ved disse forbindelser, hvad B & V angår, er konnektiviteten med Centralasien og Fjernøsten.« Han foreslog, at de Kanariske Øer skulle fungere som et »fredeligt hangarskib« for erhvervs- og handelsaktivitet.

»Kina er en stor producent og en økonomi, der har foretaget et stort spring fremad«, og vore lande kan »samarbejde på en nyttig måde«, sagde han igen. Spansk eksport til Kina satte ny rekord i 2016 og voksede 14,8 % på årsbasis til næsten $5,4 mia., og hvor der for fire år siden var fire direkte flyafgange mellem Kina og Spanien, er der nu 26.

Foto: Portugals økonomiminister Manuel Caldeira Cabral

I en tale for Udenrigsministeriets personale for to dage siden, forklarer han virkelig, på en meget rolig, omfattende og klarhjernet måde, udenrigsminister Tillersons synspunkt og – må man antage – også præsident Trumps, om, hvordan udenrigspolitik vil blive ført af Trump-administrationen, med udsigten til samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland. I Tillersons tale foretog han en slags spadseretur rundt til hele verden; og han forklarede, hvad Trump-administrationens politik ville være i disse forskellige områder. … 

Det, udenrigsminister Tillerson sagde, er, at vi ikke længere vil bruge såkaldte »vestlige værdier« som påskud for vores udenrigspolitik. At vi selvfølgelig støtter menneskerettigheder og alle de vigtige værdier, som den Amerikanske Revolution blev udkæmpet for, og som findes indbygget i Uafhængighedserklæringen og USA’s Forfatning. Men, vi vil føre vores udenrigspolitik med den idé for øje, at vi har betydningsfulde partnerskaber, og at det ikke er vores opgave at diktere, hvilke værdier, de skal have i deres indenrigspolitik. Men derimod, at vi har meget reelle interesser, og at de også har meget reelle interesser.

Matthew Ogden: Det er 5. maj, 2017, og jeg er Matthew Ogden. Med mig i studiet i dag har vi Jason Ross, der i dag har gennemført et meget vigtigt interview, som vi vil vise nogle klip fra under aftenens udsendelse, med hr. William Binney, en meget betydningsfuld person. Jason Ross vil introducere ham senere i udsendelsen.

Men før vi kommer til det, så befinder vi os stadig i en nedtælling til konferencen om Kinas Bælt & Vej-initiativ, der starter ni dage fra i dag – 14. og 15. maj – i Beijing, Kina. Foreløbig har 28 statsoverhoveder meddelt, at de deltager i forummet, som Kinas præsident Xi Jinping vil være vært for. Vi ved, at Ruslands præsident Putin vil deltage som æresgæst. Og USA’s præsident Trump kan stadig nå at meddele, at, ikke alene vil han deltage i dette forum, men han vil også tage imod den invitation, Xi Jinping flere gange har overrakt ham, om, at USA tilslutter sig denne nye udvikling med Bælt & Vej-initiativet, eller den Nye Silkevej.

Lad mig gå direkte til sagen og fortælle jer, at der er en meget signifikant artikel, der blev udgivet i China Daily for blot et par timer siden. Det er en af de førende, kinesiske, engelsksprogede aviser i USA. Denne artikel har titlen, »Trump opfordret til at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum«. Jeg viser artiklen på skærmen for jer; og I kan se, at dette er et interview med fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Hendes billede ses her i nederste hjørne, og artiklen indledes med det følgende:

»USA’s præsident Donald Trump bør deltage i det forestående Bælt & Vej Forum for internationalt samarbejde i Beijing, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter af Schiller Instituttet, en politisk og økonomisk tænketank.« Artiklen fortsætter med at citere Helga LaRouche:

»’Det bedste ville være, hvis præsident Trump personligt ville deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing’, sagde Zepp-LaRouche i et interview til China Daily.

’Det næstbedste ville være endnu et personligt topmøde mellem ham og præsident Xi Jinping umiddelbart efter, i Kina’, sagde hun. [Det første var i Mar-a-Lago for et par uger siden.]

Zepp-LaRouche foreslog, at den økonomiske samarbejdsmekanisme, en af de fire søjler, der blev etableret under det første møde mellem de to ledere i Mar-a-Lago i Florida, kunne arbejde på konkrete forslag til gensidige investeringer, både bilateralt og i tredjelande, i sammenhæng med Bælt & Vej-initiativet …

Zepp-LaRouche sagde, USA må tilslutte sig initiativet, der har udviklet ’en gigantisk dynamik’ og er ’historiens største’ infrastrukturprogram.

’Kun, hvis USA går med i dette initiativ, vil der være en måde, hvorpå geopolitik, der har forårsaget to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, kan overvindes’, forklarede hun. ’Når de institutionelle kræfter i USA først indser, at det er mere i amerikansk industris, jobs’ og samfundets interesse generelt, end det er at stå uden for initiativet, kan en potentiel Thukydid-fælde, eller en krig over brændpunkter, undgås.’«

Artiklen fortsætter dernæst med at sige, »’Kinesisk samarbejde i opbygning af USA’s infrastrukturbehov ville være med til at forynge den amerikanske økonomi’, sagde hun.

’For de kinesiske og amerikanske nationaløkonomier er gensidigt komplementære’, og Zepp-LaRouche sagde, de gensidige investeringer på dramatisk vis kunne stige med samarbejdet inden for initiativet.

Et sådant win-win-samarbejde ville ikke være begrænset til bilaterale investeringer, men kunne helt naturligt føre til joint ventures stort set i hele verden, i betragtning af opsvinget for økonomiske forventninger, forårsaget af initiativet, tilføjede hun.«

Så dette er altså en signifikant artikel, der blev udgivet i dag i China Daily, og det sker i sammenhæng med denne nedtælling til Bælt & Vej-topmødet. Men det er vigtigt, at Helga Zepp-LaRouches ord samtidigt nu også bliver læst af de engelsktalende læsere i USA – læserne af China Daily, der er en meget læst publikation; og der har også været en meget signifikant udvikling fra udenrigsminister Rex Tillersons side. I en tale for Udenrigsministeriets personale for to dage siden, forklarer han virkelig, på en meget rolig, omfattende og klarhjernet måde, udenrigsminister Tillersons synspunkt og – må man antage – også præsident Trumps, om, hvordan udenrigspolitik vil blive ført af Trump-administrationen, med udsigten til samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland. I Tillersons tale foretog han en slags spadseretur rundt til hele verden; og han forklarede, hvad Trump-administrationens politik ville være i disse forskellige områder. Men han startede med at gøre noget meget signifikant, og han har virkelig fået en masse kritik fra nogle af den transatlantiske, atlanticist-presse, kunne man kalde det. The Atlantic havde faktisk en lang artikel, der angreb udenrigsminister Tillersons verdenssyn. Men det, han gjorde, var, at han, i meget klare vendinger, afviste den ’humanitære interventionisme’, der er blevet en del af amerikansk politik under både Bush’ og Obamas administration. Man kunne kalde dette for »Tony Blair-doktrinen«; Tony Blair forklarede, i en særdeles berygtet tale i slutningen af 1990’erne, verden efter tiden for den ’Westfalske Freds principper’. Dette blev Bush- og Obama-administrationens doktrin; at gennemtvinge såkaldte »amerikanske demokratiske værdier« over resten af verden, som et påskud for at gennemføre regimeskifte og ’farvede revolutioner’. Det blev til det, som Susan Rice og Samantha Powers gennemførte i FN, og det var i realiteten påskuddet for, eller ideologien bag, utallige operationer for regimeskifte og hemmeligt finansierede farvede revolutioner, der er blevet ført i hele verden i løbet af de seneste 10-15 år.

Det, udenrigsminister Tillerson sagde, er, at vi ikke længere vil bruge såkaldte »vestlige værdier« som påskud for vores udenrigspolitik. At vi selvfølgelig støtter menneskerettigheder og alle de vigtige værdier, som den Amerikanske Revolution blev udkæmpet for, og som findes indbygget i Uafhængighedserklæringen og USA’s Forfatning. Men, vi vil føre vores udenrigspolitik med den idé for øje, at vi har betydningsfulde partnerskaber, og at det ikke er vores opgave at diktere, hvilke værdier, de skal have i deres indenrigspolitik. Men derimod, at vi har meget reelle interesser, og at de også har meget reelle interesser.

(Udskriftet fortsætter på engelsk:)   

So, I’m going to play for you this short clip from the
beginning of Secretary Tillerson’s speech; and you’ll see that it
sets up a very important context in which, in a second clip which
I’ll introduce to you, he discusses the future and the hopeful
potential future of our relationship with China.  But first,
here’s the first clip from Secretary Tillerson’s speech:

[begin video]
SECRETARY REX TILLERSON:  Guiding all of our foreign policy
actions are our fundamental values.  Our values around freedom,
human dignity, the way people are treated.  Those are our values;
those are not our policies, they’re values.  The reason it’s
important I think to keep that well understood, is policies can
change; they do change, they should change.  Policies change to
adapt to the circumstances.  Our values never change; they’re
constant throughout all of this.
So, I think the real challenge many of us have is, [as] we
think about constructing our policies and carrying out our
policies, is how do we represent our values?  And in some
circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on
somewhat adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our
national security goals or our national security interests.  If
we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that
we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates
obstacles to our ability to advance our national security
interests and our economic interests.  It doesn’t mean that we
leave those values on the sidelines.  It doesn’t mean that we
don’t advocate for and aspire to freedom, human dignity, and the
treatment of people the world over; we do.  We will always have
that on our shoulder everywhere we go.
But I think it’s really important that all of us understand
the difference between policy and values.  In some circumstances,
we should and do condition our policy engagements on people
adopting certain actions as to how they treat people; they
should.  We should demand that.  But that doesn’t mean that’s the
case in every situation.  So, we really have to understand in
each country, or each region of the world that we’re dealing
with, what are our national security interests?  What are our
economic prosperity interests?  Then, as we can advocate and
advance our values, we should; but the policies can do this.  The
values never change.
So, I would ask you to just, to the extent you could think
about that a little bit, I think it’s useful.  Because I know for
me, this is one of the most difficult areas as I’ve thought about
how to formulate policy. To advance all of these things
simultaneously is a real challenge.  I hear from government
leaders all over the world, “You just can’t demand that of us. We
can’t move that quickly, we can’t adapt that quickly.”  So, it’s
how do we advance our national security and economic interests;
and on this hand, our values are constant over here.
So, I give you that as kind of an overarching view of how I
think about the President’s approach of America First.
[end video]

OGDEN:  So, with that, Secretary Tillerson brought an end to
the Blair-Bush-Obama doctrine of color revolution, regime change,
and so-called “humanitarian interventionism.”  This is the
beginning of a new doctrine which is still being defined, but
coming out of the Trump administration foreign policy.
Now Secretary Tillerson did make very significant trip a few
weeks ago to China; where he met with Xi Jinping and other very
high-level officials.  And this was in the weeks preceding Xi
Jinping’s visit to the United States, where he had his bilateral
summit with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago.  It’s very
significant, as we count down the days between now and this forum
for the Belt and Road Initiative in Beijing, that there is a new
policy doctrine being formed in the Trump White House, in terms
of the relationship that the United States will have towards
China.  Obviously, none of this is yet determined, but there are
definite changes in process.
I’m going to play for you now another clip from Rex
Tillerson’s speech; where he begins by talking about the North
Korea situation, but as you’ll hear, he immediately brings up the
role that China and also Russia are playing in terms of
collaborating with the United States to resolve that situation
and also other situations around the world.  Then, you’ll hear
him get a little bit more into detail about what the potential
for a relationship between China and the United States over the
coming half century, as he discusses it, can become.

[begin video]
SECRETARY TILLERSON:  So, as all of you clearly understand,
when we came into the State Department, the administration came
in, was sworn in, and was immediately confronted with a serious
situation in North Korea.  In evaluating that, what was important
to us and to me to understand was, first, where are our allies.
So engaging with our allies and ensuring that we and our allies
see the situation the same.  Our allies in South Korea, our
allies in Japan.  Secondly, it was to engage with the other
regional powers as to how do they see it.  So, it was useful and
helpful to have the Chinese — and now the Russians — articulate
clearly that their policy is unchanged.  Their policy is a
denuclearized Korean peninsula.  Of course we did our part years
ago; we took all the nuclear weapons out of South Korea.  So now
we have a shared objective; and that’s very useful, from which
you then build out your policy approaches and your strategies.
So many people are saying, “Gee, this is just the same thing
we’ve tried over and over.  We’re going to put pressure on the
regime in Pyongyang; they’re not going to do anything, and then
in the end, we’ll all cave.”
Well the difference, I think, in our approach this time, is
we’re going to test this assumption.  When folks came in to
review the situation with me, the assumption was that China has
limited influence on the regime in Pyongyang, or they have a
limited willingness to assert their influence.  So, I told the
President, we’ve got to test that; and we’re going to test it by
leaning hard into them, and this is a good place to start our
engagement with China.  So, that’s what we’ve been doing, is
leaning hard into
China to test their willingness to use their influence,
their engagement with the regime of North Korea.  So, that’s
North Korea.
Then if I pivoted over to China, because it really took us
directly to our China foreign policy, we really had to assess
China’s situation — as I said — from the Nixon era up to where
we find things today.  We saw a bit of an inflection point with
the Beijing Olympics; those were enormously successful for China.
They kind of put China on the map, and China really began to feel
its oats about that time; and rightfully.  They have achieved a
lot.  They moved 500 million Chinese people out of poverty into
middle class status.  They’ve still a billion more that need to
move.  So, China has its own challenges, and we want to work with
them and be mindful of what they’re dealing with in the context
of our relationship.  Our relationship has to be one of
understanding that we have security interests throughout
Northeast Asia and security interests throughout the Pacific, and
we need to work with them on how those are addressed.  So, that
gets to the island building in the South China Sea, the
militarization of those islands, and obviously we have huge
trading issues to talk with them about.
So, we are using the entre of the visit in Mar-a-Lago, which
was heavy on some issues with North Korea, but also heavy on a
broader range of issues.  What we’ve asked the Chinese to do is,
we want to take a fresh look of where is this relationship going
to be 50 years from now?  Because I think we have an opportunity
to define that.  So, I know that there have been a lot of
dialogue areas that have been underway for the last several years
with China; we have asked China to narrow the dialogue areas and
elevate the participants to the decision-making level.  So, we
outlined four major dialogue areas with China; and we’ve asked
them to bring people who report directly to the decision maker,
which is President Xi.  So for the first time, we are seeking —
and it so far appears we will get — people at the Politburo
level and at much higher levels of the government in China to
participate in these dialogues, so we can reframe what we want
the relationship to be and begin to deal with some of the
problems and issues that have just been sort of sitting out there
stuck in neutral for a while.  It’s a much narrower — as we make
progress, those things will result in working groups where we can
get after solving these things.
We’re going to have the first meeting of the diplomatic and
security dialogue, which is chaired by myself and Secretary
Mattis with our counterparts here in Washington in June.  We’ve
put it up as kind of top priority.  The second one is economics
and trade, which is chaired by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and
Commerce Secretary Ross, and it’s well underway also.
So, that’s kind of the new approach we’re taking with China,
is elevate; let’s kind of revisit this relationship and what is
it going to be over the next half century.  I think it’s a
tremendous opportunity we have to define that.  And there seems
to be a great interest on the part of the Chinese leadership to
do that as well.  They feel we’re at a point of inflection also.
So, that’s China.
[end video]

OGDEN:  Let me just reiterate a couple of the points that
you heard Secretary Tillerson just make.  He said it’s time for
us to take a fresh look at where this relationship is going over
the next 50 years.  What will that relationship be 50 years from
now?  We have the opportunity to reframe what that relationship
will be, to revisit that relationship, and to examine what it’s
going to be over the next half century.  We have a tremendous
opportunity to do that, he said, and there’s great interest on
the part of the Chinese leadership to do that as well.  They feel
that we’re at a point of inflection.
Now, just because this is a significant point to always
include the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have played in
creating the vision, in laying out the vision which is really
creating the pathway forward for what is the future, in 2005,
Lyndon LaRouche published a book which was titled {Earth’s Next
Fifty Years}.  Not coincidentally, Mr. LaRouche’s point in this
book, which he presents in a very profound and philosophically
developed way, was that we’ve really reached the point where we
need to view the potential for a great powers relationship.
Between whom?  The United States, China, and Russia; and also
India, but most importantly this three-power relationship between
the United States, China, and Russia as a potential collaboration
to begin to envision a system of inter-relationship between
nations based on mutual benefit between those countries.  And the
development of the planet through — and he lays this out in
detail in this book — the Eurasian Land-Bridge, or the New Silk
Road as he calls it, has the potential to bring mankind into a
new mode of history.  A new chapter of history where wars are
something of the past; great wars are no longer fought between
countries over narrow national interests.  In fact, the mutual
benefit of these great projects, which are represented by what
China is now doing, is the potential for peaceful coexistence
between all cultures; a dialogue between civilizations, and as
the opportunity to pave the road towards a new chapter of human
history.
So again, this was {Earth’s Next Fifty Years}; this was
published in 2005 by Lyndon LaRouche.  So, it’s the ability to
envision what the future must become which creates the
opportunity for competent and clear-minded leadership.  I think
you saw in a very real way the influence of that on what you’re
now seeing at least in an exploratory way from the U.S. State
Department and Secretary Tillerson.  What he also brought up
which is very important, is that China has succeeded in lifting
500 million people out of poverty in just a very short amount of
time; through great projects and investment into their own
population.  That’s half a billion people.
What Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say earlier, when we were
speaking to her and Mr. LaRouche, is that we have to continue to
beat the drum in terms of President Trump reciprocating what has
been offered by President Xi Jinping in terms of the United
States participating in this New Silk Road dynamic.  This is the
logical and obvious answer to President Trump’s question:  How
are we going to spend $1 trillion in the United States on
developing the infrastructure and putting people back to work
with real skilled, productive, high-paying manufacturing jobs?
Well it must be done in collaboration with China.  There’s no way
that can be done without reciprocating Xi Jinping’s offer to join
this New Silk Road dynamic.
So, I’m going to remind people that about a month or two
ago, the LaRouche Political Action Committee issued a pamphlet.
I’m going to display that on the screen for you right now.  It
was titled “America’s Future on the New Silk Road.”  So, you can
see the cover of that pamphlet right here.  The subtitle is
“LaRouche’s Four Laws: the Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States.”  You can see in the Table of
Contents what this pamphlet includes.  So, there’s an
introduction, which is called “A New Era for Mankind”; then you
have Lyndon LaRouche’s document, the “Four New Laws to Save the
United States Now.”  Then you have four chapters which elaborate
each of those four points.  One is, restore Glass-Steagall; this
is a fight we’re really in the midst of right now, and it’s
coming to a head.  Two, a new Hamiltonian national bank.  Three,
credit for increased productivity; and four, a crash program for
fusion and space.
That pamphlet has several full-spread maps included in it;
and I’m going to just show you a few of those. [pages 4-5] First
you have “China’s New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative:
First Steps towards the World Land-Bridge” And this sort of shows
what the elements of the Belt and Road Initiative as it exists
right now are across Eurasia.  It includes the
China-Mongolia-Russia corridor, the China-Pakistan corridor, the
New Eurasian Land-Bridge, the China-Indochina corridor, the
Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor, the Maritime Silk
Road, including ports and shipping lanes and so forth; and then
also China-Central and West Asia.
So those are the projects, as Helga LaRouche called it, the
biggest infrastructure project in human history, that’s what is
now on the table.  And those are the heads of state and
government that are going to be attending this summit in Beijing
next weekend.  This affects the entirety of the populations of
this area of the world.  So that’s what exists now.
If the United States wished to join this, there are several
very concrete projects which could be included: This map [pages
8-9] is titled “U.S.A. Joins the New Silk Road: An International
Recovery, Working with China To Build America.” Very
significantly, high-speed rail and magnetic levitation — look at
what China has done with high-speed rail development in China,
and compare that with the pathetic state of rail in the United
States.  It also includes reviving our industrial corridors, the
so-called “rust belt” development corridors, which include not
only transportation but also energy development and so forth.
Along those development corridors, you could have new cities.
It’s called “New Renaissance Cities,” because the cities have to
be centers of culture and education and art, and science and
research. And then very importantly, the Bering Strait
connection.  So as we develop the high-speed rail in North
America, it can connect to what’s being built in Eurasia.
And then finally, the third full-spread map in that pamphlet
[pages 20-21], is called, “The Full World Land-Bridge:  Expanding
China’s New Silk Road, A Global Infrastructure Economic
Platform.”  And these are some other projects which are sort of
third-party projects, which the United States and China could be
working together on for the benefit of other areas of the world:
Very importantly, a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East, this
is how we should resolve the crisis in Syria and Libya and Iraq.
In South America, a new inter-oceanic canal:  This is on the
books through Nicaragua.  Also a South American transcontinental
railroad.  The canal through the Isthmus of Kra, in Thailand, we
had a special presentation on that just a few weeks ago; this is
really moving forward, the Kra Canal.  Refilling Lake Chad with
the Transaqua Project.  This is one of the most important
projects for the future of Africa; and then also in Africa, a
Europe-Strait of Gibraltar tunnel.
So that’s the pamphlet, “America’s Future on the New Silk
Road” and it’s available on the LaRouche PAC website, and this is
something which we should be coming back to right now.  It’s very
important.
But as Helga LaRouche said, in our discussion, we have not
yet reached the point of safety:  We are still in the danger
zone.  There are so many hotspots which could blow up around the
world, and there continues to be a very real attempt, from the
British Empire and from their allies inside the United States to
undermine and to destabilize the Trump administration for the
very reason that you saw Secretary Tillerson state — we are no
longer going to be the country which is the “dumb giant”
implementing British Empire, divide-and-conquer policies in the
world.  No longer East against West, but we are going to seek
dialogue and we are going to seek cooperation with these
countries.
So I think with that said, it sets up, I think, what we’re
going to discuss with Jason and I’d like to just let Jason pick
it up from there.

Jason ROSS: These projects you’ve discussed, this is
something that can transformed mankind, like going to the Moon.
This is that kind of scale of change, in relations among people.
Ever since Trump was elected, there has been an ongoing attack
against him of people whom you’d think had lost their minds, or
you were having a bad dream, except that it’s really happening;
people who are repeatedly saying, they’re not attacking trumps
policies per se, — that happens too, of course, but what I’m
talking about is the drumbeat about “Russia, Russia! {Russia,
Russia! Russia!}”  People saying that “Russia elected Donald
Trump.” That “Russia hacked the Democratic Party,” “Russia hacked
John Podesta, Russia hired internet trolls; Russia has
compromising blackmail material on Donald Trump — Russia,
Russia, Russia!”  “Russia caused Democratic candidates to shy
away from the TPP.”  It’s just complete nonsense!
Now, this is being done for two reasons.  One as an attempt
to delegitimize and throw Trump’s administration out entirely,
or, failing that, attempt to box him into an anti-Russia
provocative type of policy, to show that he’s not a shill or a
stooge for the “man who’s directing the entire world, Vladimir
Putin,” if you would listen to some people on MSNBC or other
places.
So today I had the wonderful chance to speak with William
Binney about this.  Bill Binney was a covert, three-decade
employee at the NSA.  He resigned in 2001 as a top-level
executive there; he resigned over the fact that safeguards
against spying on American citizens were being overlooked, and
that a setup was being made to allow a totalitarian, and as he
put it, “an Orwellian state.”
So, let’s just go ahead and jump right in to hear what Bill
Binney has to say about whether Vladimir Putin runs the whole
world.

[begin video]
JASON ROSS: Let me ask you, Mr. Binney: What do you think
about these claims. Did Russian hackers elect Donald Trump?

WILLIAM BINNEY:  I wrote an article that was published in
{Consortiumnews} on Dec. 12th of last year, that said this was
all a big fabrication, simply because they weren’t saying exactly
where the hack came from, and where the data out of the hack went
to!  I mean, that’s the whole point of what NSA has set up, in
terms of copying and collecting everything in a fiber network
inside the United States, and virtually everything in the world
on those fibers.
So that means — and they’ve got trace route programs by the
hundreds, scattered all over the world.  That means that they can
follow the [data] packets as they move through the network.  Now,
if somebody hacks into the DNC or Hillary or Podesta’s email or
something, and they want to find out who it is, all they have to
do is use the IP address with XKeyscore as Edward Snowden said,
and they’ve got all the data to find out where the packets went!
But they haven’t done that, you see.  And even NSA who’s the only
one that can do this — the rest of them are meaningless — if
NSA says they’ve got data on it, then it’s meaningful.  If the
rest say that we have high confidence, that’s just pure
speculation. And it’s something that’s just pure garbage, that
doesn’t mean anything.  Produce the evidence, they haven’t
produced any at all, so that’s what I called it back in December
of last year.
[end video]

ROSS: Well, that’s a pretty straightforward response on
that, isn’t it?  Let’s take up now the topic of the control over
the domestic political apparatus that’s exerted by an
uncontrolled intelligence apparatus that collects material on
everybody.

[begin video]
ROSS:  More recently about a little over a month ago you
co-authored an article with Ray McGovern in which you wrote about
Trump’s response to this, that “his choice may decide whether
there is a future for this constitutional republic. Either Trump
can acquiesce to or fight against a deep state of intelligence
officials who have a myriad of ways to spy on politicians and
other citizens.  And thus amass derogatory materials that can be
easily transformed into blackmail.”
[https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/28/the-surveillance-state
-behind-russia-gate/]
That’s a strong claim.  Tell us, how do you see the Trump
response to this attack on elected government?  And what should
ordinary people do, to prevent such a policy coup?

BINNEY:  Well, first of all, I think President Trump
realizes what’s been going on. A recent statement he made about,
“there’s an awful lot of spying going on on U.S. citizens and we
really don’t know the extent of it, and we really have to find
out what the heck”  — he used the word “hell” — “what the hell
is going on.”  Well, that means they’re even keeping him in the
dark.
Now, as the President of the United States, he’s supposed to
know all the sources of information that the intelligence
community is using to produce intelligence for him, and he
obviously doesn’t know about this.  But I’ve made it perfectly
clear that the “Fairview program, Stormbrew programs, and Blarney
programs* for the tapping of fiber networks inside the United
States are the sources of information on everybody in the United
States, including representatives in the House and Senate; you
know, even judges on the Supreme Court, Generals on the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, all Federal judges, all senior lawyer firms all
around, and all the journalists and everything; all that stuff is
being captured and stored.
And what they’re not talking about is, I’ve seen some
arguments where they said, “well, as long as we’re only using it
for intelligence and law enforcement isn’t involved, you know,
it’s OK for us to do that.” That was the argument I think that
Judge Napolitano put forward, that they were using with the FISA
Court to dupe them into doing what they want.
And that’s really what’s happened: They’ve been duped, and
so have the Congress, most of Congress. I mean the Intelligence
Committees I think were more aware of what was going on than the
rest of Congress.  But they duped the rest of Congress!  They
made them all just play along like a bunch of sheep, “here’s
bell, follow the bell,” you know?  So our democracy basically
doesn’t really exist the way it was originally intended.  And the
law enforcement, FBI, DEA, and others in the law enforcement
community had direct access into the NSA data — they’ve had it
all along! Director Mueller at the FBI said he’d been using the
Stellar Wind, which is the domestic spying data, since 2001, he’d
been using that, so; and that’s direct access through their
technology data center in Quantico, Virginia into the NSA data
bases where they could look all the content and metadata of
everybody in the country! And they could retroactively research
them any time they want.
And they’re using it to arrest people for common crime
inside the United States.  so, I mean, this is simply a
destruction of the entire judicial process in our country and
it’s a fundamental violation of the constitutional rights.  And
they’ve scrapped the Constitution, fundamentally.
I mean, that’s why I said, when the Iraqis were struggling
to put together a Constitution, I said, “well, why don’t we give
’em ours, we’re not using it.” [laughter]
[end video]

ROSS:  The discussion continued; we covered a lot of topics.
The interview will be available tonight for you who are
subscribing to our audio podcast, it’ll be up this weekend on the
website.
The other aspect to take from it, is, as he said in that
article that he co-wrote with Ray McGovern, this is not something
that will go away.  Unless this apparatus is taken on and
removed, cleaned out, this ongoing cloud of blackmail potential
and political coercion that exists above the level of elected
government will continue putting pressure to oppose the kinds of
developments that we saw with what Tillerson put out, and with
the pamphlet that Matt just went through.  So it’s not a fight
that will go away.  This isn’t something that will simmer down
and go cold on its own.  It’s a fight that’s got to be won.

OGDEN:  Absolutely.  It’s heating up right now.  It’s
definitely not going away. Just earlier this afternoon, Sen. Rand
Paul  sent out a tweet, where he said, “I have formally requested
from the White House and the Intelligence Committees, info on
whether I was surveilled by the Obama administration or the
intelligence community.” So, to the extent that people are trying
to write off the claim from the Trump White House that, in fact,
Trump was wire-tapped or surveilled by the Obama administration,
now Sen. Rand Paul is asking the same question.  He went on to
say, “Did the Obama administration go after Presidential
candidates, members of Congress, journalists, clergy, lawyers,
federal judges? Did the Obama administration use warrantless
`wiretapping'” — in quotes — “on other candidates besides
Donald Trump?”
So, this is a real question. This makes Watergate seem pale
in comparison.

ROSS:  And some of the other specifics that have come out
about this. There’s the report that Susan Rice was the person,
Obama’s National Security Advisor, who outed Michael Flynn, or
who made an “unmasking” request to get from the recorded calls
with the Russian diplomat that, oh, that the person he was
speaking with was Gen. Michael Flynn.
So you don’t get much higher level in the political and
intelligence world than Mike Flynn, and if even his conversations
are being listened to and unmasked in this way, you know, who
isn’t?  Are the members of the intelligence community, are they
being blackmailed in this way?  This is the sort of thing that
you say, what would Hoover have been doing if he all of these
tools at his disposal?
And the numbers back it up:  A report just was released that
there were almost 2,000 incidents of unmasking of American
citizens, whose identities and communications were collected in a
foreign or other intelligence collection process, that the Obama
administration made that there were almost 2,000 requests to
unmask and find out who were the Americans involved in these
conversations.

OGDEN:  And this continues to go back to the question of the
role that British intelligence is playing, and obviously now it’s
been publicly admitted that, in fact it was GCHQ that was
conducting the surveillance and channeling all of this
intelligence into the U.S. because it’s illegal under U.S. law to
spy on your own citizens — so just ask the British to do it!
And vice versa.
So, this continues to be the persisting question.  And the
point that has to be asked, and this is the question:  Will
Donald Trump recognize that this the true face of the enemy, and
that the British Empire have been attempting to stonewall and
bulldoze the United States into becoming their “dumb giant,” in
their attempts to set the world against itself and to continue to
manipulate the international politics through this geopolitical
model which they’ve been using since the end of World War II; or,
will we say this is the end of that so-called British-U.S.
“special relationship” and now is the time that we are going to
initiate a New Paradigm of international relations.
So I think that question gains more relevance as we look at
this speech that we played earlier today from Secretary
Tillerson, where he really did bring an end to this Blair
doctrine of using so-called “Western values” as the pretext for
regime change and color revolutions, and we see a potential for a
new relationship between the United States and China, new
relationship between the United States and Russia, and a new
attitude in terms of what our goals are in terms of our
relationships with the rest of the world?
So it’s a war which continues, and this interview that you
conducted today, Jason, with William Binney is an important tool
for people to use.  So I think people can watch the website for
that to come out, and as you said, it will be available to
podcast subscribers tonight in audio form.
So let’s wrap up today’s broadcast by saying that we are
nine days away from the opening of this Beijing conference.  This
begins one week from Sunday: The heads of state and government
will be arriving a week from today, a week from tomorrow in
Beijing.  I guarantee you that the accommodations can be made for
President Trump to attend that summit if he so makes the decision
in the next few days.  And as Helga LaRouche said, even if that
doesn’t occur, the next best option would be for another
bilateral summit between President Trump and President Xi in the
days and weeks following the Belt and Road Initiative summit.
So we have that to look forward to, and over the coming
days, we ask you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and continue
to do what you can do, to educate the U.S. population about the
possibility of what would be our opportunities, were we to join
this Belt and Road Initiative. That pamphlet that I gave you a
guided tour of is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  We’ll
make that available as a link
[https://larouchepac.com/20170225/four-laws-pamphlet]  in the
description of this video here today. And also you can watch the
full speech from Secretary Tillerson that’s available on YouTube
and we’ll make that link available as well.
[https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270620.htm]
So thank you very much for joining us, and please stay tuned
to the LaRouche PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
for the full interview with William Binney, you can find the
interview that Helga Zepp-LaRouche conducted with {China Daily}
on their website [http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2017-05/05
/content_29219579.htm]
— chinadaily.cn and that link is also provided in the
description of this video.
So thank you very much. Thank you Jason for joining me here
today, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
                         

3. maj, 2017 – »For en vestlig verden, der ivrigt omfavner konkurrence, er det ikke let at forstå den kinesiske tankegang, der kræver harmoni og stabilitet«, lyder en kommentar i Xinhua som respons til flere vestlige misforståelser og falske nyheder om initiativet med den Nye Silkevej. Xinhua har oversat kommentaren til flere sprog og cirkuleret det bredt.

»Nogle rapporter i medierne siger, initiativet ikke er win-win, men at Kina ’søger at dominere’ og tilføjer, at Kinas statsejede firmaer ’tager broderparten’ af store projekter. Men sådanne påstande overser den kendsgerning, at kapital, inklusive penge og menneskelig kapital, til at bygge det enorme handels- og infrastrukturnetværk må komme, ikke kun fra kinesiske foretagender, men også fra deres vestlige partnere. For vestlige selskaber tilbyder Bælt & Vej-initiativet ’multinationale foretagender historiske muligheder’, iflg. en artikel udgivet online af Forbes i februar.

»Desuden forbinder nogle medierapporter tilfældigt initiativet med politik og siger, at Kina søger ’globalt lederskab’ gennem initiativet. I realiteten blev Bælt & Vej-initiativet foreslået i perioden efter krisen, da verden havde et presserende behov for en åben og inkluderende, global økonomi«, skriver Xinhuas Chen Shilei og påpeger, at, »næsten ni år efter finanskrisen i 2008 kæmper verdensøkonomien stadig for at komme på fode. Ifølge en FN-konference om Handel og Udvikling og en rapport fra Verdensbanken sidste år, faldt udenlandsk direkte investering i hele verden med 13 %, mens verdenshandlen voksede med lidt over 1 %, det værste resultat siden krisen«. Eftersom eksisterende, globale institutioner ikke fungerer, »fremsatte den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping initiativet, der tilbyder muligheder for samarbejde og udvikling for alle, hvilket viser den kinesiske leders globale vision og Kinas beredvillighed til at påtage sig de behørige, internationale forpligtelser, som et betydningsfuldt udviklingsland«, fortsætter Xinhuas kommentar.

»Desuden, mens nogle vestlige medier skaber hype omkring visse vestlige landes manglende tilstedeværelse ved det forestående forum, så bør man minde dem om, at initiativet ikke er en eliteklub for vestlige lande, men mest tjener udviklingslande. Det er en kreds af venner, med repræsentanter fra flere end 100 lande … Vestlige lande burde være mere fordomsfri omkring Bælt & Vej-initiativet, som Kina har foreslået, et land, der er dybt influeret af en filosofi, der gå ud på at søge enighed samtidig med at bevare forskelligheder. Håbet er, at lande langs oldtidens handelsruter og videre endnu vil få fordele af initiativet og virkeliggøre fælles fremgang, der kan sætte gang i en sløv verdensøkonomi.«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. maj, 2017 – I dag, præcis ti dage, før åbningen af Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing finder sted, er vidtrækkende forandringer til det bedre i menneskets vilkår blevet til en umiddelbart opnåelig mulighed. Den nye vision for menneskeheden, der har været Lyndon LaRouches og Helga Zepp-LaRouches hele livsværk, kan virkeliggøres, hvis deres ideer effektivt promoveres i løbet af de forestående dage og uger.

Hvor mange indså sandheden i Kinas officielle avis, Global Times’ lederartikel fra 2. maj? Den sagde, at ængstelsen over Bælt & Vej-initiativet »blotlægger den stereotype, amerikanske nulsums-tankegang … [Men] den offentlige mening i USA er diskret ved at ændre sig, fra at være imod det, og til at tillægge en undersøgelse af det, større betydning«.

Sandheden i denne iagttagelse er nu blevet understreget på en overraskende måde, gennem den amerikanske udenrigsminister Rex Tillersons lange, improviserede tale for hele Udenrigsministeriet i går. Anglofile nyhedskilder har citeret en del af Tillersons bemærkninger med det formål at bagvaske dem: hans åbningsudtalelser, hvor han klart tager afstand fra Bush- og Obama-administrationernes morderiske politikker med »farvet revolution« og regimeskifte. Her sagde Tillerson, at Amerikas »værdier« ikke nødvendigvis er det samme som dets udenrigspolitik – hvilket, som han forklarede, vil sige, at forsøg på at påtvinge andre nationer amerikanske »værdier« ofte ville vise sig kontraproduktivt.

Men det, der ikke blev rapporteret, var Tillersons detaljerede og udtrykkelige beskrivelse af den nye administrations nye aftaler om dialog med Kina. Han sagde, at den nye dialog ville blive med kinesiske regeringsfolk, der rapporterer direkte til præsident Xi Jinping – og således implicit, at amerikanerne ville være regeringsfolk, der rapporterer direkte til præsident Donald Trump. Planen fra begge sider er her, at man vil opnå konkrete aftaler snarere end blot få en talk-shop, som den foregående »dialog«.

Men hvad er det overordnede formål med dialogen? Tillerson understregede, og understregede igen, at dens formål bliver at definere den amerikansk-kinesiske relation »for det næste halve århundrede!«

Var det ikke Lyndon LaRouche, der skrev bogen med titlen, »Jordens kommende halvtreds år«? (Hele Rex Tillersons tale for Udenrigsministeriets ansatte kan læses her: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/270620.htm)

En implikation er, at det stadig er muligt for præsident Trump at deltage i denne Bælt & Vej-konference den 14.-15. maj, og vi bør kæmpe for, at det sker.

I mellemtiden – på den anden side af globen i Kasakhstans hovedstad Astana – underskrev de russiske, iranske og tyrkiske repræsentanter i dag en aftale om at etablere demilitariserede »sikre zoner«, eller »deeskaleringszoner«, i Syrien, med støtte fra den syriske regering. USA var, selv om de ikke deltog i aftalen eller deltog direkte i forhandlingerne, repræsenteret i Astana af fungerende viceudenrigsminister Stuart Jones. Præsident Putin sagde, at præsident Trump i deres telefonsamtale den 2. maj havde støttet sådanne sikre zoner – ja, det havde faktisk været en del af Donald Trumps præsidentkampagne, selv om det ondskabsfuldt var blevet miskarakteriseret som en casus belli for Rusland. Den russiske regering siger, at oprettelsen af disse zoner endelig vil begynde at adskille terroristerne fra den bevæbnede, syriske opposition – noget, som [tidl. udenrigsminister] John Kerry i et år havde lovet at gøre, men som Barack Obama aldrig ville give sin tilladelse til.

Samtidig har nogle amerikanske kongresmedlemmer ikke holdt trit med verdensbegivenhederne således, at der ikke blev indgivet et Glass/Steagall-tillæg, før Husets Komite for Finansielle Ydelser havde en direkte afstemning om et finansielt reguleringslovforslag i dag, langs partilinjerne. Vi vil mobilisere mere aggressivt og hårdere om dette, men ikke længere specifikt med denne komite som mål.

Det er det store billede, som hver og én af os til enhver tid må repræsentere: menneskehedens fremtid i de næste halvtreds til hundrede og halvtreds år.

Foto: Helga og Lyndon LaRouche taler ved en Schiller Institut-konference i Tyskland, juni 2016.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

»Det er 4. maj; ti dage, inden det går løs i Beijing med det store Bælt & Vej Forum, som bliver et afgørende punkt i den fortsatte udvikling her på planeten Jorden; det tror jeg allerede nu ligger klart. Det er jo så spændende, at den danske statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen ikke kunne vente. Han havde så travlt, at han sagde, ’jamen, jeg vil ikke vente til 14. maj; jeg tager derover allerede 2. maj til Kina og besøger pandaer, men også den kinesiske præsident og statsminister, og det er selvfølgelig en god impuls, at det er det første – ikke statsbesøg – men det første besøg fra dansk side med statsministeren, officielt besøg, siden 2008, da Danmark og Kina indgik et strategisk partnerskab, hvor Danmark ligesom blev det første land i Norden til at indgå et sådant særligt strategisk partnerskab med Kina. Så det er en god impuls at tage derover. Det, der så bare er vigtigt, er, at der er andet på dagsordenen end de pandaer …

Fordi, dét, Danmark SKAL med på, det er det nye paradigme, som Kina er drivkraften i, men hvor det ikke bare drejer sig om Kina, næh, det drejer sig om størstedelen af verden; det er det nye paradigme, som Kina samarbejder tæt om sammen med Rusland, sammen med stadig større dele af Asien, efterhånden det meste af Asien, men hvor Sydamerika, Afrika og andre lande også står i kø for at være med. Til dette Bælt & Vej Forum er der 30 stats- eller regeringschefer, der indtil nu har annonceret deres deltagelse, men der vil være delegationer fra over 100 lande, mange på meget højt niveau, fordi det her er stort; fordi Kina er blevet drivkraften i global udvikling. Den tankegang, man har haft i Kina, er simpelthen, at man har sagt, ’Vi har været i stand til at løfte 6 til 700.000 millioner mennesker, fattige kinesere, ud af fattigdom til et langt bedre liv; man har så en ambition om, at, i 2020 skal der ikke længere findes fattige i Kina; der skal ikke findes folk, der har problemer med, at de ikke får mad, osv. Fattigdommen skal afskaffes; men hvorfor skal det kun gælde Kina? Man har fundet ud af, at, hvis man investerer i infrastruktur, hvis man bruger penge på at investere i infrastruktur, i moderne teknologi, i modernisering af forskellige ting, jamen, så kan man løfte hele samfundet op; og det er ikke en speciel ting, der gælder for kinesere; det gælder for alle mennesker …«     

Lyd:

28. april, 2017 – Kort tid efter Kinas anden nationale Rumfartsdag den 24. april, kræver Undervisningsministeriet som en del af sin politik for at forbedre færdigheder inden for videnskab, at alle underskoler begynder at undervise i videnskabsklasser i første klasse, med start fra efterårssemestret. Et forløb om basalt kendskab til raketter tilbydes allerede til alle børn i første klasse på Beijing Xicheng Skole for Fremmedsprog, og klasser i populærvidenskab afholdes i de fleste af de offentlige skoler i Beijing. Eleverne undervises i historien og teorien om raketter, historien om Kinas rumfartsindustri og opsendelsen af den nye Long March 7 raket, som satte Tianzhou-1 lastfartøjet i kredsløb. Ud over undervisning i klasseværelset er der planlagt ekskursioner i marken og praktiske eksperimenter, sammen med modelraketter, der vil blive opsendt i skolegårdene, rapporterer CCTV-English.

Foto: Elever ved Beijing Xicheng Skole for Fremmedsprog klar til at opsende deres raketmodeller den 26. april, 2017.

3. maj, 2017 – En officiel repræsentant fra det Russiske Udenrigsministerium sagde, Nordkorea aldrig vil opgive sit atomvåbenprogram, så længe, de føler, der består en trussel mod deres sikkerhed. »Det er indlysende, at Pyongyang ikke vil opgive sine atomvåben, så længe det opfatter sig selv som værende truet«, sagde Mikhael Ulyanov, direktør for ministeriets afdeling for ikkespredning og våbenkontrol under en tale for det første sammentræde i Forberedelseskomiteen for 2020 Undersøgelseskonferencen for Parterne i Traktaten for Ikkespredning af Atomvåben. Hans bemærkninger blev i deres helhed lagt ud af Udenrigsministeriet, og et link til bemærkningerne blev udlagt på den Russiske Ambassade til den Demokratiske Folkerepublik Koreas webside.

»Vi er ikke desto mindre overbevist om, at de eksisterende spændinger på Koreahalvøen ikke kun er forårsaget af Pyongyangs atom- og missilprogrammer, men også af en øget militær aktivitet i det nordøstlige Asien, fra visse regionale og især ikke-regionale staters side«, sagde han.

»Der er ikke et minut at spilde. I modsat fald kunne konfrontationstankegangen blive overvældende dominerende«, sagde han. »Rusland afviser DFK’s atomstatus. Vi accepterer ikke atomtests, udført at Pyongyang, og deres trods af de relevante resolutioner i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd.«

Kinas linje er meget lig Ruslands. Den officielle avis Peoples Daily havde en lederartikel, der fremførte, at »de seneste udviklinger på halvøen satte fokus på et bydende nødvendigt behov for, at alle parter intensiverer deres bestræbelser for at bringe de berørte parter til forhandlingsbordet. DFK bør ikke være besat af en forkert vej med gentagne atomtests og missilaffyringer, der har resulteret i sanktionsrunder. Samtidig har Republikken Korea (Sydkorea) og USA nu bragt yderligere ved til bålet med de optrappede spændinger, siden de to allierede, der har opretholdt et egenmægtigt pres på atomspørgsmålet på Koreahalvøen, afslørede en strategisk plan for at knuse DFK.«

Foto: Sydkorea og USA afholder ekstensive fælles militærøvelser.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. maj, 2017 – En lederartikel i Global Times i dag fremkommer med den mening mht. Koreakrisen, at, »Hvis Washington arbejder i samme retning som Beijing, er der udsigt til et betydningsfuldt gennembrud i spørgsmålet.«

Lederen, der repræsenterer regeringens partipolitik, beklager behersket, at Trump-administrationen har udtrykt en holdning om, at »Pyongyangs opgivelse af sine atomambitioner afhænger af, om Beijing lægger tilstrækkeligt pres på dem«, hvilket, siger lederens forfattere, ikke er korrekt. »Washington må, samtidig med, at de ikke placerer for mange forventninger på Kina, også fortsætte med at udøve deres egne bestræbelser i spørgsmålet. Trump bør ikke få alle sine råd fra et par såkaldte strateger og blive vildledt omkring situationen.«

De bemærker, at problemet grundlæggende set er mellem Washington og Pyongyang, eftersom »Nordkoreas hensynsløse forfølgelse af atomare og langtrækkende missilteknologier drives frem af usikkerhed omkring dets regime. Det forsøger ikke at blive det næste mål for afsættelse, efter Irak og Libyen. USA må adressere Pyongyangs strategiske foruroligelse.« Dette er nøjagtig, hvad Rex Tillerson sagde i sidste uge.

Lederartiklen bemærker også, »Det følsomme tidspunkt i april er forbi. Nordkorea udførte ikke en sjette atomtest, og frekvensen og skalaen af dets missilaffyringer er ikke så signifikante, hvilket kan tilskrives samarbejde mellem Kina og USA.«

Forfatterne konkluderer: »Vi har bemærket, at Washington på det seneste har udvist en vis fleksibilitet i sine erklæringer.«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 2. maj, 2017 – Det bliver i stigende grad klart, at præsident Trump, sammen med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping og Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin, tager skridt til at afslutte krisepunkterne i Eurasien, der havde bragt verden til randen af krig under præsident Obama, og som briterne og deres aktiver desperat har forsøgt at bruge igen i dag for at bryde Trumps samarbejde med Rusland og Kina.

Som en sydkoreansk analytiker sagde i sidste uge, så har Trump en politik for Nordkorea, der er meget tæt på den politik, der føres af de førende kandidater til præsidentskabet i Sydkorea i det forestående valg den 9. maj: hav en større pind, men tilbyd en større gulerod.

Alt imens Trump-administrationen har aktiveret THAAD-missilsystemet i Sydkorea og gennemfører øvelser i området med et hangarskib, B-1 bombefly og atomubåde, erklærer Trump samtidig højlydt for verden, at han samarbejder tæt med præsident Xi, og at han ønsker at forsikre Nordkorea om, at USA ikke truer med »regimeskifte« imod Kim Jong-un-regeringen. Hans udtalelser mandag om, at han ville være villig til at møde Kim Jong-un personligt under passende omstændigheder, er blevet mødt med hysteri i den vestlige presse, og deres respons til Trumps opringning til den filippinske præsident Rodrigo Duterte, hvor han inviterede ham til at besøge Det Hvide Hus, sendte New York Times og andre ud i hysteriske krampetrækninger.

Men hvad repræsenterer disse skridt? Koreakrisen blev skabt af Bush- og Obama-administrationerne, der saboterede hver eneste aftale, der blev opnået med Nordkorea, og førte til Obamas vanvittige »strategiske tålmodighed« – altså, en afvisning af at forhandle med Nordkorea, med mindre de gjorde præcis, som de fik besked på, samtidig med, at han opbyggede en massiv militærstyrke og forøgede sanktionerne. Målet var Kina, ikke Nordkorea. Bush og Obama var henrykte over at have et atombevæbnet Nordkorea, som gav en undskyldning for at opbygge en massiv militær ring rundt om Kina og Rusland.

Nu arbejder Trump sammen med Kina. Der er ikke længere grund til at drive Nordkorea til fjendtlige reaktioner med atomvåben. Som udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson sagde i sidste uge, så må vi overbevise Pyongyang om, at vi ikke tilsigter regimeskifte, men blot en fredelig atomafrustning af Koreahalvøen.

Det samme gælder for Filippinerne. Den tidligere filippinske regerings unødvendige provokation af Kina, hvor de sendte spørgsmålet om suverænitet over øerne i det Sydkinesiske Hav til en forudindtaget vestlig domstol, uden kinesisk deltagelse, retfærdiggjorde Obamas deployering af en stærk militærstyrke til området. Med valget af Duterte endte denne krise, og Filippinerne arbejder nu tæt sammen med Kina, og ligeledes med USA. Både Filippinerne og USA befinder sig nu under et fornuftigt lederskab, der afviser galskaben med verdenskrig mellem atommagter.

I dag havde Trump en lang telefonsamtale med præsident Putin, hvor de aftalte at arbejde tæt sammen om udarbejdelse af en fredelig, politisk løsning på brændpunkterne i Nordkorea og Syrien. Dette forfærder briterne, der troede, de med held havde forgiftet Trumps plan om at blive venner med Putin, gennem deres løgne om, at Assad havde brugt kemiske våben, og som fik Trump til at bombe en syrisk flyvebase.

Naturligvis beskriver New York Times, Det britiske Imperiums stemme i USA, Xi Jinping og Putin som diktatorer og hævder, at Trump er en tyran, fordi han vil være venner med dem, eller med andre »autoritære diktatorer«, såsom Duterte, Egyptens el-Sisi eller andre, der trodser den britiske imperieopdeling af verden i fjendtlige lejre, og som kun er interesseret i at bekæmpe terrorisme, og ikke andre nationalstater. Dette er i realiteten landene i den Nye Silkevej, der ønsker at arbejde sammen som venner i opbygningen af en verden, der er menneskeheden værdig.

Trump har hidtil endnu ikke meddelt, om han vil deltage i det Internationale Bælt & Vej Forum, der finder sted i Beijing den 14. – 15. maj, og hvor ledere fra 100 nationer vil mødes for at diskutere menneskehedens fremtid, baseret på gensidig udvikling, lindring af alvorlig fattigdom (som Kina næsten har opnået), og en verden, der er fri for krig og terrorisme. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde den 13. april, hvis Trump går frem med at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, vil han blive husket som en af de største amerikanske præsidenter. Selve begrebet om Imperium, om en verden, der består af tilhængere af Darwins teorier (den stærkeste overlever) og nationer, der fungerer på samme måde som i dyreverden, hvor man kæmper om fordele på den andens bekostning, kan én gang for alle deponeres i den historiske skraldespand. Menneskeheden kan dernæst gå fremad mod sin sande bestemmelse med at opbygge en retfærdig og fremgangsrig verden, og med fremme af menneskehedens opdagelser i rummet, samt skabe en videnskabelig og kulturel renæssance blandt alle folkeslag.

2017, 1. maj – Den russiske ambassadør til Nordkorea, Alexander Matsegora, sagde, efter et møde med den nordkoreanske viceudenrigsminister han Song Ryol den 30. april, til TASS, at han »opfordrede sine koreanske modparter til at udvise tilbageholdenhed og afstå fra handlinger, der kunne optrappe spændingerne i dette område«.

Han Song Ryol mener, at optrapning i Koreahalvøen blev forårsaget af »de amerikansk-sydkoreanske øvelser rettet mod DFK (Demokratiske Folkerepublik Korea) sammen med USA’s koncentration af strategiske våben«. Han forsatte med, at Nordkorea »vil blive ved med at træffe forholdsregler til at styrke de nationale atomafskrækkelsesstyrker for at forsvare landets suverænitet og vitale rettigheder, så vel som fred på halvøen«.

I mellemtiden rapporterede TASS ligeledes, at den russiske ambassadør til Kina Andrei Denisov til reportere den 30. april sagde: »USA’s militære pres mod Nordkorea fremprovokerer blot skridt til gengældelse fra Nordkoreas side. Under Trump (-s præsidentskab) har Nordkorea allerede affyret missiler ni gange …

»Vi opfordrer til, at de allerede eksisterende formater genoptages, først og fremmest sekspartforhandlingerne« om atomafrustning af Koreahalvøen, sagde den russiske ambassadør og understregede, at den kinesiske side siger, der ikke er noget alternativ til dette format. »Blot hvilke initiativer som helst vil ikke fungere, siger kineserne.«

Denisov sagde, at Ruslands og Kinas holdning til de nordkoreanske atomvåben næsten er sammenfaldende med begge landes støtte til FN’s Sikkerhedsråds resolutioner, der pålægger Pyongyang sanktioner. De vil aldrig støtte Nordkoreas missil- og atomprogrammer, da disse udgør en direkte trussel mod sikkerheden og også provokerer USA til at øge forsvarskapaciteter, der »i realiteten har offensivt potentiale«, sagde han. Fornuftige argumenter, som både vi og Kina gentagne gange har fremført, virker ikke nu, men det betyder ikke, at vi ikke bør fortsætte med at overbevise andre«, sagde han.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/nordkorea-det-vigtigste-er-at-trump-og-kinas-praesident-xi-er-begyndt-at-tale-sammen

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

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

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

Lige fra begyndelsen havde Schiller
Instituttet den idé, at vi måtte have en
retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden;
men at det aldrig ville fungere, hvis det ikke
blev forbundet med en renæssance af
klassisk kultur. 

Det, jeg vil tale om, er ideen om den højeste menneskehed, det fælles filosofiske grundlag for vestlig og asiatisk kultur … Præsident Xi Jinpings håbefulde vision for det, han altid kalder et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid … er blevet vedtaget som en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. … Med dette koncept er et strategisk initiativ, som kan erstatte den krigsskabende geopolitik med idealet om en forenet menneskehed, sat på dagordenen

Download (PDF, Unknown)

29. april, 2017 – Gårsdagens diskussion i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd af krisen i Korea straffede generelt Nordkorea for dets overtrædelser af FN-resolutioner, men der lød også mange advarsler om faren for, at krisen eskalerer til krig, fra Kina og Rusland, og andre.

Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi advarede om, at, »hvis spørgsmålet om Halvøen ikke sættes under effektiv kontrol, og i tilfælde af uventede hændelser, er det højst sandsynligt, at situationen vil tage en drastisk drejning til det værre og optrappes ud af kontrol … Vi må forblive forpligtet til dialogens og forhandlingens vej. Anvendelse af magt løser ikke uoverensstemmelser og vil blot føre til større katastrofer«, bemærkede Wang.

Den russiske repræsentant, viceudenrigsminister Gennady Gatilo, erklærede, at, »Nordkorea har handlet upassende« ved at overtræde FN’s resolutioner, osv. »Samtidig er anvendelsen af militærmagt absolut uacceptabel«, sagde han, »da det er fuldt af katastrofale konsekvenser for Koreahalvøen og hele Nordøstasien«. Hvis man ikke finder en diplomatisk løsning, kunne det føre »til de forfærdeligste konsekvenser«. Gatilov sagde, at »krigerisk retorik sammen med en urimelig opvisning af muskler får alle i verden til at spørge sig selv, om der kommer krig. Det er ingen hemmelighed, at, midt i spændingerne, kunne ethvert tankeløst skridt resultere i forfærdelige konsekvenser«.

FN’s generalsekretær Antonio Guterres advarede også om faren for krig: »Jeg er oprørt over risikoen for en militær optrapning i området, inklusive gennem fejlberegning eller misforståelse.«

Efter sammentrædet i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd sagde Nordkoreas viceudenrigsminister Kim In Ryong til AP, at ideen om at bruge sanktioner og trusler for at få den Demokratiske Folkerepublik Korea til at opgive sine atomvåben, er »en vild drøm«. D.F.K., sagde han, ville aldrig forhandle deres ’nukes’ som en del af »politiske studehandler og økonomiske aftaler«. Han gentog D.F.K.’s stående politik om, at, når USA først stopper sine fjendtlige aktiviteter, »vil alle løsninger være mulige«.

Foto: Ruslands viceudenrigsminister Gennady Gatilov i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd: ‘Nordkorea har handlet upassende.’

28. april, 2017 – Kinas partiavis, Global Times, udgav sent i går en lederartikel, der advarer om, at, hvis Nordkorea fortsætter med sine atomvåben- og missiltests, »er Kina nødsaget til at støtte mere barske resolutioner mod dette land«. Lederartiklen, der følger i kølvandet på mere intense diskussioner mellem USA og Kina, bemærker, at relationerne mellem Beijing og Pyongyang allerede har lidt skade pga. atomvåbenkrisen. »De nuværende bilaterale relationer bør først være normale, land-til-land, og baseret på dette kan de forme et nært venskab«, lyder lederartiklen. »Men forudsætningen er, at Kinas nationale interesser ikke krænkes, og at Beijing ikke skal betale prisen for Pyongyangs ekstreme politikker.« Alt imens Nordkoreas konflikt er med USA, »så gennemfører Pyongyang atomvåbentests blot 100 km fra den kinesiske grænse, og dette truer sikkerheden i det nordøstlige Kina«.

»Nordkoreas udvikling af atom- og missilteknologier har også intensiveret situationen i Nordøstasien og givet Washington en undskyldning for at forstærke sin militære deployering i dette område. Dette betyder, at Kina ikke kan være en passiv tilskuer«, fortsætter GT. »Kina bør stå fast på sin opposition mod Nordkoreas atomprogrammer. Selv om Beijing og Washington har forskellige strategiske beregninger, så har de fælles interesser mht. opposition mod Pyongyangs udvikling af atom- og missilteknologier. Beijing lægger pres på Pyongyang for at sikre sine egne nationale interesser snarere, end at det arbejder for Washington.« Men, hvis Pyongyang opgiver sit atomprogram, »kan de bilaterale relationer let igen blive normale«.

Kinas mål er at suspendere både Nordkoreas atomtests og de amerikansk-sydkoreanske militærøvelser. »Beijing håber at maksimere alle de berørte parters interesser«, slutter lederartiklen. »Men, skulle det sluttelig slå fejl, har Kina stadig evnen til at udføre gengældelse over for enhver side, der måtte overskride den røde linje.«

Foto: Flyveoperationer om bord på USA’s hangarskib Carl Vinson i sidste uge. Hangarskibet og andre krigsskibe er på vej mod Koreahalvøen i et forsøg på at afskrække Nordkorea fra at teste atomvåben eller affyre missiler. (CreditMattBrown/U.S. Navy, via Associated Press)

27. april, 2017 – Under en pressekonference i Berlin sammen med den tyske udenrigsminister Sigmar Gabriel, opfordrede Kinas udenrigsminister, Wang Yi, indtrængende USA og Nordkorea til at trække sig tilbage fra en krig, som ville have »konsekvenser, man ikke kan forestille sig«. »Jeg må endnu engang understrege, at sikkerhed og stabilitet er meget skrøbelige i øjeblikket«, sagde han. »Og der er stor fare for, at nye hændelser, nye konflikter når som helst kan bryde ud. Jeg mener, at vi ikke kan tolerere så meget som 1 % mulighed for krig. Nordkorea er ikke ligesom Mellemøsten. Hvis der udbryder krig på Koreahalvøen, så står vi over for alvorlige konsekvenser, vi ikke kan forestille os. Det er derfor i vores fælles interesse at mindske risikoen for en krig.«

Gabriel på sin side udtrykte støtte til Kinas bestræbelser på at finde en fredelig løsning, men sagde, at de første skridt må komme fra Pyongyang. Han anklagede Nordkorea for at hæve indsatsen med missiltrusler og atomprøvesprængninger, som er en overtrædelse af FN-resolutioner. Med henvisning til Kinas plan om at reducere spændinger, sagde Gabriel: »Jeg mener, at dette kan være et første skridt, i det mindste for at forhindre yderligere eskalering af spændinger.«

Sputnik rapporterede i dag separat, at Kinas Centrale Militærkommissions afdeling for generalstabschefernes vicechef sagde, at Kina foreslår, at der finder et samtidigt stop for Nordkoreas program for atomvåben, og de fælles, amerikansk-sydkoreanske militærøvelser, sted. »Kina har foreslået, at man samtidig suspenderer Nordkoreas aktiviteter for at udvikle atomvåben og missiler, og suspenderer de storstilede militærøvelser«, sagde generalmajor Shao Yuanming ved den Sjette Moskva Internationale Sikkerhedskonference.

Foto: Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi (venstre) og den tyske udenrigsminister Sigmar Gabriel under deres fælles pressekonference i Berlin, 26. april, 2017. (Xinhua/Wang Qing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(engelsk):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. april, 2017:         

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. april, 2017 – En lederartikel i dagens China Daily-avis, med overskriften, »Fejlvurdering største risiko for Halvøen«, lød: »Hvis de risici, der omgiver Koreahalvøen, skulle blive opfattet høje i farlig grad, så ville det skyldes frygten for, at hvad som helst kunne ske hvornår som helst, i det anspændte opgør, som havde udviklet sig mellem Washington og Pyongyang.« Lederartiklen fremkom på et tidspunkt, hvor, som Channel News Asia rapporterer, den atombevæbnede amerikanske ubåd, USS Michigan, lagde til kaj i Sydkorea samtidig med, at atomvåben-topudsendinge fra Sydkorea, Japan og USA har besluttet at mødes i Tokyo for at drøfte responser til Nordkoreas afvisning af at opgive sit atomvåbenprogram.

Med en understregning af, at »en atomprøvesprængning, eller missilaffyring, ikke udgør den ’totale krig’«, som Pyongyang har truet med, »skrev regeringsavisen China Daily i sin lederartikel, at »i modsætning til Pyongyangs krigsretorik fremstår Washington meget på linje med Beijing mht. at forfølge en fredelig løsning, i det mindste for indeværende«.

China Daily fortsatte med, at, »at dømme ud fra deres seneste ord og gerninger, så har de politiske beslutningstagere i alvorlig grad fejlfortolket FN’s sanktioner, der er rettet mod landets atomvåben/missilprovokationer, og ikke dets system eller lederskab«. Som følge heraf »overvurderer de i farlig grad omgående deres egen styrke og undervurderer de farer, de er ved at lægge i gryden for sig selv. De må revurdere situationen, så de ikke foretager nogen fejlvurderinger.

På samme måde bør Washington fortsætte med at udøve selvbeherskelse og forfølge en fredelig løsning på spørgsmålet«, formaner China Daily.

Foto: USA’s atombevæbnede ubåd USS Michigan går i havn i Sydkorea.