Et uddrag:
Ogden: I løbet af en tidligere diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche snakkede vi også om dagens institutionelle spørgsmål, som lyder: »Hr. LaRouche, vær venlig at fremlægge dine anbefalinger om, hvordan man opbygger de institutioner og strukturer, der skal til, for at gennemføre en global indsats mod terrorisme, i et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Europa. Hvilken form for organisering og politik kan du anbefale, og hvilken rolle tror du FN kan spille i en sådan indsats?«

Steinberg: Efter vores diskussion med Hr. LaRouche og Fru Zepp-LaRouche, som fandt sted for nogle få timer siden, vil jeg svare, at det første der må gøres, er at fremlægge en præcis redegørelse for, hvor den globale terrorisme har sin oprindelse. Og det har den i London – Londonistan – og i lande, der i stigende grad er blevet simple håndlangere for det Britiske Imperium og dets politik. Saudi-Arabien er en sådan håndlanger. Det har landet været i hundrede af år. Men i særdeleshed siden al-Yamamah aftalen fra 1985 har der været en britisk-saudisk organisation, der har ophobet store pengesummer, øremærket til at understøtte terrororganisationer som al-Qaeda og aflæggeren ISIS. Prøv engang at se på Sydamerika og Mexico, ødelagt af narko-terrorisme, og bemærk så, hvordan London har været centrum for den internationale narkohandel og de terrororganisationer, der er sprunget frem deraf. Hvis man ikke starter med at sige sandheden omkring terrorismens natur, omkring dens oprindelsessted; hvis man ikke våger at angribe det britiske og det saudiske monarki, så kan der ikke opstå et solidt grundlag for den form for samarbejde, der er nødvendig.

Det er klart at de fire ledende nationer, USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien alle er konfronteret med denne Angelsaudiske terrortrussel. Og for så vidt som disse nationer ikke samarbejder omkring udformningen af en entydig handlingsplan, der involverer nedlæggelsen af de britiske oversøiske finanscentre, der stiller finanserne til rådighed for terrororganisationerne, er der intet grundlag for sejr. Hvis disse lande går sammen – for hvilke FN's sikkerhedsråd ville udgøre den perfekte platform – kan der føres en succesfuld krig mod den form for terrorisme, der udfolder sig globalt i dag. Og det er en afgørende del af den krig, der allerede er undervejs.

Og så er der selvfølgelig det mere langsigtede spørgsmål omkring, hvordan man skaber en tilstand hvor mennesker ikke har noget incitament til at gå med i den slags terrororganisationer. Det spørgsmål ligger implicit i Kinas politiske projekt kaldet »Ét bælte, én vej«: Udviklingen af Asien gennem denne »Win-Win«-politik. Visse desperate politiske ledere i Europa – sågar i Tyskland – lufter ideen om en »Marshallplan«, der skal genopbygge Syrien og Irak. Det vil give flygtningene en mission, så de vil tage tilbage og hjælpe med at opbygge deres lande med en masse opbakning udefra. Og det er en del af den slags passende og holdbare antiterrorstrategi, der skal til for at skabe en langtidsholdbar løsning. Allerede tilbage i 1970'erne fremlagde Lyndon LaRouche en plan for at skabe fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten. Udgangspunktet var at en økonomisk udvikling af regionen var den mest effektive antiterrorstrategi. Ligeledes sagde LaRouche i kølvandet på Oslo-aftalen i 1993, at man blev nødt til med det samme at køre bulldozer og arbejdsmaskinerne i position og begynde at genopbygge Gazastriben og Vestbredden og skabe et velstående område, hvor mennesker har en fremtid at leve for og se frem til.

Men nu har vi i stedet Saudi-Arabiens tyranni. Hen over de seneste dage har vi set, hvordan Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan forsøger at etablere et brutalt diktatur i sit land og hvordan han afpresser Europa med truslen om at oversvømme Europa med endnu en omgang af flygtninge på flugt fra Syrien, Irak, Libyen og Afghanistan. Så der findes en holdbar og effektiv politik, men kun, hvis man tager tingene fra toppen og tager udgangspunkt i sandheden om, hvor terrorismen kommer fra. Således og kun således kan vi danne den rette form for sammenslutning af nationer, der samarbejder om et fælles mål. Og terrorismen kan overvindes, det er der ingen tvivl om, men ikke hvis udgangspunktet for processen er et svindelnummer.

Ogden: På den front så vi hvordan CIA-direktør, John Brennan, i TV-udsendelsen »Meet the Press« sidste søndag (1. maj) udtalte, at de 28 sider ikke vil blive offentliggjort af Obama-administrationen. Det viser med al tydelighed at USA ikke er klar til en alliance med Rusland, Kina og Indien, FN og Europa omkring en effektiv krig mod terror, men stadig bukker og skraber for den saudiske kongefamilie, som stod bag 11. september.

Putins afgørende intervention i Palmyra, foruden hvilken byen stadig ville være under ISIS' belejring, skaber en stærk kontrast og viser vejen for at overvinde terrorisme. Så måske kan du forklare, hvad dette viser om, hvor Obama-administrationens sande alliancer ligger.

Steinberg: Det er meget ligetil. Det Brennan sagde på nationalt TV i »Meet the Press« i søndags var præcist, hvad vi regnede med, at han ville sige. Og alt dette var forårsaget af den vedholdende mobilisering for at få offentliggjort de 28 sider, som LaRouches politiske aksionskomité (LaRouchePAC) har været hovedansvarlig for. Denne mobilisering har tvunget Obama-administrationen til at bekende kulør og sige at den på ingen måde har tænkt sig at bryde med den Angel-saudiske alliance. Så længe Obama er præsiden og Brennan er CIA-direktør vil der være en beskyttelsesmur mod enhver form for afsløring af det Britiske Imperiums og Saudi-Arabiens rolle i terrorangrebet d. 11. september. Og naturligvis har FBI's topledelse været dybt involveret i at mørklægge denne sag. Hvis nogen troede at FBI på en eller anden vis havde skiftet identitet siden de mørke dage under J. Edgar Hoover, får de sig noget af en overraskelse. Den eneste forskel er, at teknologierne og ressourcerne, der er tilgængelige i dag, er langt mere vidtrækkende. Og det var daværende FBI-chef Robert Mueller, der personligt satte en stopper for, at de 28 sider blev offentliggjort.

Og så udtalte pressesekretæren for det Hvide Hus, Josh Earnest, tirsdag – han har ellers under pres fra de pårørende til ofrene for 11. september flere gange udtalt, at en i det mindste delvis offentliggørelse af de 28 sider ville finde sted indenfor de næste måneder – at han bakkede fuldt op omkring Brennans udlægning af sagen i »Meet the Press« udsendelsen og at der ikke ville blive nogen offentliggørelse. Og han løj så det drev, idet han gentog Brennans løgn om, at de 28 sider indeholder ubegrundede foreløbige ledetråde. Og det på trods af, at der er snesevis af saudiarabiske embedsmænd og politiske figurer, der er dybt involveret i at samarbejde med flykaprerne før angrebet d. 11. september.

Så USA befinder sig på sin vis i sandhedens time. Hvis I, det amerikanske folk, ikke kan gennemtvinge denne sag, hvis ikke vi kan få offentliggjort de 28 sider, så er det muligvis et tegn på at denne nation ikke længere har den moralske integritet, der skal til, for at overleve. Tilbage i 70'erne, da Vietnamkrigen viste sig som et monster, der åd USA op indefra, havde Senator Mike Gravel modet til at offentliggøre de såkaldte »Pentagon Papers« (Pentagons hemmelige dokumentation af USA's Vietnam-politik – red.) ved at læse dem højt fra talerstolen i senatet, og det ændrede historien. Og det er den slags øjeblikke vi lige nu befinder os i. Vi har brug for at nogen udviser samme mod i dag, som Mike Gravel gjorde dengang. For hvis mørklægningen af den Angel-saudiske hånd bag 11. september bliver tilladt at fortsætte meget længere, vil denne nation have opgivet det, der retfærdiggør nationens eksistens.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del:

Lyd:

Den 5. maj, 2016 – Torsdag gav det russiske Mariinsky Teater Orkester i det klassiske amfiteater i den syriske by Palmyra en smuk koncert, betitlet, ”Med en bøn for Palmyra – Musik genopliver de klassiske mure”. Indtrykket af koncerten opløfter allerede millioner af mennesker verden over. Begivenheden var dedikeret til mindet om dem, der har mistet deres liv til terrorister.

Koncerten var i særdeleshed til minde om Dr. Khaled al-Assad (1934-2015), den syriske arkæolog, der var kustode for Palmyra-antikviteterne i 40 år, og som blev offentligt halshugget sidste august af IS, efter at have nægtet at give dem adgang til at ødelægge stadig flere statuer. Og ikke mindst til minde om den unge russiske specialstyrke-officer, Aleksandr Prokhorenko, der blev dræbt i midten af marts, efter at have tilkaldt russiske luftangreb på sin egen position, da han var omringet af IS under slaget om Palmyra. Han er posthumt blevet udnævnt til russisk helt, og hans legeme blev returneret hjem i dag.

Orkestrets dirigent Valery Gergiev ledede programmet, med hovedaktørerne Pavel Milyukov, førsteviolin og Sergei Roldugin, cello, sidstnævnte den kunstneriske direktør i Sankt Petersborgs Musikhus. I den officielle russiske delegation fandtes også direktøren for Sankt Petersborgs Eremitagemuseum, Mikhail Piotrovsky. Blandt publikum var også repræsentanter fra Kina, Zimbabwe og Serbien.

Det klassiske program omfattede Johann Sebastian Bachs Chaconne,  Sergei Prokofievs Første Symfoni, og et uddrag af den moderne russiske komponist Rodion Schedrins (enkemand efter den berømte russiske ballerina Maya Plisetskaya) opera, ”Ikke blot kærlighed.” Da Gergiev introducerede programmets musikstykker, påpegede han, at Prokofiev skrev sin symfoni ”i hyldest til fortidens store mestre – Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven,” hvis værker udtrykker ”optimisme og håb.”

Ved åbningen af begivenheden hilste den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin alle velkommen via live video fra Sotji. Han talte imod terrorisme og udtrykte påskønnelse af koncerten, som han kaldte et ”tegn på taknemmelighed, erindring og håb.” Han sagde, ”Jeg ser dette som et minde om alle ofrene for terroren, uanset tiden og stedet for forbrydelserne mod menneskeheden, og, selvfølgelig, som et håb, ikke blot for genopførelsen af Palmyra som et kulturelt aktiv for hele menneskeheden, men for den moderne civilisation, under denne tids skrækkelige tilstand, som er skabt af den internationale terrorisme.

Putin takkede musikerne og støtteaktørerne. ”Dagens aktioner involverede større ulejlighed og farer for alle, ved at befinde sig i et land i krig, tæt på, hvor fjendtlighederne stadig pågår. Det har krævet stor styrke og personligt mod fra jer alle. Mange tak.” Gregiev er en nær medarbejder til Putin, og cellist Roldugin en god ven.

Dirigent Gergiev talte før musikken – på russisk og engelsk. Han sagde, ”Vi protesterer imod barbarer, der ødelagde vidunderlige verdenskulturelle monumenter. Vi protesterer imod henrettelse af folk her på denne storartede scene,” idet han refererede til Islamisk Stats offentlige massedrab i amfiteatret sidste november. Gregiev er musikdirektør for Munchen Philharmoniske Orkester, så vel som dirigent for Mariinsky Teater Orkesteret.

Publikum fyldte amfiteatret. Sammen med lokale syrere, og militært personel fra både Syrien og Rusland, inkluderede notabiliteterne den russiske kulturminister Vladimir Medinsky, der har ledet indsatsen for at redde og restaurere antikviteterne fra Palmyra. Han var rørt til tårer over begivenheden.

Takket være superstærk optagelse, er selve koncerten, og billeder af den storslåede opsætning i Palmyra-ruinerne, nu bredt internationalt tilgængelig. Begivenheden er dagens hovednyhed i Rusland, og videoen breder sig hastigt verden over. RT udsendelsen af koncerten kan findes her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0hFIf4Zaw

Af Alexander Hartmann, redaktør af "Neue Solidarität".

7. maj 2016 — Vil den amerikanske præsident Obama indlade sig på en militær kraftprøve med Rusland og Kina endnu før sin tilbagetræden? Den slutning må man drage, når man betragter de nyeste bestræbelser inden for amerikansk politik: Umiddelbart efter at det var lykkedes for USA's udenrigsminister John Kerry og Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov at forhandle sig frem til en udvidelse af våbenstilstanden i Syrien på grundlag af aftalen i Geneve, hvor der skulle oprettes et særligt, større kontor i Geneve med russiske og amerikanske militærpersoner og diplomater for at overvåge våbenstilstanden, blev Kerry – øjensynligt af Obama – foranlediget til offentligt at stille et ultimatum til den syriske præsident Bashar Assad: Dersom Assad ikke træder tilbage inden den 1. august, så vil USA ”inddrage andre sider”. I betragtning af, at USA allerede er ved at indsætte amerikanske soldater i Syrien uden den syriske præsidents godkendelse, må der øjensynligt være tale om en større militær indsats, der har det udtrykkelige formål at fremtvinge et regimeskift i Syrien. Og dermed står det klart, at Rusland og Kina, der begge modsætter sig et udefra påtvungent regimeskift i Syrien og selv er militært til stede der, skal stilles over for et valg om enten at lade Assad falde – eller at tage en direkte militær konfrontation med USA med i beregningerne. Og samtidigt fortsætter den militære opmarch og indkredsningen over for Rusland og Kina med at skride fremad ”som en damptromle”, sådan som BüSo’s forkvinde Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede det den 4. maj på sit internetforum.

Afgørende er tiden frem til NATO-topmødet først i juli, hvor skabelsen af NATO's faste troppetilstedeværelse i Baltikum skal godkendes af NATO's medlemsstater.

Disse enheder skal ikke udstationeres permanent, men indsættes i skiftende hold – ligesom i krigsområder. UN News citerede en ubenævnt militær talsmand: ”Vi går fra gensidig hjælp over til afskrækning og fra gensidig hjælp over til opstilling til kamp.” Det samme gælder også for de amerikanske troppeoverførsler til Filippinerne. USA's regering har allerede anmodet kongressen om en firdobling af midlerne til den amerikanske troppeindsats i Østeuropa, og den har – både gennem forsvarsminister Ashton Carter såvel som gennem general Philip Breedlove, den hidtidige overkommandoindehaver over USA's tropper i Europa, og dennes efterfølger general Curtis Scaparrotti, som Carter overdrog kommandoen til den 3. maj i Stuttgart – også gjort det ganske klart, at den betragter Rusland og Kina som sine vigtigste fjender.

Øjensynligt er præsident Obama ude på at gennemtvinge en ”endegyldig løsning” af syriensproblemet efter sit eget sind, før han forlader embedet. Det er muligt, at dette set fra Obamas synsvinkel blot er ét stort blufnummer, hvormed han vil bevise over for sig selv og resten af verden, hvem der er ”herre i huset” – men hvis Obama skulle gå hen og forregne sig her, så kommer der til at blive en kernevåbenkrig mellem supermagterne. Det er på høje tid, at de fornuftige kræfter i de vestlige regeringer og parlamenter endelig tager sig sammen til at forhindre Obama i at udføre sådanne forrykte dumheder, for det farlige ved ultimatummer er, at de ofte frembringer en situation, hvor ingen af parterne længere kan trække sig tilbage.

Det er klart, at selvom Rusland og Kina samtidigt strækker hånden frem mod Vesten for en fornuftig samarbejdspolitik, kan de overhovedet ikke gøre andet end at reagere på den vestlige opmarch med selv at opruste og med forhøjet kampberedskab. Således meddelte Rusland for eksempel, at det som reaktion på NATO's oprustning i Østeuropa ville opstille tre nye divisioner, hver på 10.000 mand i løbet af året i sine vestlige og sydlige militærområder. Og det er ikke blot USA, der arbejder febrilsk på at modernisere sine atomvåben; Rusland og Kina gør nøjagtigt det samme.

Den nye Operation Barbarossa

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sammenligner NATO's opmarch i Østeuropa med ”Operation Barbarossa”, Det tredje Riges troppeopmarch for at overfalde Sovjetunionen, og begrundede denne påstand på sit internetforum. Efter Obamas besøg bekendtgjorde forbundskansler Merkel, at 250 tyske soldater straks skulle deltage i NATO's bataljoner i Baltikum. I Rusland genopvækkes erindringerne om Den store Fædrelandskrig kraftigt her for tiden, ”og når tyske soldater så her bare 71 efter afslutningen på anden verdenskrig udstationeres lige op til den russiske grænse i forholdsvis højt kampberedskab, så kan jeg meget vel forestille mig – ja, jeg føler mig fuldstændigt sikker på det – at det vil fremkalde virkeligt stærke følelser i Rusland. Hele NATO's politik er jo i grunden ikke andet end en indkredsning af Rusland og af Kina.”

Når man betragter den samlede strategi – lige fra sanktionerne mod Rusland over forsøgene på at iscenesætte farverevolutioner og til den oprustningsspiral, som Rusland og Kina er tvunget ind i – så bør det være klart, at dette sker med den hensigt at frembringe regimeskift. Det spørgsmål forbliver ubesvaret: ”Hvorfor skal atomvåbnene moderniseres? Alle amerikanske atomvåbenlagre skal moderniseres, de taktiske atomvåben B61-12 i Tyskland – det er angrebsvåben. Og hvad skal russerne mene om det?”

En offentlig debat savnes

Frem for alt kritiserede hun, at der hidtil ikke har fundet nogen offentlig debat sted omkring disse ting:

”Der er ikke engang nogen i Tyskland, der vover at udtale sig om sanktionerne – bortset fra med en tilbageholdende kritik. Men en debat om hele den militære dimension mangler egentlig fuldstændigt. Og det er virkeligt en skandale. Jeg mener, at vi virkeligt behøver en dramatisk ændring af vor politik, for vi skal selv bestemme over vore egne interesser i Tyskland og hele Europa. Bliver vi draget med ind i sådan en krig? … Skal vi virkeligt lade os drive ind i sådan en konfrontation, så at sige i ly af USA, der virkeligt sætter Tysklands eksistentielle interesser på spil? For hvis uheldet er ude, så ophører Tyskland med at eksistere.”

Det egentlige motiv

Det virkelige motiv bag konfrontationspolitikken over for Rusland og Kina, understregede hun, ligger i forhandlingerne om frihandelsaftalerne TPP (med de asiatiske nationer) og TTIP (med Europa), som USA's regering vil gennemtrumfe endnu før Obamas afgang. Dette demonstreredes af et indlæg fra præsident Obama i Washington Post med den megetsigende overskrift: ”Amerika – og ikke Kina – fastsætter reglerne.” ”Heri siger han, at Sydasien og Sydøstasien udvikler sig med rasende fart, og vi – USA – kan ikke tillade, at Kina fastlægger reglerne, for det gør vi! Og dermed har han egentlig lukket katten ud af sækken. For også ved den føromtalte militære oprustning og ved konfrontationsscenarierne drejer det sig egentlig kun om én ting. Såvel ved TPP, TTIP som ved NATO's oprustning over for Rusland og naturligvis også i Det sydkinesiske Hav, i Korea, i hele den militære dimension, drejer det sig kun om ét enkelt tema – og det er at forsvare USA's enevældige position med alle midler.”

I Det sydkinesiske Hav drejer det sig med sikkerhed ikke om et par klippeøer, og den frie sejlads er heller ikke krænket blot en eneste gang, det er alt sammen blot grov propaganda. Tværtimod ønsker Obama at konsolidere ”USA's krav om overherredømme over Stillehavet og sandsynligvis også snart over Det indiske Hav, det vil sige over alle verdenshavene… Det drejer sig om at opretholde den unipolære verden.” Men det er så at sige fortid nu, for den er holdt op med at eksistere. ”Asien stiger opad, Kina udvikler sig, andre asiatiske stater, Indien, det, som før kaldtes for tigerøkonomierne, udvikler sig med rasende fart.” Kinas regering har reageret meget køligt på Obamas artikel ved at slå fast, at handelsreglerne ikke skal fastsættes af ét land, men af alle de inddragne nationer. Og under et møde i Australien, hvor det drejede sig om den kinesiske handelsaftale, deltog 15 lande, ”der øjensynligt fandt de af Kina foreslåede betingelser for langt mere attraktive end TPP, der egentlig kun har til formål at holde Kina udenfor.”

Thukydid-fælden

Men det afgørende punkt er dog, ”at alle imperier i historien er gået under som følge af at have forstrakt sig… USA har forstrakt sig her for tiden, de økonomiske tal er katastrofale – både hvad angår tallene for arbejdspladserne og tallene for den produktionsstigning, der i de sidste fem år har været nul eller endnu lavere. Det vil sige, at USA's fysiske økonomi skrumper mere og mere ind, og banksektoren er naturligvis blot en kæmpeboble, der har det endnu værre end i 2008 og truer med at eksplodere – ligesom i Europa.”

Hun fortsatte: ”Med andre ord, så er dette en politik, der ikke er holdbar, og det gør den også så farlig.” For der er kræfter i den transatlantiske sektor, der reagerer således på denne udvikling i Asien, at de er ved at gå i den såkaldte Thukydid-fælde, som den tidligere amerikanske generalstabschef flere gange har advaret om, nemlig konflikten mellem Athen og Sparta i det klassiske Grækenland, som Thukydid beskrev, ”hvor den ene parts opstigning førte til den anden sides krigsførelse og dermed startede den peloponnesiske krig, der i sidste ende førte til det klassiske Grækenlands undergang.” Det er noget, der i dag i brintbombernes tidsalder, og hvor der er tale om overgang fra afskrækning til kampberedskab og mobilitetstilstand for tropperne, er ekstremt bekymrende. ”Jeg har sagt det så tit: Vi behøver en offentlig debat. Hvor er Tysklands interesser henne? Tysklands interesser er netop ikke fremmedfjendtlighed eller ”lukkede grænser”, for den eneste måde Tyskland kan sikre sin eksistens på længere sigt er ved at indlede et nyt paradigme og deltage i det med andre stater, frem for alt med hele Eurasien, der så i fællesskab kan løse de problemer, der berører os alle: Det nære og mellemste Østens fuldstændige ødelæggelse og den frygtelige situation i Afrika. Og den eneste mulighed, vi har for at slippe ud af alle de konflikter, er den, at vi sammen med Rusland og Kina udbygger Den nye Silkevej til en Verdenslandbro.”

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

<iframe width=”100%” height=”450″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”no” src=”https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/263241683&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;visual=true”></iframe>

D. 3. maj – Kina og Rusland gjorde det i dag officielt, at de udfører fælles anti-ballistisk missil forsvarsøvelser som direkte respons på, at ABM systemer bliver etableret rundt om deres grænser af Obama administrationen. Dette er en ekstraordinær handling. Det er blot det mest synlige tegn på, at de eurasiske magter tager strategiske skridt imod de eskalerende militære og økonomiske krigstrusler, rettet imod dem af den britisk kontrollerede Obama.
Vi er i forstadiet af en verdenskrig. Truslen er Obamas samtidige pivoter, bestående i at omringe og konfrontere både Rusland og Kina militært, samtidigt med offentligt at forlange, at USA’s allierede tilslutter sig en handelskrig, for at forkrøble Kina økonomisk.
Denne arrogante krigspræsident tror, at han offentligt kan udstede ordrer til Kina vedrørende dets økonomiske relationer, knuse den russiske økonomi med sanktioner, presse regionale nationer ind i alliancer for militære aktioner til konfrontation af de eurasiske magter.

Dette alt imens Kinas og Indiens økonomier vokser med 7 % om året, USA og Europas med nul.
De bankerotte finansielle magter centreret i City of London og Wall Street udhuler og konsumerer deres egne økonomier, alt imens de bruger Obama som deres instrument til at udnytte det amerikanske militære og termonukleare magt imod et nyt økonomisk paradigme.
Reaktionen hos de eurasiske magter på den trussel om verdenskrig, som Obama repræsenterer, er primært økonomisk – idet de gennemfører et nyt paradigme for verdensomspændende udvikling af produktiv infrastruktur, videnskabeligt samarbejde, rumforskning.
Tilbageslaget i Europa imod Obamas anti-kinesiske handelskrigsvåben viser, at de trusler, som han udsteder mod dette nye paradigme ikke virker.

Men hans intention om at omringe og provokere Rusland og Kina, sågar til et punkt på nippet af en total krig, vil fortsat være til stede, med mindre amerikanere tvinger ham ud af embedet ved rigsretssag eller fratrædelse.
Grundlaget er der. Obama er, trods alt, medskyldig i, sammen med saudi-britisk efterretningsvirk­somhed, at dække over drabene på 3000 amerikanere d. 11. september, og siden da, at lancere endeløse krige.
Handling er, hvad der behøves. Så vil det nye paradigme være åbent for at genoplive den kollapsede amerikanske økonomi.

Kina og Rusland i samarbejde om missilforsvar

D. 4. maj, 2016 Kina og Rusland har besluttet at holde en fælles computeraktiveret anti-missil forsvarsøvelse i maj, skrev Peoples Liberation Army’s avis {Liberation Daily} i onsdags.
Kommando- og personeløvelsen med kodenavnet “Aerospace Security-2016” vil blive holdt på det de Russiske Luftforsvarsstyrkers videnskabelige forskningscenter. Det er den første øvelse af sin slags afholdt i fællesskab af de to lande.
Det russiske forsvarsministerium udtalte, “Hovedformålet med øvelsen er – ved at holde sådanne øvelser med fælles luftforsvar og anti-missil forsvarsoperationer, – at forbedre de to landes evne til at håndtere en situation med tilfældige og provokerende angreb med ballistiske- og krydsermissiler på de to landes territorium.”
Det sker som respons på det amerikanske forsøg på at basere et THAAD antimissil system på Sydkoreansk territorium, hvilket begge lande ser som en trussel imod dem.
Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi sagde, at evt. etablering af THAAD-systemet overskrider de relevante landes behov for forsvar. Hvis det gennemføres, vil det direkte indvirke på Kinas og Ruslands strategiske sikkerhed, ” rapporterede {Liberation Daily}.
Den russiske forsvarsminister annoncere også i fredags, at de to lande vil øge det samlede antal af deres fælles militærøvelser i 2016.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

EIR-videointerview med astronaut Andreas Mogensen efter konferencen på Christiansborg, om rumindustriens muligheder, 2. maj 2016

EIR: Hvordan ser du samarbejdet med Kina, og deres ambitiøse program?

Mogensen: Vi samarbejder også med Kina hos ESA; de bliver en vigtig samarbejdspartner i fremtiden. De er så bare ikke i dag en del af samarbejdet bag Rumstationen. Men vi håber da på, i hvert fald fra europæisk side, at få etableret et samarbejde, og jeg også, at der er en god chance for, at vi en dag ser en europæisk astronaut ombord på den næste, kinesiske rumstation. Hør mere.  

Se også:
Optagelser fra konferencen på Christiansborg den 2. maj 2016, om rumindustriens muligheder, inkl. astronaut Andreas Mogensen

Obama-administrationens beslutning søndag om at kritisere Kongressens rapport om 11. september og dens 28 siders sektion om Saudi Arabiens medvirken i anslagene, kan få en omgående boomerang-effekt mod Obama selv. Spørgsmålet om meddelagtighed i uhyrlige terrorforbrydelser er involveret; og ligeså er spørgsmålet om at forhindre Obamas britiske/saudiske krigspolitik i at udløse global termonuklear krig.

Obama har – ligesom hans forgænger George W. Bush – holdt disse 28 sider hemmelige i otte år mere, og arrogant ignoreret og modsat sig et ønske fra ofrene og de overlevende fra 11. september, om at få dem frigivet.
CIA direktør John Brennans fremtræden i ”Møde med Pressen” søndag, hvor han hævdede at bevismaterialet i de 28 sider er usandt, og modsatte sig at frigive dem, optrapper Obamas forræderiske dækken over Saudi Arabiens forbrydelser d. 11. september.
I næsten en måned, efter tidligere senator Bob Graham i programmet ”60 minutter” påviste hvor isoleret det Hvide Hus er i at lægge skjul på bevismaterialet – idet man bruger FBI til at intimidere dem, der indsamler og undersøger det – har der været en større debat i de politiske institutioner og medier overalt i USA.
Men spørgsmålet er blevet virkeligt varmt i New York City, hvor Lyndon LaRouches “Manhattan Projekt” har mobiliseret en by, hvis befolkning stadig ønsker retfærdighed ved at få sandheden om 11.september offentliggjort.
Frigivelse af de 28 sider og andet skjult dokumentarisk bevismateriale om 11. september kunne tillige i en bredere forstand slippe retfærdigheden løs. Det kunne betyde retsforfølgelse af Obama og Bush for forsætlig undertrykkelse af beviserne for, hvem der virkeligt myrdede 3000 amerikanere, og skræmte millioner af andre til at indvillige i katastrofale krige og vidtstrakte nye FBI beføjelser.
Da CIA direktør Brennan i søndags sagde “Nej”, burde de forskellige balloner, som det Hvide Hus har sendt op vedrørende review af de 28 sider med henblik på ”snarlig” frigivelse, være punkteret. Sandheden vil ikke komme ud på denne måde, med retfærdighed til følge. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, ved en rigsretssag, med henblik på yderligere retsforfølgelse ved domstolene for forræderi. Det er hvad LaRouches ”Manhatten Projekt” mobiliserer for, og på den måde kan der sættes en stopper for hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider af Kongressens undersøgelse, sammen med Saudiernes straffrihed for deres forbrydelser.
Men det giver os også chancen for retfærdighed i en endnu bredere forstand: Forbrydelserne inkluderer (fortsat) at starte krige for at erstatte stabile regeringer med kaos, og (fortsat) – til denne dag – at støtte islamistiske jihadgrupper. Særligt siden attentatet på den Libyske leder Gadaffi i 2011 har det stået klart for os, at målet i sidste instans for disse krige er Rusland og Kina.
Ultimativt har planlæggerne været den britiske imperialistiske finansmagt, der søger at destruere Kina/Indien/Rusland–alternativet til dets kollaps. Obama og Saudierne har udført arbejdet.
Obama har optrappet provokationenerne til krig med Rusland, Kina eller begge, en krig, der kun kan være termonuklear og total. At tvinge ham ud nu standser kursen mod krigskonfrontation, der kun kan ende med destruktion af civilisationerne.
Deltag i mobiliseringen for retfærdigheden.

Schiller Instituttets optagelse.

Se også EIR's og Schiller Instituttets kort interview med Andreas Mogensen efter konferencen. (kommer senere)

1. del:

2. del:

Program:

Ordstyrer: Helge Sander

15.00 MF Orla Hav byder velkommen

15.03 praktiske forhold ved ordstyrer Helge Sander

15.05 rumlovens perspektiver. Ulla Tørnæs.

15.13 Andreas Mogensen præsenteres

15.15 indlæg under overskriften "de industrielle muligheder indenfor rumfart".

15.25 Niels Buus, Gomspace Aalborg.

15.30 Peter Sloth, kontoret for Rum, uddannelses- og forskningsministeriet.

15.35 Charlotte Rønhof, Dansk Industri (erstattet af en anden fra DI)

15.30 Torben Andersen Lindhardt, Dansk Metal.

15.45 Morten Bødskov, MF Socialdemokraterne, formand for Ehrvervsudvalget

15.50 Jakob Engel-Schmidt, MF Venstre, i Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget

15.55 der indsamles spørgsmål til Andreas Mogensen.

16.00 Andreas Mogensen besvarer indsamlede spørgsmål stillede af Helge Sander.

30. april 2016 — Betragter man NATO’s forskellige aktiviteter over for Rusland såvel som de amerikanske styrkers over for Kina, så får man et billede af en politik, der er lagt an på indkredsning og provokation, og som i sidste ende egentlig kun kan munde ud i den store katastrofe. At lige netop den tyske regering nu vil udstationere tyske soldater som en del af NATO’s tusinde mand store bataljon i Litauen – 71 år efter Hitlers tilintetgørende nederlag under hans vanvittige felttog mod Sovjetunionen – det er en skandale.
Efter at præsident Obama allerede inden sit sidste besøg i Hannover havde tilkendegivet, at han ville kræve et større militært engagement og større økonomiske bidrag fra Tysklands side, havde forbundskansler Merkel intet bedre at tage sig til end »bag lukkede døre« at forsikre Storbritanniens, Frankrigs og Italiens regeringschefer på det såkaldte minitopmøde med præsident Obama i Hannover, at det tyske militær nok skulle bidrage til NATO’s fortsatte østekspansion. Endegyldigt skal denne mission med skiftende, kort udstationeret mandskab vedtages på det kommende NATO-topmøde i Warszawa i begyndelsen af juli, hvor en hel række yderligere offensive forholdsregler ligeledes skal sættes i gang mod Rusland.
På sikkerhedskonferencen i Moskva, der lige har fundet sted, advarede den russiske NATO-gesandt Alexander Grusjko om konsekvenserne af NATO’s konfrontationspolitik på dennes østflanke som for eksempel den såkaldte permanente tropperotation (hvoraf de tyske tropper kun skal udgøre en del), den fortsatte udstationering af tunge våbensystemer i forskellige østeuropæiske stater, uafbrudte manøvrer, vedvarende overvågning af luftrummet, og forstærkning af flådeenhederne i Østersøen og Sortehavet. Under den sidste episode i Østersøen, hvor russiske kampfly fløj hen mod amerikanske krigsskibe, der befandt sig godt 120 km fra den russiske enklave Kaliningrads kyst, påberåbte man sig fra amerikansk side den såkaldte »anti access/area denial« (A2AD) og hævdede, at Rusland forhindrer den frie adgang til militær hjælp til De baltiske Lande – hvor det i virkeligheden drejede sig om at stille spørgsmål ved Ruslands ret til at forsvare sig selv i umiddelbar nærhed af sine egne grænser.
Noget andet, der forberedes, er militære brigader, der skal sammensættes af tropper fra Bulgarien, Rumænien, Ukraine såvel som Litauen og Polen. Også udbygningen af det amerikanske raketforsvarssystem i Østeuropa fortsætter uforstyrret, selv om enhver begrundelse om, at dette forsvarssystem skal tjene som værn mod iranske raketter, er faldet bort med »P5+1«-aftalen med Iran. Det er nu helt klart, at det skal tjene til at udslette Ruslands mulighed for gengældelsesangreb.

Det kan kun forklares som et eksempel på kollektiv lammelse og hukommelsestab, at så godt som ingen i Tyskland stiller det spørgsmål, hvorfor Obamaadministrationen i de kommende år vil give en billion dollars (!) til at modernisere det samlede amerikanske kernevåbenarsenal – indbefattet de i Tyskland udstationerede taktiske kernevåben B61-12 – for (sammen med stealth-fly) at gøre det mere »indsatsegnet«, sådan som det for nylig fastsloges under en høring i det amerikanske senat af fru senator Feinstein. Alt dette finder stadig sted i et miljø, som militæranalytikere som Ted Postol eller Hans Kristensen betegner som farligere end højdepunktet af den kolde krig, altså Kubakrisen, hvilket fik personligheder som Mikhail Gorbatjov og den afdøde Helmut Schmidt til for ikke særligt lang tid siden til at advare mod en tredje verdenskrig.

Denne gang går fru Merkels og de karrieresyge militærpersoners imødekommende, vasalagtige troskab for vidt. Tysklands øgede deltagelse i NATO’s indkredsningsstrategi over for Rusland, hvor NATO rykker helt frem til Ruslands grænser, og ikke omvendt – den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov talte om et »beskidt forsøg på at stille sandheden på hovedet« – , sætter selve Tysklands eksistens på spil, idet der intet vil blive tilbage af landet eller dets indbyggere, dersom en atomkrig virkeligt finder sted. Og ingen kan overbevise os om, at fru Merkel, fru von der Leyen (den tyske forssvarsminister) og forsvarsledelsen overhovedet intet skulle vide om dette.

Oven i NATO-operationerne mod Rusland kommer de amerikanske stridskræfters ligeledes eskalerende provokationer over for Kina – hvor USA slår på »den frie sejlret i havet« i Det sydkinesiske Hav, selv om Kina ikke en eneste gang har forhindret denne – de hermed begrundede krænkende overflyvninger af det kinesiske territorium, de omstridte øer og rev, forsøget på at udnytte krisen omkring Nordkorea til at udstationere det mod Kina og Rusland vendte THAAD-raketsystem i Sydkorea, og udsendelsen af yderligere 250 amerikanske specialtropper i Syrien uden tilladelse fra den syriske regering, uden mandat fra FNs sikkerhedsråd og uden den nødvendige bemyndigelse fra den amerikanske kongres, sådan som den amerikanske forfatning kræver det.

Alt dette er elementer af en yderst risikabel politik. Er den lagt an på at lokke Rusland og Kina i en fælde for at fremprovokere reaktioner, der så kan bruges som påskud for stort anlagte straffeaktioner? Drejer det sig om opmarch for et førsteangreb, der svarer til de forskellige doktriner såsom Prompt Global Strike eller Air-Sea Battle? Tror man virkeligt i fuldt alvor, at udgifterne til en ny oprustningsspiral i kombination med farverevolutioner vil fremkalde regimeskift i Moskva og Beijing, fordi landenes befolkninger vil rejse sig mod Putin og Xi Jinping? Alle disse varianter er vanvittige. I alle tilfælde risikerer man at udslette menneskeheden i en verdensomspændende, termonukleær krig.

Problemet er hveken Rusland eller Kina, men den neoliberale finanspolitik, der ligger til grund for en indbildt nødvendighed af at udvide den transatlantiske imperialistiske politik. Fastholdelsen af denne politik er i sidste ende grunden til, at der ikke er nogen, der taler om »årsager« til den flygtningekrise, der er resultatet af de på løgne begrundede krige i Sydvestasien, og af den politik, der har nægtet Afrika udvikling på grund af Den internationale Valutafonds berygtede kreditbetingelser. Det var denne politik, der åbnede en uudholdelig afgrund mellem rig og fattig i mange dele af verden, og som synes rede til at at ofre alt til gavn for få og på manges bekostning på højrisikospekulationens alter. Og netop denne politik er håbløst bankerot, sådan som de lige så afsindige debatter om »helikopter-penge« demonstrerer.

Bare tanken om, at vi her 71 år efter det fuldstændige nederlag for nationalsocialisterne, der bragte uendelige lidelser over den russiske befolkning såvel som mange andre lande – ikke mindst vort eget – atter kan deltage i en »Operation Barbarossa« mod Rusland, må tilbagevises med fuldt eftertryk, også i praksis. Når alle de for tiden planlagte optrapninger, indbefattet Ukraines og Georgiens tilbudte medlemskab som »associerede partnere« til NATO, hvilket Rusland for længst har betegnet som en rød linje – når det mulige NATO-medlemskab for Finland og Sverige og udsendelsen af enheder fra det tyske forsvar til Litauen besluttes på det kommende NATO-topmøde, så befinder vi os sandsynligvis på den direkte vej til Helvede.

Vi må benytte de to resterende måneder til at fremføre at alternativ, og et sådant er »Win-win«-sammenarbejdet med Rusland og Kina, uden hvilket intet af de problemer, der truer vor eksistens – krigsfaren, det truende finanskrak, flygtningekrisen eller terrorismen – vil kunne løses. Og vi kan ikke gøre det sande Amerika nogen større tjeneste end ved at stå fast på dette samarbejde.

Der er en udvej: Vi må sammen med Rusland, Kina og Indien udbygge Den nye Silkevej for at fremkalde en økonomisk opbygning af Sydvestasien og Afrika og for at genopbygge vor egen produktive økonomi; og vi må gøre det klart for Amerika, at vi ikke er rede til at begå selvmord for at opretholde et imperium, der for længst har forstrakt sig ved sin egen opførsel. Derimod indtager George Washingtons, Alexander Hamiltons, Abraham Lincolns, Franklin D. Roosevelts og John F. Kennedys Amerika en æresplads inden for den samlede menneskehed.

(Desværre kom videobilledet ikke frem p.g.a. en teknisk fejl, men der er lyd.)

Ambassadør Peter Taksøe-Jensen præsenterede sin udredning af dansk udenrigspolitik på Københavns Universitet den 2. maj 2016. Schiller Instituttet stillede et spørgsmål, om at i stedet for at betragte Rusland som værende på den anden side, at vi burde samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, om at forlænge Silkeven til Mellemøsten og Afrika, som en måde at forhindre terror, flygtninge, og en ustabil område. Ambassadør Taksøe-Jensen svarede således:

Jeg synes ikke — det er svært at ikke være glade for, at der er ført en fast politik overfor Rusland, når Rusland har besluttet sig for at ændre den europæiske sikkerhedsordning. Så at slå ind på et samarbejdspolitik nu, det vil ikke føre frem til, tror jeg, at vi vil få et mere sikkert eller stabil Europa end den politik vi har ført både i NATO og EU, og hvor Danmark har bakket fuldt op om det.

Men idéen om at prøve at udbrede vores samarbejde med Kina, og prøve at bygge økonomiske udvikling, og opbygge Silkevejen, det synes jeg bestemt giver mening, fordi hvis vi kikker på hvad der har bragt flest mennesker ud af fattigdommen, så har det været økonomisk vækst, og det synes jeg da er noget vi kan bidrage med, som en del af vores formål. Det har også den positive afledte effekt at det også er [på denne måde] at vi bekæmper fattigdom.

Den falskstemplede “enhedsregering” i Libyen under premierminister Fayez al-Sarraj har udført dens berammede opgave. Til trods for det faktum, at ingen af de to store politiske blokke i Libyen støtter ham, er han blevet installeret og anerkendt af de vestlige nationer, og har nu, som det var planlagt, opfordret den italienske premierminister Renzi til, at Europa ”tilvejebringer beskyttelse for oliefelterne.” Denne opfordring kom blot timer efter, at Obama mødtes med de fallerede europæiske ledere (Cameron, Merkel, Hollande og Renzi) i mandags, d. 25. april. Som planlagt brugte Obama den gennem-uredelige appel om en invasionsstyrke fra den bedrageriske premierminister Sarraj til at forlange, at NATO reagerer på opfordringen. Nu forberedes tropper til at blive flyttet ind i Libyen til anden fase af Obamas massakre på libyere.
Skønt Syrien næppe kan kaldes en “ny” krig – Obama har trods alt i 5 år støttet Saudi-finansierede terrorister i af hjælpe ham med at udføre et statskup mod Bashar al-Assads legitime regering – har Obama  nu forvandlet krigen til en officiel amerikansk invasion, og annonceret at 250 amerikanske specialtropper sendes til landet, for at slutte sig til de 50, der allerede er der. Tre hundrede u-inviterede udenlandske tropper sendt til et land, af en præsident, der er optaget af at dræbe statsoverhovedet, kan kun kaldes for en invasion. Samtidig har den Saudi-kontrollerede opposition trukket sig ud af fredsforhandlingerne i Geneve, lanceret militære operationer i Aleppo, og truer med helt at bryde våbenhvilen.
Dette kommer samtidigt med, at Obama vil placere verdens mest destruktive militærstyrker lige op til de Russiske grænser i Europa under det utroligt absurde påskud, at Rusland planlægger en invasion af de baltiske lande, eller sågar Vesteuropa.
Obamas handlinger i Sydvestasien og Europa har placeret USA i en direkte ’face-to-face’ konfrontation med Rusland, og præsident Putin. Hvis Obamas morderiske raseren ikke stoppes omgående, vil han have held med at lancere krig over hele planeten.
Grundlaget for Obamas omgående fjernelse fra embedet er nu på forsiderne over hele USA og meget af verden – han er direkte ansvarlig for at dække over det Saudiske ansvar for terroristangrebene på USA 11. september, der dræbte næsten 3000 borgere i New York City og andre. Faktisk kom Obamas annoncering af de to nye krige blot timer efter hans indsmigrende fedteri for den engelske Dronning, og før det tilsvarende fedteri for Kongen af Saudi-Arabien, der selv er en marionet for det britiske monarki. Ordrerne blev overgivet til det britiske imperiums stråmand, og deres loyale tjener fulgte instruktionerne til punkt og prikke.
Lyndon LaRouche, som over de seneste 18 måneder har mobiliseret New York Citys indbyggere gennem klassisk musik, videnskab, politisk realitet, og en kalden til kamp i et projekt han kalder Manhattan Projektet, sagde i dag, at forsøget på at dække over den britisk/saudiske rolle i 11. september angrebet ikke længere vil blive tolereret af den amerikanske befolkning – specielt newyorkere – som forlanger at få sandheden om 11. september , og om hvorfor 14 års ”krig mod terror” under Bush og Obama ikke kun har forfejlet at besejre terrorisme, men faktisk har placeret USA på terroristernes side!
”Jeg kender temperamentet hos folk i New York City,” sagde LaRouche. ”De vil givet forsage enhver, der fortsat prøver at dække over de saudiske terrorister.” Han opfordrede amerikanerne til at være barske, og insistere på, at Obama i sig selv er en forbrydelse mod verden, og at en holden hånd over hans forbrydelser er forræderisk, fordi det hastigt bringer os frem til global termonuklear krig. Mange ledende amerikanere, inklusiv mange højtrangerende officerer i det amerikanske militær, og et flertal af den amerikanske befolkning, ved, at dette er sandt. En tid som denne retfærdiggør ikke kompromiser, eftersom det er menneskeheden selv, der står på spil.

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

Video: 2. del:

Lyd:

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

23. april 2016 – Uden en ordentlig offentlig debat om en udvikling, der omhandler vort alles liv og menneskehedens fremtidige eksistens, har verden atter for længst befundet sig i en kold krig og en global oprustningsspiral. USA’s og NATO’s forsøg på at gennemføre en unipolær verdensorden, selv om dette for længst er holdt op med at svare til de faktiske magtforhold på denne planet, risikerer at fremkalde nye krige – og i atomvåbnenes tidsalder vil det sige den tredje, og dermed sidste, verdenskrig.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Mens verdens medier fokuserer opmærksomheden på Saudi Arabiens hånd bag angrebene d. 11. september – og al efterfølgende jihad-terror jorden rundt – og præsident Barack Obamas dække over disse forbrydelser, skal de egentlige ophavsmænd til dette massedrabs-program ikke findes i Riyadh eller det Hvide Hus, men i London. Det er aldeles passende og korrekt, at den britiske agent, og nøglefigur i at dække over 11. september Barack Obama, styrer direkte fra Riyadh til London senere i denne uge for, endnu engang, at hylde den britiske Dronning.

Saudi-Arabien har altid været den britiske Krones ejendom, tilbage til Lawrence af Arabiens tid, og den oprindelige generation af Huset Saud og Wahhabi-gejstligheden. Faktisk daterer britisk kontrol over de Persiske Golfemirater sig tilbage til det britiske Østindiske Kompagnis velmagtsdage i det attende og nittende århundrede. Men dette britiskkontrollerede partnerskab med de saudiske kongelige blev sat på langt mere formel og aktiv fod i 1985, da Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, en selverklæret britisk agent, sluttede Al-Yamamah handlen med Margaret Thatcher, og derved etablerede olie-for-våben tuskhandels-systemet, under hvilket hundreder af milliarder af dollars blev afsondret til britiske offshore finansielle fristeder – til finansiering af terrorisme, kup og snigmord jorden over.

Det er denne del af 11. september, der indtil nu har manglet fra den, nu på høje tid, offentlige opstand over hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider fra den originale fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. september. Hvor fik den saudiske USA-ambassadør prins ”Bandar Bush” pengene fra til at finansiere de to ledende 11. september flykaprere i San Diego? Fra Al Yamamah kontoen i Bank of England, der gik til hans personlige bankkonto i Riggs National Bank i Washington. Det var hans del af Al Yamamah-rovet, minimum $2 milliarder.

Uden beskyttelse fra Londonistan ville der ikke være et Saudisk kongedømme, ingen infrastruktur til jihad-terrorisme, ingen global stof-epidemi og ingen trussel om global udryddelseskrig.

Helt tilbage fra før de faktiske 11. september angreb, som Lyndon LaRouche overværede på live-TV mens han gav et interview til den populære radiovært fra Utah Jack Stockwell, advarede LaRouche om en truende Rigsdagsbrand, iscenesat under Bush-Cheney administrationen for at drive USA hen imod en diktaturstat. I december 2000 havde Executive Intelligence Review formelt begæret, at det amerikanske State Department satte Storbritannien på listen over statssponsorer af terrorisme. Dokumentet angav detaljeret snesevis af formelle klager fra regeringer rundt om i verden imod Londons husly til, og finansiering af, terrorister og voldelige separatister.

Der var rigeligt med lejlighed til at stoppe masse-blodsudgydelserne inklusiv 11. september ved at tage fat på menneskehedens virkelige fjende – det britiske Imperium. Undladelsen af at gøre dette i den nylige fortid har bragt os i det graverende øjeblik af krise, hvor et desperate og bankerot britisk Imperium er parat til at sprænge verden i luften, hellere end at afstå dets magt. Nu er øjeblikket inde til at slå den saudiske terrormaskine, sammen med det britiske Imperium, der i virkeligheden kører showet, ud. Bryd dækket over 11. september, og tag Obama ned sammen med anglo-saudierne. Det er muligvis menneskehedens sidste og bedste chance for overlevelse.

I takt med at presset fortsat vokser på Obama for at frigive de 28 sider om d. 11. september, inklusiv at tidligere senator Bob Graham i denne uge har skrevet en ledende artikel, hvori han undsiger det "aggressive bedrag", som to på hinanden følgende administrationer har forøvet mod det amerikanske folk, begynder vi i aften kl. 8 pm. (eastern time) vores webudsendelse med en særlig video-erklæring fra Lyndon LaRouche personligt. Han hævder en afgørende britisk skyld i komplottet, hvorefter Jeffrey Steinberg indtager podiet for i detaljer at udlægge sine eksklusive undersøgelser i disse britisk-saudiske forbindelser. Jeff Steinberg diskuterer også implikationerne af det nyligt frigivne 47-siders dokument forfattet af undersøgerne i 11. september Kommissionen, i hvilken de forslog en efterforskning af den rolle, som agenturer indenfor den amerikanske regering spillede i at dække over den saudiske rolle i angrebene, men som de blev blokeret i at foretage.

Engelsk udskrift.

As the pressure continues to increase on Obama to release the 28 pages on 9/11, including former Senator Bob Graham authoring an editorial this week in which he denounces the "aggressive deception" which two consecutive administrations have perpetrated against the American people, we begin our webcast tonight at 8 pm eastern witha special video statement from Lyndon LaRouche personally in which he asserts the British culpability in the plot, after which Jeffrey Steinberg takes the podium to lay out in detail his exclusive research into these British-Saudi connections. Jeff Steinberg also discusses the implications of a newly released 47-page document authored by researchers on the 9/11 Commission in which they proposed to investigate the role that agencies within the US government played in covering up for the Saudi role in the attacks, but were blocked from doing so.

'JASTA' Act Passed in 2012, and Obama Signed It — Against Iran

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com. You're watching the Friday evening webcast for April 22nd, 2016. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review. And the two of us had a meeting with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think that the presentation that Jeff gives tonight will be a very significant presentation, elaborating on some remarks that Mr. LaRouche had to say just yesterday on the question of the story behind and beyondthe 28 pages.

Now, as those of you who are watching this broadcast tonight probably know, we are living in a truly momentous period of history. Over the last two weeks, since the "60 Minutes" episode which elaborated the story of the so-called "28 pages," the redacted chapter of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11, that has been classified by both the Bush and the Obama administrations; since that broadcast, there has been an unrelenting stream of media coverage of this story, in almost all of the major national press in the United States, and also internationally, in Europe and elsewhere. There has also been a relentless attack, directly, on Obama, by name, for his refusal to declassify these 28 pages, despite the promises that he has given to the 9/11 families; and also for his open and explicit opposition to the lawsuit that families have waged against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the bill that they have introduced into the United States Senate, the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow those victims to sue the state-sponsors of the 9/11 attacks.

Now, as you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, we have been covering this story for years, very closely. We've been following the efforts of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA), and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the House of Representatives, who have introduced a bill, now over two years ago, House Resolution 14 (H.R.14), which was previously House Resolution 428, calling on Obama to declassify the 28 pages; and they've worked very closely with former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and was co-chairman of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report.

Bob Graham has been very vocal, for years, in calling for the 28 pages to be released. I had the pleasure of interviewing him at an event in Florida in November of 2014, and at that time, he was very clear that if the 28 pages had not been classified and suppressed, you would not be seeing the threat of terrorism that we're facing today from al-Qaeda and from ISIS, both of which have received direct funding from individuals connected with the Saudi regime.

Bob Graham wrote a very clear and very blunt op-ed that was published in the Florida newspaper TCPalm, which was titled, "28 Pages: How Our Government Has Used Deceit To Withhold Truth From the American People." This op-ed was published on Wednesday, to be timed directly in coincidence with President Obama's landing in Riyadh, to hold a joint bilateral summit with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. In this op-ed, Senator Graham is perhaps more explicit than he has ever been. He said, "This was not just a cover-up." The suppression of the 28 pages and other evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 was the result of what he calls "an aggressive deception." He says, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth." The reason for this deceit, he says, "is to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from its complicity in the murder of 2,977 Americans. On April 15, the New York Timesreported: 'Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.'" That is obviously a blackmail threat against the United States, and that's what they said publicly; one can only wonder what the Saudis were threatening behind closed doors.

What Senator Graham goes on to say in this op-ed is: "If that is not sufficient to get your blood boiling, read on: [the New York Timeswrites] 'The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill's passage.'"

Now, Senator Graham elaborates that there have been multiple forms of what he calls this "aggressive deceit"; not only the suppression of the 28 pages. He said the 28 pages would disclose the sources of funding for the attack on 9/11; this has been under review for declassification for three years, which was three times the amount of time that it took to research, author and publish, the original Congressional Inquiry report which was 838 pages long! He said, secondly, "The 28 pages are the most iconic, but not the only, evidence to be withheld from the report of the congressional inquiry. The report is pocked by hundreds of specific redactions."

And then he says, thirdly, "Investigations at locales where the hijackers lived and plotted prior to the attacks also have been classified. One of those involves Mohamed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, and two of his henchmen who are alleged to have collaborated with a prominent Saudi family who lived in Sarasota for six years before abruptly departing for Saudi Arabia two weeks before 9/11."

Senator Graham says, "The FBI publicly described its Sarasota investigation as complete, and said it found no connection between the hijackers and the family. Later, responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit, the FBI released an investigative report that said the family had 'many connections' to individuals tied to the terrorist attacks. The FBI for two years has aggressively resisted releasing that report," Graham says. [emphasis added] And this is part of a much bigger story, that goes beyond just the 28 pages per se.

Now, Senator Graham concludes that op-ed by saying there are three reasons why the 28 pages must be released: One is justice for the families; two is national security, and he said: The fact that Saudis, and their "blatant attempts to avoid liability as co-conspirators in the crime of 9/11, and the U.S. government's acquiescence by refusing to release information (and opposition to reforming laws that would hold collaborators in murder to account) has been a clear signal to the Kingdom that it is immune from U.S. sanctions. With that impunity," Senator Graham says, "it continues to finance terrorists and fund mosques and schools used to indoctrinate the next generation of terrorists in intolerance and jihad."

And then finally, he said, this is an issue of democracy. "The American government is founded on the consent of the governed. To give that consent, the people must know what the government is doing in its name. Distrust in government is reflected in the speeches of today's presidential candidates" he said. "The public's sometimes angry response is fueled by a sense of betrayal and deceit."

Now, Mr. LaRouche was asked a question from our institutional source this week, this is our regular institutional question, and it's very brief, but it's obviously directly on this subject-matter. The question reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, there has been an overwhelming enthusiasm to release the 28 pages lately. What is your advice to the Obama administration, in regards to the 28 pages?"

Now, we produced a short video which includes the audio of Mr. LaRouche's remarks on this subject. We're going to play that video for you now; it's about five minutes in length, and then immediately after that video, I'm going to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate some of the points that Mr. LaRouche asserts in this statement.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: [via audio file] I was watching those two planes which were carrying the victims, and carried them to death. I was an eyewitness to the press. We knew that they were being carried, as victims, inside the planes, in the two planes in succession, and obviously the passengers all died.

But that operation, on that occasion, which I witnessed from beginning to end in my first contact with it, defines the actual issue which has to be addressed.

Now of course, I also knew what the background was. The way this thing was set into motion was with the Bush family. Now, the Bush family was actually a key part, of setting this thing into motion; they may not have intended to do that, because they're too stupid to know what they're doing. See, the Bush family was involved in its own little warfare operation, so there was a spillover from the Bush administration as such, into this particular operation. The whole operation was twofold: One, was British-Saudi operation. Now the person who was directing the thing from inside the United States, had been trained by the British system. Bandar was a key figure operating inside the United States. Bandar was directly overseeing the launching of this operation.

And what they were doing, was they were shipping petroleum as a real money-making operation, just with the oil trade, by the British, shared with the Saudis; and this thing was done for harmful purposes in many ways, and was a key part of control of what the United States was doing in petroleum; because the thing was a fraud — a fraud committed by Her Majesty. Her Majesty was guilty: period. Queen Elizabeth was the author of this operation. She was the only person who was qualified to authorize this operation.

The attack on Manhattan was done under the cover of the British system. And the Saudis were a subordinate aspect of the British system as a whole. Her Majesty was the author, of this monster. And the Saudis were simply stooges. The Saudis have been stooges from the beginning of the 20th century. That's the essential story. Everything has to be focused on that: The fact that is was thedeliberate mass murder of American citizens. And not only that, but adirect attack on the United States!

The key thing is that the British and the Saudis are the same thing, since that time. And all these facts are really known, on the record. The Saudis are guilty and the British are guilty, because the Saudis and the British are part of the same agency. What the Saudis do, what the British do, won't be the same thing. The fact is that the Saudi Kingdom is not a real government — it's an empire; it's an imperial institution. It has no formal responsibility to anything except the Kingdom of the Saudis, and the British! They are the same thing!

OGDEN: Now, as you can see displayed on the screen, we have a short advertisement for a much longer feature documentary that was published, actually several years back by LaRouche PAC Television, which was called "Beyond the 28 Pages: 9/11 Ten Years Later,".

Jeffrey Steinberg was interviewed as part of that production, and obviously has been very intimately familiar with many of the facts that are presented in that documentary and which were alluded to by Mr. LaRouche in the statement that you just heard. So I'm going to invite Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate this, in a little bit more detail.

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thank you, Matt.  Well I think it's important to recognize that the fundamental point that Mr. LaRouche just made in answering the institutional question for this week, is that the story of 9/11 is incomplete if we simply stop with the now obvious, transparently evident role that high-ranking figures within the Saudi royal family and within the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attacks. Both before the attacks, as the attacks were happening, and in the cover-up that followed. What's crucial to understand is that the Saudis do nothing without full support and approval coming from the highest levels of the British monarchy; all the way up to the Queen herself, and to the Royal Consort, Prince Philip.  The fact of the matter is that, going back centuries, back to the time of the heyday of the British East India Company, the entire Persian Gulf region was a British colony, a British Protectorate. For centuries, every one of the so-called nations — really tribal collections — along the Persian Gulf, whether it was Bahrain, or the UAE, or Qatar, or Oman, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait; all of those countries existed in name only. All of them had treaty agreements where their foreign and defense policy was run out of London. It was a vital feature for the functioning of the British East India Company to have a way station en route to India and on to China. So, at the beginning of the 20th Century, when people like Lawrence of Arabia forged the establishment of the House of Saud as a marriage between a tribal family and the Wahabi fundamentalist clergy of that area; it's always been a British game, it's always been tightly under the thumb of the British.  And that carries through even more so in the present modern period.

Mr. LaRouche mentioned Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who for years was the Saudi ambassador here in the United States; before that, he was the Saudi military attaché in Washington. And he was widely referred to as "Prince Bandar Bush", because of his close relationship with the Bush family — starting with father George HW Bush, and continuing even more so under George W Bush — was notoriously close. But above all else, Prince Bandar was a British agent. He was trained at British military schools; his official, authorized biography was written by one of his school chums from British military school. And in 1985, Bandar negotiated what came to be a critical feature of the Anglo-Saudi arrangement — the Al-Yamamah deal; this was ostensibly a barter arrangement in which the Saudis paid in oil for British military equipment — fighter planes, radar systems, training, supplies, all of that.

And in carefully investigating that program, what we discovered was that the amount of oil that the Saudis delivered to the British in payment for about $40 billion of military hardware, was orders of magnitude greater.  The oil for the Saudis was cheap; it was under $5 a barrel to pull it out of the ground and load it onto a supertanker. But once British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell took control over that oil, they sold it on the spot market at phenomenal mark-ups. From 1985 until the scandal first broke in 2007, more than $100 billion in excess funds were accrued after paying for the British military equipment and after generous bribes to many British and Saudi officials. Hundreds of billions of dollars were sequestered in offshore bank accounts; and those funds represented the biggest slush fund in the world for carrying out destabilizations of governments, terrorist activities, and assassinations. Prince Bandar, not being the brightest guy on the planet, openly boasted about this special relationship, and said that while Al-Yamamah was a traditional barter arrangement — oil for weapons — it was in fact something much more. It was a reflection of the marriage of the British and Saudi monarchies; and the fact that these monarchies could operate outside of any parliamentary or Congressional scrutiny; and could carry out black operations anywhere in the world that they chose to do it.

Now, officially, Prince Bandar received a $2 billion commission for arranging the Al-Yamamah deal; and those funds have been traced.  They went from accounts of the Bank of England, accounts from the British Ministry of Defense that oversaw the Al-Yamamah arrangement; and they went from there into the bank accounts in Riggs National Bank in Washington DC, the private accounts of Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Among the documentation contained in the 28 pages that Presidents Bush and Obama have kept from the American people, is evidence, paper trails of funds that were sent directly from Bandar's and his wife's personal bank account into the hands of two Saudi intelligence agents who were the handlers of the original two 9/11 hijackers who arrived in the United States at the beginning of the year 2000.

So, the British hand in 9/11 is unmistakable. If those 28 pages were to be opened up, it would not only confirm that the British and the Saudi royal families were together engaged in setting up and financing the 9/11 attacks; but would open up an array of other questions about follow-on terrorist operations that have occurred on a global scale. All told, hundreds of billions of dollars laundered offshore —probably in places like Panama, as well as the Cayman Islands, the Isles of Jersey off the coast of England — have gone into countless operations like the 9/11 attacks themselves.

So, while many people are quite clear on why it is that President George W Bush would order the suppression of the 28 pages, because of his notorious close relationship with Prince Bandar and the Saudis; many people scratch their heads and say, "Well, why would President Obama — particularly after he promised the families that he would declassify the 28 pages; why would President Obama continue with the cover-up?" It's not for Obama a matter of the Saudis; for Obama it goes to the next higher level in this whole story, which is namely, the British. Obama, from the beginning of his political career, has been sponsored by the British. It's not surprising that this week President Obama made a trip to Saudi Arabia; he was there Wednesday and Thursday. He met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia; and on Thursday, he met with all of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. From there, he has now flown on to London, where he will be holding a private audience with the Queen. Obama has been a slavish loyalist of the British Empire, of the British monarchy, since the moment he came into office as President. So, Obama's hand in the cover-up, the shameless continuing cover-up of what happened on 9/11, is all about protecting the British side of this story. Were those 28 pages to be opened up, the minute that one began looking at the role of Prince Bandar, it would become absolutely obvious that there is a major British side to this story.

Now of course, when you talk about the British monarchy, if you roll the clock back just a few years before the September 11, 2001 attacks; remember that there was an intensive investigation over a number of years into the fact that the British monarchy was unquestionably behind the murder of Princess Diana. It was a revenge killing because she represented forces that were completely disgusted with the way that the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Charles operated. So, you have a British monarchy that has blood on its hands going back a very long time; and most recently with the top-down ordered assassination of Princess Diana. It should come as no surprise that that same British apparatus is up to its eyeballs on global terrorism.

Now in point of fact, in late 2000, Executive Intelligence Review filed a formal request with the US State Department that they consider placing Great Britain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. People may remember at that time, there was a wave of terrorism going on around the globe. In 1997, you had the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group carry out an attack against a group of Japanese tourists at Luxor; and the Egyptian government at that time, provided detailed evidence that the terror plot had been organized, financed, and controlled by Egyptian terrorist networks that were living in Britain under the protection of the British monarchy.

Several years later, the Russian government filed a series of formal diplomatic demarches because they had evidence that the British government was facilitating the recruitment of Chechen terrorists who would be allowed to travel to Afghanistan from Britain to be trained by al-Qaeda and then safely routed into Chechnya to become part of the separatist terrorist networks that were fighting against the Russian government. There was detailed evidence that was included in that EIR profile; and unfortunately needless to say, the State Department sat on it, did nothing; and so, we had 2001. And we had many subsequent terrorist events that followed from that.

So, the bottom line here, is that now that there is intensive momentum demanding the declassification of those 28 pages, what is really required is a complete, de novo, top-down investigation into the 9/11 actions; and into all of the subsequent terrorist actions that have followed and have been the work of the same Anglo-Saudi apparatus. Once those 28 pages are made public, once the American people — led by the families of those 2,997 people killed by 9/11 — have the chance to thoroughly read through and digest the content of those pages; then the whole can of worms, the whole British-Saudi empire structure has to be brought down. Has to be subject to the kind of rigorous criminal prosecution that is warranted; and that means as well, that both President Bush and President Obama have to be brought to criminal task for their role in both facilitating and covering this up.

As Mr. LaRouche said in his brief comments to colleagues yesterday, that you just saw in that 5-minute video, he was on the scene; he was giving a live interview to Utah radio broadcaster Jack Stockwell. He had the TV on in his study; and he saw in real-time, the planes crashing into the two World Trade Center towers. He was one of the few people — perhaps the only person outside of those who committed the crime — on Earth who understood the full strategic implications of it the moment that the attack occurred. LaRouche had warned at the beginning of 2001, once he saw the character of the Bush/Cheney administration, that this was the kind of regime that would look for the first opportunity to carry out a Reichstag fire in order to go for dictatorship. And he understood that it was the Anglo-Saudi apparatus that represented the capability for carrying out just such a heinous crime with those particular intentions. He made very clear in that real-time interview with Jack Stockwell, that the entire blame was going to immediately be placed on al-Qaeda; but he said to the extent that al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, it's a bit part. It's a minor element of something much bigger that goes much higher; and goes up to the British-Saudi apparatus that we've been discussing here.

So, members of Congress who have read those 28 pages — and by now, there's well over 100 members who have done that; they've all come away with the same conclusion. That these documents must be made public; and furthermore, that they completely alter how you understand the history of the last several decades. So, take that as just a glimmer of an indication of what the implications are. Regardless of what's contained in the 28 pages per se, it's the implications of the findings in those 28 pages; and the can of worms that's opened up that leads all the way up to the British monarchy.  And you realize that the fight to get these 28 pages released to the public is a fight for the very survival of mankind going forward from this day. The British Empire today is bankrupt; they're desperate. They're not just desperate to cover up the 28 pages and the whole 9/11 story and the Al-Yamamah story; they're desperate because they're on the edge of losing their power. And they will, if the opportunity presents itself, create the conditions using these kinds of capabilities, to start a world war. So, the stakes are enormous; and the answer is very straightforward. Release the 28 pages; and on the basis of that, re-open from the top down a complete and thorough investigation. Starting with the British and Saudi monarchies and working down from there. We owe it to the families that suffered through 9/11; we owe it to the American people; and we owe it to mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. One thing I would just mention in relation with some of what Jeff just went through in detail, is that some of these connections are not unknown to people who are familiar with this investigation. In fact, Senator Bob Graham himself, while denied from including this in his nonfiction book, Intelligence Matters; in his fiction book — which he said himself he had to publish, because it was the only way he could get the truth in written form. In his fiction book, his novel Keys to the Kingdom, Senator Bob Graham includes a lot of references to exactly the kinds of things that Jeff just went through. The role of BAE; the Al-Yamamah deal; the offshore tax havens; the Cayman Islands; the fact that Tony Blair intervened to shut down the investigation into the connection between the British BAE Systems and the Saudis. So, in fact, these are the lines of inquiry that anybody who is serious — and the people who are familiar with this case — wish would be pursued; because they know exactly how big this can of worms really is.

Now, the 28 pages may not have been declassified yet; however, one very important document that was declassified recently — and has only now begun to receive media attention, starting with an exclusive report and analysis by Brian McGlinchey, who is the editor of the very important website 28pages.org. This is a document which was a 47-page draft document which was written by two researchers who were working on the 9/11 Commission; this was the independent blue-ribbon panel their own extensive report into 9/11. But these two researchers, who are named Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson, had both been formerly employed by the Congressional Joint Inquiry Committee. And in this 47-page document, they lay out what was going to be their own working plans for their follow-up research on the spcific lines of research which they had been engaged in during their role in the Congressional investigation. One of the items which they cite in this document — and Jeff will elaborate this more — is the fact that an alleged al-Qaeda operative, a person named Ghassan al-Sharbi who had trained for flight lessons in Arizona prior to 9/11, and who was captured in Pakistan subsequently; was discovered to have buried a cache of documents near to his person at the location where he was hiding, which included al-Sharbi's US pilot certificate which was inside of an envelope from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC.

Senator Bob Graham, who was not informed of this fact during the time that this investigation was going on, but later learned about it after this declassification; said in response, "That's very interesting.  That's a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy."  The second item which is of extraordinary interest in this 47-page research document, are the two questions which these two researchers intended to pursue.  The first question was:  How aggressively has the US government investigated possible ties between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks?  And number two:  To what extent have the US government's efforts to investigate possible between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?

Now, what's very telling is that when Dana Lesemann attempted to go back and access the 28 pages which she herself was instrumental in researching and writing, first she was denied and blocked access to them; and then when she circumvented those denials, she was fired.  She was dismissed from the 9/11 Commission investigation.  So, I think that just demonstrates in a very illustrative way just one example of what Bob Graham described as the "aggressive deception" that has been undertaken in this case; that's what he said in the op-ed which I cited at the beginning of this broadcast tonight.  He said, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth."  And that is not the only case.

One thing I would like to Jeff to just elaborate a little bit more on, is the entire story of the Sarasota cell, and the very significant work that investigative journalist Dan Christianson has done of theFlorida Bulldog, in tracking down 80,000 pages of FBI documents that linked Mohammed Atta and other members of the Sarasota cell to people connected with the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government. Documents which the FBI withheld from Bob Graham at the time of the Congressional investigation; did not tell him existed. They impeded that investigation and stonewalled on, until an FOIA lawsuit forced them to at least hand them over to a judge. And the review of those documents still has not been completed.

So, I would like to ask Jeff to come to the podium and elaborate a little bit more on the further implications of this "aggressive deception" — not just a cover-up — that has been committed by the US government in this regard.

STEINBERG: The 28 pages are a critical piece of this story, because that was the final product; it was the work product after a year of investigation by the Joint Congressional Inquiry. And that 28-page chapter that took up the question of foreign support and funding for the 9/11 hijackers, represented the most solid and corroborated evidence that the investigators were able to compile in the face of massive obstruction. It's not just simply that President Bush, when he reviewed the final 800-page report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, simply ordered the suppression of the 28-page chapter. Every step along the way, during both the period of the investigation by the Joint Congressional Commission and the later 9/11 Commission, was impeded top down from the White House; and particularly from the highest levels of the FBI. This is not mere speculation. In the recent period — just over the course of the last year — many of the documents that were work-products of the Joint Committee and the 9/11 Commission which were classified, have now been reviewed and declassified.

For those of you who don't know some of the inner workings of Washington, there is a board which is located at the National Archive, called the Interagency Security Clearance Appeals Panel — referred to as ISCAP. And they are the final authority; they're kind of a Supreme Court with respect to questions about what documents should be declassified. And they've been in the process of reviewing and declassifying some of the important staff documents of the two investigative bodies. Last July, they declassified about 29 documents that were work-products from the 9/11 Commission; and one in particular written by Dana Lesemann and Jacobson, is very revealing. It was a work-product document; it was classified for the last decades as being "Secret", but what they laid out was their plans for pursuing the investigation over the period of the next several months. What's very clear is that they had many, many more leads on many more officials of the Saudi government — in southern California, in Washington, in Saudi Arabia — who were deeply implicated with the 9/11 hijackers. One section of Document 17, this 47-page paper that was declassified last July, is headlined "A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11 Attacks"; and it goes through the names of 18 Saudi officials who were in southern California, in Washington, and back in Saudi Arabia, who had direct contact and facilitated the efforts of the hijackers.

Now, the FBI was a continuous obstacle from the top down. During the "60 Minutes" broadcast several weeks ago, Commission Member John Lehman said that the order to block the publication of the 28 pages came directly from Robert Muller, who was the director of the FBI at the time. Now, it happens, and again it's repeated throughout this 47-page working document from the 9/11 Commission staff, that the two 9/11 hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, who were living in the San Diego area; for the better part of a year were living in the home of a man who was an FBI informant, who was being paid $3000 a month by the FBI to keep tabs on possible radicals inside the Muslim community — particularly the Saudi-Muslim community in the southern California area. The staff from the 9/11 Commission and earlier the staff from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, repeatedly asked to interview the informant; they were blocked at every turn. The informant was put in the Federal Witness Protection Program under a change of identity; the FBI Special Agents who were the handlers of this informant, were also blocked from being interviewed by the Committee. So, in other words, one branch of the Executive Branch of the Federal government was working overtime to prevent the investigation from going forward.

Now, going all the way back to the days of J Edgar Hoover, it was notorious that the FBI was completely in bed with the British. During World War II, it was an open collaboration between the FBI and the British Special Operations Executive, with their headquarters at Rockefeller Center in New York City. But this relationship continued. Wall Street is an important intermediary between the FBI and the British. And so, the FBI role in the cover-up, both in San Diego and in other parts of the country, is absolutely stunning; and is something that in and of itself must be thoroughly investigated and exposed.

In the case of Sarasota, the FBI conducted an exhaustive investigation into a wealthy Saudi family that were intimately tied through business with the Saudi royals, who were in regular contact with Mohammed Atta and two other of the 9/11 hijackers. They lived in a gated community in the Sarasota, Florida area. Mohammed Atta and the others would frequently visit that home; and two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, that family on very short notice, picked up and left the country. First flew back to London; and from London back on to Saudi Arabia. The FBI compiled 86,000 pages of documentation following up those leads; because the connections between this leading Saudi family and the 9/11 hijackers was unmistakable. Those documents were withheld from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, despite the fact that the FBI was subpoenaed all over the country to turn over any records relevant to the investigation into 9/11.

So, you've got — as Senator Graham said — "willful deception" at the highest levels of government. Now, we know about San Diego; we know about Sarasota. We know also that Herndon and Falls Church, Virginia was another sort of center of activity of some of the hijackers and some of the leading Saudi clerics who were part of the overall structure of support for those 9/11 terrorists. Paterson, New Jersey was another center of this. Senator Graham has said at press conferences on Capitol Hill, that we've barely scratched the surface; because the government — to protect the British and protect the Saudis — have put up a wall of deception. They've blocked lines of inquiry; they've concealed documents; they've committed fraud and perjury. All because the power of the British and the power of the British/Saudi alliance is so dominant over politics in Washington that the FBI, in effect, is sworn to defend that relationship; even if it means that the American people are denied justice.

So, once again in conclusion, there is much more to this story than merely the events of September 11, 2001; as horrific and as dramatic as they were. The 9/11 Families deserve nothing less than the full and complete truth; no matter where it leads. But the problem runs much deeper. If we don't purge this Anglo-Saudi problem, if we don't get to some of the questions that were posed by the 9/11 Commission staffers; such as "Did the FBI intentionally withhold from the Joint Inquiry, information about the informant's relationship with the hijackers; and subsequently attempt to obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation of the matter? If the FBI did withhold information and obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation, were the FBI's actions indicative of a larger pattern of an FBI non-compliance with Congressional oversight; and what should be done about it?"

So, this is a can of worms that must be opened; and must be systematically investigated. Because our very future may depend on getting to the bottom of this.

OGDEN: And we are truly seeing a very momentous shift around this while Obama is in Riyadh and then flying directly to London. This has become the subject of almost all of the media coverage in the United States. And it's an extraordinary opportunity to pull this thread to unravel this empire. However, this is just yet one of many threads that can and must be pulled. There are other threads: What came out two years ago in the Senator Levin report on HSBC. This has a major aspect of it; and of course, this is becoming relevant again in the Panama Papers. And Helga LaRouche thought it was very significant that Jacques Attali, a prominent French economist, wrote an article this week saying, don't call them the Panama Papers; call them the London Papers. Because what this is really all about is the entire system of British offshore tax havens and Crown Protectorates that create the safe haven for this dark underworld of narco-terrorism, drug money laundering, and terrorism financing. And you can be guaranteed that if you follow the money, some of those threads lead directly back to these offshore tax havens.

So, as we're seeing right now, a lot of the work that has been done over years if not decades by the LaRouche Movement, by Executive Intelligence Review, by associates of Jeff Steinberg. And by Mr. LaRouche going back to his book, Dope, Inc. and also the very important film that he put out at the end of the 1990s, "Storm Over Asia", which described exactly how these irregular warfare operations are run to destabilize countries. And then the appearance he had on the Jack Stockwell show on the day that September 11 was occurring; that is featured in this "9/11 Ten Years Later" feature documentary that we showed little excerpts from, during the statement that you heard from Mr. LaRouche earlier this evening.

So, if you have a chance and you haven't watched it, or you haven't watched it lately; we would encourage you to go back and view that documentary. It's available on larouchepac.com/28pages; it's also available on our youTube channel. And I think you can be ready for much, much more that will be coming from LaRouche PAC TV on this subject and the broader implications of it. So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; please subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven't already. Please explore all the content that we have published on this subject in the past; and please share it as widely as you can with your friends and your associates.

So, I'd like to thank Jeff Steinberg for joining us here this evening; and I would like to thank you for watching our broadcast. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

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

Leena Malkki, sopran fra Sverige
Dominik Wizjan, pianist fra Poland

Fischerweise, af Franz Schubert

Den Fischer fechten Sorgen
Und Gram und Leid nicht an;
Er löst am frühen Morgen
Mit leichtem Sinn den Kahn.

Da lagert rings noch Friede
[Auf Wald und Flur und Bach]¹
Er ruft mit seinem Liede
Die gold'ne Sonne wach.

Er singt zu seinem Werke
Aus voller frischer Brust,
Die Arbeit gibt ihm Stärke,
Die Stärke Lebenslust.

Bald wird ein bunt Gewimmel
In allen Tiefen laut
Und plätschert durch den Himmel,
Der sich im Wasser baut.

Doch wer ein Netz will stellen,
Braucht Augen klar und gut,
Muß heiter gleich den Wellen
Und frei sein wie die Flut.

Dort angelt auf der Brücke
Die Hirtin. Schlauer Wicht,
Gib auf nur deine Tücke,
Den Fisch betrügst du nicht.

Engelsk oversættelse:

Fisherman's song

No cares assail the fisherman,
nor grief nor sorrow;
Early in the morning he unties
His boat with a light heart.

It is peaceful all about him
[In woods and meadows and brooks]¹;
He rouses with his song
The golden sun.

To his labours he sings
with a full and sanguine heart;
The work gives him strength —
And strength gives life joy.

Soon a colorful throng is
swarming loudly in the depths,
And it splashes through the sky
That lies reflected in the water.

But he who wishes to cast a net
Needs eyes both clear and good;
He must be swift like the waves,
And unfettered like the stream.

There on the bridge the shepherdess
Is fishing. Artful creature,
Enough of your tricks —
You will not deceive the fish.

Ritorna vincitor!… fra Verdis opera Aida

AIDA    Ritorna vincitor!… E dal mio labbro
Uscì l'empia parola! — Vincitore
Del padre mio… di lui che impugna l'armi
Per me… per ridonarmi
Una patria, una reggia! e il nome illustre                         5
Che qui celar mi è forza — Vincitore
De' miei fratelli… ond'io lo vegga, tinto
Del sangue amato, trionfar nel plauso
Dell'Egizie coorti!… E dietro il carro,
Un Re… mio padre… di catene avvinto!…                             10

L'insana parola,
O Numi, sperdete!
Al seno d'un padre
La figlia rendete;
Struggete le squadre                                              15
Dei nostri oppressor!

Sventurata! che dissi?… e l'amor mio?…
Dunque scordar poss'io
Questo fervido amor che oppressa e schiava
Come raggio di sol qui mi beava?                                  20
Imprecherò la morte
A Radamès… a lui che amo pur tanto!
Ah! non fu in terra mai
Da più crudeli angosce un core affranto.

I sacri nomi di padre… di amante                                  25
Nè profferir poss'io, nè ricordar…
Per l'un… per l'altro… confusa… tremante…
Io piangere vorrei… vorrei pregar.
Ma la mia prece in bestemmia si muta…
Delitto è il pianto a me… colpa il sospir…                        30
In notte cupa la mente è perduta…
E nell'ansia crudel vorrei morir.

Numi, pietà — del mio soffrir!
Speme non v'ha — pel mio dolor…
Amor fatal — tremendo amor                                        35
Spezzami il cor — fammi morir!                     [esce]

Engelsk oversættelse:

Aida:

Thy brow may laurels crown! what! can my lips
Pronounce language so impious! wish him
Victor o'er my father! o'er him who wages war
But that I may be restored to my country,
To my kingdom, to the high station
I now perforce dissemble! wish him conqueror
O'er my brothers! e'en now I see him stained
With their blood so cherished, 'mid the clamorous
Triumph of Egyptian battalions! Behind his chariot
A king, my father comes, his fettered captive!

Ye gods watching o'er me,
Those words deem unspoken!
A father restore me,
His daughter heart-broken;
Oh, scatter their armies,
Forever crush our foe!

What wild words do I utter? of my affection
Have I no recollection?
That sweet love that consoled me, a captive pining,
Like some bright sunny ray on my sad lot shining!
Shall I invoke destruction on the man
For whom with love I languish?
Ah! ne'er yet on this earth lived one
Whose heart was crushed beneath such anguish!

The names so holy of father, of lover,
No more dare I utter or e'en recall,
Abashed and trembling, to Heaven would hover
My prayer for both, for both my tears would fall.
Ah, woe! transformed seemed my prayers to blaspheming,
To suffer is a crime, dark sin to weep,
My senses lost, wrapt in deep night are dreaming,
To my grave would in sorrow I might creep!

Merciful Gods, look from on high!
Pity these tears hopelessly shed,
Love! mystic power, mystic and dread,
Break, break my weak heart, let me now die!

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Kommer senere på dansk.

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

THE SILK ROAD AND THE IRAN FACTOR

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

Kommer senere på dansk.

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

We Need a New Paradigm for Humanity

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