1

“Dan et partnerskab mellem unge fra hele verden for at kæmpe for en bedre fremtid

Den 4. maj 2022 (EIRNS) – I løbet af et omfattende interview med forfatter og publicist Daniel Estulin
https://vimeo.com/704208930/0bb85d2c8d svarede Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag på et spørgsmål om emnet for Schiller Instituttets kommende internationale internet-dialog lørdag den 7. maj kl. 17 dansk tid om “Ungdommens rolle i skabelsen af en ny international økonomisk arkitektur”.

https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/05/02/invitation-the-role-of-youth-in-creating-a-new-international-economic-architecture/

“I det væsentlige vil det være en fortsættelse af den sidste videokonference [den 9. april, “For en konference til etablering af en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer”], fordi det vi har iværksat er idéen om, at man er nødt til at have en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter alle nationers interesser. Derfor havde vi på den sidste konference talere fra Rusland, USA, Europa, Indien, Sydafrika og Latinamerika. Det er tanken om, at hvis vi som menneskehed ikke kan mødes og beslutte os for principper, der sikrer vores alles overlevelse, så er vi ikke bedre end nogle vilde dyr – selv om vilde dyr ikke er så onde, som den måde nogle mennesker nogle gange opfører sig på. Så det var en meget produktiv konference.

“Jeg har den idé, at man er nødt til at forme den internationale sikkerhedsarkitektur på grundlaget af fælles økonomisk udvikling, så det bliver en international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur. For når man først har en aftale om udvikling for alle nationer – Afrika, Latinamerika, Asien, de fattigere dele af Europa og USA – så kan denne fælles interesse danne grundlag for en fælles sikkerhedsarkitektur.

“Så den næste videokonference henvender sig primært til unge mennesker. For hvis man sætter sig i et ungt menneskes sted, lad os sige i Tyskland, Frankrig, Italien, USA osv., ser fremtiden ikke særlig lys ud. Man har udsigt til 3. Verdenskrig, man har udsigt til en kollapsende økonomi, et kollapsende finanssystem, sult i verden, en pandemi, som endnu ikke er under kontrol.

“Denne konference har til hensigt at danne et partnerskab mellem unge fra hele verden for at kæmpe for en bedre fremtid, thi fremtiden tilhører de unge. De bliver ikke spurgt lige nu: Er det virkelig i deres interesse, at verden skal gå op i en atomar svampesky efterfulgt af en atomvinter? De unge skal have indflydelse på, hvordan deres fremtid skal se ud.

“Der er så spændende udviklinger i gang! Vi er f.eks. på tærsklen til at få fusionsenergi. Det er utroligt, for når vi først har kommerciel fusionsenergi, har vi energisikkerhed og råstofsikkerhed på planeten. Desuden vil rumrejser blive meget forbedret, fordi vi har en ny brændstofkilde til rumrejser. Og så er der hele idéen om samarbejde i rummet: opbygning af månelandsbyer og senere opbygning af en by på Mars.

“Alt dette er ting, som begejstrer unge mennesker. Det er der, hvor menneskeheden kan bevæge sig hen, forudsat at vi kommer ud af den nuværende krise. Så det er hvad denne konference vil tage fat på, og jeg tror, at vi vil have mange unge mennesker fra alle fem kontinenter til stede.”




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 28. april 2022:
Vesten har startet den nye verdenskrig.
Kan den stoppes inden det bliver en atomkrig?
Klik her for lydfilen.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Resumé:
Mødet på den amerikanske luftbase i Ramstein, Tyskland, hvor Morten Bødskov deltog, var NATO ++. Ud over NATO-medlemmer og Ukraine var også Israel, Japan, Sydkorea og andre af USA’s partnere til stede for at aftale massiv militær støtte til Ukraine og fortsat udvidet militært samarbejde. Tysklands kansler Scholz gav efter for presset til at levere tanks og tunge våben til Ukraine. NATO er i total krig mod Rusland via sin proxy Ukraine. Ukraines præsident Zelenskij er blot en skuespiller, der læser de manuskripter op, der er skrevet i London og Washington.

USA, NATO og EU lyver om at lave sanktioner for at stoppe krigen. Man har på intet tidspunkt forsøgt at stoppe krigen i Ukraine, men har tværtimod skabt den for at bruge den til at ødelægge Rusland, som en uafhængig magt. Se analysen fra den amerikanske tidligere militærmand og senator Richard Black og læs de rystende fakta fra den schweiziske tidligere FN og NATO-militærrådgiver Jaques Baud. Det var ikke Rusland der startede krigen den 24. februar. De reagerede blot på den igangværende planlagte militære operation, som Vesten har haft i gang i Ukraine siden kuppet i Kiev i 2014. Der har aldrig været en massiv russisk militær overlegenhed. 130.000 russiske kombatanter har stået over for 250.000 på den ukrainske side. Rusland havde aldrig opbygget den 3-1 fordel, en angriber gerne skal have, for det var aldrig Rusland, der ønskede krigen. Man handlede i desperation for at imødegå det planlagte vestligt støttede ukrainske angreb imod Donbas og Krim.

Der er masser af krigsforbrydelser i krigen, men i modsætning til den ukrainske (britisk iscenesatte) ukrainske propaganda er det ikke russerne, der er unødigt brutale, men de ukrainske ideologiserede specialstyrker. Se interviewet med Richard Black. Var der nogen der troede på, at videoen med nyvaskede smilende blonde børn virkelig var indspillet efter to måneders mareridt i jorden under stålværket i Mariupol? Eller var det blot endnu en iscenesat propagandafilm. Er der 50 franske militærmænd gemt i værkets underjordiske gange, der var ansvarlige for sænkningen af Ruslands flagskib Moskva?

I lighed med Tyskland og de andre europæiske vasalstater har Danmark opgivet sin suverænitet og parerer blot ordrer fra USA (EU) og NATO. Stem nej til ophævelsen af forsvarsforbeholdet, men det er ikke nok til at stoppe krig. Der skal også være et massivt nej til fortsættelsen af verdenskrigen imod Rusland og andre (som f.eks. Kina), der nægter at opgive sin suverænitet. Ellers får vi atomkrig.

Den fortsatte krig i Ukraine og sanktionerne imod Rusland vil medføre global fødevaremangel der kan true over en milliard mennesker på livet, men hvem hører stemmer i Vesten bekymre sig om det? Kun Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre ikke-vestlige nationer har iværksat tiltag for at undgå det. Vil Indien indgå i en alliance sammen med Rusland og Kina for at opretholde sin suverænitet? Ruslands lukning af gassen for Polen og Bulgarien er blot et skud over boven. Tyskland og Italien er langt mere afhængige af russisk gas, der ikke kan erstattes med andet i løbet af flere år. Hvis EU fortsætter konfrontationen vil man påføre Tysklands og Europas økonomi og levestandard ubodelig skade.

Det vestligt ledede globale finanssystem er allerede i nedsmeltning pga. kæmpe gæld, stigende inflation og eksploderende renter. De vedvarende paniske aktioner for at skade Rusland og andre, der ikke makker ret, trækker tæppet væk under det vestlige system og den vestlige globale magt. Vil Vesten forstå sin fejltagelse inden alt forsvinder i atomkrig?

Det er ikke Rusland imod verden men Vesten imod det meste af Verden. Schiller Instituttets konference fra den 9. april om en ny global sikkerhedsarkitektur viser vejen ud. Kinas Xi Jinping har svaret med en opfordring til et globalt sikkerhedsinitiativ. Kan vi få folk i Vesten til at hæve deres stemmer og sige fra over for selvmordspolitikken?

Bliv aktiv. Gå med i Schiller Instituttets kampagne. Skab historie. Stop katastrofen og skab en fredsorden og en global renæssance.

Baggrund:

Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War

Jacques Baud: The Military Situation In The Ukraine – Update




NYHEDSORIENTERING APRIL 2022: Fredelig sameksistens eller atomkrig?

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Panel 1: hovedtale af Dennis Small ved Schiller Instituttets videokonferenece
For at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer den 9. april 2022

Jeg er meget glad for at være her i dag blandt denne fremragende gruppe af internationale tænksomme aktører eller aktive tænkere, som er samlet for at udarbejde løsninger på verdens problemer. Problemerne er virkelig store. Jeg kommer til at tænke på, hvad Ramsey Clark engang sagde om det, der gjorde Lyndon LaRouche så farlig for hans fjender i det internationale finansielle etablissement, nemlig at hans organisation var en “frugtbar idémotor”.

Og det er igen i dag præcis det, der gør os til en så stor en trussel mod det eksisterende finansielle etablissement med centrum i London og en vigtig gren i Wall Street. Det haster nu med at få gang i disse motorer for at håndtere en krise af en størrelsesorden, som vi ikke har set siden Den sorte Død i det 14. århundrede.

Vi kigger f.eks. i retning af en global hungersnød, hvor det for blot et par måneder siden blev anslået til at 235-250 millioner mennesker ville dø af sult i løbet af dette år, men nu er de bedste vurderinger – og de er desværre præcise – at så mange som 1 milliard mennesker meget vel kan dø af sult i år.

Det er en ottendedel af den menneskelige befolkning. Situationen i bestemte lande, især i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, er slem på grund af deres ekstreme afhængighed af import. Ved at afskære den russiske og ukrainske eksport gennem disse supersanktioner der er blevet anvendt – de to lande har tilsammen en tredjedel af al den hvede, der handles på verdensmarkederne – rammes især Afrika og Mellemøsten endnu hårdere.

Energisituationen er endnu værre. Det rammer Europa særlig hårdt. Europa er fuldstændig afhængig af russisk eksport af olie og gas. Tyskland, den mest industrialiserede af Europas nationer, får 24 % af sin samlede energiforsyning fra russisk gas og olie, som det fremgår af grafikken på skærmbilledet. Men dette rammer ikke kun Afrika, det rammer ikke alene Tyskland. Disse supersanktioner, der kommer oven på et igangværende sammenbrud af hele det globale finanssystem, berører hele verden.

Det, vi nu har at gøre med, som I kan se ved at kigge på Lyndon LaRouches berømte Triple Curve, tredobbelte kurvefunktion, som giver en idé om forholdet mellem væksten i finansielle spekulative aktiver og det fysiske økonomiske sammenbrud nedenunder. Det ses, at dette problem faktisk begyndte med et kollaps i vækstraterne i den fysiske økonomi tilbage omkring 1971, da det flydende valutakurssystem blev indført internationalt. Bretton Woods-systemet med faste valutakurser, der blev indført af Franklin Delano Roosevelt, blev skrottet, og det åbnede dørene for en flodbølge af spekulation, som i dag har skabt en boble af derivater, der er på et sted mellem 1,5 og 2 billioner dollars.

Det der er sket, som man kan se på den anden version af denne tredobbelte kurve, er, at oven på dette igangværende sammenbrud har vi haft en nedgang pga. pandemien, som forårsagede frygtelige kriser i hele verden. Oven i det var der en yderligere forværring af den forsætlige afindustrialisering, der blev indført efter COP26-mødet og miljøpolitikken på internationalt plan generelt.

Og nu er der så en tredje tilbagegang af en dramatisk art med de sanktioner, der er blevet indført internationalt. Så siden 1971, da det flydende valutakurssystem blev indført, var det begyndelsen til enden på det, der i virkeligheden var Glass/Steagall-systemet internationalt, som adskilte produktiv anvendelse af valuta og kredit fra spekulative aktiviteter. På internationalt plan taler vi om et system med faste valutakurser; i USA er det Glass/Steagall-systemet. Det er det samme med hensyn til de økonomiske grundprincipper.

Lad mig gå over til spørgsmålet om, hvordan vi løser dette problem, for jeg mener, at det er det, som vores opmærksomhed og vores diskussion virkelig skal fokuseres på. Vi har sammensat et program til at løse denne krise globalt, til at skabe en ny økonomisk arkitektur med udgangspunkt i LaRouches grundlæggende økonomiske politik, der er centreret omkring hans Fire Love. Se, det man begynder med, og man er altid nødt til at begynde med dette, er den fysiske økonomi. Ikke de finansielle aspekter, men den fysiske økonomi.

Hvis man ser på kombinationen af Rusland, Indien og Kina – hvad Primakov kaldte den strategiske trekant – kan man se, at disse tre nationer i sig selv, som alle bliver angrebet og ødelagt af de spekulative angreb fra London og Washington og de politiske angreb og også de militære angreb, tilsammen udgør 38% af verdens befolkning; de producerer 42% af hveden, 66% af stålet. 45% af de nye atomkraftværker der bygges. Det er ikke sådan, at de kan fungere på en selvstændig måde, men de har et meget godt grundlag for at bryde med det spekulative system og etablere – og dette er det andet punkt i vores forslag – en fælles valuta, der indledes mellem disse nationer, som ville etablere en fast valutakurs indbyrdes og med en absolut barriere mellem dem og det spekulative dollarsystem.

Der har været mange diskussioner i finansielle kredse på internationalt plan om, hvordan man kan gøre dette. Ville den blive bakket op af guld, af råvarer, af hvad? Det vigtigste, der gør en valuta værdifuld, er, at den er bakket op af realkredit, der udstedes i en produktiv retning. Jeg vil gerne citere for jer, hvad Lyndon LaRouche sagde om dette på et seminar den 29. juni 2005 i Berlin. Han sagde:

“Regeringers og ledende institutioners populære opfattelse af penge er vanvittig, når man ser på virkningerne af begrebet, og den måde det anvendes på. Pengenes værdi bør bestemmes ud fra et videnskabeligt princip, ikke et regnskabsprincip. Og det videnskabelige princip er, hvad der er en fysisk forsvarlig bestemmelse af regeringernes vilje og evne til at skabe kredit på lang sigt til udvikling af deres økonomier og deres produktivitet. Viden om regeringens vilje og kompetence til at skabe værdi, til at skabe rigdom og til at have tilstrækkelig velstand til at tilbagebetale den gæld, som man skaber, rettidigt. Dette er et fysisk spørgsmål, ikke et regnskabsrelateret spørgsmål.”

Jeg mener, at dette er afgørende for opgaven med at sammensætte en sådan fælles blok og en valuta, der kan understøtte den med hensyn til dens fysiske økonomiske kapacitet.

For det tredje skal de nationer, der er en del af denne genopretning af de fysiske økonomier ved at bryde med det synkende Titanic, etablere nationale valutaer med faste valutakurser, ikke en flydende valutakurs, som åbner døren for spekulation med dollaren, og forsvare den med valutakontrol. Brug dette til at etablere hamiltonisk kredit udstedt til produktive aktiviteter af præcis den slags, som Lyndon LaRouche netop beskrev. Behovet for en sådan fuldstændig mur mellem den spekulative økonomi og den produktive økonomi er kernen i en ordning af Glass/Steagall-typen.

Med dette på plads som en byggesten eller et udgangspunkt har vi så kravet om de tre RIC-nationer [Rusland, Indien, Kina], som erindres var starten på BRIC efter RIC, og derefter BRICS [Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina, Sydafrika]. De burde udvides ved at låne kapital til produktive aktiviteter til udvikling af Den tredje Verden, udviklingssektoren. De fleste nationer i udviklingssektoren vil være meget glade for at tilslutte sig en sådan ordning, fordi de bogstaveligt talt bliver dræbt af politikken fra det synkende, selvdestruerende, transatlantiske finanssystem.

Det er ekstremt vigtigt som et femte punkt, at USA og de europæiske nationer kan tilbydes denne type ny mekanisme. Det er det, som Lyndon LaRouche altid havde foreslået; en fire-magts-aftale mellem Rusland, Indien, Kina og USA. I forbindelse med forslag som f.eks. Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ tilbydes USA og Europa at tilslutte sig disse aktiviteter, som naturligvis vil være til gavn, ikke for Wall Street eller City of London, men for befolkningen og industrien i hele den pågældende region. Det er ikke en så stor ændring for USA. Det betyder udelukkende, at man skal vende tilbage til Alexander Hamiltons principper, som vores amerikanske system for politisk økonomi faktisk blev grundlagt på.

Endelig, og for det sjette, foreslår vi, at denne nye orientering, denne tilgang til øst-vest-samarbejde med henblik på win-win-udvikling anvendes på Ukraine; det måske vanskeligste problem på planeten. Ukraine er blevet ødelagt af 30 års liberal økonomisk politik, ikke kun af krigen. Det har betydet, at landets befolkning er faldet med en tredjedel, at arbejdsstyrken er styrtdykket, at arbejdsstyrken i fremstillingsindustrien er gået ned med 25%.

Og dette i en økonomi, som havde været en af de mest avancerede industrielt udviklede økonomier med højteknologi, rumfart og andre kapaciteter, atomkraft osv. Og naturligvis den berømte sorte muldjord, der sørgede for udvikling af landbruget. Alt dette skal genopbygges, og det må ske i et fælles samarbejde mellem øst og vest. På denne måde vil Ukraine ikke blive udløseren for en potentiel atomkrig, men en reorganisering omkring det westfalske princip om, at den andens fordel skal være grundlaget for løsningen af hele jordens problemer. Vi må tage udfordringen med Ukraine op, ikke fordi den er let, men fordi den er svær.

Jeg takker Dem.

 




Den økonomiske politik, der skabte den vestfalske fred (1648)

På engelsk: The Economic Policy that Made the Peace of Westphalia

[Print version of this article]

This is a newly edited version of an article, originally published in EIR, on the history of the famous treaty that established the modern idea of cooperation and non-intervention among nations (EIR Vol. 30, No. 21, May 30, 2003). British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech in Chicago in 1999, in which he declared that the era of the Treaty of Westphalia was over, opened a period of unceasing wars by major powers on smaller nations. The principles of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia are needed now more than ever.

This article appears in the March 11, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. SUBSCRIBE TO EIR

Author’s Introduction to this Republication

March 4, 2022—Power never smashes itself in anger on the reef of righteousness. Power is agapē, the love of God and humanity. As the Apostle Paul demonstrated in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13, agapē is generous and never envious; it is never righteous nor vengeful; it is patient and always merciful, and forgives easily. Agapē gives and never takes. Because of all of these qualities of leadership, agapē has no place of its own, and has no need of one, because it builds its home and takes its residence in others, as others take their happiness and rest in it. It is for these reasons that the power of the Peace of Westphalia is able to endure the rages of others, and it never traffics with them for some popularity. Thus, the secret of this Peace of Westphalia is to internalize, ahead of time, what other people are thinking, or are afraid of thinking, about themselves and their fellow man, and to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The Treaty of Westphalia says it explicitly, that it abolishes all competition, pretentions, and advantages over others, and “forgives the sins of the past by leaving all wrongs that have been committed to perpetual Oblivion.” Such is the beauty of power when it is proportional with reason, and such was the commitment of France in 1648, in the Peace of Westphalia, pledging to entertain a good and faithful, neighborly relationship with all nations. Such is the beauty of proportion between power and reason that Leibniz had identified as the basis for his idea of the Republic, and for which the recognition and remembrance of others grow unceasingly.

This is also what Rabelais meant when he said that gratuitousness, that is, what is given with benevolence, is the only living power that does not decrease and perish with time. It can only increase as time passes, because it decreases hatred in the same proportion that it increases love. Therefore, this principle of agapē represents the best that Western civilization has to offer: the idea of power found in the Athens of Solon in the 6th Century B.C., the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in 33 AD, the Council of Florence in 1439, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and the adoption of the American Constitution in 1787. This is how the idea of power became the power of an idea. The question is: Is the world ready to accept such an idea for the benefit of future generations yet to come?

May 30, 2003—In view of the currently collapsing world financial system, which is tearing apart the Maastricht Treaty, European governments have a last opportunity to abandon the failed Anglo-Dutch liberal system of private central banking and globalization, and organize the new Eurasian axis of peace centered on Russia, Germany, and France. To solve the collapse as sovereign nation-states with a common interest, their historical foundation is the 17th-Century Peace of Westphalia, which began “the era of sovereign nation-states” and is now attacked by all the new imperialists and utopian military strategists.

The 1648 Westphalia Peace succeeded only because of an economic policy of protection and directed public credit—dirigism—aimed to create sovereign nation-states, designed by France’s Cardinal Jules Mazarin and his great protégé Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Colbert’s dirigist policy of fair trade was the most effective weapon against the liberal free trade policy of the central banking system of the maritime powers of the British and Dutch oligarchies.

Similarly, it is only with a return to the Peace of Westphalia’s principle of “forgiving the sins of the past,” and of mutually beneficial economic development (see box, Principles of Westphalia, Article I), that the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be solved on the basis of two mutually-recognized sovereign states.

The then unique principles of the 1648 Treaty that finally ended 125 years of religious warfare in Europe, enshrined the benefit or advantage of the other—the common good—in the statecraft of sovereign nations. Two men—France’s Cardinal Jules Mazarin and Minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert (on coin)—were most responsible for this opening of the principles of nation-building.
View full size

Gerard Ter Borch

In the Peace of Westphalia, Mazarin’s and Colbert’s common-good principle of the “advantage of the other” triumphed over the imperial designs of both France’s Louis XIV and the Venice-controlled Hapsburg Empire. In the 18th Century, the same principle brought the posthumous victory of Gottfried Leibniz over John Locke in shaping the American republic’s founding documents—the victory of “the pursuit of happiness” and the principle of the general welfare—over Locke’s “life, liberty, and property.”

Today, that principle has created the Eurasian Land-Bridge policy, as designed by U.S. Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, and as expressed in the economic development policies of China and some other Asian powers. This aims at “transport corridors of development,” spanning Eurasia from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Bering Strait, and from the North Sea to the Korean Peninsula and Southeast Asia.

How Mazarin Looked Toward Westphalia

By the early 1640s, after witnessing so much abuse by the Hapsburg Emperor’s feudal authority against the peoples of the small and war-devastated German states, and realizing that the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War were leading toward the destruction of civilization, Cardinal Jules de Mazarin acted to shift the attention of Europe away from Venetian-manipulated religious conflicts that had become an endless cycle of vengefulness of each against all. He sought to base a peace on the economic recovery and political sovereignty of the German Electorates and States, to move them toward freedom and away from the tyranny of the Emperor, and from Venice’s intrigues.

In 1642, six years before the signing of the Peace of Westphalia was to end the Thirty Years’ War, Mazarin sent a negotiating team to Münster to begin working on his peace plan. The two French plenipotentiaries, Claude de Mesmes Comte d’Avaux, and Abel Servien, were his close associates. The mission was to use the power of France to intervene between the Emperor and the German Electors and princes in such a way that the Emperor would be forced to relinquish his overpowering authority and France would facilitate an economic program for the German states by helping them rebuild their territories.

This result could not be achieved, however, unless France, as the most powerful nation outside of the Empire itself, were to be given the role of guarantor of German freedom on their own territory—a status of mediator that would give Mazarin’s French plenipotentiaries a friendly and indirect right to intervene inside the government of the Empire. This had to be done in such a way as not to give umbrage to the German princes, who would have rejected any form of direct foreign intervention. Indeed, what would be the benefit of replacing an Austrian imperial power by a French one?

Mazarin directed his plenipotentiaries to make their presence necessary, primarily along the Rhine River, by engaging in the only form of French expansion that would correspond to Mazarin’s principle of “the advantage of the other,” and that was, to engage in a productive economy of fair trade and commerce. Thus, Mazarin began to play an entirely new and unique role inside the Empire by increasing German freedom in trade and commerce along the main waterways of the Empire.

The Rhine River, running through very fertile lands, had long been the target of Mazarin’s predecessor, Cardinal Richelieu, who, as the First Minister of Louis XIII, had waged 14 years of war to acquire key territories along the High Rhine, with the presumption that the Rhine River was a God-given “natural border of France.” This foolish idea stemmed from the days of the Roman Empire, that is, from the same imperialist outlook that was to be Louis XIV’s folie des grandeurs, and was to become the pretext for Napoleon Bonaparte’s mad imperial conquests, a century later. The imperial Roman historian Strabo had concocted the geopolitical delusion whereby “an ancient divinity had erected mountains and traced the course of rivers in order to define the natural borders of a people,” whereby, consequently, the Rhine River had to be viewed as a natural border of France.

The Rhine: Boundary, or Corridor?

However, that was not the view of Mazarin. He saw the Rhine River as a great economic project rather than a way to grab more territory. It was a natural communication canal within German territory, a corridor of development. But it was unfortunately being commercially misused by river princes, who were going against their own best interests by imposing such outrageously expensive tolls, that tradesmen preferred using alternative routes, which had become more to the advantage of the Venetians, the Dutch, and the English, than to the German people themselves. This had to be changed.

According to the German historian Hermann Scherer,

The expansion of Amsterdam and of the Dutch market had given the last blow to the ancient commercial greatness of the German principalities. The Rhine River and later the Escaut, were closed to the German people; an arbitrary system of rights and tolls was established, and that became the end of wealth and prosperity in the heart of Europe. The defection of many Hanseatic cities from the interior, and the diminishing foreign trade of the Hanse, destabilized internal commerce and the relationship between the northern and southern regions of Germany. Add to this, the interminable wars, the religious conflicts and persecutions, and on top of all of this, the addition of customs barriers established under all sorts of pretexts, and for which the smallest princes of the empire added a cost as if it were an essential attribute of their microscopic sovereignty.[fn_1]

Each region was measuring its “sovereignty” by the power to raise Rhine customs fees. The interruptions of trade traffic between southern and northern Germany were bringing the German economy to a halt. This became particularly disastrous for Braunschweig and Erfurt, while Frankfurt-am-Main and Leipzig prospered, thanks to their annual fairs. The very geographic situation of Germany required precisely the opposite: that it free itself of the burden of customs barriers and open all of its internal mini-borders for anyone who wanted to trade in and out of the country, at low cost, not only north-south, but also east-west. Such were the conditions that Mazarin was attempting to address during the 1640s negotiating period of the Peace of Westphalia.

Fair Trade on Europe’s Rivers

Mazarin conducted a thorough study of the entire river system of the Hapsburg Empire, including the region of Poland. He established a complex intelligence network from among his German allies, to report back to the French negotiators who were involved in the preliminary negotiations for the Peace of Westphalia in Münster, and to inform them of how many German cities would be willing to increase their freedom within the Empire, by collaborating with France.

FIGURE 1
Three Centuries’ Canal and River Development Initiated by Mazarin and Colbert

View full size

Mazarin examined closely the potential for a north-south expansion of trade and commerce of goods being produced along all of the rivers of the Empire (see Figure 1).

First, farthest east, on the northeastern border of the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire, Mazarin studied the potential of the Vistula River going through the Polish regions of Silesia, Mazovia, and Eastern Prussia (today Poland), and emptying into the Baltic Sea near Gdańsk. That river provided for Gdańsk all of the riches coming from all of these regions, and could make it the major port city of Poland.

Second, he wrote of the Oder River—which also empties into the Baltic Sea—that if all of the commerce from the Brandenburg, Silesia, and Pomeranian plains were to flow into the city of Szczecin, it could transform that city into a major international port city.

Third, the Elbe River, which starts in Bohemia (today the Czech Republic) after having gone through Saxony and Brandenburg, then flows into the North Sea northwest of Hamburg. Mazarin noted that most of the goods coming from the provinces of Lower Germany also flowed northwestward past Dresden, Magdeburg, and Leipzig. Those cities could improve their economic situation by offering commercial houses for transshipment of regional goods to foreign countries.

Fourth, Mazarin was given a report that the Weser River, which also flows through the fertile regions of Middle Germany, could be provided with a number of canals acting as import and export channels, to make the city of Bremen on the Weser into a significant port.

Fifth, Mazarin saw another expansion of north-south trade by way of the Ems River, which crosses Westphalia, and brings all of the trade and commerce from Münster and the North Rhine region into a north-south axis opening to the North Sea.

Sixth, and farthest west, Mazarin studied the Rhine River as the most economically viable communication channel among Switzerland, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, connecting Mulhouse, Strasbourg, Mainz, Bonn, and Cologne, and carrying a great amount of trade from Alsace Lorraine, the Swiss Counties, Baden-Württemberg, and the Rhineland Palatinate, to its exit into the sea through the cities of Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

Mazarin saw that the surest way to bring about peace was to develop the general welfare of the German people, by developing, for their greatest advantage, the cities located at the mouths of these rivers or along them. Thus, those war-torn regions of the Empire could be rescued and rebuilt, by creating new infrastructure. He considered this to be the way to counter the British-Dutch mercantilist control over key cities of the Baltic and North Seas.

In 1642, Mazarin summoned his negotiators at Münster to announce and circulate everywhere that the precondition to the peace negotiations was to forbid the creation of new tolls along the Rhine River. The proposition was written as follows:

From this day forward, along the two banks of the Rhine River and from the adjacent provinces, commerce and transport of goods shall be free for transit for all of the inhabitants, and it will no longer be permitted to impose on the Rhine any new toll, open birthright, customs, or taxation of any denomination and of any sort, whatsoever.

Because the injunction included the mention “and from adjacent provinces,” it proposed to bring fair trade and economic expansion deeper into the heart of Germany.

Centuries of Canal Building

Under the protection of the French, as the guarantor of the Peace of Westphalia, the different princes of the Empire were able to establish a whole series of houses of commerce in Huningue, Strasbourg, Mannheim, Frankfurt an der Oder, Coblenz, and Cologne. Thus, Mazarin’s plan to build the economic basis for the nation-state of Germany began to take shape. With goods produced in France, Lower Bavaria, Upper Palatinate, Swabia, and so forth, the river communication system began to revive the economies of the cities of Huningue and Strasbourg, as well as to give access to Switzerland and to the extended parts of Austria.

The economic development was to go farther by access to the seventh and longest river in western Europe, the Danube, expanding the import-export trade of goods to and from Bavaria, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, and all the way East to the mouth of the Danube in the Black Sea.

As early as 1642, Mazarin had singled out 28 primary cities along the Danube River alone. It is from this standpoint that a new understanding began to emerge from the rubble of war in Europe, capable of creating thousands of jobs and new markets along the main rivers of the Empire. It was under Mazarin and Colbert that the idea of a Rhine-Main-Danube canal began to be considered as a feasible project, a corridor of development only completed three centuries later, connecting the North Sea to the Black Sea.[fn_2]

By the time a number of Electors and princes began to realize that Mazarin’s project was entirely to their advantage, and decided to modify their allegiance to the Emperor, war had reduced the German people from 21 million to only 13 million as of 1648. Without peace, European civilization was going to be destroyed.

On the other hand, the Venetians saw that Mazarin was accelerating the process of negotiation in Münster, and that his economic initiatives with the German Electors were beginning to gain some momentum. Venice and the Hapsburgs saw the paradox—the more you increase economic freedom within the Empire, the more you are destroying that Empire itself—and smelled danger. The more the German leaders were won over to the principle of “the advantage of the other” (especially since they were “the other”), the closer they were to replacing the predatory Empire with nation-states. This principle had such a corroding effect on the minds of the Venetians and the Hapsburg Emperor that they were ultimately forced to accept the conditions set by Mazarin for the Peace of Westphalia, which was signed on Oct. 24, 1648, in Osnabrück for the Protestants, and in Münster for the Catholics.[fn_3]

Colbert and the Birth of Political Economy

Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619-83) was, without a shadow of a doubt, the greatest political economist and nation-builder of the 17th Century, and his ideas and influence have determined the entire course of development of all modern nation-states, including the United States of America, since the Treaty of Westphalia.

Initially promoted as Steward of the Household of Cardinal Mazarin, Colbert later became Comptroller General of the Finances of France during most of the reign of Louis XIV. Colbert was the first world leader to successfully apply the new principle of Westphalia to economics, the which would later be followed successively by Gottfried Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Henry C. Carey, Friedrich List, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Colbert’s seminal contribution to a humanist republican conception of political economy was initially reflected in France’s historic fight to liberate the peoples of Europe from the predatory control of the Austrian Hapsburg Empire, and from the central banking role of the Venetian and Dutch oligarchies. Colbert applied the principle of the Peace of Westphalia—that is, the principle of “the advantage of the other”—to a grand design of economic development of France itself.[fn_4]

For Colbert, the most important asset of the common good, and the most powerful enemy of war itself, was the development of infrastructure projects. Colbert carried the principle of benevolence of Cardinal Mazarin into large-scale economic development projects. If he was the farsighted forerunner of Leibniz, of Franklin, and of LaRouche, it was because his towering figure stood on the shoulders of Jeanne d’Arc, King Louis XI’s creation of the nation-state of France, King Henry IV (1589-1610), Henry’s minister the Duke of Sully, and Cardinal Mazarin. All were the most powerful enemies of British-Dutch-Venetian free-trade and “central bank” liberalism.

The very name of Colbertism, dirigism, still rings as anathema in the ears of the British-Dutch oligarchies today. In fact, any economic outlook organized by a strong centralized government that favors the common good through great public works, stems from Colbertism, and is anathema to British-Dutch monetarism, especially to the Dutch East India Company.[fn_5]

The Industrial Commonwealth Policy

Jean-Baptiste Colbert did not come from a noble family, as many historians have falsely claimed. He was the son of Nicholas Colbert and of Marie Pussort, she of a merchant family, who had traded in Reims and in Lyon from 1590 to 1635. This period was the turning point for French economic development, with the upsurge of manufacturing under Henry IV and his great advisor, the Duke of Sully. Nicholas’ brother, Odart Colbert, was a trader in Troyes, working with an Italian banker partner located in Paris, by the name of Gio-Andrea Lumagna, with whom he had developed an excellent trade in draperies, bolting-cloth, linen, silk, wines, and grains, which they produced in France and traded in England, the Low Countries, and Italy.

Jean-Baptiste worked for a few years in Lumagna’s bank until 1649, one year after the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, when Lumagna became the personal banker of Mazarin and recommended that Colbert become the Cardinal’s Steward of the Household. The meeting of such great minds foreshadowed a true French revolution.

Looking at Colbert from British and some American history books, one would become convinced that he was a mercantilist free trader. But anyone identifying Colbert as a mercantilist has to be either totally ignorant or a British agent, at best. The British hated Colbert precisely because he was not a mercantilist; he was feared because he was a humanist nation-builder. Colbert’s policy was to undertake and fund, from the royal coffers of Louis XIV, all forms of industry, mining, infrastructure, canal building, city building, beautification of the land through Ponts et Chaussées (Bridges and Roads), and Arts et Métiers (Arts and Crafts), including the promotion of all aspects of science through the creation of the Royal Academy of Sciences under the leadership of Christian Huygens.

Thus, clearly, Colbert’s idea of “the advantage of the other” was aimed at benefitting future generations. It precluded primarily the idea of competition, a politically correct term for enmity.

Colbert’s industrial protectionist system is generally known for four major reforms that marked the beginnings of the modern industrial nation-state:

1. He organized and funded a system of industrial corporations and infrastructure projects that provided job security for all types of skilled and non-skilled labor, that is, workers of all types of arts et métiers;

2. He established protectionist measures for all standardized French clothing products, such that no dumping of foreign goods was allowed in France, except at very high cost. Colbertism became synonymous with protectionism;

3. He funded and supported population growth, considering that war and ignorance were the two main causes of population reduction. He believed that the “government had to take care of its poor,” and that its role was to foster the increase of the population density of the nation; and

4. He accompanied industrial measures with a reform of civil justice that became the first Civil Code of France, lasting 130 years until it was destroyed by the imperialist code of Napoleon at the turn of the 18th Century.

These four points were enforced with total energy and determination, and with the full backing of the King of France. In other words, the entire Colbertian system of nation-building was based on state-controlled industrial development, combined with carefully selected and productive private initiatives.

Colbert cared for the nation as a farmer cares for his farm: The entire territory of France was meant to become the land where the common good was to grow unimpeded. He protected it, showered it with public funds, enriched it, and let others reap its beautiful fruits. He cultivated the common good by weeding out the privileges of aristocracy. He encouraged new industries and funded population growth by creating tax incentives and special bonuses for married couples. He put protectionist barriers all around France, against British, Dutch, and Belgian dumping. In one word, Colbert became the champion of skilled labor and the sworn enemy of the commercial aristocracy, which had been living off its privileges, as the feudal aristocracy had done during the past centuries.

So, Colbert re-established the priority of the “common good, the ‘Commonwealth’ of Louis XI.”

The following case suffices to make the point.

During the 1660s, there persisted a three-century-old privilege that dated back to the shameful 1358 edict of King Charles V, that stated that the laws of commerce “are made to profit and favor each craft rather than the common good.”[fn_6] Colbert turned this on its head, instituting his first Edict on April 8, 1666, which was made to secure all of the manufactures and factories of the kingdom for the benefit of the common good. From that day on, Colbert wrote hundreds of measures and regulations until the entire garden of France began to bloom again, after the devastation of the religious wars.

From 1666 on, Colbert not only asserted total control over the production of all French clothing goods, but he instituted a master’s degree for the work force, in order to improve the quality of all manufactured products.

Colbert invested about £5 million a year from the coffers of the King in new manufacturing endeavors. This money went for improvements in technology, for improving skills of the workers to raise the quality of the products, and for incentives to population growth. A lot of the new technologies were imported from Italy, Holland, and elsewhere, to improve the quality of tapestries, linens, silks, etc.; but most of the improvement was done on location. Historian Pierre Clement reports that Colbert—

stopped at nothing in order to fortify the new establishments; each dyeing manufacturer received £1,200 of encouragement; the workers who married girls of the locality where they were employed, would receive a bonus of 6 pistoles, plus 2 pistoles at the birth of their first child. All apprentices were given £30 and their own tools at the end of their apprenticeship. Lastly, the tax collectors were ordered to give a tax exemption of £5 for those employed in certain more privileged manufactures.[fn_7]

Colbert further established that all workers who married under the age of 20 were exempt from taxes (tailles and other public charges) for a period of five years, and four years if they married at 21. The very same advantages were extended to older workers who had 10 children, including those who died in combat. As of July 1667, all workers who had 10 children could receive a pension of £1,000 a year, and £2,000 a year if they had 12 children. After 16 years of such a regime, from 1667 to 1683, the French population had reached a level of 20 million, the largest national population in all of Europe. The policy was called Colbert’s “revenge of the cradles” (revanche des berceaux). The same policy was established in the French colony of Canada.

Colbert’s Reform of Justice

The reform of the civil justice system, in 1669, was one of Colbert’s greatest and most enduring achievements. It was so efficient and complete that it became accepted as the Civil Code of France for a period of 138 years, until the feudalist faction of the French oligarchy replaced it with the Code Napoleon in 1807, and turned France, one more time, back to a fascist imperial police state. The Code Napoleon rules France to this day.

In the spirit of Mazarin, Colbert was able to launch a great offensive against the very powerful aristocracy of France, and go against all odds; that is, against both public opinion and backward local prejudices, to implement his reforms. He established a most sweeping reform of justice, succeeding in accomplishing what even the great Sully before him had attempted, but was not able to do. Colbert systematically extirpated venality (the practice of buying public offices and profiting from them). He established a system of state counsellors to replace the old civil order of Roman law, and totally transformed the traditional, regional, customary law. One of his most effective administrators and collaborators was the King’s Counsellor to the Parliament of Toulouse (Court of Justice), the famous mathematician, Pierre de Fermat.

As early as the reign of Louis X le Hutin (1314-16), judicial offices had been sold to the nobility at a minimal fee paid to the King, but they brought incredible profits to the office holders. This was done as a matter of course, under the absolutely trusting, axiomatic assumption that “the monarchical system was based on honor and that the nature of honor is to have for Censor, the entire universe” (Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Law). This being the case, why should anyone raise an eyebrow about the “honesty” of any member of the Court to whom the public good was entrusted? As Montesquieu himself argued, after all, “No one believes he is lowering himself by accepting a public function.”

However, the heart of man being everywhere the same, Colbert understood very well that, under any government, at any time, the honor of fulfilling the duties of an office of state can always be mixed with a certain amount of personal interest, which brings justice to tilt its balance to one side rather than the other.

For example, public opinion had it, in those days of the monarchy, that the rich were not only better off, but also better educated than the rest of the population, and because of that, they had more dignity and impartiality; and since paying for their public office was a way to bring in money for the King, they demonstrated themselves less venal than others, and therefore should not pay any taxes; because the investment of their capital was obviously benefiting the kingdom more than could the people with less money, and whose contribution to the common good was less than their own, and should therefore be made to pay taxes more readily. And, that is the way the balance of justice tilted for centuries.

The most famous example of abuse of public trust during that period was known as the Fouquet Affair, the scandalous case of the Superintendent of Finances of King Louis XIV. In November 1661, Colbert forced Nicolas Fouquet to be brought before the tribunal for having stolen an immense fortune from different public offices, and from the treasury of the King. [Box: Principles of Westphalia]

Acting as a central banker, and borrowing for the King and Mazarin—to whom bankers were told not to lend any money—Fouquet had been playing the interest rates game in his favor; and since he had all of the controls to blur the differences between public and personal interests, he was able to hide a huge fortune, until Colbert got a whiff of it. In one instance, Fouquet had managed to reassign to his own bank account the value of a loan that was never made, but for which the State “repaid” him £6 million. During the last four months before his trial, he had managed to siphon off a total of £4 million in amounts of between £10,000 to £140,000 that he stole from the different tax-farms of the Charente, Pied-Fourche, Lyon, Bordeaux, the Dauphine, etc. Fouquet had even prepared himself a fortified refuge in Belle-Isle, in case of disgrace.

In 1661, the government brought him to trial, where he was found guilty of massive embezzlement. All of his goods were confiscated, he was condemned to exile, and then later imprisoned for life in the fortress of Pignerol.[fn_8]

A Coup d’État Against the Oligarchy

In March 1661, the 23-year-old King Louis XIV replaced Nicolas Fouquet with Colbert as the Superintendent of Finances. If Louis XIV was so upset by corruption, it was not because of moral indignation, but because it was taking place under his watch. Colbert recognized that fact and did not miss a moment in applying the principle which Alexander the Great used to get his (indifferent) generals to act effectively.

Never was there as effective and universal a minister as Colbert, during the entire history of France. Formed at the school of Sully and Mazarin, Colbert served during 22 years successively as the Superintendent of Buildings, Controller General of Finances, Secretary of State of the Maison du Roi, Secretary of State of the Navy, Minister of Trade and Commerce, and last but not least, the equivalent of a Minister of Sciences and Technology. He made profound reforms in all of these public domains, including criminal justice, commerce, police, fine arts, water and forestry.

After the scandalous trial of Fouquet, Colbert became a popular hero, and was given the green light for the creation of a Chamber of Justice that he had already proposed to Mazarin, in 1659. This Chamber of Justice was composed of the presidents and top counsellors of the Parliaments of Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen, etc. In all, 27 judges were commissioned by Colbert to clean up the biggest financial mess the nation had ever seen.

Colbert’s edict, which circulated in every city of the kingdom, stipulated that all of the financial officers of the nation who had been at their posts since 1635 were required to establish a justification for all of their legitimate goods, including their inheritances, the acquisitions they had made, and the amounts given to their children for anything from weddings to acquisition of offices. If the information was not given to the attorney general within eight days, all of their goods and properties were to be confiscated.

Colbert established all sorts of means to force the truth out into the open. The edict stipulated that the King would reward an accuser with the value of one-sixth of the fine given to anyone convicted of fraud, financial abuse, or embezzlement. On Sunday, Dec. 11, 1661, as well as on the following three Sundays, Colbert had all of the curates of the Paris churches make the announcement that the parishioners, under threat of excommunication, were obliged to speak out about all known financial abuse in their parish.

The first operations of the Chamber of Justice created total panic throughout Paris. Friends of Fouquet, such as François Vatel, Braun, and Jean Herauld Gourville, left for London; others were tried and sentenced. After a few financiers were sent to the Bastille, the whole nation began to realize that Colbert really meant business. Then a lot of people began to be identified to the Chamber of Justice.

After Colbert made a public showcase of this insane system, the idea of buying a public office became so unpopular that people circulated a Colbert quip that said: “Each time the King creates an office, a new idiot is created to buy it.” The reforms were so sweeping that in only a few years, a total of £419 million was recovered from the income of venal offices, and no fewer than 40,000 noble families were affected by this axiomatic change.

All of those funds were then invested in Colbert’s program of development of new industries. Slowly, but surely, the balance of justice began to tilt back toward the common good.

The Royal Academy of Sciences

The greatest achievement of Colbert was the creation of the Royal Academy of Sciences and its technological projects. This was not just another academic teaching institution, but rather, a research center for scientific and technological development that had the mission of creating innovations in specific areas of scientific activities: to improve economic development in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, optical physics, geometry, geography, industrial engineering, canal building, agriculture, and navigation. Each area was to be oriented toward technological advances through the application of new discoveries of physical principles. This Colbertian Academy of Sciences became the model institution from which Gottfried Leibniz later created his academies in Berlin and St. Petersburg.

In 1662, Colbert’s good friend and collaborator, the Toulouse Counsellor of Parliament and mathematician Pierre de Fermat, joined Blaise Pascal, Gilles de Roberval, Pierre Gassendi, and a few others, to form the core of a society that met regularly, and in private with Colbert in the Royal Library, until the time the Academy was to be officially located in the Louvre Museum in 1699. Scientists and mathematicians from all over Europe were invited to join the new institution—all of whom had been challenged, in 1658, by the young Pascal into discovering a geometric construction for determining the characteristics of the cycloid curve.

View full size

Sébastien Le Clerc I, 1671
A method of accurately determining longitude, derived at Colbert’s Royal Academy of Sciences, advanced the geographic knowledge of Europe. New geodesic studies resulted in improved maps and sailing charts. The first truly accurate map of France and its provinces, in 1744 (bottom) was the work of three generations of work by the Cassini family. At top, Louis XIV visiting the astronomy room of the Royal Academy of Sciences.

The offers of salaries and pensions were very attractive, and the prospects of collaborating with the best scientists of Europe were even better. Colbert sent out personal invitations to the Dutch astronomer and geometer Christian Huygens, one of the few to solve Pascal’s cycloid problem; the Italian astronomer and civil-military engineer Gian Domenico Cassini; the young Danish astronomer who was to establish the speed of light, Ole Rømer; the German mathematician Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus; the German astronomer Johann Hevelius; the Florentine geometer Vincent Viviani; and even the British mathemagician Isaac Newton. Huygens, Cassini, and Rømer immediately accepted the invitations; others accepted a little later.

On Dec. 22, 1666, Huygens was nominated as President of the Royal Academy.

Colbert believed that the most important means of securing the future of France was to persuade the young King to fund and support great scientific and technological projects that would both increase the power of the nation internally, and extend its contributions abroad.

There were several great projects of note. One was an accurate method for the determination of longitude, a project as old as the Platonic Academy of Alexandria, following through the astronomical discoveries of Erastosthenes and Hipparchus. This caused a major advance in the geographic knowledge of Europe by improving the accuracy of maps and sailing charts through the introduction of new geodesic studies (the Cassini maps), a precursor to the revolutionary study that Carl Gauss made two centuries later. This effort resulted in the first accurate knowledge of the Earth’s geography. Parallel to it, was the creation of the Paris Observatory, and the successful precision grinding of very powerful telescope lenses, designed and hand-polished by Huygens himself.

The second and most far-reaching scientific breakthroughs came with new discoveries in the field of optical physics, especially the revolutionary discovery of principle by Rømer in the determination of the finite speed of light; by Huygens in the discovery that light propagates in spherical waves; by Fermat in demonstrating the principle of least-time in light refraction; and by Leibniz with the revolutionary application of his least-action principle to optical processes by means of his calculus.[fn_9]

A third project, involving the special collaboration of Huygens and Leibniz, was the development of a steamboat invented by Denis Papin.[fn_10]

In 1673, Leibniz built a working model of a calculating machine with the collaboration of the Royal Librarian Pierre de Carcavy, and Huygens. It became such a success that he was immediately asked to build three models, one for the new Observatory, one for the King, and one for Colbert.

After Colbert died in 1683, a new witch-hunt began against the Protestants of France, and the Academy suffered greatly when, in 1685, under the revocation by Louis XIV of the Edict of Nantes, which had guaranteed freedom of religion for Protestants since Henry IV, Ole Rømer and the other “undesirable Protestant,” Christian Huygens, were forced out of the country. The Academy survived for a hundred years under Fontenelle, Condorcet, and Lavoisier, but was ultimately destroyed in 1793 by the Jacobin counter-revolution.

View full size

Sergent-Marceau
Colbert presents plan for the Canal royal en Languedoc to Louis XIV in 1668.

Continental Challenge to the ‘Sea Powers’

But the most immediate and powerful industrial result of Colbert’s Academy project, was the realization of the greatest hydraulic engineering masterpiece of the era—the Languedoc Canal.

The Canal Royal en Languedoc (built 1667-81), known also as the Canal du Midi, was a typical example of how Colbert, and his engineer protégé, Pierre-Paul Riquet, realized the Mazarin principle of the Peace of Westphalia. In fact, the Languedoc Canal represented, for several hundred years, the most advanced form of hydraulic technology in the world, and the most economical route for the transport of merchandise between the northern nations—Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Northern Germany, Belgium—and the southern nations of Italy, Greece, Venice, the Balkan States, Turkey, Africa, and the Orient. The construction of the canal provided a short-cut route of 240 kilometers (145 miles) across France, saving 3,000 kilometers represented by the sailing around Spain; and an economy of taxes, by avoiding the Hapsburg Empire’s tolls at the choke point of Gibraltar.

Had the British and Dutch monopolies of the time been reasonable in their trade negotiations with France, this fair-trade system would have also brought down their costs of goods.

As far as external commerce is concerned, Colbert always extended the same fair trade policy to all nations, including the liberal free-traders Holland and England. But neither the liberal Dutch nor the English accepted Colbert’s policy of fair trade. That is why Colbert had to send his toughest ambassador to London: his own brother, Charles Colbert de Croissy, the same who had served Mazarin as ambassador to Vienna in 1660.

After a number of tough negotiating years, in which Charles Colbert was forced to make a certain number of sacrifices, an amusing point of contention came up that could serve as a precursor to the antics of Lewis Carroll in his book, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. In 1669, Colbert reminded his ambassador “not to be duped” by British pretentions on the high seas; the issue related to the British Admiralty requesting the right to be saluted first on all of the seas of the globe.

In a letter dated July 21, 1669, Colbert wrote his brother a note in which he stated:

As far as the Ocean is concerned, even though they [the British] are the more powerful, we have not, until now, come to the view that their pretended sovereignty has been recognized; therefore it pertains to the common good of the two nations, and of the interests of the two kings, to establish this parity on all of the seas…. As for the treaty on commerce, the ideas of Lord Arlington are very reasonable, since they tend to establish a reciprocal treatment between the two Kingdoms.

Colbert ended up recommending that “salutes” be considered optional; but the liberal free-trade policy of England remained on a steady course.

The control of sea-lanes by the financial oligarchies of maritime powers such as the Venetians or the British-Dutch East India company monopolies, was being challenged by Colbert’s emphasis on a dirigist continental infrastructure project, as the growth principle for economic development of sovereign nation-states. The same principle is applicable today, with the LaRouche Eurasian Land-Bridge concept, in which all European governments see the benefit of Asiatic nations as the natural outlet for export of their technologies. The proposed agreements for the extension of the German-Chinese magnetic-levitation Transrapid train, already commercialized in Shanghai since Jan. 1, 2003, are a prime example of this type of fair trade, technology-sharing policy.

Economics of Generosity:
The Languedoc Canal

The Languedoc Canal Project was the greatest project of the 17th Century: a triumph of engineering skills, built by a self-made geometer-engineer, Pierre-Paul Riquet. This Herculean task, which had been deemed impossible since Roman times, was a gigantic water infrastructure work that Charlemagne himself had dreamed of building. In 1516, François I had asked Leonardo da Vinci’s advice on the feasibility of a canal in that region of France. Leonardo actually spent his last years in Amboise, studying possible canal connections between the Loire and the Seine Rivers. Other studies had been made for a canal through the Languedoc region during the reigns of Charles IX, Henry III, Henry IV, and Louis XIII.

It was not until Colbert that a solution, to what had become known as the impossible Canal du Midi, was discovered.

There were four main reasons for the construction of this great canal:

First, coming out of the Thirty Years’ War, this canal project corresponded to a greatly needed change of strategy and of political economy for the entirety of Europe. As we have said, the crossing of France by canal, between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, provided French and allied ships with a strategic by-pass of Gibraltar, an area that had become very dangerous, and quite costly, during the interminable wars with Spain and the Austrian Hapsburg Empire.

Second, the canal set the example for joint public and private infrastructure development projects along waterways of any nation, providing improvements for land-locked areas, and opening them up to increasing exchange of cultures with other regions and other nations. Moreover, both the King and Riquet were to receive a regular income stream from low-fee tolls. The canal was going to pay for itself in a very short period of time, and provide a small margin of profit, enough for repairs and for the introduction of new technologies. Riquet made it explicit that he had no intention of building the canal for the purpose of financial gain.

Thus, the Peace of Westphalia trade and commerce studies, made earlier by Mazarin for the benefit of the seven river regions of the Hapsburg Empire, became a renewed focus of interest. The canal was going to create the greatest import-export capabilities ever imagined for that time.

Third, the canal provided for an extraordinary increase of economic activities in the Province of Languedoc itself, where Upper Languedoc wheat production could be shipped easily eastward to the wheat-starved Lower Languedoc region. In exchange, the Lower-Languedoc production of excellent wines could be easily shipped westward, while the linen and silk goods of Lyons could also travel the same route.

This corridor also provided the entire region from Toulouse to Beziers with the development of new olive groves, vineyards, greater expansion of granaries in the Lauragais region, new trading companies and gristmills, and prospects for mining. The more farsighted citizens of Castelnaudary, for example, even paid Riquet to divert the canal toward their town. Riquet also projected the creation of new towns along the canal route.

Fourth, and not least, the entire course of the 240-kilometer canal was going to be carved into one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world, and was going to be covered with 130 arched bridges built by the “beautifying engineers” of the Ponts et Chaussées. Colbert and Riquet were both of the conviction that if something is beautiful, it is useful!

Riquet’s ‘Parting of Waters’ Paradox

However magnificent the idea was, and however great the advantages were anticipated to be, all of the proposals to link the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea with a canal, during a period of 1,000 years, were demonstrated to be totally impracticable, and plans presented by the best engineers in the world, were rejected each time..

There were two ostensible reasons why this project was considered to be impossible. One was that the two rivers flowing respectively into the Atlantic and the Mediterranean—the Garonne and the Aude—could not be connected because of difficulties of terrain between them; and the technology to raise any great quantity of water upwards of 190 meters above sea level did not exist. The other reason was that there was no other visible source in this quasi-desert region of Provence that could provide the canal with the required amounts of water.

However, there was a third and more profound and subjective reason. All of the canal plans were rejected because none of them reflected the necessary discovery of principle that would make it work. Just as Filippo Brunelleschi had discovered the physical geometric principle of the catenary for the erection of the “impossible” dome of the Florence Cathedral, Riquet had discovered the required physical geometric principle that solved the problem of the “impossible” Languedoc Canal.

Pierre-Paul Riquet (1604-80) was a descendent of a Florentine family by the name of Arrighetti, changed to Riquetty, and then to Riquet. His father, the Count of Camaran, who was a public prosecutor for the Crown, educated his son in public management and got him a post in the administration of Beziers in the Languedoc region. As a young man, Riquet attended the council meetings of the Counts of Languedoc with his father, at several of which there were presentations of canal projects “linking the two seas.” After witnessing several unsuccessful debates on the question, Pierre-Paul Riquet became passionate about finding a solution to this “impossible problem.”

Since Riquet did make the discovery, and built the canal, the following description must hold some truth, with respect to the discovery which must have happened in the mind of this great man.

One day, a paradox must have struck Riquet; an anomaly in the form of a simple question must have struck him: “How can the flow of a canal go in two directions at once?” In a way, it was a very simple question; but none of the other engineers over centuries, who had looked instead for ways to connect up the river courses of Languedoc, seemed to have approached the problem quite this way.

That the question was vital to Riquet, is shown by the fact that he had a drawing made, sometime after his discovery, to commemorate a pedagogical reconstruction of his principle. It showed himself demonstrating to the Commissioners of the King and of the States, the solution to the problem that he had called—in a reference to the Moses miracle at the Red Sea—“the parting of the waters.”

The drawing simply shows how a stone, placed before the water rising from the Fontaine La Grave, on the Plateau de Naurouze, divided the stream of water into two opposite directions, one part flowing west, toward the Atlantic Ocean, and the other flowing east, toward the Mediterranean Sea. Riquet’s paradox had become a metaphor for what he then began to call the “canal of the two seas.” He had generated a solution in principle to the “impossible” canal.

The “canal of the two seas” became his life’s mission. Year in and year out, Riquet experimented, created model projects on his own land, and studied different locations around Montagne Noire, travelling the distance many times, searching for the solution to the source of water that would connect the two seas. If the illustration of the “parting of the waters” showed the principle, the fulfillment of that principle was going to be another matter altogether.

There was only one ideal spot in the entire expanse between the two seas where Riquet’s principle could be applied, and that had to be precisely at the highest point that divided the entire region between West and the East. And when Riquet found that unique spot, there was no source of water at that location.

The Engineering Task

It was not until the ripe age of 58, after serving the government of Colbert as a Controller of the Salt Tax (gabelle) in the region of the Languedoc for 20 years, that Riquet confirmed his hypothesis by conducting a crucial experiment. By that time, he had enough of a personal fortune to invest in his “grand design,” as he called it. Riquet asked Colbert to let him resign, and to hire him as chief engineer of the canal project. Colbert agreed, and got his Toulouse Counsellor, Pierre de Fermat, to authorize the project that was going to be built in his jurisdiction.

Riquet was able to solve his paradox by demonstrating how the result of its resolution was going to express itself in the increase of man’s mastery over nature, in a definite increase in man’s potential relative population-density. He knew beforehand, that the construction of the canal would create an expansion in markets inward and outward, which would result especially in the increase of French production of wheat, wines, and fabrics being exported toward England, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Italy, Greece, and so forth.

A Languedoc teacher, Philippe Calas, living today near Béziers, shows on his website called “Le Canal du Midi en Languedoc,” how Riquet tackled the different engineering problems. He writes:

But there was one overwhelming problem facing all of these would-be canal builders: how to supply such an engineering work with water? One part of the route represented no such problem. The section from Toulouse to the Atlantic could be achieved by the canalization of the River Garonne, navigable along this stretch. But from Toulouse at one end of the canal proper, to sea level at the other (Mediterranean end), the canal would have to rise to a summit of 190 meters. How could enough water be found to keep the canal flowing at a constant rate, and at what point should this water be supplied to it in order to distribute it evenly to the western section flowing toward Toulouse and the eastern section flowing towards Béziers?

FIGURE 2
The Languedoc Canal, Great Project of the 17th Century
View full size

Source: EIRNS.
The Languedoc Canal, connecting the Atlantic and Mediterranean Seas across southern France, built between 1667 and 1681, had been a dream for centuries. Solving the “impossible” paradox of creating a water source that could flow in two directions—eastward and westward—it was the greatest civil engineering project of the 17th Century. It contributed to shifting commerce from “free-trade” control of the sea lanes toward fair-trade development in the interior of the continent. The project became a model for much larger continental projects such as the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal built during the 20th Century.

And who would be foolish enough to think that such a fantastic source of water could ever be found in the quasi-barren mountains of the Languedoc?

FIGURE 3
The Transaqua Project
View full size

EIRNS/John Sigerson
The same nation-building principle applied to a proposed infrastructural great project today: the plan to create a canal to recharge the disappearing Lake Chad in Africa’s Sahel, by draining part of the catchment area of the Zaire River’s great flow. The urgent project will not be done without the kind of public credit strategy pioneered by Colbert, known since then as “dirigism.”

As soon as he was ready to make his experiment known, Riquet wrote to Colbert, who immediately saw the solution, and was won over to the project. Colbert always appreciated the character of a man who could not be shaken from a true discovery, and he knew he could absolutely count on Riquet to bring the great work to success, if he gave him the necessary backup. The engineering task was to assemble enough water in a catch basin—from what today would be called a “catchment area” of subsurface water—and at the highest elevation, which could supply all of the necessary water to flow with gravity continuously into a westward slope toward the Atlantic and into an eastward slope toward the Mediterranean, each in a controlled manner.

Riquet found several hidden springs and streams in the vicinity of Montagne Noire, less than halfway between Carcassonne and Toulouse, which could supply a reservoir to be built at Saint-Ferriol. This reservoir of water had to hold a large enough supply of water to feed the canal all year round, including during periods of extreme drought, which occurs regularly in Provence. The reservoir was also to be supplemented by three additional sources—the Sor River, the Alzau stream, and the Fresquel River. A series of secondary basins had also to be constructed, to control the deliveries of the many flows.

View full size

M. Strīķis
The beautiful Languedoc Canal is still in regular use, 341 years after its “impossible” construction. Its revolutionary features included lining the canal with trees to stabilize its banks. Here, a section of the canal at Carcassonne, Languedoc-Roussillon.

Canal and Ports du Midi

In his first testing experiment, Riquet spent £200,000 to build a drainage trench demonstrating to the Council of the State of Languedoc how the whole system would work. At that occasion, on Nov. 27, 1664, Riquet wrote to Colbert, saying:

But in this case [the drainage trench experiment], I am putting at risk both my fortune and my honor, and they won’t fail me. In fact, it seems more reasonable that I shall acquire a little more of one as well as of the other, when I come out of this successfully. I hope to be in Paris during the month of January next…. And then, Monseigneur, I shall have the honor of telling you, in person, and in a better fashion, all my sentiments on the subject. And you will find them reasonable because I will have established precise propositions that will consequently be in accordance with your wish; and in which case I shall follow my natural inclination of frankness and freedom, and without quibbling.

On May 25, 1665, Riquet was in Paris meeting with Colbert, who gave him his patent papers securing him in his rights of ownership. Two months after, on the last day of July, Riquet wrote Colbert, filled with the excitement of Archimedes coming out of his bathtub. His experiment was a total success! He wrote:

Many people will be surprised to see how little time I have taken, and little expense I have used. As for the success, it is infallible, but in a totally new fashion, that no one ever thought of, including myself. I can swear to you that the pathway I have now discovered had always been unknown to me, regardless of all the efforts I had made in attempting to discover it. The idea came to me in Saint-Germain, which is quite far away, and my musing proved me right about those locations.[fn_11]

By 1666, after Riquet had developed extensive feasibility studies and established the financial conditions for the construction of the entire canal, he got permission from Colbert to begin the first phase of construction. The entire project was going to be built in three phases, and be financed both by the State and through private means (Riquet’s).

Phase one, which was to be financed entirely by Riquet himself, included the hydraulic work of a catch basin—the Saint-Ferriol reservoir at the foot of Montagne Noire—with a capacity of 6 million cubic meters of water, the largest man-made lake ever built up to that time; and the building of the Toulouse-Trebes section of the canal going west toward the Atlantic. This reservoir was going to supply the water for the entire work.

The second phase, to be financed by the State, included the canal section from the reservoir to the fishing village of Cette (today called Set), on the Mediterranean.

The third phase, also to be financed by the State, included the creation of a major seaport facility at Set.

Moreover, the canal presented several extremely difficult engineering feats, such as having to go through the Malpas Mountain in an excavated tunnel of 173 meters in length, and then pass as an aquaduct for several hundred yards over the Ord River. The entire project originally contained 75 locks, took 14 years to build, and cost the royal treasury more than £7.7 million, not including the £4 million invested by Riquet personally. Louis XIV and Jean-Baptiste Colbert inaugurated the canal at Set, on May 24, 1681.

Although Riquet, who died eight months earlier, had not lived to see his masterpiece of engineering completed, he had lived and communicated to others the joy of immortality, and was comforted in the knowledge that he had brought a great contribution to mankind. At the turn of the 18th Century, the famous military engineer and admirer of Riquet, Marshal Sébastien de Vauban, made some important improvements and a number of significant additions to the canal. Today, the canal is still in operation, for both trade and tourism.[fn_12]

Riquet also broke new ground in fostering “the advantage of the other” by providing exceptional benefits for his own workers. The Canal Company had a 12,000-man workforce, divided into 240 brigades of 50 men each. These represented the best-paid workers of the period for this type of construction work. Riquet had gotten from Colbert a royal order to pay, for the security of his workers, a salary of £10 a month per worker, which included modest living quarters, Sundays and religious and national holidays off, plus complete medical coverage and full disability in case of injury or death. The royal order also stipulated that “those who present themselves must be fit to do the work, not incapacitated in any way, and must not be younger than twenty years of age or older than fifty.” Riquet’s enemies were very upset, because other workers in the region of Languedoc began to demand similar working conditions.

Riquet’s royal charter for the protection of his labor force was the first of its kind in the history of Europe, guaranteeing the equivalent of good “union wages and conditions.”

The Principle of Discovery

How was Riquet’s canal plan going to guarantee success, when all of the others had failed? How can you guarantee that the LaRouche project of the Eurasian Land-Bridge will succeed, when all free-trade proposals have failed miserably? The answer to these questions lies in the fact that both Riquet and LaRouche understand the principle of discovery.

The irony of Riquet’s discovery was that, while everybody else was trying to use the waters of two rivers whose flows were contrary, and could not be made to climb up to 190 meters above sea level, Riquet solved the problem by tapping the waters of far-away desert streams—up to 65 kilometers away from the canal’s path—and sent them flowing into the only spot from which “the parting of the waters” could send the flows down in two directions at once! The idea was brilliant and the fruit of a true genius.

It is amazing how apparently unsolvable problems get resolved, when they are viewed from above the domain of sense perception. Riquet’s project was so successful, that when Marshal de Vauban visited the site a few years after its completion, he remarked: “There is, however, something missing here: there is no statue of Riquet.”

In May 1788, a year after visiting the south of France, the United States’ Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, sent some notes about the construction of the Canal of Languedoc to George Washington. Jefferson wrote:

Having in the Spring of the last year taken a journey through the southern parts of France, and particularly examined the canal of Languedoc, through its whole course, I take the liberty of sending you the notes I made on the spot, as you may find in them something perhaps which may be turned to account some time or other in the prosecution of the Patowmac [Potomac] canal.

Jefferson’s acute interest in the Canal du Midi is one more example showing how the economics of the Peace of Westphalia had found its manifest destiny in America.[fn_13]

Under Colbert’s policy, France once again embraced the “principle of benevolence” that Louis XI had institutionalized from the sublime courage of Jeanne d’Arc. The so-called “religious wars” which had decimated Europe for over a century and a quarter, were stopped and overcome. Never, during such a short period as the Mazarin-Colbert reforms, had so much evil been defeated by such a simple and effective principle as “the advantage of the other,” or the common good. Without it, the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, and the era of sovereign nation-states which it launched, would not have been possible.


[fn_1] Hermann Scherer, Histoire du commerce de toutes les nations depuis les temps anciens jusqu’a nos jours, Tôme seconde. Paris: Capelle, Libraire-Editeur, 1857, p. 548. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2] The Mazarin plan for developing rivers and canals inside Germany made its way across the empire, and was finally realized in the reigns of the Grand Elector, Frederick William I (1620-88), the founder of the German nation-state, and his successor, Frederick II, the Great (1712-86). According to Scherer, op. cit., it was Frederick II who fully succeeded in creating a real internal economic system centered on a series of canals connecting the rivers from east to west. After Frederick William I built the great trench that connected the Oder and the Elbe rivers in 1668:

“Frederick II continued the canal works of his predecessor. In Westphalia, the Ruhr was made navigable, and an outlet was created to the saline Unna. The canal of Plauen established the most direct connection between the Elbe, the Havel, and the Spree; the Finow canal connected the Havel and the Oder; the Bromberg canal connected the Oder and the Vistula. These navigable channels soon gave a tremendous impulse to the commerce of the steppes and to the neighboring provinces with the basin of the Elbe, Silesia and Poland, and thus contributed greatly to the rise of Berlin as a commercial city.” (Scherer, op. cit., p. 581)

These canal routes correspond today to the different sections of the Mittelland Canal crossing Germany west-east, connecting all of its main rivers from the Rhine to the Vistula and linking the main cities of Bonn, Münster, Osnabrück, Hanover, Braunschweig, Magdeburg, Berlin, and the Polish city of Bydgoszcz (Bramberg). [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3] See Pierre Beaudry, “Peace of Westphalia: France’s Defense of the Sovereign Nation,” EIR, Vol. 29, No. 46, Nov. 29, 2002, pp. 18-33. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4] This principle of benevolence has its political roots in the policy of France’s Henry IV and the Duke of Sully, in the aftermath of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day religious massacre of 1572. As Sully had emphasized to the King later:

“Your intention must be to truly seek all of the means to have them [potentates] live in peace and tranquility among themselves, constantly soliciting them to establish a peace or a truce, whenever there should be contention or diversity of pretentions; and always to endeavor to put forward, with whomever you are dealing, your generous resolution whereby you wish everything for the others, and nothing for yourself” [emphasis added]. Maximilien de Bethune, Duc de Sully, Memoires des sages et royales oeconomies d’estat, domestiques, politiques, et militaires de Henry le Grand, par M.M. Michaud et Poujoulat, Tôme deuxième, Paris, chez l’editeur du commentaire analytique du Code Civil, 1837, p. 151. [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5] Since the discovery of America and of maritime routes to India, the control of sea-lanes and the monopoly of world trade by global merchant companies have been the main interests of a few maritime financial oligarchies. They have been centered most prominently, during successive periods of history, in the cities of Venice, Amsterdam, and London, whence they wielded the power of their central banking interests over most of the national economies of the planet.

The 17th-Century Dutch East India Company was such a commercial house. It was created on March 20, 1602, for the purpose of establishing a monopoly of trading in the Far East. The new company was placed under the control of the Duke, William of Orange, in Amsterdam, and was composed of 60 administrators elected by the shareholders—that is, by themselves—to form a General Estates that became the real, behind-the-scenes government of Holland. It was a kind of parliamentary group composed of six different chambers, located respectively in Amsterdam, Middelburg, Delft, Rotterdam, Horn, and Enkhuisen.

Their control mechanisms were not unlike the European parliamentary system of today, under the Maastricht Treaty and its central banking arrangement. The general business of international trade was put into the hands of a smaller group of seven directors who would meet, several times a year, in Amsterdam, to determine the number of ships to send out, the period of their voyage, the times of their departure and return, and their specific destinations and cargoes. The directors’ executive orders had to be obeyed to the letter, with the strictest of discipline.

According to its charter, which was later copied by the British East India Company, the Dutch Company was the only one authorized to trade with the East Indies, and no one else from Holland was allowed to engage in any such trading for his own personal benefit. In fact, no other Dutch ship was allowed to take the route of the Cape of Good Hope, or Cape Horn, without the permission of the Dutch East India Company. Furthermore, it had the exclusive right to establish colonies, coin money, nominate or eliminate high functionaries of government, sign treaties with other nations, and even make war against them. This Hobbesian trading arrangement was so powerful that it had life-and-death control over all of the sea-lanes of the world, and of the colonies the Company looted for their labor and products. Holland was no longer a country with a company, but a company with a country.

In his Histoire du Commerce de toutes les Nations, the 19th-Century German historian Hermann Scherer described the monopolistic so-called free trade of the Dutch Company. In 1602, after expelling the Portuguese by force from the Molucca Islands in Indonesia, the men of Admiral Warwyk’s 14 ships occupied the most important islands, especially Java, and made exclusive contacts with the indigenous tribes, for the complete control of spice production and trade of the entire region, that is, to the exclusion of any other country.

Scherer reported: “They [the Dutch East India Company] made war on nature itself, by letting her grow her goods exclusively where they intended to have complete control, and by destroying crops everywhere else. A company order restricted the growth of nutmeg trees on the island of Banda; another imposed a ban on cloves on the island of Ambon. In all of the other Molucca Islands, trees had to be burnt and slashed, and any new plantation was forbidden under threat of severe punishment. Treaties were agreed upon with the indigenous people, which sometimes had to be imposed by force of arms. The Islands were closed to foreign ships, and contraband was watched for, day and night. The whole thing was organized in order to maintain a complete monopoly, and to prevent any price fluctuation in Europe.” (Scherer, op. cit., p. 259.)

After a few years of success that had surpassed all of its anticipations, the Dutch East India Company was transformed into a new colonial and political empire. The Dutch Company even made war against British colonial interests in Jakarta. The British knew precisely what the Dutch were up to, and they wanted a piece of the action. In 1618, Adm. Jean Koen fought the British in Jakarta. The city was burnt to the ground and the British were forced out permanently. The city was rebuilt in 1621, under the old Dutch feudal name—Batavia—and became the center of all of the Dutch operations in the Far East. Batavia then became known as the Pearl of the Orient. Such a monopoly expanded into India, into Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1658, into Malacca (Malaysia), Les Isles De Sonde (Sunda Islands), the Celebes (Sulawesi), Timor, Borneo, Sumatra, and then beyond, into Thailand, Taiwan, China, and Japan.

Since the shareholders of the company were the ones fixing the prices, the “little green men under the floorboards of the stock exchange,” in Amsterdam, kept improving the differences between the cost of buying cheap spices and selling them dear, which brought them a profit of 200-300% per annum. In his History of Dutch Commerce, historian M. Lueder estimated that during 137 years, from its founding in 1602 until 1739, the Company had bought for a total of 360 million florins, and sold for a total of 1,620 million florins: a spoiling of nature, and of the general welfare of the people of Holland and of the Far East. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6] Pierre Clement, Lettres, instructions, memoires de Colbert, Tome IV. Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale, 1867, p. 216. [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7] Clement, op. cit., p. 235. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8] Historian Pierre Clement wrote that when Mazarin died, “leaving France in a state of peace on the outside, freed from the factions on the inside, but tired out, without resources, and scandalously exploited by any man who had 100,000 ecus to lend to the Treasury at 50% interest, Colbert, who had long followed with diligence the progress of corruption, who knew all of its ruses and weaknesses, and who was revealing them to Louis XIV—Colbert whom the King consulted first in secret, because the need he had of him was so great—necessarily had to be brought into the Council and occupy the first place. His special skills, his antecedents, his character, his hard work, the important fortune of Mazarin that he administered so wisely during 15 years, but most of all the modesty of the functions he had held under the Cardinal [Mazarin], everything pointed him toward Louis XIV.” (Pierre Clement, op. cit., p. 94.

In his article, “Colbert’s Bequest to the Founding Fathers,” historian Anton Chaitkin appropriately likened Colbert’s 1661 bold intervention to a real coup d’état (EIR, Vol. 19, No. 1, Jan. 3, 1992, pp. 20-21). [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9] See G.W. Leibniz, “The Discoveries of Principle of the Calculus in Acta Eruditorum,” eight unpublished translations by Pierre Beaudry. [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10] Philip Valenti, “Britain Sabotaged the Steam Engine of Leibniz and Papin,” EIR, Vol. 23, No. 6, Feb. 16, 1996, pp. 18-23; see also Fusion, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec. 1979. [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11] Pierre Clement, op. cit., p. 305. [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12] Sébastien Le Prestre, Marquis de Vauban (1633-1707), was a Marshal of France and a military engineer who had studied Leonardo da Vinci and especially the great works of Pierre-Paul Riquet. A member of the Academie des Sciences, Vauban distinguished himself by establishing the most advanced form of modern fortification, surrounding France with a defensive shield by rebuilding more than 300 fortified cities and creating 37 new ones. (The post-Vauban Fort McHenry, located in Baltimore, Maryland, is a typical Vauban fortification.)

Vauban was a Colbertian economist who was preoccupied mostly with improving the conditions of labor, and who considered that “work is the principle of all wealth.” Louis XIV unjustly disgraced him, but it was in honor of Vauban that Saint-Simon created the French word patriote. [back to text for fn_12]

[fn_13] Roy and Alma More, Thomas Jefferson’s Journey to the South of France. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 1999, p. 157. [back to text for fn_13]

Principles of Westphalia

The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War, the last of wars that had drowned Europe in blood in battles over religion. It defined the principles of sovereignty and equality in numerous sub-contracts. It became the constitution of the new system of states of Europe. We paraphrase the two key principles:

Article I begins: A Christian general and permanent peace, and true and honest friendship, must rule between his Holy Imperial Majesty and his Holy All-Christian Majesty, as well as between all and every ally and follower of the mentioned Imperial Majesty, the House of Austria … and successors…. And this Peace must be so honest and seriously guarded and nourished that each part furthers the advantage, honor, and benefit of the other…. A neighborliness should be renewed and flourish for peace and friendship, and flourish again.

(In other words, peace among sovereign nations requires, according to this principle, that each nation develops itself fully, and regards it as its self-interest to develop the others fully, and vice versa—a real “family of nations.”)

Article II says: On both sides, all should be forever forgotten and forgiven—what has from the beginning of the troubles, no matter how or where, from one side or the other, happened in terms of hostility—so that neither because of that, nor for any other reason or pretext, should anyone commit, or allow to happen, any hostility, unfriendliness, difficulty, or obstacle in respect to persons, their status, goods, or security itself, or through others, secretly or openly, directly or indirectly, under the pretense of the authority or the law, or by way of violence within the Empire, or anywhere outside of it, and any earlier, contradictory treaties should not stand against this.

Instead, the fact that each and every one, from one side and the other, both before and during the war, committed insults, violent acts, hostilities, damages, and injuries, without regard of persons or outcomes, should be completely put aside, so that everything, whatever one could demand from another under his name, will be forgotten to eternity.

—Prepared by Pierre Beaudry from the French and Latin original texts. [back to text]

Subscribe here!

Preview the fall issue here

The Schiller Institute has just released the second issue of its new quarterly journal dedicated to the creation of a classical culture. The 95-page issue, described below, is yours as a monthly contributing member. Memberships start at
$5/month.
 Give more if you can. This beautiful journal, written for audiences from 12 to 102, is a map to winning a beautiful future. Failure is not an option.

In this special issue, we take on the question of “What is an Aesthetical Education?” This is an incredibly important and challenging question, but one that must be taken up. We want to examine different people and nations who have either attempted or successfully created this type of educational system.

We have a very wonderful composition for you to work through. Here are a few highlights:

Restore Classical Education to the Secondary Classroom
by Lyndon LaRouche

The Cult of Ugliness, Or Beauty As A Necessary Condition of Mankind
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Foundation for the Future
by Leni Rubenstein

The Current Transformation of Education in China: Shaping a More Beautiful Mind
by Richard A. Black

A Taste of the Sublime Comes from the Most Unexpected of Places
An Interview with Heartbeat Opera’s Ethan Heard

Subscribe here!

Have fun! Anastasia Battle, Editor-in-Chief, Leonore

clear

clear

clear




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 24. marts 2022:
Mobilisér for Schiller Instituttets videokonference den 9. april
om en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur.
Klik her for lydfilen.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.




38 min. videoresumé + hele konferencen:
International videokonference for at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og
udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer, den 9. april


Del gerne.
Information: 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk, www.schillerinstitut.dk, www.schillerinstitute.com

PLENARFORSAMLING (90 min.)

Hvorfor det fejlslagne gamle paradigmekræver udformningen af et nyt paradigme i internationale forhold. 

PANEL 1: ØKONOMI (90 min.)

For en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden – forebyggelse af én milliard menneskers sultedød

PANEL 2: SIKKERHED (90 min.)

En ny sikkerhedsarkitektur i traditionen fra den Westfalske Fred (1648) og Bandung-konferencen (konferencen i Indonesien i 1955, hvor Den alliancefri Bevægelse blev grundlagt.)

PANEL 3: UDVIKLING (90 min.)

For endelig at overvinde kolonialisme og imperialisme

Udvikling er det nye navn for fred

Behovet for at opbygge et verdenssundhedsvæsen

Opdateret:

Vores verden er under den akutte og livstruende trussel om omfattende krig, herunder atomkrig og dermed den mulige udslettelse af menneskeslægten, foruden økonomisk ødelæggelse, der berører milliarder af mennesker.
 
Det er derfor tvingende nødvendigt at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer, som skal tilgodese til alle nationers interesser på jorden. 
 
Den nuværende krig i Europa, rækken af krige i Afghanistan, Syrien, Irak, Libyen, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, og spredningen af hungersnød og sygdomme har allerede dræbt millioner af uskyldige mennesker og ødelagt deres hjem, levebrød og fremtid. Corona-krisen minder os om, at alt liv på jorden er sammenhængende, forbundet og indbyrdes beslægtet, og at vi må fokusere på bæredygtighed og inklusion for at forbedre vores jord og vores befolkningers tilstand. Vores mission er derfor ikke kun at stoppe en sådan selvdestruktiv udvikling, men også at tilrettelægge alle forudsætningerne for fred og velstand på grundlag af menneskehedens fælles formål. Vi må udforme et nyt paradigme, en ny ordning, som fokuserer på vores klode og vores befolkningers interesser for at løfte menneskeheden til det næste niveau.
 
Bag den umiddelbare trussel om krig ligger det igangværende kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem. En hyperinflatorisk proces er blevet udløst globalt, med et deraf følgende sammenbrud af de vestlige nationers økonomier. City of London og Wall Street, som er ansvarlige for et sådant system, er ivrige efter at ødelægge ethvert velfungerende alternativ til deres system, det være sig Rusland, Kina, Indien eller andre. Kinas partnerskab omkring Bælte & Vej omfatter nu omtrent 150 nationer. Det nuværende finansielle system bliver brugt til at opretholde den koloniale tilstand af underudvikling af den tidligere såkaldte udviklingssektor, gennem malthusianske strategier. Derfor er det nødvendigt at etablere et fuldstændig nyt finansielt paradigme med en integrerede tilgang til sikkerhed, økonomi og udvikling af alle nationer. 
 
Den Westfalske Fred er vores referencepunkt. Den fastslog ikke blot den andens gavn, ære og fordel og den evige glemsel, amnesti eller tilgivelse for alt, hvad der er begået, men den omfattede også en finansiel reorganisering af alle lande, der deltog i den. Den sorterede og afviklede misligholdt og ulovlig gæld og finansielle fordringer, for det meste ved annullering af gæld eller forhandlet omlægning af gæld. Den fastlagde også statens rolle i genopbygningen af nationerne efter 30-årskrigen.
 
Den internationale folkeret udviklede sig på baggrund af den Westfalske Fred, som fandt sit hidtil mest vidtgående udtryk i den såkaldte FN-pagt, der ubetinget må opretholdes i det nye paradigme. Verdenserklæringen om menneskerettigheder, de ti principper fra Bandung og de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, indeholder alle idéer, som er universelle og fortsat gyldige for fremme af fred, udvikling og samarbejde i verden. 
 
Verdens sidste udformning fandt sted efter Anden Verdenskrig, som gav anledning til FN, Verdensbanken, IMF, NATO, WTO, WHO, osv. Disse institutioner udråbt deres fokus på demokrati, menneskerettigheder, kapitalisme, forbrug og militær og det fungerede for det meste i 75 år. Deres mangler var at de ikke opfyldte FDR’s løfte om Bretton Woods-systemet, som han udformede det for at øge levestandarden i udviklingslandene og gøre en ende på kolonialismen. Det er på tide at omforme verden for at kunne drage fordel af den enorme forbundethed og det nye paradigme for at sikre grundlæggende menneskelige behov, inklusion, ny økonomi, decentralisering, varig overlevelse og fred for alle.
 
Vi er inderligt overbeviste om, at fred kun kan opnås ved en gennemgribende omformning af det økonomiske system i verden, så dette perspektiv bliver til virkelighed. En sådan ny vision af verden, der er i overensstemmelse med fortidens idealer, vælger bæredygtighed, inklusion og forbundethed i stedet for den internationale regelbaserede orden med fokus på magt og profit.  
 
Vi afholder denne konference for at invitere, engagere og inspirere ledere med visioner, karakter, evner og engagement til at kommunikere, samarbejde og sammen være kreative i retning af enhed, retfærdighed, demokrati, suverænitet og menneskelig udvikling, og holde fast i deres løfter i stedet for at underkaste sig pengemændenes og oligarkernes regler. Det er et spørgsmål om liv eller død at stoppe “dommedagsuret”, før det slår midnat.

 

Denne nye vision, der skal skabe en ny global platform og føre menneskeheden til nye højder, er meget detaljeret beskrevet i forslagene fra den berømte amerikanske økonom Lyndon LaRouche, som er baseret på det han kaldte sine fire love:
 
. Den øjeblikkelige gennemførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, der blev indført af den amerikanske præsident Franklin Delano Roosevelt, uden ændringer og denne gang globalt, med henblik på at gennemføre en konkursbehandling af hele den spekulative finansboble for at forhindre udplyndring af menneskelig arbejdskraft og menneskeliv.
 
. En tilbagevenden til et system med topstyret og nøje defineret nationalbankvæsen, som det blev fastlagt af USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, og senere af dem som han inspirerede til at skabe succesfulde systemer for udvikling.
 
. Det tilhørende kreditsystem til at skabe høj produktiv udvikling i forbindelse med forbedringer af beskæftigelsen og arbejdskraftens kvalitet med den ledsagende hensigt at øge den fysisk-økonomiske produktivitet og levestandarden for personer og husholdninger.
 
. Et videnskabeligt drevet lynprogram for fusionsenergi for at fremme opdagelsen af nye fysiske principper og grundlæggende gennembrud inden for videnskab med henblik på at skabe de mest avancerede udviklingsformer med de højeste energigennemstrømningstætheder. 
 
Mennesket er den eneste art, der er udstyret med kreativ fornuft, hvilket adskiller det fra alle andre levende væsener. Denne kreative evne sætter os i stand til kontinuerligt at opdage nye principper i det fysiske univers, hvilket kaldes videnskabeligt fremskridt. Det faktum, at den menneskelige forstand gennem en immateriel idé er i stand til at opdage disse principper, som har en virkning i det materielle univers i form af teknologisk fremskridt, beviser, at der er overensstemmelse mellem det menneskelige sinds lovmæssighed og lovmæssigheden i det fysiske univers. Set i dette perspektiv har økonomi ikke noget at gøre med profit, men med menneskers lykke i den forstand, som Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz mente, dvs. at mennesket er i stand til at udvikle alle de iboende potentialer det besidder til en harmonisk helhed, og dermed bidrage til den bedste videre udvikling af menneskeheden. 

Program/Talerlisten:

Plenarmøde
1) Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922-2019), afdød statsmand og økonom: »Grundlaget for at tro på optimisme«

2) Helga Zepp-LaRouche; grundlægger, Schiller Instituttet: Velkomst og åbningstale: »Behovet for et nyt paradigme«

3) Anatoly Antonov, russisk ambassadør i USA: »Mulighederne for at bygge en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur«

4) Sam Pitroda; iværksætter og politiker; USA/Indien: »Behovet for at omforme verden«

5) Jay Naidoo; minister under præsident Nelson Mandela, Sydafrika: »Perspektivet fra den afrikanske medborger«

6) Chen Xiaohan, Det kinesiske folks forening for fred og nedrustning: »Menneskehedens fælles fremtid«

7) Alessia Ruggeri; talskvinde for Comitato per la Repubblica, fagforeningsleder, sammenslutningen af små og mellemstore virksomheder: »For et fædrelandenes Europa med Den Westfalske Fred«
Diskussion mellem paneldeltagerne

Panel 1: Økonomi
1) Dennis Small; Latinamerikansk redaktør, EIR: »Den nye arkitektur: Et program for at forhindre, at en milliard mennesker sulter på grund af sanktionerne«

2) Prof. Justin Yifu Lin; dekan, Institut for ny strukturel økonomi; dekan, Institut for Syd-Syd-samarbejde og udvikling; æresdekan, Skolen for national udvikling, Beijing Universitet: »Kinas BRI: Rationale og sandsynlige virkninger«

3) Saeed Naqvi (Indien), indisk journalist, tv-kommentator og interviewer: »Mediernes rolle og ansvar«

4) Dr. George Koo (USA), pensioneret virksomhedsrådgiver; Formand, Burlingame Foundation: »USA’s sanktioner imod Rusland og Kina er selvmord for dollaren«

5) Fraydique Alexander Gaitán (Colombia), formand for Columbias arbejderforbund CTU-USCTRAB: »ILO-tripartisme, den vigtigste tilgang til en stabil og varig global fred« and Pedro Rubio, leder af CTU-USCTRAB og formand for sammenslutningen af tjenestemænd i Colombias generalregnskabskontor: »Sydamerika og den nye udviklingsarkitektur«
Offentlig debat

Panel 2: Sikkerhed
1) Jacques Cheminade; formand, Solidarité et Progrès, Frankrig: » Den Westfalske Fred for at undgå Thukydid-fælden «

2) Diogène Senny; formand for den panafrikanske liga UMOJA Congo, Republikken Congo: »Hvad Afrika forventer af verden«

3) Caleb Maupin (USA), stifter og direktør for Center for Political Innovation: »Sikkerhedsvirkninger af USA’s og Vestens ensidige sanktioner«

4) Mike Callicrate (USA), kvægavler fra Kansas, politisk fortaler og stifter og ejer af Ranch Foods Direct: »Kartel-æraen er forbi: Flere suveræne landmænd, mad til alle, fordobling af verdens fødevareproduktion«
Offentlig diskussion

Panel 3: Udvikling
1) Dennis Speed; Komitéen for Modsætningers Sammenfald, forfatter og mangeårig leder af LaRouche-bevægelsen; »Det presserende behov for et verdenssundhedssystem«

2) Helga Zepp-LaRouche: »Operation Ibn Sina«, Dipl. Ing. Daud Azimi – Bestyrelsesmedlem Afghanistans nationale fredsfront: »Afghanistan: Dagens presserende økonomiske og politiske nødvendigheder« 

3) Princy Mthombeni; kommunikationsspecialist, stifter af Africa4Nuclear: »Kernekraftteknologi til Afrikas dagsorden for bæredygtig udvikling«
Offentlig debat

Afsluttende bemærkninger
Helga Zepp-LaRouche

 

 




Foredrag af Rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Hvad sker der i og omkring Ukraine? den 5. marts 2022

“Jens Jørgen Nielsen, som er historiker, Ruslandskender og forfatter til bøger om både Ukraine og Rusland, holdt dette foredrag d. 5.  marts 2022 på Aarhus mod Krig og Terrors debatmøde om situationen i Ukraine.” fra hjemmesiden Flygtninge og Fred her.

Diabilleder:

Download (PPTX, 2.67MB)




“Vi må sætte en stopper for den selvdestruktive selvmordspagt”
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 10. marts 2022

Schiller Instituttets formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kom med en kraftig appel til alle borgere om at gøre fælles sag med hende for at samle tilslutning til en konference, for at etablere en ny strategisk arkitektur, inden de vanvittige krigshøge i det transatlantiske område roder sig ud i en atomkrig.

Hun beskrev den nuværende situation som “forfærdelig … ude af kontrol”, og fastslog at den totale kontrol med medierne har gjort det muligt for regeringerne at sætte økonomierne i en krigstilstand, hvilket truer med at udløse massedød som følge af hungersnød. Den nuværende sanktionsordning mod Afghanistan truer fem millioner børn nu, sagde hun. I stedet for at tage stilling til dette er USA og NATO-magterne i gang med at dæmonisere Putin og knuse Rusland.  

Jeg opfordrer jer til at slutte jer til os, sagde hun, for at indkalde til en konference “i ånden fra den Westfalske Fred (1648)” for at skabe en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der tager hensyn til alle nationers og folkeslags behov. Centralt i hendes forslag er at acceptere tilbuddet fra den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi, som opfordrede til en integration af USA og Europa med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 11. marts 2022:
Vil falsk kemisk angreb bringe Nato i åben krig med Rusland?
Klik her for lydfilen.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Resumé:
Det ser ud til at vestlige efterretningstjenester planlægger et falsk kemisk angreb, som det man lavede i Syrien i som fik Trump til at bombe Syrien i 2017. Vil man få Nato i åben krig med Rusland? Faren for en atomkrig har aldrig været større. Der er to krige: Den i Ukraine og den større økonomiske krig USA og Vesten har iværksat imod Rusland. Man forsøger at få russisk kapitulation men trækker også tæppet væk under økonomien, særligt Europas. Hvor længe varer det inden at vi ser konkurser pga. af Ruslands manglende betalinger? De vestlige tiltag som man siger skyldes ”Putins krig”, var noget USA længe har presset på for, både 2 % af BNP til militær og stop for køb af russisk gas. Nato har længe sendt våben og trænet Ukraines hær, også de åbent fascistiske elementer i den, for at Ukraine kunne påføre Rusland maksimal skade. Skaden på Ukraine betyder lige så meget for Vesten, som man bekymrer sig om befolkningen i Afghanistan.

Vestens økonomiske atombombe imod Rusland, udelukkelsen fra SWIFT og indefrysningen af Rusland formue i udenlandske banker vil medføre at ingen kan vide sig sikker, hvis pengene står i vestlige banker der handler på politiske ordrer. Dollarens og euroens rolle som reservevaluta vil blive kraftigt udfordret. En russisk statsbankerot og manglende russiske betalinger kan vælte meget.

Uden russisk gas, olie og kul står Europa stille. Energipriserne himmelflugt gør stor økonomisk skade. Fødevareforsyning og fødevarepriser rammes også af mangel på kunstgødning og evt. dårlig høst i Ukraine og Rusland. Og fiskere som bliver hjemme fordi det er for dyrt at sejle. Andre ting, som f.eks. produktion af mikrochips kan også blive hårdt ramt. Vestens sanktioner vil gøre stor skade på økonomien. Rusland vil nok nationalisere eller tvangsovertage vestligt ejede virksomheder som McDonalds og JYSK der har lukket ned for aktiviteten. Hvad med Carlsberg?

Rusland siger, at de aldrig igen vil være afhængige af Vesten. Fokus bliver på Kina og Asien. Man satser på den verdensorden, som Rusland og Kina fremlagde den 4. februar. Kina vil støtte Rusland for de ved, at hvis Rusland knækker, så er det deres tur bagefter.

Globalt økonomisk kaos truer pga. Vestens sanktioner imod Rusland. Ifølge UNICEF og Verdensfødevareprogrammet er 1 million børn under 5 år på vej til at dø af sult i Afghanistan. 8 millioner børn og 22 millioner mennesker er i fare, og de kan kun hjælpe 12 millioner. Vesten gør ingenting.

Vi behøver en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur som alle, også Rusland, Kina og Indien, kan se sig selv i og vi behøver den nu. Skriv under på Schiller Instituttets appel. Rejs debatten. Gør noget, før det er for sent. 




NYHEDSORIENTERING FEBRUAR-MARTS 2022:
For en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrer indtrængende til en konference
om en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur på Kinas CGTN’s udsendelse “Dialog”

Den 7. marts (EIRNS)-Helga Zepp-LaRouche var en af tre gæster i et panel på CGTN’s udsendelse Dialog i dag, hvor hun kommenterede den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yis årlige pressekonference, som varede mindst 90 minutter.  De andre gæster var Peter Kuznick fra American University og professor Victor Gao Zhikai fra Soochow University; værtinde var Li Quiyuan. Diskussionen fokuserede på Kinas rolle med hensyn til at skabe fred, især i konflikten mellem Rusland og Ukraine, men vigtigst af alt for verden som helhed. 

Her er udvekslingerne mellem fru Li og fru Zepp-LaRouche.

CGTN: Og fru LaRouche, lad mig høre din holdning til dette:  Hvilke centrale budskaber fik du ud af udenrigsminister Wangs pressekonference?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg var faktisk meget tilfreds med tonen, fordi det var som en tilbagevenden til fornuften.  Det står i skarp kontrast til stemningen i de europæiske og amerikanske medier og den førte politik i de seneste dage.  Fokuseringen på at løse problemer gennem diplomati, på at opretholde principperne i FN-pagten og på at have en overordnet holdning til problemløsning gennem samarbejde, var et tiltrængt frisk pust.  Og jeg er meget, meget opmuntret, fordi Kina faktisk indtager en ledende rolle i verden lige nu, hvilket der er hårdt brug for.

CGTN: Udenrigsministeren sagde, og jeg citerer hans ord: “Kina vil gerne arbejde sammen med det internationale samfund for at fremme forhandlingerne, når det er nødvendigt”, selv om han ikke specifikt sagde på hvilken måde.  Men Kina understregede vigtigheden af at holde dialogen helt åben fremover.

Et andet spørgsmål, som blev rejst af journalister på pressekonferencen, er, om denne konflikt eller denne krise i Ukraine vil påvirke relationerne mellem Kina og EU.  Så fru Zepp-LaRouche, lad mig høre din holdning til dette? Der er en vis bekymring for, at denne konflikt vil påvirke forholdet mellem Kina og EU. Udenrigsministeren sagde, at dialog og samarbejde mellem Kina og Europa er baseret på gensidig respekt og gensidig fordel, og det vil skabe mere stabilitet i den turbulente verdenssituation.  Og han opfordrer også indtrængende EU til at udarbejde en uafhængig Kina-politik.  Hvad mener du om denne kommentar?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg finder, at situationen er meget alvorlig, fordi f.eks. handelen mellem EU og Kina, som hidtil har været en søjle i verdensøkonomien, er truet af det, der sker mellem Ukraine og Rusland.  Stemningen i Europa lige nu er ganske forfærdelig, og jeg kan kun tilslutte, at der bør findes nye løsninger, som udenrigsministeren giver håb om. 

Jeg er af den overbevisning, at den kinesiske politiske model, den forenede fremtid for en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden, efter min mening er det, der er brug for lige nu, – professor Kuznick har ret, når han understreger, hvor vigtigt det er, at der er brug for noget helt andet.  Hvis vi fortsætter geopolitikken som hidtil, er det et spørgsmål om tid, hvornår menneskeheden støder ind i muren, og det kan føre til en atomar udryddelse. 

Modellen, der passer perfekt til det fælles samfund af den samlede menneskehed, ville være at indkalde til en konference, en international konference, der skulle varetage de sikkerhedsmæssige interesser for hvert enkelt land på jorden.  For man kan ikke have en fredsordning uden at tage hensyn til alle landes interesser, og der findes en model i den europæiske historie, nemlig Westfalens Fred. Den Westfalske Fred afsluttede 150 års religionskrig, der kulminerede i Trediveårskrigen, og den var baseret på en erkendelse fra alle krigens parter om, at hvis krigen fortsatte, ville der ikke være nogen tilbage til at nyde resultatet af den. Og det er i en vis forstand en parallel til den situation, vi står over for overfor i dag, for hvis det kommer til en atomkrig, vil der ikke være nogen vinder, der vil ikke engang være nogen tilbage til at kommentere resultatet.

Dette bør være en motivation for at indkalde til en ny konference om Den Westfalske Fred med det specifikke formål at udarbejde en international ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som ville omfatte Rusland og Kina i perfekt overensstemmelse med præsident Xi Jinpings politik om menneskehedens skæbnefællesskab og den ene fremtid, som vi alle deler.

CGTN: Kina er vært for dette års BRICS-topmøde. APEC- og G20-møderne vil også blive afholdt i Asien i år.  Udenrigsministeren sagde, at “Asiens tid er oprundet i den globale styring”, og “de vil forvandle sig fra følgere til frontløbere og endog foregangsmænd”. Fru LaRouche, lad mig høre din holdning til dette:  Det er meget stærke ord, der kommer fra udenrigsministeren.  Hvad mener du om hans vurdering her?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er helt rigtigt, fordi de asiatiske lande generelt, ikke kun Kina, men også nogle andre asiatiske lande, er meget bevidste om deres 5.000 år gamle historie, og ud fra dette synspunkt med en positiv tradition, definerer de en fremtid, og de ønsker at udvikles.  Det er den fælles idé i BRICS, SCO og endda andre organisationer, og dette står i skarp kontrast til Europa og USA.  Idéen om en ny model for internationale forbindelser, hvis disse organisationer –  selv om de skulle blive inddraget i G20 –  idéen om, at man har brug for en ny model for internationale forbindelser, som Wang Yi har understreget igen i dag, bør tilføres substans.  

Vi har valget mellem at ende i en geopolitisk konfrontation, som vil være til skade for alle og muligvis føre til atomkrig, eller også foretager vi et spring i civilisationens udvikling, ved at definere de internationale forbindelser i en bestemt retning i traditionen fra den alliancefrie bevægelse, Bandung-konferencen og FN-pagtens fem principper for fredelig sameksistens; men også at skabe en vision om at løse menneskehedens største problemer i fællesskab, f.eks. at vi stadig er ramt af en pandemi, og at vi har brug for et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert enkelt land for at bekæmpe denne pandemi og risikoen for nye pandemier.  Vi har en hungersnød i verden af, som Beasley fra World Food Program til stadighed siger, “af bibelske dimensioner”.  Den vil blive større på grund af inflationen i fødevarepriserne, i gødningspriserne og i energipriserne.  

Så der er en presserende dagsorden. Dette år kan bruges til at fastslå, at vi har brug for en ny model for internationale forbindelser, som overvinder geopolitikken: Udenrigsminister Wang Yi og også præsident Xi Jinping har henvist hertil ved at foreslå, at Bælte- og vejinitiativet skal samarbejde med USA’s “Build Back Better”-initiativ og EU’s Global Gateway.  Hvis det besluttes at disse initiativer strømlines i stedet for at konkurrere, så beslutter vi også, sammen at tage fat på det der belaster hele menneskeheden såsom sult i verden, epidemier og fattigdom. Dette skal ses i lyset af , at det nuværende finansielle system i den transatlantiske sektor,  er gået helt i stå. Vi står nu over for et nyt sammenbrud, der er meget værre end i 2008.

Federal Reserve var ikke i stand til at ” tilpasse” renten, fordi de er bange for, at hvis de øger renten, vil der opstå et omfattende kollaps af konkurser.  Så der er et presserende behov for at få et nyt finansielt system, et nyt Bretton Woods-system, et nyt kreditsystem, der giver kredit til udvikling af alle udviklingslande – det er nogle af de punkter, som virkelig vil være menneskehedens udfordring.  Kan vi, når vi står over for grundlæggende udfordringer, skabe en orden, der gør det muligt for alle mennesker på denne planet at overleve og blive lykkelige? Jeg tror, at det vil være dagsordenen. 

 

 

 




EIR spørger forsvarsministre fra Danmark, Storbritannien og Sverige om en
ny sikkerheds- og økonomisk arkitektur på TV2 live

København, 4. marts (EIRNS) — {EIR} stillede et spørgsmål om Schiller Instituttets forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklings arkitektur på et pressemøde i dag med forsvarsministrene fra Danmark, Storbritannien og Sverige, om bord på den danske fregat Niels Juel, ved lanceringen af den militære øvelse Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) i Østersøen.

Storbritannien har ledelsen af JEF, og denne øvelse med udgangspunkt i Danmark omfatter også Sverige og de tre baltiske lande, Estland, Letland og Litauen. 

Den danske forsvarsminister Morten Bødskov besvarede {EIR}s spørgsmål, i selskab med den britiske forsvarsminister Ben Wallace og den svenske forsvarsminister Peter Hultqvist. 

Pressekonferencen blev transmitteret direkte og er arkiveret på dansk TV2. Der var filmhold og reportere fra andre danske medier, Sverige, Storbritannien (BBC), Agence France-Presse (AFP) og muligvis også andre lande, hvor det muligvis er blevet transmitteret. 

Her er endnu en video, som også inkluderer TV2’s spørgsmål, om Danmark og Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) optrapper krisen med deres militære øvelser i Østersøen.

Hele pressekonferencen kan stadigvæk ses på TV2News den 4. marts 2022: Find “Nordeuropæiske forsvarsministre briefer om samarbejde” her.

 “EIR: Michelle Rasmussen fra {Executive Intelligence Review} i USA. I betragtning af alvoren af krigen i Ukraine og faren for optrapning, ligefrem indtil atomkrig, har formanden for Schiller Instituttet Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordret til en international konference om en ny sikkerhedsmæssig og økonomisk arkitektur, der skal tage hensyn til alle landes fælles interesser. Har De en kommentarer til dette – nogen af ministrene?

“Den danske forsvarsminister Morten Bødskov: Der er kun én kommentar, nemlig at det JEF-samarbejde, som vi har indgået her, er vejen frem. Vi står sammen her i dag, for at bekræfte vores værdier, vores samarbejde, og det er vejen frem for den region, som vi befinder os i nu, og jeg er glad for, at vores britiske kollega og min svenske kollega er til stede her i dag.” 

Under den korte pressekonference om morgenen, rejste BBC spørgsmålet om atomkrig, da der blev spurgt, om Rusland i lyset af det russiske angreb på et ukrainsk atomkraftværk, ville være indstillet på at bruge atomvåben. Den britiske forsvarsminister Ben Wallace, nedtonede faren ved den nuværende situation med atomkraftværket. Han advarede Rusland mod at ramme atomkraftværker ved et uheld eller med vilje, og erklærede, at Putins tankegang synes at være, at der ikke er nogen grænser. Putin bør mindes om, at NATO er en konventionel og nuklear alliance. 

Under eftermiddagens pressekonference var {EIR} den anden journalist i rækken, der stillede et spørgsmål, forud for en national dansk TV2-journalist, der sendte direkte, og som stillede fire spørgsmål om, hvorvidt denne Joint Expeditionary Force-øvelse risikerer at eskalere den nuværende krise. Svaret fra den danske minister var bl.a., at vi er nødt til at trække en streg i sandet over for Putin og sikre friheden i Østersøområdet. {EIR} vil udsende endnu en video med denne udveksling på dansk, efterfulgt af {EIR}s spørgsmål og svar.

English:

COPENHAGEN, March 4 (ERINS) — EIR asked the question at a press conference with the ministers of defense from Denmark, Great Britain and Sweden, aboard the Danish frigate Niels Juel, on the occasion of the start of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) military exercise in the Baltic Sea. The JEF is led by Great Britain, and this exercise, with the starting point in Denmark, also includes Sweden, and the three Baltic countries.

Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov answered EIR’s question, alongside British Defense Minister Ben Wallace and Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.

The press conference was broadcast live and is archived on Danish TV2, and there were film crews and reporters from other Danish media, Sweden, Great Britain (BBC), Agence France Press, and maybe other countries, so it might also have been covered live in other countries.

“EIR: Michelle Rasmussen from Executive Intelligence Review in the United States. Given the seriousness of war in Ukraine and the danger of escalation, even up to nuclear war, the president of the Schiller Institute Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for an international conference for a new security and economic architecture to address the interests of all countries. Do you have any comments to that — any of the ministers?

Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov: There is only one comment, that the JEF (Joint Expeditionary Force) cooperation that we have made here is the way forward. We stand together here, today, to confirm our values, our cooperation, and that’s the way forward for the region that we are in now, and I’m glad that our British colleague and my Swedish colleague are here today.”

During the morning short press conference, the BBC reporter brought the nuclear war question up when he asked if, in light of the Russian attack on a Ukrainian nuclear plant, Russia would be in the mindset to use nuclear weapons. British Defense Minister Ben Wallace played down the danger of the current nuclear plant situation, warned Russia against hitting nuclear plants by accident or intention, said that Putin’s mindset seemed to be that there are no limits, and Putin should be reminded that NATO is a conventional and nuclear alliance.

During the afternoon press conference EIR was the second journalist to ask a question, preceded by a national Danish TV2 journalist, broadcasting live, who asked four questions about if this Joint Expeditionary Force exercise can escalate the current crisis. The answer from the Danish minister included that we have to draw a line in the sand for Putin, and ensure freedom in the Baltic region. EIR will release another video with this exchange in Danish and followed by the EIR question and answer.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 3. marts 2022:
Militær støtte til Ukraine og økonomisk krig imod Rusland
kan ende med atomkrig

Med formand Tom Gillesberg kl. 13

Lyd: 

Resumé:

Folk er i chok over Ruslands invasion af Ukraine. Hvordan kunne det ske? Der var ellers mange advarsler over lang, lang tid, som man overhørte. Vil man overse alle tegnene på, at konflikten mellem Vesten og Rusland kan eskalere til atomkrig? Det er ikke nok at håbe på, at det ikke sker. “Hope is not a strategy”. Man stopper ikke krigen i Ukraine gennem at sende våben til at bekæmpe Rusland. Fanatikere i Vesten håber, at Ukraine vil blive det nye Afghanistan for Rusland, men hvordan gik det så efterfølgende for Afghanistan? 27 millioner afghanere sulter nu og mange dør pga. af mangel på alt, mens USA og Vesten har indefrosset Afghanistans penge. Er afghanske liv mindre værd end europæiske?

Det er ikke et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt man holder med Ukraine eller Rusland, men om, hvordan vi får stoppet udviklingen mod global krig. Hvis ikke total økonomisk og kulturel krigsførelse imod Rusland, en chok og skræk-politik, vil få Rusland til at overgive sig til Vestens overherredømme, hvad så? Udryddelse med atomvåben? Hvis ikke Kina går med i blokaden af Rusland, skal vi så også i fuld økonomisk krig med Kina? Det vestlige finanssystem er allerede på vej mod en total nedsmeltning. Nulrente-politikken og ubegrænset likviditet til finansmarkederne er snart forbi. Så står verden med et uoverstigeligt gældsbjerg, der kollapser. Vil udelukkelse af Rusland fra SWIFT-systemet blive et nyt Lehmann Brothers? Sanktionerne vil ramme Europa lige så hårdt som Rusland, og økonomien er i forvejen presser af de høje gas- og energipriser og forsyningskrisen.

Hvad er den egentlige vestligt iscenesatte årsag til krisen mellem Rusland og Ukraine, som er censureret ud af den vestlige fortælling om krisen? Først var der udvidelsen af Nato i flere omgange imod alle løfter. Så kom den farvede revolution i Ukraine og husk på, at det var et vestligt organiseret statskup, der udløste Krims tilslutning til Rusland og krisen i Østukraine. Hvad har man i Vesten gjort for de civile i Østukraine eller for at sikre gennemførelsen af Minsk-aftalen?

Det drejer sig ikke om Ukraine men om den internationale verdensorden. Rusland og Kina annoncerede den 4. februar 2022, at man ikke længere vil acceptere amerikanske og vestlige diktater. Kina ved, at hvis Vesten kan knække Rusland, så er de den næste på listen. Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ og Ruslands energipolitik er et alternativ for Afrika, Sydamerika og Asien. Vil USA starte atomkrig for at stoppe det eller vil Vesten i stedet finde ud af at begrave geopolitikken og samarbejde om økonomisk udvikling?

Skriv under på Schiller Instituttets appel for en indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer. Bryd censuren og skab diskussion og dialog om, hvad der egentlig foregår, og hvordan vi finder en løsning gennem dialog og samarbejde. Freden kan ikke sikres gennem konfrontation og krig! Når først vi overraskes af atomkrig er det for sent.




Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Løgne og sandheder om Ukraine

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

Mandag den 28. februar 2022 — Jeg taler til jer, fordi jeg ønsker at overbringe jer et ekstremt vigtigt budskab. Som I ved, har russiske tropper, de seneste par dage været i Ukraine i en militær operation. Som en reaktion har Vesten indført meget, meget hårde sanktioner mod Rusland, som vil få umådelig store konsekvenser, ikke kun for Rusland, men også for hele verden. Præsident Putin har sat de russiske atomvåben i alarmberedskab.  Enhver yderligere optrapning af denne situation indebærer en risiko for, at tingene kommer helt ud af kontrol og i værste fald fører til en atomudveksling og tredje verdenskrig, og hvis det sker, er der chancer for, at ingen vil overleve. Det kunne betyde menneskehedens udslettelse.

For at forstå, hvordan vi er nået til dette punkt, må man se på den nyere historie – i hvert fald de sidste 30 år – for vi er gået som søvngængere fra et punkt, som var utroligt håbefuldt, til en forværring af situationen – trin for trin, trin for trin – og de fleste mennesker var aldeles ubekymrede for, hvad der skete.

Man skal erindre, at i 1989, da Berlinmuren faldt, var mange af de unge mennesker ikke engang født dengang, og har ikke en egentlig fornemmelse af, hvad denne periode indebar: Det var et øjeblik med et utroligt historisk potentiale, fordi man kunne have opbygget en fredsorden, fordi fjenden var væk, eller var ved at forsvinde; Sovjetunionen udgjorde ikke længere en trussel, fordi Gorbatjov havde accepteret en demokratisering af de østeuropæiske lande, og det var det, vi kaldte “menneskehedens stjernestund”, et af de sjældne øjeblikke, hvor man kan udforme historien til det bedre.  

Dengang udgjorde Sovjetunionen ikke nogen trussel, og derfor var det helt forståeligt, at [USA’s udenrigsminister] James Baker III den 9. februar 1990 i en diskussion med Gorbatjov lovede: “NATO vil ikke udvide sig en tomme mod øst”. Nu siger [NATO’s generalsekretær] Stoltenberg i dag, at der aldrig blev udstedt et sådant løfte, men det er ikke sandt. Jack Matlock, som var USA’s ambassadør i Moskva på det tidspunkt, har mange, mange gange erklæret, at der faktisk blev afgivet et sådant løfte. 

Der findes en video med den tidligere tyske udenrigsminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, hvor han bekræfter dette, og for blot et par dage siden gennemførte den daværende franske udenrigsminister Roland Dumas et interview, hvor han absolut bekræftede dette, og sagde: “Ja, vi lovede dette”. Der er også dukket et nyt dokument op, som befinder sig i de britiske arkiver.   

Så der er overvældende beviser for, at der blev afgivet et sådant løfte. Når Putin nu siger, at han føler sig forrådt, er der derfor konkrete beviser, for Putin kom også til Tyskland i 2001, hvor han talte til den tyske Forbundsdag på tysk, og han var fuld af forslag og forhåbninger om at opbygge et fælles europæisk hus, at samarbejde. Han talte om det tyske folk, om kulturens folk, om Lessing og Goethe. 

Der var potentiale til ligefrem at omgøre situationen i 1990’erne, med Jeltsin og chokterapien. For på det tidspunkt var der desværre sket det, at visse kredse i Storbritannien og USA besluttede at opbygge en unipolær verden. I stedet for at opbygge en fredsorden sagde de: “Okay, nu er der mulighed for at opbygge et imperium efter det Britiske Imperiums forbillede, baseret på det særlige forhold mellem Storbritannien og USA: Det blev benævnt PNAC, Project for a New American Century.  Langsomt, trin for trin, begyndte de at foretage regimeskifte af alle, der ikke var enige i dette, at gennemføre en farverevolution, at gennemføre humanitære interventionistiske krige, som resulterede i Afghanistan, Irak, som var baseret på løgne; den utrolige løgn over for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om Libyen; forsøget på at vælte Assad [i Syrien]; krige, som har ført til, at {millioner af mennesker} er døde, at millioner af mennesker er blevet flygtninge og har fået et ødelagt liv. 

Så dette var et område, hvor Ukraine fra starten udgjorde en stor del af regnestykket. Der var i alt fem bølger af NATO-udvidelser, og i 2008 blev det på topmødet i Bukarest lovet, at Ukraine og Georgien ville blive en del af NATO, hvilket set fra Ruslands opfattelse, bestemt ikke er acceptabelt. I stedet for at NATO ikke bevægede sig “en tomme mod øst”, flyttede det sig 1.000 km mod øst!  De sidder nu i de baltiske lande, på grænsen til Rusland, men Ukraine ville medføre, at offensive våbensystemer ville være i stand til, at nå Moskva på mindre end 5 minutter, og reelt gøre Rusland forsvarsløst.  Man må forstå, at det er Ruslands vitale sikkerhedsmæssige interesse, som, hvis NATO ville inkludere Ukraine, ville krænke denne interesse, og derfor er al denne diskussion om, at ukrainerne har ret til at vælge deres egen alliance, reelt ikke troværdig!  Eftersom det også er et princip i alle officielle dokumenter, at man ikke kan garantere et lands sikkerhed på bekostning af et andet lands sikkerhed, hvilket i dette tilfælde ville være Rusland. 

Så det der skete var, at da EU forsøgte at inkludere Ukraine i EU’s associeringsaftale i slutningen af 2013, erkendte den daværende præsident Janukovitj, at det var uacceptabelt, fordi det praktisk talt ville have åbnet Sortehavet og NATO for de ukrainske havne, så han trak sig ud af aftalen. Straks fulgte demonstrationerne på Maidan; og det siges altid, at det blot var demokratiske individer – selvfølgelig var der demokratiske mennesker, som ønskede at være en del af Europa og en del af Vesten. Men lige fra begyndelsen var der elementer, som efterretningstjenesterne havde holdt skjult siden Anden Verdenskrig, Stepan Banderas netværk, som var den person, der havde samarbejdet med nazisterne under Anden Verdenskrig. Stepan Bandera blev faktisk agent for MI6; hans netværk havde kontorer i München, de var en del af den anti-bolsjevistiske blok af nationer, de blev holdt skjult af efterretningstjenesterne, MI6, CIA, BND, med henblik på en eventuel konfrontation med Sovjetunionen.  Disse netværk blev mobiliseret på Maidan, som en del af en operation for regimeskifte, en farverevolution, og så til sidst kuppet, som USA – ifølge Victoria Nuland – havde brugt 5 milliarder dollars på at opbygge ngo’er og grundlæggende forsøge at manipulere befolkningen til at tro, at hvis de blev medlem af EU, ville de fra den ene dag til den anden, blive rige i lighed med Tyskland, hvilket naturligvis aldrig var planen.

Derfor indtraf kuppet naturligvis, og med kuppet i februar 2014 kom der netværk til magten, som var ekstremt undertrykkende over for det russiske sprog og den russiske befolkning, det var derfor, at befolkningen på Krim stemte for at blive en del af Rusland.  Det var ikke Putin, der annekterede Krim, det var en foranstaltning til selvforsvar for den russisktalende befolkning på Krim, for at få mulighed for at stemme ved en folkeafstemning.  Befolkningen i Østukraine besluttede at udråbe sig til uafhængige republikker af samme grund. 

Minsk-aftalen skulle have indeholdt en forhandlingsmodel, der kunne give disse uafhængige republikker mere autonomi i Ukraine, men den ukrainske regering har {aldrig} gennemført dette – både Tyskland og Frankrig, som skulle være en del af Normandiet-drøftelserne, herunder Tyskland, Frankrig, Ukraine og Rusland, lagde aldrig pres på den ukrainske regering, så det førte ingen steder hen.  I mellemtiden var der flere og flere manøvrer omkring Rusland, så dette eskalerede til det punkt, hvor der i november var manøvrer, hvor der ligefrem befandt sig flyvende fartøjer, som testede og indøvede et atomangreb på Rusland i en afstand på 22 km. fra Ruslands grænse.  

Det var denne følelse af øget omringning, som er årsagen til, at Putin den 17. december sidste år erklærede, at han ønskede sikkerhedsgarantier for Rusland fra USA og NATO om, at de juridisk forpligtende, ville garantere Ruslands sikkerhed, hvilket ville omfatte: 

NATO må ikke ekspandere yderligere mod øst. 
Ukraine må aldrig blive medlem af NATO, af de grunde tidligere nævnt. 
Der må ikke placeres offensive våben ved Ruslands grænse. 

Men han fik ikke nogen respons. Han fik et svar fra USA og NATO, som grundlæggende reagerede på sekundære spørgsmål, f.eks. en vis aftale om at genoptage våbenforhandlingerne, men han fik ikke svar på de centrale krav. Jeg tror, at det eksempelvis er årsagen til, at Rusland og Kina nu har indgået en meget tæt strategisk alliance, hvilket skete den 4. februar, og Putin forsøgte at afprøve, om der var villighed fra europæiske nationer, som Tyskland – hvis kansler, Scholz, tog til Moskva, og den franske præsident Macron, som tog til Moskva – men han kom til den konklusion, at der ikke var nogen beredvillighed til at stå op imod NATO’s og USA’s fortsatte bestræbelser på at fortsætte Ruslands omringning. 

Nu kan man indvende, at krig er meget slemt, og naturligvis er det det mest forfærdelige, der kan ske. Men man må forstå, at hvis man sætter Ruslands centrale sikkerhedsinteresser i fare, ja, så er det, hvad man risikerer at få!  Man er nødt til at forstå Ruslands historie: For der har allerede to gange tidligere været en invasion af Rusland.  Den ene var med Napoleon, som, hvis man husker det, eller hvis man kender historien, havde en enormt stor hær og gik ind i det meget vidtrækkende område i Rusland. Der var en plan om at besejre Napoleon ved at lokke ham ind i de fjerne regioner, ved at få ham til at trække en lang operationel linje, ved at udnytte det faktum, at Napoleon ødelagde alt på vej ind, for i bund og grund at gøre det umuligt for ham at få flere forsyninger af fødevarer og andre materialer. De tillod endda, at Moskva blev brændt ned for at sikre, at der ikke var noget, som Napoleon kunne anvende for at overleve vinteren, så han måtte træffe beslutningen om at trække sig tilbage, i vinteren, med sneen. Da Napoleons tropper endelig kom tilbage til Ruslands grænser, var der kun nogle få mennesker fra en tidligere gigantisk hær.  Det var en traumatisk oplevelse, allerede dér.

Der var selvfølgelig også Hitler, som ligeledes invaderede Rusland, og for russerne er det en oplevelse, som er dybt indgroet i deres DNA, kan man sige, for de mistede 27 millioner mennesker!  For dem er det at forsvare Rusland det vigtigste – det er et spørgsmål om liv og død. 

Så hvad der nu skete var, at da alt dette eskalerede, udtalte Rusland: Vi trækker absolut en rød streg; da disse røde streger ikke blev respekteret, var dette så en handling, som skulle gøre det meget klart. Putin sagde, at han ville iværksætte en “militær-teknisk reaktion”, og jeg tror ikke, at Rusland har til hensigt at besætte Ukraine. Jeg tror de ønsker en vis neutralisering, de ønsker en afnazificering. Ærlig talt, med den nuværende kombination – Zelinskij blev ganske vist demokratisk valgt, men Azov-brigaden er der stadig som en del af forsvarsstyrkerne, og der er stadig medlemmer af parlamentet, en masse højreorienterede elementer. Zelinskij har forandret sig fra en fredselskende eller lovende fredspræsident til en person, der udelukkende er et redskab, og som ikke engang tør bringe Minsk 2 på banen, fordi han føler sig truet af at blive væltet, eller det der er værre, hvis han går ind for Minsk 2. 

Så det er en situation, hvor vi er nødt til at acceptere, at en afnazificering ikke er russisk propaganda, men at den rummer et reelt aspekt. Det er en komplet skandale, at Vesten med deres såkaldte frihedselskende, vestlige værdier, “regelbaserede orden”, demokrati, menneskerettigheder – er blevet lidt skrøbelige efter alle disse interventionistiske krige. Især det der blev begået og bliver praktiseret i Afghanistan, hvor folk bliver efterladt til at dø. Det er alt sammen en bevidst politik, fordi man vidste, hvad der ville ske, hvis der ville være en så hastig tilbagetrækning, der efterlod det afghanske folk med absolut ingenting.  

Så vi befinder os i en meget, meget farlig situation.  I søndags er der sket et epokegørende skift: Tyskland, som har gode grunde til at sige “aldrig mere” ønsker vi krig, fordi vi har haft to verdenskrige på vores jord, og i alles hukommelse, især hos de ældre, har vi vores forældres og bedsteforældres historier i baghovedet om, hvad krig gør, når den foregår på ens jord!  I søndags var der et jordskælv, hvilket jeg finder er en absolut katastrofe, fordi kansler Scholz afgav en regeringserklæring i Parlamentet, som i realiteten gjorde den tyske regering til et krigsministerium.  De ønsker nu at styrke Bundeswehr, og har oprettet en særlig fond på 100 mia. euro alene for i år; de ønsker at øge militærudgifterne og sender allerede våben til Ukraine, hvilket i realiteten var i strid med ethvert princip, som Tyskland anvendte, fordi landet havde den opfattelse, at man aldrig skulle sende våben til kriseområder.  

Alt dette er ved at ske.  Den tyske befolkning befinder sig i en fuldstændig tilstand af hjernevask.  I Frankrig er det ikke meget anderledes, men i Tyskland er det langt værre.  Folk på stedet, som kender til begge situationer, rapporterede, at det kun kan sammenlignes med det chok, som den amerikanske befolkning fik efter 11- september.  Jeg var i USA på det tidspunkt, og jeg husker, at man ikke kunne tale med nogen, fordi folk var fuldstændig vanvittige, opstemte og ophidsede, og det er nu tilfældet i Tyskland.  

Da jeg hørte kansler Scholz’ tale i går, mindede det mig om den forfærdelige tale, som kejser Wilhelm II holdt den 6. august 1914, da han bekendtgjorde, at Tyskland i princippet forberedte sig på Første Verdenskrig. Vi ved alle, at ved begyndelsen af Første Verdenskrig forventede ingen, at det ville tage fire år i skyttegravene, – frem og tilbage, frem og tilbage – meningsløse drab, og til sidst blev en hel generation ødelagt. Versailles-traktaten var en uretfærdig traktat, som ligefrem skabte forudsætningen for Anden Verdenskrig.

Så hvad gør vi nu? Jeg tror, at den eneste chance er, at vi omgående mobiliserer for en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som skal tage hensyn til sikkerhedsinteresserne hos alle nationerne på kloden, både Rusland, Kina, USA, de europæiske nationer og alle andre nationer på kloden. Modellen for dette er den Westfalske Fredstraktat.  Traktaten blev indgået, fordi man havde 150 års religionskrig i Europa, hvis højdepunkt var Trediveårskrigen, og den førte til ødelæggelse af alt: en tredjedel af værdierne, af mennesker, af landsbyer, af dyr – så til sidst kom folk til den konklusion, at hvis de fortsætter denne krig, ville der absolut ingen være tilbage til at glædes over sejren. I fire år, fra 1644-1648, sad folk sammen og udarbejdede en traktat, som fastlagde meget vigtige principper. Det vigtigste princip var, at fred kun kan vindes, hvis en ny ordning tager hensyn til den andens interesser. Den havde andre principper, f.eks. at man for fredens skyld skal føre udenrigspolitik på grundlag af kærlighed, at man skal tilgive forbrydelserne på begge sider, for ellers ville man aldrig nå frem til en aftale. Den opstillede det princip, at staten skal spille en vigtig rolle i genopbygningen af økonomien efter krigen, og det førte til den økonomiske model ”kameralisme”. 

Denne Westfalske Fred var begyndelsen på folkeretten, og den afspejles i dag i FN’s charter, det er den model, der skal bruges for at få nationerne til at sætte sig sammen for at finde ud af, hvilke principper vi skal følge for at skabe en orden, der giver alle nationer mulighed for fredelig sameksistens.  Og det tilsvarende kameralistiske princip fra den Westfalske Fred må være, at denne nye kombination af sikkerhedsarkitekturer skal tage højde for den egentlige årsag til krig, nemlig det vestlige finanssystems forestående sammenbrud, som er ved at bryde sammen længe før denne situation med Ukraine udviklede sig, men som nu vil blive forværret af sanktionerne og alle konsekvenserne heraf; og den må anvende de foranstaltninger, som Lyndon LaRouche allerede definerede for adskillige år siden.

Det er nødvendigt at gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien, for det er den, der er drivkraften bag denne konfrontation.

Der må indføres en global Glass/Steagall-aftale om adskillelse af bankerne; der skal oprettes en nationalbank i hvert enkelt land i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, og der skal etableres et nyt Bretton Woods-system for at skabe et kreditsystem til langsigtet udvikling, der kan løfte udviklingslandene gennem industriel udvikling.

Alt dette skal fokusere på den presserende udfordring med pandemien: Vi har brug for et globalt sundhedssystem, for uden det vil denne pandemi og fremtidige pandemier ikke forsvinde; vi har brug for en forøgelse af verdens fødevareproduktion, for vi har en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner”, som David Beasley fra Verdensfødevareprogrammet konstant fremhæver; vi har brug for en indsats for at overvinde fattigdommen i alle lande, hvor den er en truende kendsgerning, f.eks. i Afrika, mange latinamerikanske og asiatiske lande, ja, selv i USA og Europa. 

Udgangspunktet er naturligvis Kinas tilbud til USA og Europa om at samarbejde med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, om muligvis at tilslutte sig USA’s Build Back Better-program og EU’s Global Gateway-program, ikke at betragte det som konkurrence, men som en mulighed for samarbejde. For kun hvis verdens nationer samarbejder økonomisk til gavn for alle, har man et grundlag af tillid til at etablere en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som kan fungere.

Så jeg mener, at vi har udsendt en sådan opfordring til en konference og en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, og jeg opfordrer jer til at udbrede denne idé, få mange mennesker til at underskrive dette opråb, få folk til at skrive artikler, kommentere det, skabe en international debat om, at {vi har brug for et nyt paradigme}: For enhver fortsættelse af geopolitik med det såkaldte “fjendebillede” af den ene eller den anden part vil føre til en katastrofe, og hvis det kommer dertil, vil der ikke være nogen tilbage til overhovedet at kommentere det, fordi det vil være menneskehedens undergang.   

Så jeg opfordrer dig: Deltag i vores mobilisering, fordi det er dit liv og hele vores egen fremtid.

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

 




Helga Zepp-LaRouche fra Schiller Instituttet interviewet af CGTN om
truslen om en atomkrig og nødvendigheden af en
ny sikkerhedsarkitektur

Den 26. februar (EIRNS)–Helga Zepp LaRouche blev interviewet i kinesiske CGTN’s udsendelse The Hub i morges af vært Wang Guan.

WANG GUAN: Og nu er vi også sammen med Helga Zepp-LaRouche fra Wiesbaden, Tyskland, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. Fru LaRouche, velkommen tilbage til CGTN. Jeg er glad for at have dig hos os igen. Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne høre din vurdering af den igangværende Rusland-Ukraine-konflikt: Tror du, at den kunne have været undgået?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Præsident Putin havde gjort det meget klart, at røde linjer var blevet overskredet. Han sagde på et tidspunkt, at der ikke er noget sted, jeg kan trække tilbage til, og Vesten lyttede ikke til det. Den 17. december bad han så NATO og USA om juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier, om at NATO ikke ville udvide sig yderligere mod øst, at der ikke ville blive placeret offensive våben ved den russiske grænse, og at Ukraine aldrig ville blive medlem af NATO. Og han modtog ikke noget svar. Han fik ikke svar på det centrale spørgsmål, kun på underordnede forhold.
Så jeg mener, at Vesten begik en stor fejl ved ikke at lytte til Ruslands legitime, udtrykte sikkerhedsbekymringer, og nu er vi på randen af noget, som kan komme helt ud af kontrol.

WANG: Fru LaRouche, USA og NATO har annonceret de aktuelle sanktionsrunder mod Rusland, som er rettet mod præsident Putin og udenrigsminister Lavrov og andre. Tror du, at det vil afskrække Rusland fra sine nuværende planer, deres operationer i Ukraine?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det mener jeg ikke, for jeg tror, at præsident Putin har afvist dette. Han har allerede for nogle år siden sagt, at hvis Vesten ikke havde fundet Ukraine til at inddæmme og bruge til at nedbryde Rusland, ville de have fundet et andet problem. For nylig sagde han, at det virkelige formål med alt dette er at forhindre Ruslands økonomiske udvikling. Den 25. januar var der to unavngivne embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus, som sagde, at sanktionerne har til formål at forhindre Rusland i at diversificere fra olie og gas, hvilket betyder, at de nægter Rusland retten til udvikling!

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/25/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-russia-ukraine-economic-deterrence-measures/]

Dette er en krigshandling. Sanktioner er en krigshandling, og jeg tror, at Putin har afvist det. Det vil være smertefuldt for Rusland, men jeg tror, at Vesten påfører sig selv langt større skade. Og det skal fordømmes fuldstændigt.

WANG: Og lad os også tale om FN, den rolle FN’s resolutioner spiller, som ikke blev vedtaget tidligere. Overrasker det dig overhovedet? At vi endnu en gang så et splittet Sikkerhedsråd i FN, når der står alt for meget på spil?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: FN’s Sikkerhedsråd er praktisk taget blevet gjort overflødigt af NATO allerede i 2011, da de løj i forbindelse med Libyen. De fik Ruslands og Kinas godkendelse til en begrænset aktion i Libyen, som så viste sig at være et omfattende militært angreb. Fra dengang har løgnen spillet en stor rolle, og det overrasker mig slet ikke, at målet med alt dette nu er at bevare den unipolære verden. Og det kan Rusland og Kina naturligvis ikke gå med til, så det er slet ikke overraskende.

WANG: Madame LaRouche, i årevis og årtier har du opfordret til en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, og nu opfordrer du til en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur i Europa. Hvad indebærer denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, jeg opfordrer til en {international} sikkerhedsarkitektur, som involverer sikkerhedsinteresser for alle nationer på denne planet, inklusive Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det historiske forbillede er den Vestfalske Fred, fordi alle de deltagende magter efter 150 års religionskrig i Europa og de enorme ødelæggelser kom til den konklusion, , at en fortsættelse af krigen ikke ville være til gavn for nogen, fordi ingen ville leve for at nyde den. Og vi befinder os i en lignende situation: Hvis man virkelig ser nøje på situationen, er faren en atomar udslettelse af hele den menneskelige art. Og jeg tror, at det er det, der skal trænge ind i alles bevidsthed, og så skal der indledes en proces som Westfalens fred, hvor princippet er, at en løsning skal tage hensyn til den andens interesser, til {alle} andres interesser.

Og det indebærer Ruslands sikkerhedsinteresser, Kinas sikkerhedsinteresser, USA’s, europæernes og alle andre nationers sikkerhedsinteresser. Det andet princip i Westfalske Fred var, at alle forbrydelser, som blev begået af den ene eller den anden part, skal glemmes af hensyn til freden, og for det tredje, at statens rolle er vigtig i den økonomiske genopbygning efter krigen.

Nu betyder det tilsvarende i dag, at alle magter skal tage fat på det virkelige, afgørende spørgsmål, nemlig at grunden til, at vi overhovedet har konflikten, er, at Vestens neoliberale system er ved at bryde sammen, og derfor skal den første handling i en sådan ny arkitektur være en global Glass-Steagall-bankopdeling, hvor der skal sættes en stopper for kasinoøkonomien, som har været årsagen til, at Vesten er blevet så desperat, og hvor der skal gøres en ende på den. Derefter skal vi have et nationalt banksystem for hvert enkelt land og et nyt kreditsystem i traditionen fra Bretton Woods-systemet, som giver billig kredit til udvikling af udviklingslandene. Hvis man bliver enige om disse foranstaltninger, vil en varig fred være mulig.

WANG: Madame LaRouche, [navn 6:23] en anerkendt politolog i Asien sagde tidligere i dag, at Ruslands slutspil kunne være at skabe en slags “mini-Sovjetunion”. Ser du også på det på den måde?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, det tror jeg ikke. Jeg tror, at de eneste mennesker, der presser på for geopolitiske blokke lige nu, er dem, der står bag præsident Biden, som forsøgte at skabe denne “alliance af demokratier” mod de såkaldte autokratiske regeringer. Jeg mener, at aftalen mellem præsident Xi Jinping og Putin den 4. februar, hvor de indgik en strategisk alliance mellem Rusland og Kina baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, er åben for alle. Og jeg mener, at enhver ny orden, der skal føre til fred, skal være inkluderende, skal overvinde geopolitikken og grundlæggende gå ud fra et princip om, at fred kun er mulig gennem udvikling, som skal være tilgængelig for alle.

WANG: Endelig, fru LaRouche, mener De, at USA og Vesten på en eller anden måde er på vej nedad, hvis man sammenligner deres holdning, f.eks. i Jugoslavien for 20 år siden, hvor de resolut greb ind militært, og nu, med Ukraine, med deres lige så resolutte “ingen støvler på jorden”-princip og holdning?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, vi har set i Afghanistan, at NATO og USA, som er den angiveligt mest magtfulde militærmaskine på jorden, ikke var i stand til at besejre det, der i sidste ende viste sig at være 65.000 talibankrigere. Der er altså tvivl om Vestens militære magt.

Problemet er, at der dermed kun er atomvåben tilbage, og hvis man ser på atomdoktrinerne – Prompt Global Strike-doktrinen eller den nylige manøvre Global Lightning, som havde denne idé om en langvarig atomkrig – så tror jeg, at det udgør den virkelige fare. Og derfor er spørgsmålet om det nukleare magtspil, som vi ser lige nu, det, der skal undgås, og som skal udskiftes hurtigst muligt. Folk skal være klar over, at hvis det kommer til brug af et enkelt atomvåben, er det logikken i atomkrig, sammenlignet med konventionel krigsførelse, at alle atomvåben vil blive anvendt, og det vil betyde civilisationens fuldstændige udslettelse. Og det er det, der er spillet her.

Jeg tror, at flere mennesker, forstår det og kræver en anden verdensorden, en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som f.eks. kunne være baseret på samarbejdet om et verdenssundhedssystem. Vi har stadig en pandemi. Vi har en hungersnød, som David Beasley kalder en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner”, som truer 300 millioner mennesker, der risikerer at dø. Og disse ting må vi tage fat på. Og det er den eneste chance for menneskeheden – kan vi forene alle disse… [crosstalk]

WANG: Ja, der er virkelig mange udfordringer derovre. Det er al den tid, vi har, er jeg bange for – undskyld, jeg afbryder. Kom tilbage til vores udsendelse næste gang, tak. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, mange tak, fordi du kom til os i denne stund.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 23. februar 2022:
Rusland gør oprør imod USA med støtte fra Kina.
Vil Europa ødelægge sig selv for at skade Rusland?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lydfil:

 

POLITISK ORIENTERING i går den 23. februar 2022:
Rusland gør oprør imod USA med støtte fra Kina.
Vil Europa ødelægge sig selv for at skade Rusland?

Der findes et alternativ til krig og kaos.
 
Læs, cirkulér og debatér Schiller Instituttets nye udtalelse.
 
Resumé:

Rusland bryder med det ”moderne britiske imperium”, den internationale regelbaserede (USA dikterede) verdensorden i lighed med den amerikanske uafhængighedserklæring imod det britiske imperium. Det er ikke en beslutning, det er truffet letsindigt, men fordi man ikke føler, man har et valg, hvis Rusland skal have sin frihed i fremtiden og undgå at være en vasalstat, som landene i EU og Nato tydeligvis er.

Rusland har fuldstændig rygdækning fra Kina på det grundlag, som er fremlagt i Beijing-erklæringen fra Putin og Xi Jinping den 4. februar, hvor man gør op med den unipolære USA-kontrollerede verdensorden og erklærede starten på en ny multipolær verdensorden.

Anerkendelsen af Lugansk- og Donetsk-republikkerne er kun første skridt. Indtil Rusland får de sikkerhedspolitiske indrømmelser, som man har krævet – en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur der også imødekommer deres bekymringer – så vil man skridt for skridt eskalere konflikten. Begyndende med indtagelsen af det fulde territorium af republikkerne Donetsk og Lugansk.

Rusland er klar over, at USA vil iværksætte massive sanktioner, som frem for alt vil ramme ikke blot Rusland, men også Europa. Det har briterne og USA det fint med. De ødelægger gerne Tyskland og kontinentaleuropa og frygter mest af alt et samarbejde mellem EU (med Tyskland i centrum) og Rusland. Både første og anden verdenskrig blev støttet af Det britiske Imperium for at forhindre et sådant tysk-russisk samarbejde.

At eskaleringen kom nu var ikke Ruslands valg, men konsekvensen af den vestlige finansielle nedsmeltning der er i gang, som har sat ekstra tryk på den vestlige offensiv imod Rusland i blandt andet Ukraine. Rusland følte sig tvunget til at sige fra nu (så snart vinter-OL i Beijing var overstået).

Kina vil bakke Rusland fuldstændigt op, fordi det ved, at hvis man knækker Rusland, så vil man rette alle sine kræfter imod at knække Kina. Se videoen og erklæringen fra 4. februar om den nye russisk-kinesisk lancerede verdensorden på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside.

Der er en vej ud af den ellers langvarige spændte og konfliktfyldte situation vi er inde i, hvis Vesten (USA) er villige til at tænke om og acceptere en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, der også tager hensyn til Rusland og Kina. Ellers vil tingene blive ved med at eskalere og faren for en atomkrig, bevidst eller ved en fejl, vil vokse. Der er ikke noget kvik-fix inden for den gamle vestligt-fastlagte verdensorden. De gode gamle dage kommer ikke tilbage.

Forslaget om en ny militær-aftale mellem USA og Danmark, der giver amerikanske soldater og materiel fri adgang til Danmark uden dansk kontrol, vil bekræfte, at Danmark ikke er en suveræn nation men blot en amerikansk vasalstat, der vil blive brugt i det amerikanske militære spil i Europa – med ubehagelige og potentielt fatale konsekvenser for Danmark.

Danmark må have en selvstændig dansk strategi, vi må kunne tænke selv.

Oven i Ukraine-krisen kommer den igangværende finansielle nedsmeltning, som kan kraftigt forværres af de planlagte sanktioner imod Rusland.
Forbered Danmark til at håndtere dette gennem iværksættelsen af LaRouches 4 økonomiske love. Studér LaRouches økonomiske arbejde.



Interview med freds- og fremtidsforsker Jan Øberg:
Om Ukraine-Rusland-USA-NATO krisen,
Danmarks forhandlinger om amerikanske soldater i Danmark, og
Xinjiang spørgsmålet, den 21. februar 2022

Jan Øberg, ph.d., er freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf,
Direktør, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF, Sverige, https://transnational.live

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

Interviewet er på engelsk p.g.a. international deling.

Lydfil: 

Afskrift: 1. del om Ukraine-Rusland-U.S.-NATO krisen:

Michelle Rasmussen: Hello. Today is February 21st, 2022. I am Michele Rasmussen, the vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. And I’m very happy that peace researcher Jan Oberg agreed to this interview. Jan Oberg was born in Denmark and lives in Sweden. He has a PhD in sociology and has been a visiting professor in peace and conflict studies in Japan, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, part time over the years. Jan Oberg has written thousands of pages of published articles and several books. He is the co-founder and director of the Independent TFF, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden since 1985, and has been nominated over several years for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Our interview today will have three parts. The danger of war between Russia and Ukraine, which could lead to war between the United States and NATO and Russia, and how to stop it.

Secondly, your criticism of Denmark starting negotiations with the United States on a bilateral security agreement, which could mean permanent stationing of U.S. soldiers and armaments on Danish soil.

And thirdly, your criticism of a major report which alleged that China is committing genocide in Xinjiang province.

A Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some in the West said would start last Wednesday has not occurred. But as we speak, tensions are still very high. You wrote an article, Jan Oberg, on January 19th, called Ukraine The West has paved the road to war with lies, specifying three lies concerning the Ukraine crisis. Let’s take them one by one.

You defined lie number one: “The Western leaders never promised Mikhail Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, not to expand NATO eastwards. They also did not state that they would take serious Soviet or Russian security interests around its borders, and, therefore, each of the former Warsaw Pact countries has a right to join NATO, if they decide to freely.” Can you please explain more to our viewers about this lie?

Jan Oberg: Yes, and thank you very much for your very kind and long and detailed introduction of me. I would just say about that point that I’m amazed that this is now a kind of repeated truth in Western media, that Gorbachev was not given such promises. And it rests with a few words taken out of a longer article written years ago by a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who says that Gorbachev did not say so. That article was published by Brookings Institution. Now the truth is, and there’s a difference between truth and non truths, and we have to make that more and more clear when we deal with the West at the moment. The truth is, if you go to the National Security Archives in the U.S., if I remember correctly, the George Washington University that is well documented, their own formulation is that there are cascades of documentation. However, this was not written down in a treaty, or signed by the Western leaders, who one after the other came to Gorbachev’s dacha outside Moscow or visited him in Kremlin, and therefore some people would say it’s not valid. Now that is not true in politics. If we can’t rely on what was said and what was written down by people personally in their notebooks, etc.

George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, James Baker, you can almost mention any important Western leader were unanimous in saying to Gorbachev, we understand that the Warsaw Pact has gone, the Soviet Union has gone, and therefore, we are not going to take advantage of your weakness. James Baker’s formulation, according to all these sources, is we’re not going to expand nature one inch. And that was said in 89, 90. That is 30 years ago. And Gorbachev, because of those assurances also accepted, which he’s been blamed very much for since then, the reunification of Germany. Some sources say that was a kind of deal made that if Germany should be united, which it was very quickly after, it should be a neutral country. But the interpretation in the West was it could remain a member of NATO, but would then include what was at that time the German Democratic Republic, GDR [East Germany] into one Germany. You can go to Gorbachev’s Foundation home page and you will find several interviews, videos, whatever, in which he says these things, and you can go to the Danish leading expert in this, Jens Jørgen Nielsen, who has also written that he personally interviewed Gorbachev, in which Gorbachev, with sadness in his eyes, said that he was cheated, or that these promises were broken, whatever the formulation is.

And I fail to understand why this being one of the most important reasons behind the present crisis, namely Russia’s putting down its foot, saying “You can’t continue this expansion up to the border, with your troops and your long-range missiles, up to the border of Russia. And we will not accept Ukraine [as a member of NATO]. You have gotten ten former Warsaw Pact countries which are now members of NATO, NATO has 30 members. We are here with a military budget, which is eight percent of NATO’s, and you keep up with this expansion. We are not accepting that expansion to include Ukraine.

Now, this is so fundamental that, of course, it has to be denied by those who are hardliners, or hawks, or cannot live without enemies, or want a new Cold War, which we already have, in my view, and have had for some years. But that’s a long story. The way the West, and the U.S. in particular — but NATO’s secretary general’s behavior is outrageous to me, because it’s built on omission of one of the most important historical facts of modern Europe.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yes. In your article, you actually quote from the head of NATO, the general secretary of NATO, back in 1990, one year before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Manfred Wörner, where you say that in these documents released by the U.S. National Security Archive, that you just referred to, “Manfred Wörner gave a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990, in which he argued ‘The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system.’ And the next year, in the middle of 1991, according to a memorandum from the Russian delegation who met with Wörner. He responded to the Russians by saying that he personally and the NATO council, were both against expansion “13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view,” and “Wörner said that he would speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries leaders, as he had already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And he emphasized that we should not allow the isolation of USSR from the European community,” and this was even while the U.S.S.R. was still alive. So it must have been even more the case after the U.S.S.R. collapsed, and Russia emerged.

Jan Oberg: Well, if I may put in a little point here, you see, with that quotation of a former NATO secretary general, compare that with the present secretary general of NATO. Wörner was a man of intellect. The leaders around him at the time in Europe were too. I mean, those were the days when you had people like Willy Brandt in Germany and östpolitik [East policy], and you had Olof Palme in Sweden with common security thinking. We cannot in the West be sure, feel safe and secure in the West, if it’s against Russia. Which does not mean at all to give into everything Russia does, but just says we cannot be safe if the others don’t feel safe from us. And that was an intellectualism. That was an empathy, not a necessarily a sympathy, but it was an empathy for those over there, that we have to take into account, when we act. Today that intellectualism is gone completely.

And it is very interesting, as you point out, that 13 out of 16 NATO countries, at that time, were at that level, but in came in 1990 Bill Clinton. And he basically said, well, he didn’t state it. He acted as though he had stated it, I don’t care about those promises, and then he started expanding NATO. And the first office of NATO was set up in Kiev in 1994. That was the year when he did that. And that was a year when I sat in Tbilisi, Georgia, and interviewed the U.S. representative there, who, through a two-hour long conversation, basically talked about Georgia as “our country.”

So, you know, it’s sad to say it’s human to make mistakes, but to be so anti-intellectual, so anti-empathetic, so imbued with your own thinking and worldview, you’re not able to take the other side into account, is much more dangerous than it was at that time, because the leaders we have in the western world today are not up to it. They were earlier, but these are not.

Michelle Rasmussen: Lie number two that you pointed out, “The Ukraine conflict started by Putin’s out-of-the-blue aggression on Ukraine and then annexation of Crimea.” What’s the rest of the story here?

Jan Oberg: Well, it’s not the rest, it’s the beginning of the story. You see, people who write about these things, and it’s particularly those who are Western media and Western politicians and foreign ministers, et cetera, they say that it all started with this out-of-the-blue invasion in the Donbass, and then the taking, annexing or aggression on, or whatever the word is, Crimea. Well, they all forget, very conveniently, and very deliberately — I mean, this is not a longer time ago than people who write about it today would know — that there was a clearly western assisted, if not orchestrated, coup d’état in Kiev in 2014. After, I won’t go into that long story, after some negotiations about an economic agreement between Ukraine and the EU, in which the president then jumped off, allegedly under pressure from Putin, or whatever, but there were a series of violent events in Kiev.

And it’s well known from one of those who were there, and participated, namely the assistant secretary of State for European Affairs, Mrs. Nuland, and she’s given a speech in the U.S. where, if I remember correctly, she says that the US has pumped $5 billion into Ukraine over the years, to support democracy and human rights, et cetera, and training courses for young NGOs, et cetera. And it’s obvious that that operation, that ousting of the president, he had to flee to Russia, and the taking over, partly by neo-Nazis and fascists who were present and who probably did the beginning of the shooting and the killing of people, that all this had to do with the promise that was given to Ukraine years before that it would be integrated into the Euro-Atlantic framework. And then it was kind of stopping and saying, we don’t want that anyhow. We will negotiate something else, and we will look into what Putin has to offer, etc.

But that that, in Putin’s mind, in Russia’s mind, meant that NATO would be the future of Ukraine. And Russia had, still has, a huge military base in Crimea, which it had a lease on for, at the time, I think it was 30 plus years, meaning should Ukraine, which was clearly signalled by the western NATO member’s leadership, enter and become a full member of Ukraine, then he would look at a Russian base, either being lost or you would have a Russian military naval base in a NATO country.

Now I’m not saying that that was a smart move. I’m not saying it was a legal move, but it’s very difficult for the western world to blame Russia for annexing Crimea. If you look at the opinion polls and the votes for that, if you will, voting ourselves back to Russia — you know, the whole thing was Russia until 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and he was from Ukraine himself. And so this happened three weeks before. And I’m amazed that it should not again be intellectually possible for people who witnessed this — The other thing we talked about with 30 years ago. There might be some young fools who would not read history books.

But what I’m talking about was something that happened in 2014, and there’s no excuse for not mentioning that there’s a connection between that coup d’état, and the influence of the West in Ukraine in a very substantial way, and what happened in Donbas and Crimea.

So I’m just saying, if I put it on a more general level, if we look at today’s ability to understand, describe, analyze issues as conflicts, we are heading for zero understanding. There is nobody in the press, and nobody in politics who are able, intellectually, to see these things as conflicts, that is, as a problem standing between two or more parties that has to be analyzed. And conflict resolution is about finding solutions that the parties we have defined as parties, and there certainly are many more than two in this very complex conflict, can live with in the future. What we are down to in banalization is that there is no conflict. There’s only one party, Russia, that does everything bad and evil and terrible, while we are sitting in the receiving end, being the good guys who’ve done nothing wrong in history. Who could never rethink what we did or say, we’re sorry, or change our policies, because we are right. There’s only one problem. That’s them. We’re down now to the level in which these things, also the last three months, the accusations about Russia invading Ukraine, has nothing to do with conflict analysis. It is purely focusing on one party, and one party, by definition, is not a conflict.

We are not party to a relationship anymore, and that makes a huge difference, again, from the leaders and the way of thinking and the intellectual approach that existed 20-30 years ago. And one reason for all of this is, of course, that the West is on his way down. Secondly, and they feel threatened by anything that happens around the world. And secondly, when you have been number one in a system for a long time, you become lazy. You don’t study. You don’t have as good education as you should have. You bring up people to high levels who have not read books, because we can get away with everything. We are so strong militarily. And when that happens, you know, it’s a slippery slope and you are actually on board the Titanic.

This is not a defense of everything Russia does. What I’m trying to say is there is a partner over there, by the way they call us partners in the West. We call them anything else but partners. We don’t even see them. We don’t listen to their interests. We didn’t listen to Putin when he spoke at the Munich conference in 2007 and said, ‘You have cheated us.’ And of course, when Gorbachev, 90 years old, says, you have cheated us, he’s not even quoted in the Western world, because there’s no space anymore for other views than our own. You know, this autism that is now classical in the Western security policy elite is damn dangerous.

Michelle Rasmussen: I want to just ask you shortly about the third lie, and then we’ll get into what you see as the solution. The third lie you, you pointed out, was that “NATO always has an open door to new members. It never tries to invite or drag them in does not seek expansion. It just happens because Eastern European countries since 1989 to 1990 have wanted to join without any pressure from NATO’s side, and this also applies to Ukraine.” And in this section, you also document that Putin actually asked for Russia to join NATO. Can you shortly, please explain your most important point about this third lie?

Jan Oberg: Yeah, well, it’s already there since you quoted my text, but the fascinating thing is that you have not had a referendum in any of these new member states. The fascinating thing is, in 2014, when this whole NATO membership came to its first conflictual situation in the case of Ukraine, there was not a majority, according to any opinion poll in Ukraine. There was not a majority. And I would say it’s not a matter of 51%. If a country is going to join NATO, it should be at least 75 or 80% of the people saying yes to that. Third, and it’s not something I’ve invented, it is NATO’s former secretary general Robertson, who has told the story. I think it was first released in the Guardian, but it’s also in a long podcast from a place I don’t remember, which the Guardian quotes. He says that he was asked by Putin whether, or at what time, or whatever the formulation was, NATO would accept Russia as a member.

This probably goes back to what you had already quoted Wörner, the NATO secretary general for having said, namely that a new security structure in Europe would, by necessity, have some kind of involvement, in a direct sense, of Russia, because Russia is also Europe.

And that was what Gorbachev had as an idea that the new [common] European home, something like a security structure where we could deal with our conflicts or differences or misunderstandings, and we could still be friends in the larger Europe.

And that was why I argued at the time thirty years ago that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the only reasonable thing was to close down NATO. And instead, as I said with Clinton and onwards, the whole interpretation was we have won. The Western system, the neoliberal democratic NATO system has won. We have nothing to learn from that. There’s nothing to change now. We just expand even more.

And the first thing NATO did, as you know, was a completely illegal. Also, according to its own charter, the invasion, involvement and bombing in Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia was not a member. Had never been a member of NATO, and NATO’s only mission is paragraph five, which says that we are one for all and all for one. We are going to support some member, if the member is attacked. Now, it had nothing to do in Yugoslavia. That happened in 1991 and onwards, all the nineties. And you remember the bombings and 72 two days of bombings in Kosovo and Serbia. And it’s nothing to do — and there was no UN mandate for it. But it was a triumphalist interpretation. We can now get away with everything, anything we want. We can do it because there’s no Russia to take into account. Russia could not do anything about it. China could not do anything about it at the time.

And so, you get into hubris and an inability to see your own limitations, and that is what we are coming up to now. We are seeing the boomerang coming back to NATO, the western world for these things. And then, of course, some idiots will sit somewhere and say, Jan Oberg is pro-Russia. No, I’m trying to stick to what I happen to remember happened at the time. I’m old enough to remember what was said to Gorbachev in those days when the Wall came down and all these things changed fundamentally.

I was not optimistic that NATO would adapt to that situation, but there was hope at that time. There’s no hope today for this, because if you could change, you would have changed long ago. So the prediction I make is the United States empire, NATO, will fall apart at some point. The question is how, how dangerous, and how violent that process will be, because it’s not able to conduct reforms or change itself fundamentally into something else, such as a common security organization for Europe.

Michelle Rasmussen: Well, I actually wanted to ask you now about the solutions, because you’ve been a peace researcher for many decades. What what would it take to peacefully resolve the immediate crisis? And secondly, how can we create the basis for peaceful world in the future? You mentioned the idea that you had 30 years ago for dismembering NATO and the founder and international chairman of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has now called for establishing a new security architecture, which would take the interests of all countries, including Russia, into account. So how could we solve the immediate crisis? If there were the political will, what would have to change among the parties? And secondly, what needs to be done in terms of long term peaceful cooperation?

Jan Oberg: Well, first of all, the question you are raising is a little bit like the seventh doctor who is trying to operate on a patient who is bleeding to death and then saying, “What should we do now?” What I have suggested over 30 years is something that should have been done to avoid the situation today, and nobody listened, as is clear, because you don’t listen to researchers anymore who say something else that state-financed researchers do. So it’s not an easy question you are raising, of course. I would say, of course, in the immediate situation, the Minsk agreements, which have not been upheld, particularly by Ukraine in establishing some kind of autonomy for the Donbass area. Now that is something we could work with, autonomous solutions. We could work with confederations, we could work with cantonization, if you will. Lots of what happened, and happens, in the eastern republics of Ukraine. It reminds me of a country I know very well, and partly educated in and worked in during the dissolution, namely Yugoslavia. So much so that it resembles Granica. Ukraine and Granica in Croatia, both mean border areas. Granica means border, and there’s so much that could have been a transfered of knowledge and wisdom and lessons learned, had we had a United Nations mission in that part. A peacekeeping mission, a monitoring mission. UN police and U.N. civil affairs in the Donbas region.

If I remember correctly, Putin is the only one who suggested that at some point. I don’t think he presented it as a big proposal to the world, but in an interview he said that was something he could think of. I wrote in 2014, why on earth has nobody even suggested that the United Nations, the world’s most competent organization in handling conflicts, and, if you will, put a lid on the military affairs, for instance, by disarming the parties on all sides, which they did in eastern and western Slovonia, in Croatia. Why has that not been suggested? Because the western world has driven the United Nations out to the periphery of international politics..

I’ve said Minsk. I’ve said the UN. I’ve said some kind of internal reforms in Ukraine. I have said, and I would insist on it, NATO must stop its expansion. NATO cannot take the risk, on behalf of Europe, and the world, to say we insist on continuing with giving weapons to, and finally making Ukraine a NATO member. You can ask Kissinger, you can ask Brzezinski, you can take the most, if you will, right wing hawkish politicians in the West. They’ve all said neutrality like Finland or Switzerland, or something like that, is the only viable option.

And is that to be pro-Russian? No, that needs to be pro-Western. Because I am just looking like so many others, fortunately, have done at the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would the United States — how would it have reacted, if Russia had a huge military alliance and tried to get Canada or Mexico to become members with long-range weapons standing a few kilometers from the U.S. border?

Do you think the US would have said, “Oh, they were all freely deciding to, so we think it’s OK.” Look at what they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They could not accept weapon stations in Cuba.

So, one of the things you have to ask yourself about is there one rule and one set of interests for the Western world that does not apply to other actors? If you want to avoid Russia invading Ukraine, which all this nonsense is about repeatedly now for two or three months. Look into a new status where the East and the West and Ukraine, all of it, can sit down and discuss security guarantees for Ukraine.

President Zelensky has said it quite nicely, I must say. If you don’t want us to become members of NATO, and he says that to the West, because he feels that it has taken a long time for the West to act, and he last said that at the Munich Security Conference, I think yesterday or two days ago, by the way, interestingly a man whose country is going to be invaded any moment, leaves the country and goes to a conference to speak which he could have done on Zoom.

I mean, the whole thing doesn’t make sense, like it didn’t make sense, was it on the 18th or 17th when all the West said that they’re going to invade Ukraine, and the Russian defense minister was sitting in Damascus and Putin was receiving Bolsonaro. I mean, don’t they have intelligence anymore in NATO and Washington?

So long story short, sit down and give Ukraine the guarantees and non-aggression pact with both sides or all sides, clearly limited non-nuclear defensive defense measures along the borders, or whatever, integration in whatever eastern and Western economic organizations.

And I would be happy to see them as part of the Belt and Road Initiative with economic opportunities. There is so much Ukraine could do if it could get out of the role of being a victim, and squeezed between the two sides all the time. And that can only be done if you elevate the issue to a higher level, in which Ukraine’s different peoples and different parts and parties are allowed to speak up about what future they want to have in their very specific situation that Ukraine is in. It is not any country in in Europe. It’s a poor country. It’s a country that has a specific history. It’s a country which is very complex, complex ethnically, language wise, historically, etc.

And that’s why I started out saying confederation. I said something like a Switzerland model, something like Cantonization, or whatever, but for Christ’s sake, give that country and its people a security, a good feeling that nobody’s going to encroach upon you..

And that is to me, the the schwerpunkt [main emphasis], the absolutely essential, that is to give the Ukraine people a feeling of security and safety and stability and peace so that they can develop. I find it very interesting that President Zelensky, in this very long interview to the international press a couple of weeks ago, say I’m paraphrasing it. But he says “I’m tired of all these people who say that we are going to be invaded because it destroys our economy. People are leaving. No business is coming in, right?”

Who are we to do this damage to Ukraine and then want it to become a member of NATO? You know, the whole thing is recklessly irresponsible, in my view, particularly with a view of Ukraine and its peoples and their needs.

So I would put that in focus, and then put in a huge UN peacekeeping mission and continue and expand the excellent OSCE mission. Put the international communit, good hearted, neutral people down there and diffuse those who have only one eyesight, only one view of all this. They are the dangerous people.

Michelle Rasmussen: And what about the more long-term idea of a new security architecture in general?

Jan Oberg: Oh, I would build a kind of, I wouldn’t say copy of, but I would I would build something inspired by the United Nations Security Council. All Europe, representatives for all countries, including NGOs, and not just government representatives. I would have an early warning mechanism where the moment there is something like a conflict coming up, we would have reporters and we would have investigations we would look into, not conflict prevention.

My goodness, people don’t read books. There’s nothing about conflict prevention. We should prevent violence. We should prevent violent conflict, but preventing conflicts is nonsense, life is getting richer. There’s not a family, there’s not a school, there’s not a workplace, there’s not a political party, there’s not a parliament in which there are no conflicts. Conflict is what life is made of. Conflict is terribly important because it makes us change and reflect. I’m all for conflicts, and I’m one hundred and ten percent against violence. But people will say “Conflict prevention is something we should work, on and educate people in.” Nonsense from people who never read books, as I said.

So I would look for something like common security. The good old Palme Commission from the eighties, which built on defensive defense. The idea that we all have a right, according to Article 51, in the UN Charter. Everybody has a right to self-defense.

But we do not have a right to missiles that can go 4,000 km or 8,000 kilometres and kill millions of people far away. Get rid of nuclear weapons and all these things. It has nothing to do with defensiveness and common security, and I say that wherever I go and whoever I speak to. Get rid of nuclear weapons and offensive long range weapons.

The only legitimate weapons there are in this world are defensive ones, and they are defined by two things. Short distance, ability to go only over a short distance, such as helicopters instead of fighter airplanes or missiles.

And second, limited destructive capacity because they’re going to be used on your own territory in case somebody encroaches or invades you. But nobody wants to have nuclear weapons or totally super destructive weapons on their own territory because they don’t want them to be used to there. So just ask yourself, what would you like in Country X, Y and Z to be defended with? And that’s a definition of a defensive weapons. If we all had only defensive military structures, there would be very few wars, but they would also not be a military-industrial-media-academic complex that earns the money on this.

The whole thing here that the big elephant in the room we are talking about is, well, there are two of them, is NATO expansion, which we should never have done this way. And secondly, it’s the interest of the military-industrial-media-academic complex, as I call it, that earns a hell of a lot of money on people’s suffering, and millions of people who, at this moment while we speak, are living in fear and despair because of what they see in the media is going to happen. None of what we see at this moment was necessary. It’s all made up by elites who have an interest in these kinds of things happening or the threat of the Cold War. And even if we avoid a big war now, and I hope, I don’t pray to anything, but I hope very much that we do, thanks to some people’s wisdom, and it’s going to be very cold in Europe in the future after this.

Look at the demonization that the West has done again against Russia, and to a certain extent, of Ukraine. This is not psychologically something that will be repaired in two weeks.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yeah, and also, as you mentioned at the beginning, it has also something to do with the unwillingness in part of certain of the Western elites to accept that we do not have an Anglo-American unipolar world, but that there are other countries that need to be listened to and respected.

Jan Oberg: Yeah, and you might add, what the West gets out of this is that Russia and China will get closer and closer. You are already seeing the common declaration. We will have friendship eternally. And that’s between two countries who up to the sixties at some point were very strong enemies. And the same will go with Iran, and there would be other countries like Serbia which are turning away from the West. We’re going to sit and be isolating ourselves because, one, we cannot bully the world anymore, as we could before in the West. And secondly, nobody wants to be bullied anymore. We have to live in a world in which there are different systems. This Christian missionary idea that everybody must become like us. We opened up to China because then we hope they would become liberal democracies with many parties, and the parliament is awfully naïve. And time is over for that kind of thinking.

Michelle Rasmussen: I want to go into the other two subjects. Firstly, the question of the negotiations between Denmark and the United States in the context of the political, military and media statements of recent years alleging that Russia has aggressive intentions against Europe and the U.S. the Danish Social Democratic government announced on February 10th that a year ago, the U.S. requested negotiations on a Defense Cooperation Agreement, and that Denmark was now ready to start these negotiations. The government announced that it could mean permanent stationing of U.S. troops and armaments on Danish soil. And if so, this would be against the decades-long policy of the Danish government not to allow foreign troops or armaments permanently stationed in Denmark. And you wrote an article two days later criticizing these negotiations. Why are you against this?

Jan Oberg: I’m against it because it’s a break of 70 years of sensible policies. We do not accept foreign weapons and we do not accept foreign troops, and we do not accept nuclear weapons stationed on Danish soil. I sat, for ten years, all throughout the 1980s, in the Danish Governments Commission for Security and Disarmament as an expert. Nobody in the 80s would have mentioned anything like this. I guess the whole thing is something that had begun to go mad around 20 years ago, when Denmark engaged and became a bomber nation for the first time in Yugoslavia. And then Afghanistan and Iraq, and it means that you cannot say no. This is an offer you can’t refuse. You can’t refuse it, among other things, it’s my interpretation, because you remember the story where President Trump suggested that he or the U.S. could buy Greenland, and the prime minister Mette Frederiksen said, ‘Well, that is not something to be discussed. The question is absurd,’ after which he got very angry. He got personally very angry, and he said, ‘It’s not a matter of speaking to me. You’re speaking to the United States of America.’ And I think this offer to begin negotiations must have come relatively shortly after that, as ‘This offer is not something you should call absurd once again.’ I’ve no evidence for that. But if these negotiations started more than a year ago, we are back in the Trump administration.

And secondly, what kind of democracy is that? We do not know what that letter in which the Americans asked to have negotiations about this, when it was written and what the content of it was. But what we hear is that a little more than a year ago, we began some negotiations about this whole thing, that is behind the back of the parliament, and behind the back of the people, and then is presented more or less as a fait accompli. There will be an agreement. The question is only nitty-gritty, what will be in it.

In terms of substance, there is no doubt that any place where there would be American facilities based in sites, so whenever you’d call it, weapon stored will be the first targets in a war, seen as such in a war, under the best circumstances, seen by Russia. Russia’s first targets will be to eliminate the Americans everywhere they can in Europe, because those are the strongest and most dangerous forces.

Secondly, it is not true that there is a no to nuclear weapons in other senses than Denmark will keep up the principle that we will not have them stationed permanently. But with such an agreement where the Air Force, Navy and soldiers, military, shall more frequently work with, come in to visit, etc., there’s no doubt that there will be more nuclear weapons coming into, for instance, on American vessels than before, because the cooperation would be closer and closer.

Jan Oberg: And there the only thing the Danish government will do is, since they know that the “neither confirm nor deny policy” of the U.S., they would not even ask the question. If they are asked by journalists, they would say, “Well, we take for granted that the Americans honor or understand and respect that we will not have nuclear weapons on Danish territory, sea territory, or whatever. Now the Americans are violating that in Japan even. So, this is this is nonsense. There would be more nuclear weapons. I’m not saying they would go off or anything like that. I’m just saying there would be more undermining of Danish principles.

And then the whole thing, of course, has to do with the fact that Denmark is placing itself — and that was something the present government under Mette Frederiksen’s leadership did before this was made public — is to put 110 percent of your eggs in the U.S. basket. This is the most foolish thing you can do, given the world change. The best thing a small country can do is to uphold international law and the UN. Denmark doesn’t. It speaks like the U.S. for an international rules-based order, which is the opposite of, or very far away from the international law.

And secondly, in a world where you are going to want multipolarity, a stronger Asia, stronger Africa, another Russia from the one we have known the last 30 years, etc., and a United States that is, on all indicators except the military, declining and will fall as the world leader. This is, in my view, be careful with my words, the most foolish thing you can do at the moment, if you are a leader of Denmark, or if you leading the Danish security politics. You should be open — I wrote an article about that in a small Danish book some six or seven years ago, and said “Walk on two legs.” Remain friendly with the United States and NATO, and all that, but develop your other leg, so you can walk on two legs in the next 20, 30, 40 years. But there’s nobody that thinks so long term in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and there’s nobody who thinks independently anymore in research institutes or ministries. It’s basically adapting to everything we think, or are told by Washington we should do. And that’s not foreign policy to me. There’s nothing to do with it.

Jan Oberg: A good foreign policy is one where you have a good capacity to analyze the world, do scenarios, discuss which way to go, pros and contras, and different types of futures, and then make this decision in your parliament based on a public discussion. That was what we did early, 60s, 70s and 80s. And then also when you become a bomber nation, when you become a militaristic one, when active foreign policy means nothing but militarily active, then, of course, you are getting closer and closer and closer down into the into the darkness of the hole, where suddenly you fall so deeply you cannot see the daylight, where the hole is. I think it’s very sad. I find it tragic. I find it very dangerous. I find that Denmark will be a much less free country in the future by doing these kinds of things. And, don’t look at the basis of this agreement as an isolated thing. It comes with all the things we’ve done, all the wars Denmark has participated in. Sorry, I said we, I don’t feel Danish anymore, so I should say Denmark or the Danes. And finally, I have a problem with democratically elected leaders who seem to be more loyal to a foreign government, than with their own people’s needs.

China and Xinjiang

Michelle Rasmussen: The last question is that, you just mentioned the lack of independence of analysis, and there’s not only an enemy image being painted against Russia, but also against China, with allegations of central government genocide against the Muslim Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province as a major point of contention. And on March 8th, 2021, the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington published a report The Uyghur Genocide, an examination of China’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention in cooperation with the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights in Montreal, and the next month, April 27, last year, you and two others issued a report which criticized this report. What is the basis of your criticism and what do you think should be done to lessen tension with China?

And also as a wrap-up question in the end, if you wanted to say anything else about what has to be done to make a change from looking at Russia and China as the autocratic enemies of the West, and to, instead, shift to a world in which there is cooperation between the major powers, which would give us the possibility of concentrating on such great task as economic development of the poorer parts of the world?

Jan Oberg: Well, of course, that’s something we could speak another hour about, but what we did in our in our tiny think tank here, which, by the way, is totally independent and people-financed and all volunteer. That’s why we can say and do what we think should be said and done and not politically in anybody’s hands or pockets, is that those reports, including the Newlines Institute’s report, does not hold water, would not pass as a paper for a master’s degree in social science or political science. We say that if you look into not only that report, but several other reports and researchers who were contributing to this genocide discussion, if you look into their work, they are very often related to the military-industrial-media-academic complex. And they are paid for, have formerly had positions somewhere else in that system, or are known for having hawkish views on China, Russia and everybody else outside the western sphere.

So when we began to look into this, we also began to see a trend. And that’s why we published shortly after a 150 page report about the new Cold War on China, and Xinjiang is part of a much larger orchestrated — and I’m not a conspiracy theorist. It’s all documented, in contrast to media and other research reports. It’s documented. You can see where we get our knowledge from, and on which basis we draw conclusions.

Whereas now, significantly, for Western scholarship and media, they don’t deal with, are not interested in sources. I’ll come back to that. It’s part of a much larger, only tell negative stories about China. Don’t be interested in China’s new social model. Don’t be interested in how they, in 30 to 40 years did what nobody else in humankind has ever done. Uplifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and creating a society that I can see the difference from, because I visited China in 1983, and I know what it looked like back then when they had just opened up, so to speak.

And what we are saying is not that we know what happened and happens in Xinjiang, because we’ve not been there and we are not a human rights organization. We are conflict resolution and peace proposal making policy think tank. But what we do say is, if you cannot come up with better arguments and more decent documentation, then probably you are not honest. If there’s nothing more you can show us to prove that there’s a genocide going on at Xinjiang, you should perhaps do your homework before you make these assertions and accusations.

That’s what we are saying, and we are also saying that it is peculiar that the last thing Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, did in his office, I think on the 19th of January last year, was to say I hereby declare that Xinjiang is a genocide, and the State Department has still not published as much as one A4 page with the documentation.

So, I feel sad on a completely different level, and that is, Western scholarship is disappearing in this field. And those who may really have different views, analyses and question what we hear or uphold a plurality of viewpoints and interpretations of the world, we’re not listened to. I mean, I’m listening to elsewhere, but I’m not listened to in Western media, although I have forty five years of experience in these things and I’ve traveled quite a lot and worked in quite a lot of conflict and war zones. I can live with that, but I think it’s a pity for the Western world that we are now so far down the drain, that good scholarship is not what politics built on anymore. If it, I think it was at a point in time.

So what is also striking to me is, very quickly, the uniformity of the press. They have all written the day that the Newsline report that you referred to, was published, it was all over the place, including front pages of the leading Western newspapers, including the Danish Broadcasting’s website, etc., all saying the same thing, quoting the same bits of parts from it.

The uniformity of this is just mind boggling. How come that nobody said, “Hey, what is this Newlines Institute, by the way, that nobody had heard about before? Who are these people behind it? Who are the authors?” Anybody can sit on their chair and do quite a lot of research, which was impossible to do 20 years ago. If you are curious, if you are asked to be curious, if you are permitted to be curious, and do research in the media, in the editorial office where you are sitting, then you would find out lots of this here is B.S. Sorry to say so, intellectually, it’s B.S.

And so I made a little pastime, I wrote a very diplomatic letter to people at CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. Danish and Norwegian, and Swedish media, those who write this opinion journalism about Xinjiang, and a couple of other things, and I sent the all our report, which is online, so it’s just a link, and I said kindly read this one, and I look forward to hearing from you. I’ve done this in about 50 or 60 cases, individually dug up their email addresses, et cetera. There is not one who has responded with anything. The strategy when you lie, or when you deceive, or when you have a political man, is don’t go into any dialogue with somebody who knows more or it’s critical of what you do.

That’s very sad. Our TFF Pressinfo goes to 20 people in BBC. They know everything we write about Ukraine, about China, about Xinjiang, et cetera. Not one has ever called.

These are the kinds of things that make me scared as an intellectual. One thing is what happens out in the world. That’s bad enough. But when I begin to find out how this is going on, how it is manipulated internally in editorial offices, close to foreign ministries, etc. or defense ministries is then I say, we are approaching the Pravda moment. The Pravda moment is not the present Pravda [newspaper], but the Pravda that went down with the Soviet Union. When I visited Russia, the Soviet Union at a time for conferences, et cetera, and I found out that very few people believed anything they saw in the media. Now, to me, it’s a question of whether the Western media, so-called free media want to save themselves or they want to become totally irrelevant, because at some point, as someone once said, you cannot lie all the time to all of the people, you may get away with lying to some, to some people, for some of the time.

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

Jan Oberg: Yeah. So the long story short is this is not good. This deceives people. And of course, some people, at some point, people will be very upset about that. They have been lied to. And also don’t make this reference anymore to free and state media. Viewers may like to hear that may not like it, but should know it, the US has just passed a law — They have three laws against China — How to intervene in all kinds of Chinese things, such as, for instance, trying to influence who will become the successor to Dalai Lama, and things like that. They are not finished at all about how to influence Taiwan, and all that, things they have nothing to do with, and which they decided between Nixon and Zhou Enlai that America accepted the One-China policy and would not mix themselves into Taiwanese issues. But that is another broken promise. These media are state media in the U.S. If you take Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, they are those, particularly the latter, who have disseminated most of these Xinjiang genocide stories, which then bounce back to BBC, etc. These are state media. As an agency for that in in Washington, it’s financed by millions of dollars, of course, and it has the mandate to make American foreign policy more understood, and promote U.S. foreign policy goals and views. Anybody can go to a website and see this. Again, I’m back to this, everybody can do what I’ve done. And that law that has just been passed says the U.S. sets aside 15 hundred million dollars, that’s one point five billion dollars in the next five years, to support education, training courses, whatever, for media people to write negative stories about China, particularly the Belt and Road Initiative. Now I look forward to Politiken [Danish newspaper] or Dagens Nyheter [Swedish newspaper] or whatever newspapers in the allied countries who would say, “This comes from a state U.S. media” when it does.

And so, my my view is there is a reason for calling it the military-industrial-media-academic complex, because it’s one cluster of elites who are now running the deception, but also the wars that are built on deception. And that is very sad where, instead, we should cooperate. I would not even say we should morally cooperate. I would say we have no choice on this Earth but to cooperate, because if we have a new Cold War between China and the West, we cannot solve humanity’s problems, whether it’s the climate issue, environmental issues, it’s poverty, it’s justice, income differences or cleavages, or modern technological problems or whatever. You take all these things, they are, by definition, global. And if we have one former empire, soon former empire, that does nothing but disseminate negative energy, criticize, demonize, running cold wars, basically isolating itself and going down.

We lack America to do good things. I’ve never been anti-American, I want to say that very clearly. I’ve never, ever been anti-American. I’m anti empire and militarism. And we need the United States, with its creativity, with its possibilities, with what it already has given the world, to also contribute constructively to a better world, together with the Russians, together with Europe, together with Africa, together with everybody else, and China, and stop this idea that we can only work with those who are like us, because if that’s what you want to do, you will have fewer and fewer to work with.

The world is going towards diversity. And we have other cultures coming up who have other ways of doing things, and we may like it or not. But the beauty of conflict resolution and peace is to do it with those who are different from you. It is not to make peace with those who already love, or are already completely identical with. This whole thing is, unfortunately, a conflict and peace illiteracy that has now completely overtaken the western world. Whereas I see people thinking about peace. I hear people mentioning the word peace. I do not hear Western politicians or media anymore mention the word peace. And when that word is not, and the discussion and the discourse has disappeared about peace, we are very far out.

Combine that with lack of intellectualism and an analytical capacity, and you will end up in militarism and war. You cannot forget these things, and then avoid a war. So in my view, there are other reasons than Russia, if you will, that we’re in a dangerous situation, and that the danger has to do with the West operating, itself, at the moment. Nobody in the world is threatening the United States or the West. If it goes down, it’s all of its own making. And I think that’s an important thing to say in these days when we always blame somebody else for our problems. That is not the truth.

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.




100 sekunder i tolv på atomkrigsuret:
Vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur!
af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

“En atomkrig kan ikke vindes og må aldrig føres”, erklærede de fem atommagter og permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd i en fælles erklæring den 3. januar i år. Eftersom brugen af atomvåben altid indebærer en risiko for at bruge hele atomvåbenarsenalet, og da selv en procentdel af det er tilstrækkeligt til at forårsage menneskehedens udryddelse, af denne grundlæggende indsigt faktisk have praktiske konsekvenser for alle atomvåbenmagters militære strategi. Men på trods af denne fælles erklæring lancerede USA’s strategiske kommando i den sidste uge af januar manøvren “Global Lightning”, som har til formål at teste de amerikanske atomstyrkers operative beredskab.

Selv om der var tale om en såkaldt “rutinemæssig” manøvre, der i år blev integreret med USA’s Indo-Pacific Command og derfor var rettet mod en mulig konfrontation med Kina, kan den i forbindelse med de øgede spændinger mellem Rusland og USA og NATO kun ses som endnu et, men måske det farligste, element i den leg med ild, som Vesten i øjeblikket spiller med Rusland og Kina.

Timingen af manøvren faldt perfekt sammen med USA’s og Storbritanniens endnu ubeviste påstande om, at Rusland planlægger et militært angreb på Ukraine i slutningen af januar og midten af februar, hvilket den russiske regering gentagne gange har benægtet. Øvelsen i indsættelse af atomvåben er baseret på den nuværende atomkrigsplan fra USA’s strategiske kommando. Hans. M. Kristensen, direktør for Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, kunne på grundlag af Freedom of Information Act få fat i titelsiden af denne plan, kaldet “Stratcom Conplan 0810-12, Stragegic Deterrence and Force Deployment, Change 1”. Kristensen, en af de mest kompetente specialister inden for nuklear strategi og våben, forklarede til Newsweek, at Global Lightning-øvelsen ikke blot forudsætter et atomart førsteangreb fra den ene eller den anden side, men en fortsat atomkrig, der fortsætter efter den første udveksling af slag.

Selv om de enkelte dele af denne nye krigsplan, der er blevet operationel siden den 30. april 2019, er underlagt den største hemmelighedsfuldhed, er konturerne af denne plan ved at tegne sig. Antagelsen er, at USA og NATO vil være i stand til at overleve et atomart førsteangreb fra Rusland eller Kina, derefter gengælde, absorbere yderligere angreb, gengælde igen osv. i en fortsat militær konfrontation. Denne atomkrigsplan omfatter ikke kun atomvåben, men også forskellige andre dødbringende systemer, såsom missilforsvarssystemer, målrettede energivåben såsom elektromagnetiske pulsvåben og lasere, cyberangreb og rumvåbenangreb fra rummet. Hvem skal kunne overleve en sådan fortsat atomkrig? De få mennesker, der kan gemme sig i dybe underjordiske bunkere? De morbide fantasier i Dr. Strangelove ligner en børnefødselsdag ved siden af dette.

Sidste års Global Lightning-manøvre i april 2021 fokuserede på den potentielle konflikt med Rusland; i år var den helliget den mulige konfrontation med Kina. Pentagons forskellige strategidokumenter siden 2017 har i stigende grad defineret Rusland og Kina som geopolitiske rivaler og modstandere og erstattet kampen mod den globale terrorisme med konkurrencen mellem stormagterne som en strategisk prioritet. Samtidig blev moderniseringen af den nukleare triade, som Obama-regeringen påbegyndte, fortsat, og tærsklen for brug af atomvåben blev i stigende grad sænket, bl.a. ved at der blev indsat lavtydende sprænghoveder på Trident-ubåde.

Den strategiske konflikt

Selv om der ikke har været mange officielle kommentarer, kom præsident Putins meddelelse den 1. marts 2018 om nye russiske nukleare systemer – Awangard hypersonisk missil, et interkontinentalt ballistisk missil med 20 gange lydhastigheden og fremragende manøvredygtighed, der gør det amerikanske missilforsvarssystem stort set forældet, Kinschal hypersonisk krydsermissil samt atomdrevne krydsermissiler, hurtige undervandsdroner og laservåben – som et chok for det vestlige militæretablissement. I mellemtiden har Kina også udviklet sine egne supersoniske missiler med infrarød målsøgningsteknologi, en evne, som det amerikanske militær måske først vil få om to til tre år. Amerikanske satellitbilleder har fortsat lokaliseret omkring 300 missilsiloer under opførelse på spredte steder i Kina, hvoraf nogle måske forbliver tomme, men i andre er atommissiler i en tilstand af “affyring ved varsling” for at undgå et afvæbnende overraskelsesangreb.

Dette er i store træk den strategiske baggrund for de to traktater, som Putin den 17. december præsenterede for USA og NATO med anmodning om, at de skulle indeholde juridisk bindende garantier for, at NATO ikke udvider sig længere mod øst og ikke installerer offensive våbensystemer ved Ruslands grænser, og at der også gives garantier for, at Ukraine ikke bliver optaget i NATO.

I modsætning til mange transatlantiske politikere og medier mener general Kujat, den tidligere generalinspektør for de tyske væbnede styrker, at ophobningen af ca. 120.000 russiske tropper nær den ukrainske grænse, hvoraf nogle befinder sig flere hundrede kilometer væk, ikke tyder på et forestående angreb på Ukraine, men at Rusland ønsker at bruge denne trussel til at demonstrere styrke for at fremtvinge forhandlinger med USA og NATO på lige fod.

Indtil videre har USA og NATO nægtet at give tilsagn om Putins hovedkrav og synes kun villige til at give det, som Rusland anser for sekundære tilsagn om nye nedrustningsforhandlinger. Putin har bebudet “militær-tekniske foranstaltninger” i tilfælde af en endelig afvisning. I betragtning af, at stationering af potentielt offensive våbensystemer nær Ruslands grænser i forbindelse med NATO’s udvidelse mod øst – det gælder f.eks. Aegis-missilforsvarssystemet, der er stationeret i Polen og Rumænien – har skabt en situation for Rusland, der kan sammenlignes med stationeringen af sovjetiske missiler på Cuba, opstår spørgsmålet om, hvordan disse “foranstaltninger” kan se ud. Den amerikanske Ruslandsekspert Gilbert Doctorow har mistanke om, at dette kunne indebære opstilling af atombevæbnede SS-26 Iskander-M-kortdistancemissiler i Hviderusland og Kaliningrad for at true NATO’s frontlinjestater og Østtyskland til gengæld. Han har desuden mistanke om, at Rusland kunne placere atombevæbnede Zircon-overlydsmissiler ud for kysten af Washington DC, som russiske eksperter tidligere har sagt kunne ødelægge den amerikanske hovedstad så hurtigt, at præsidenten ikke ville have tid til at flygte med Air Force One. Teoretisk set kan zircon-overlydsmissilerne naturligvis opsendes overalt på verdenshavene, og de er meget vanskelige at opdage og opfange for konventionelle luftforsvarssystemer på grund af deres ni gange lydhastighed og manøvredygtighed under flyvning.

Det er derfor kun logisk, at Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ “dommedagsur” kun viste 100 sekunder i tolv den 20. januar 2022. Der er kun ca. halvandet minut til den nukleare apokalypse. Selv om der siden optrapningen af krisen i Ukraine efter næsten 40 års dyb søvn i antikrigsbevægelsen har været en lang række appeller, opfordringer og åbne breve – senest fra 100 organisationer i USA, der kræver, at præsident Biden nedtrapper spændingerne med Rusland – er truslens enorme omfang på ingen måde trængt ind i den offentlige bevidsthed.

Manglende klarhed om årsagerne

Men selv blandt de fleste mennesker i Vesten, der erkender den akutte fare, er der uklarhed om de underliggende årsager til den eksistentielle trussel mod menneskehedens eksistens. De ligger på den ene side i den systemiske karakter af det neoliberale finanssystems krise, som nu er gået ind i sin hyperinflationære slutfase, og på den anden side i det krav, som dette finanssystems elite i City of London, Wall Street og Silicon Valley stiller til en unipolær verden, hvor det alene er denne elites magtinteresser der bestemmer, hvad der skal ske i den “regelbaserede orden”.

Dilemmaet er nu et dilemma med modsatrettede dynamikker. I den transatlantiske verden siden paradigmeskiftet i august 1971, som Lyndon LaRouche profetisk anerkendte, da Nixon effektivt afsluttede Bretton Woods-ordningen ved at afskaffe de faste valutakurser og dermed åbnede vejen for spekulativ profitmaksimering, et voksende skift væk fra investeringer i den produktive fysiske økonomi og hen imod spekulation i stadig mere eksotiske derivatbaserede finansielle produkter, hvoraf den seneste tåbelighed er “at flytte billioner” til den grønne New Deal.

De dermed forbundne investeringer i industrier med den lavest mulige energistrømsdensitet repræsenterer i sidste ende set ud fra et fysisk økonomisk synspunkt en lige så omfattende kapitalødelæggelse som investeringer i militær produktion af våbensystemer og hæren. At denne effekt for det meste ikke erkendes, hænger sammen med, at man forveksler pengeværdier, penge med reel rigdom, og med den

illusionen om, at børsnoterede selskabers aktieværdier siger noget om økonomiens produktivitet. Det er naturligvis i de yachtbesiddende milliardærers interesse, hvoraf nogle for længst har købt lejligheder i lavtliggende bunkere i Australien og andre steder, at bobleøkonomien opretholdes så længe som muligt, selv om andelen af den fattige befolkning fortsætter med at vokse, og middelklassen fortsætter med at skrumpe.

Da Sovjetunionen opløstes i 1991, og den transatlantiske elite trods alle advarsler – f.eks. fra pave Johannes Paul II – gav efter for fantasien om at have “vundet” den kolde krig og fortolkede “historiens afslutning” således, at hele verden nu skulle underkaste sig den neoliberale, regelbaserede orden, så de heller ingen grund til at holde løfterne til Rusland om ikke at udvide NATO mod øst. Hele spektret af instrumenter til at cementere den unipolære verden blev taget i brug: regimeskift enten gennem farverevolutioner eller “humanitære” krige mod alle regeringer, der stadig holder fast ved andre værdier. Viktoria Nuland pralede offentligt med, at udenrigsministeriet havde brugt fem milliarder dollars på NGO’er alene i Ukraine, hvilket i første omgang førte til den “orange revolution” i 2004. Da præsident Janukovitj i slutningen af 2013 nægtede at tilslutte sig EU’s associeringsaftale, ikke mindst fordi EU er fuldt forbundet med NATO med hensyn til traktater og sikkerhed, kom den ikke så demokratiske side af den regelbaserede orden frem i form af Maidan-nazistkuppet i februar 2014. Som følge heraf blev Krim ikke annekteret af Putin, men ved en folkeafstemning af Krimbefolkningen, som ønskede at undslippe Kievs fascistiske politik. Allerede dengang erklærede Putin, at Vesten virkelig var interesseret i at holde Rusland i skak, og at hvis det ikke var Ukraine, ville de have fundet et andet påskud for at gøre det.

Den afgørende opstramning over for Rusland og Kina blev senest i 2017 synliggjort ved at ændre sprogbrugen i Pentagons sikkerhedsdoktriner og karakterisere disse to lande som “modstandere” og “autokratier”. Mens de vestlige institutioner i første omgang havde reageret på Xi Jinpings annoncering af den nye silkevej i september 2013 med en vidtrækkende blackout i hele fire år, reagerede disse institutioner nu på det største infrastrukturprojekt i menneskehedens historie, som om det var en eksistentiel trussel – nemlig mod den unipolære verden! Stort set alle sanktioner, der er blevet indført ensidigt overalt i verden, dvs. uden beslutninger i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, har i sidste ende haft som hovedformål at forhindre Kinas økonomiske fremgang og Ruslands genvinding af sin status som en aktør i verden.

Udskriften af to unavngivne embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus’ pressebriefing den 25. januar afslører på chokerende vis denne hensigt. Her præsenterer de en lang række “strenge økonomiske foranstaltninger” – begyndende med det højeste eskaleringsniveau – for at modarbejde Putins strategiske ambitioner om at industrialisere sin økonomi ved at nægte ham adgang til alle moderne, udviklede teknologier som f.eks. kunstig intelligens, kvantecomputere og alle teknologier relateret til forsvar og rumfart, for at forhindre ham i at “diversificere” økonomien ud over eksport af olie og gas og for at opnå en atrofiering af den russiske økonomi.

Denne politik, der er formuleret i et utroligt brutalt sprog, er intet andet end en fortsættelse af Jeffrey Sachs’ såkaldte “chokterapi” fra 1990’erne, hvis udtrykkelige mål var at reducere Rusland fra at være en supermagt i Sovjetunionens dage til at være et råvareeksporterende land i den tredje verden. Denne politik var dengang som i dag en krigserklæring – den eneste forskel er, at Putin er ikke en ynkelig figur som Jeltsin, er blev forkælet af Vesten af geopolitiske årsager, men en strålende strateg, der ved, hvordan han skal forsvare Ruslands interesser.

De ikke mindre hadefulde tirader mod Kina, som man i dag kan høre fra imperiets hofskribenter og fra tidligere maoister fra SDS-tiden, som i dag er steget til topstillinger i De Grønne, kan imidlertid ikke ændre noget ved den kinesiske økonomis enestående succes, som i 2021 havde en vækstrate på over 8 % på trods af Corona. Kina har gjort mere for menneskerettighederne end noget andet land i det såkaldte vestlige værdifællesskab ved at løfte 850 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom i sit eget land – herunder uighurerne, som nu nyder en langt bedre levestandard og en befolkningstilvækst over gennemsnittet – og ved at give mange udviklingslande mulighed for at overvinde fattigdommen for første gang.

De samme kredses tavshed om den største humanitære katastrofe, der er udløst af de vestlige sanktioner i Afghanistan, hvor næsten en million børn sulter, og hvor i alt 24 millioner mennesker risikerer at dø denne vinter, besegler deres totale miskredit.

Fælles erklæring fra Putin og Xi

Hvis forskellige forfattere har advaret om, at kampagnerne mod Rusland og Kina kunne føre til, at disse to lande kommer endnu tættere på hinanden, kan de være tilfredse, for det er præcis, hvad der nu er sket i forbindelse med Putins besøg ved de olympiske lege i Kina. Det haster imidlertid med at tage de ideologiske briller af og erkende den ekstraordinære mulighed, som den fælles erklæring giver hele verden i denne ekstremt farlige verdenssituation.

Det 16 sider lange dokument med titlen “Fælleserklæring fra Den Russiske Føderation og Folkerepublikken Kina om internationale forbindelser i en ny æra og om en global bæredygtig udvikling” indeholder en opfordring til at erstatte den geopolitiske konfrontation med et økonomisk samarbejde som grundlag for en fælles sikkerhedspolitik. Begge nationer appellerer til NATO om at afstå fra yderligere ekspansionsplaner, at overvinde tankegangen fra den kolde krig og at forankre de langsigtede sikkerhedsgarantier, som Rusland kræver. Den rolle, som internationale organisationer som G20, BRICS, APEC og ASEAN spiller, bør styrkes. Rusland vil samarbejde om gennemførelsen af det “globale udviklingsinitiativ”, som Kina har foreslået, og understreger betydningen af begrebet “ét fællesskab om menneskehedens skæbne”.

Lad os tænke tilbage på de hundrede sekunder i tolv på atomkrigens ur: Hvem vil benægte, at vi er et udeleligt skæbnefællesskab? I de seneste uger er der blevet rejst mere forsigtige røster til fordel for en ny paneuropæisk sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter Rusland og Ukraine, og som kunne vedtages i en ny Helsinki-aftale. I betragtning af den komplekse verdenssituation, truslen mod verdensfreden, der berører alle stater, og den uadskillelighed, der er forbundet med alles sikkerhed, er det imidlertid nødvendigt at gå videre end Helsinki og skabe en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter alle verdens staters sikkerhedsinteresser.

Denne arkitektur skal være baseret på principperne i Westfalens fred, dvs. at alle staters interesser skal sikres, og især deres ret til økonomisk og kulturel udvikling. Bevarelsen af verdensfreden forudsætter en fuldstændig og endelig forkastelse af malthusianernes politik og kræver, at alle nationer får ubegrænset adgang til de videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, der er opnået. Denne nye orden – som er forudsætningen for menneskeartens overlevelse – kræver et nyt paradigme, der skal udnytte de bedste traditioner fra alle kulturer på det højeste humanistiske niveau.

Vi har et valg: Enten lader vi uret tikke videre, indtil de sidste hundrede sekunder er gået, og så vil der ikke være nogen tilbage til at kommentere resultatet. Eller vi kan huske, at vi er den eneste kendte kreative art i universet, og vi kan forme vores fælles fremtid.

zepp-larouche@eir.de




Washington udsender skriftligt svar og fortsætter truslerne mod Rusland;
modstanden mod USA’s og Storbritanniens krigskampagne vokser

Den 26. jan. (EIRNS) — I dag afholdt udenrigsminister Antony Blinken en pressekonference i udenrigsministeriet, og møder for lukkede døre med medlemmer af Kongressen, hvor han meddelte, at USA har givet skriftlige svar på Ruslands tekster fra december, om foreslåede sikkerhedsaftaler. Han erklærede også: “Desuden har NATO udarbejdet, og vil aflevere sit eget dokument, med idéer og bekymringer om kollektiv sikkerhed i Europa til Moskva – og dette dokument styrker os fuldstændigt, og omvendt. Der er ikke nogen tvivl, hos USA og vores allierede og partnere, om disse spørgsmål.”

Mens Blinken i sine bemærkninger gentog sin sædvanlige, mørke opremsning af beskyldninger og trusler mod Rusland, er der i virkeligheden fra mange sider ved at komme klarhed over, hvor farlig og hvor “britisk” hele denne konfrontationspolitik er. Blinken kan sende røgskyer op om “enhed”, input fra “allierede” og lignende, men virkeligheden er en anden. Selv da en journalist spurgte Blinken: Taler du om “en forenet tilgang til Europa”. Hvad mener du om Tysklands holdning?” Hun spurgte: “Ville du sige, at du er glad eller tilfreds med, at Tyskland sender hjelme til Ukraine i stedet for våbenleverancer?” Blinken nøjedes med at puste og stønne om, at hvert land har “forskellige kapaciteter”.

Kort sagt, hvad Blinken sagde i sin pressebriefing var, at Rusland er aggressoren mod Ukraine, og advarede: “Vi har opstillet drastiske konsekvenser, hvis Rusland vælger yderligere aggression.” Blinken gentog sin sofistiske tilgang til Rusland med “to veje”: at vestlig militarisering i Østeuropa er vejen til afskrækkelse, men at USA og Vesten ellers er åbne for diplomati, “hvis Rusland vælger det”.

Om det såkaldte afskrækkelsesspor, gav Blinken en fyldig redegørelse. Han sagde: “Tre leverancer af amerikansk defensiv militærbistand ankom til Kiev i denne uge, indeholdende yderligere javelin-missiler og andre anti-våbensystemer, 283 tons ammunition og ikke-dødelig udrustning… Der forventes flere leverancer i de kommende dage. Vi har ydet mere defensiv sikkerhedsbistand til Ukraine i det seneste år end i noget tidligere år… I sidste uge bemyndigede jeg amerikanske allierede – herunder Estland, Letland og Litauen – til at levere militært udstyr af amerikansk oprindelse… I sidste uge meddelte vi også Kongressen vores hensigt om at levere Mi-17 helikoptere til Ukraine…” Og 8.500 amerikanske soldater er i “forhøjet beredskab til at blive indsat”, hvis det skulle blive nødvendigt for at “styrke de allieredes østlige flanke”.

Blandt den voksende modstand mod denne farlige styrkeprøve ses  adskillige politiske ledere og sammenslutninger i Europa.

I Kroatien udtalte præsident Zoran Milanovic i denne uge, at hans land på ingen måde vil blive involveret i Ukraine-krisen eller sende soldater. Han udtaler, at Ukraine ikke hører hjemme i NATO, og at det var EU (N.B., herunder Storbritannien), der udløste et kup i Kiev i 2014. Desuden sagde Milanovic, som rapporteret af Euractiv, at krisen ikke har noget at gøre med Ukraine eller Rusland, men er relateret til dynamikken i USA’s interne situation, og at de internationale sikkerhedsproblemer afspejler “inkonsekvenser og farlig adfærd” fra USA’s side.

I Spanien har partiet Unidos Podemos og otte mindre partier, alle ni venstreorienterede medlemmer af Socialistpartiets regeringskoalition, offentligt modsat sig premierminister Pedro Sanchez’ beslutning, om at sende militære styrker, for at deltage i NATO’s opbygning af styrker mod Rusland, og opfordrer til en antikrigs-mobilisering som i 2003, hvor Aznar-regeringen, der havde udsendt Spaniens militærstyrker til George Bushs krig mod Irak, blev fordrevet. Der sættes spørgsmålstegn ved selve NATO’s eksistens.

 Fredag den 28. januar vil den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron tale i telefon med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin. I dag mødtes embedsmænd fra Normandiet-gruppens fire nationer – Frankrig, Tyskland, Rusland og Ukraine – i Paris i otte timer og udsendte en erklæring. De planlægger at mødes igen i Berlin i næste måned.

I dag bragte Sputnik News en artikel med en gennemgang af modstanden i Frankrig og andre steder i Europa mod det amerikansk/britiske opgør med Rusland. Med overskriften: “Fransk politiker: Forundret over USA’s krigsmageri, Frankrig og Tyskland forsøger at undgå EU’s militarisering”, bringer artiklen et interview med Karel Vereycken, næstformand for Solidarité & Progrès i Frankrig, som udtalte, at “Frankrig og Tyskland er ikke interesseret i at danse efter USA’s, Storbritanniens og NATO’s melodi – og det er der en god grund til…”.

Schiller Instituttet leverer den kritiske platform internationalt, for at vække verden til bevidsthed om krigsfaren, og om hvad der må gøres udenrigspolitisk og økonomisk, herunder humanitære nødhjælpsaktioner, for at stoppe de forhold og de gerningsmænd, som har skabt denne frygtelige krisesituation. Hjemmesiden leverer løsningsforslag, og en yderligere international konference med henblik på at mobilisere indsatsen er under forberedelse i starten af februar.

Udvalgt billede: Somchai Kongkamsri




NYHEDSORIENTERING DECEMBER 2021-JANUAR 2022:
2022 er Lyndon LaRouches år//
Kan vi undgå krig med Rusland?

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Sikkerhedseksperter advarer om optrapning af opgøret mellem USA og Rusland

Den 19. januar (EIRNS) – David T. Pyne offentliggjorde en artikel i det konservative National Interest i nummeret af 17. januar, under overskriften “Bidens mulighed for fred i Eurasien”. I den advarer Pyne om, at “de bilaterale forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland brød sammen i denne uge, efter at den amerikanske delegation angiveligt nægtede at tilbyde Rusland nogen indrømmelser, eller anerkende nogen af dets legitime sikkerhedsbekymringer, vigtigst af alt i Ukraine”, og at krisen mellem de to lande som følge heraf er i fare for at ende i en spiral, der snurrer ud af kontrol, hen imod en termonuklear krig. (Den 18. januar talte USA’s udenrigsminister Tony Blinken og Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov i telefon og aftalte et hastigt arrangeret møde mellem dem i Genève den 21. januar).

Pyne er tidligere officer i den amerikanske hærs kampenheder, stabsofficer i hovedkvarteret og har en kandidatgrad i nationale sikkerhedsstudier fra Georgetown University. Han er i øjeblikket vicedirektør for nationale operationer for EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security, hvis hjemmeside beskriver Pyne som “en autoritet med hensyn til USA’s, Ruslands og Kinas atomarsenaler, amerikanske og russiske missilforsvarssystemer og den stigende trussel fra elektromagnetiske pulsvåben (EMP)”.

Vi citerer det indledende afsnit af Pynes artikel, som taler for sig selv:

“I slutningen af december 2021 truede den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin med, at en afvisning af Ruslands foreslåede sikkerhedsaftaler med Vesten, ville blive mødt med “passende militær-tekniske gengældelsesforanstaltninger”. Gilbert Doctorow, en Bruxelles-baseret politisk analytiker, har oversat dette til at betyde, – opstilling af yderligere russisk militært udstyr, herunder atombevæbnede SS-26 Iskander-M-kortdistancemissiler til Hviderusland og Kaliningrad, for at true NATO’s frontlinjestater og Østtyskland. Han har også spekuleret i, at det kan hentyde til en mulig udstationering af atombevæbnede, hypersoniske, ubådsbaserede Zircon krydsermissiler ud for Washington D.C., som Rusland tidligere har sagt kunne bruges til at ødelægge USA’s hovedstad, før præsidenten kunne flygte med Air Force One.

“Når Ruslands andre masseødelæggelsesvåben lægges til, kunne det der står på spil for de bilaterale forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland næppe være højere. Rusland har også truet med disse militær-tekniske gengældelsesforanstaltninger som svar på, at USA vedtager meget strengere økonomiske sanktioner mod landet. Hvis USA og NATO skulle flytte deres tropper til den ukrainske grænse som svar på en russisk invasion af Ukraine, ville det naturligvis, næsten helt sikkert, fremprovokere et russisk angreb på NATO’s frontlinjemedlemsstater, hvor disse tropper er stationeret, og potentielt starte en tredje verdenskrig. Det er således en russisk “rød linje”, som ikke må overskrides. Desuden kunne en eventuel russisk invasion af Ukraine og/eller udbrud af krig mellem USA og Rusland i Europa kortvarigt blive efterfulgt af en kinesisk invasion af Taiwan og en nordkoreansk invasion af Sydkorea – alt sammen noget, der sikrer, at USA ikke vil være i stand til effektivt at imødegå nogle af disse aggressioner.

“Desværre brød de bilaterale forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland sammen i denne uge, efter at den amerikanske delegation angiveligt nægtede at tilbyde Rusland nogle indrømmelser eller anerkende nogen af dens legitime sikkerhedsproblemer, vigtigst af alt i Ukraine. Som svar herpå har Rusland erklæret, at det ikke har nogen planer om at genoptage bilaterale drøftelser med USA for at afslutte krisen og fortsætter med at optrappe sine krigsforberedelser. På nuværende tidspunkt, vil den eneste måde at give Rusland en oprejsning i Ukraine-krisen være, at Biden-administrationen tilbyder en betydelig indrømmelse, såsom udsættelse af USA’s militære bistand til Ukraine.”

Pyne slutter sin artikel med at opfordre USA til at ændre politik og i stedet skabe “omfattende fredsaftaler med Rusland og Kina”, og tilføjer, at de “ikke vil være uden udfordringer”. De ville imidlertid, fastslår Pyne, “give Biden en hidtil uset mulighed for at sikre sit præsidentielle eftermæle som en forandringens fredspræsident og samtidig tjene til at beskytte USA’s vitale nationale sikkerhedsinteresser”.

Tidsskriftet bag artiklen i National Interest er bemærkelsesværdigt. Det blev grundlagt af den neokonservative Irving Kristol og repræsenterer den dag i dag et “konservativt” synspunkt på udenrigspolitik. (https://nationalinterest.org/feature/biden%E2%80%99s-opportunity-peace-eurasia-199344)

 




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 20. januar 2022:
Vil Vesten have krig eller fred med Rusland og Kina?
Finanskollaps på vej. FE-skandaler m.m.
Video, lyd og resumé.

med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Resumé:

USA´s og Ruslands udenrigsministre mødes i morgen. Er USA og NATO villige til at give Rusland de nødvendige sikkerhedsgarantier på skrift eller går man konfrontationsvejen? Rusland bakker ikke ned. Man gør op med årtiers svigt fra Vesten, hvor Vesten har ført krig imod Rusland og dets interesser med farvede revolutioner m.m. Nu er Rusland militært og økonomisk stærk mens Vesten er svag. Rusland og Kina kan klare sig uden Vesten, men Europa kan ikke klare sig uden russisk gas og kinesiske varer.

Eksperter advarer at hvis USA og NATO overskrider Ruslands røde linjer kan Rusland angribe fra Hviderusland og Kaliningrad med SS-26 Skander kortdistance atommissiler i hele Østeuropa. USA kan trues med ubådsbaserede Zircon atommissiler, der flyver 5-10 gange lydens hastighed, som USA ikke kan forsvare sig imod. Hvis det bliver krig mellem Rusland og USA vil Kina indtage Taiwan og Nordkorea angribe Sydkorea uden at USA kan gøre noget. Få derfor langsigtede fredsaftaler med Rusland og Kina, som alle kan leve med i stedet for konfrontation og krig. Rusland deltager i militærøvelser i Hviderusland fra den 9. februar så tag snakken med Rusland, evt. med et topmøde mellem Biden og Putin, inden de Olympiske Vinterlege i Beijing fra den 4.-20. februar er afsluttet og scenen sat for eskalation og mulig krig.

USA’s inflation på 7 % og USA’s Federal Reserve bliver tvunget til at hæve renten. Resultatet vil være en nedsmeltning på de finansielle markeder. Nedflyvningen er startet så spænd sikkerhedsbælterne. Europa er ikke bedre stillet. Forbered implementering af LaRouches fire økonomiske love så realøkonomien og samfundet kan beskyttes imod konsekvenserne af nedsmeltningen.

COVID-19: Pga. den høje vacinetilslutning er Omikron-variantens indtog en gamechanger på trods af sin meget større smitbarhed. Største problem for sundhedsvæsenet er ikke Coranapatienter men hjemsendelse og karantæne for ikke-syge ansatte. Vi må reducere karantænetiden, men vente en uge eller to inden vi sætter fuld fart på genåbningen, til vi har set konsekvenserne af at der er 4 gange så mange daglige smittede som for en måned siden.

FE-skandalen viser i lighed men mink-skandalen en stor villighed hos regeringen til at ville bestemme, men en dårlig evne til at sikre sig den fornødne rådgivning og ekspertise inden man træffer drastiske beslutninger med store og vidtrækkende konsekvenser. Efter hybris kommer nemesis. Det kan true regeringens fremtid. Det er ikke kun regeringens medlemmer der handler hurtigt og overilet, uden tanke på de langsigtede konsekvenser, men hele den nuværende regerende elite. Husk at hovmod står for fald.

Grib ind i historien. Vær med til at sikre et globalt sundhedssystem. Lad os samarbejde om at stoppe sultkatastrofen i Afghanistan og få opbygget hele verdens økonomiske sundhed. Gå med i Schiller Instituttets kampagne. Tænk som LaRouche.




Er du parat til at bryde med City of London og Wall Street for at forhindre atomkrig?

Den 12. januar (EIRNS) – Mellem mandag og onsdag i denne uge er verden rykket dramatisk tættere på randen af en termonuklear krig.

USA og NATO satte sig på tværs, i deres respektive sikkerhedsforhandlinger på højt niveau med Rusland den 10. og 12. januar og proklamerede deres hensigt om at fortsætte med at udvide NATO østpå, helt op til Ruslands grænse og at opstille truende atomangrebssystemer ligeledes ved denne grænse, fem minutters flyvetid fra Moskva. Den russiske viceudenrigsminister Alexander Grushko kom ud fra dagens møde i Rusland-NATO-Rådet for at meddele, at der ikke blot manglede en forenende positiv dagsorden mellem Rusland og NATO, men at USA og NATO er vendt tilbage til Den kolde Krigs fulde strategi om “inddæmning” over for Rusland, herunder “fuldspektret dominans”. Rusland har ingen anden mulighed end at svare igen på inddæmnings-, afskrækkelses- og intimideringspolitikken, erklærede han.

Mandagens drøftelser mellem USA og Rusland sluttede på lignende måde.

Disse resultater er ikke overraskende, kommenterede Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, i dag. Bortset fra en eventuel privat kommunikation, eller bag kulisserne, mellem præsident Biden og Putin, som måske er i gang, og som tilbyder en mere rationel tilgang, kunne der meget vel komme en hurtig modreaktion fra Ruslands side. Som Putin og mange af Ruslands øverste ledere gentagne gange har advaret om i de seneste uger, kan Rusland ikke kapitulere over for de trusler, der er rettet mod dets suverænitet og eksistens. Rusland står over for en omvendt Cuba-krise, denne gang blot med en meget kortere lunte til krig.

Husk på JFK’s ord for 60 år siden: “I løbet af den sidste uge har umiskendelige beviser fastslået, at en række offensive missilanlæg nu er under forberedelse på den indespærrede ø (Cuba).” At gøre dette, mindede han verden om, “i et område, der er kendt for at have et særligt og historisk forhold til USA, er en bevidst provokerende og uberettiget ændring af status quo, som ikke kan accepteres af dette land”.

 Zepp-LaRouche advarede om, at hvis de krigeriske udtalelser og konfrontationer fortsætter, så står verden højst sandsynligt over for et pludseligt opgør – som næsten øjeblikkeligt kan eskalere til den termonukleare tærskel. Der er et presserende behov for en bred mobilisering af kræfter verden over for at standse denne nedtur til helvede og hurtigt udvikle nye muligheder, der vil garantere sikkerhed og velfærd for alle parter.

 – Der er behov for en ny, global sikkerhedsarkitektur til straks at erstatte NATO’s organisation og politik, som har bragt verden på krigens rand.

Den drivkraft, der presser verden mod en termonuklear krig, er sammenbrudskrisen i hele det transatlantiske finanssystem. For at deres system kan overleve, må de røveriske spekulanter i City of London og Wall Street indføre fascistiske niveauer af økonomisk udplyndring og bringe Rusland og Kina i knæ, for at sikre at der ikke er nogen reel modstand mod den førte politik.

Det transatlantiske system må underkastes en konkursbehandling efter de retningslinjer, som Lyndon LaRouche angav i sine Fire love fra 2014. Hvis dette system aflives, fjernes faren for Tredje Verdenskrig.

Gennem hele sit liv har Lyndon LaRouche gentagne gange forklaret denne nære forbindelse mellem det kollapsende finansielle system og tilskyndelsen til krig. En af hans klareste udlægninger var i en erklæring fra 23. december, 2011: “For at stoppe termonuklear krig, må man sætte gang i det økonomiske opsving på verdensplan”, som vi tidligere har citeret her på siden, og som i uddrag er den leder, der er udgivet i Executive Intelligence Review af 7. januar, 2022.  Som denne leder konstaterer, bekræfter LaRouches bemærkninger fra 2011 “dette genis forudseenhed, og viser hvorfor Helga Zepp-LaRouche har opfordret til, at året 2022 – 100-årsdagen for hans fødsel – skal være kendt som “Lyndon LaRouches år”.”

LaRouche advarede i sin præsentation fra 2011: “Det vil være en termonuklear tredje verdenskrig – hverken præ-atomkrig eller atomkrig, men termonuklear krig. Målene er først og fremmest Rusland og Kina. Det er de to vigtigste mål….

Spørgsmålet er som følger: Det nuværende verdenssystem, det økonomiske system, er i færd med at gå i opløsning. Præcis hvordan dette vil foregå, er usikkert, men det vil ske. Hensigten er at tilintetgøre to nationer – Rusland og Kina – og det betyder atomvåben; det betyder termonukleare våben. Den del er involveret….

På nuværende tidspunkt er USA, Europas nationer, Rusland, Kina og andre lande klar til præcis denne krig.

Baggrunden for krigen er den kendsgerning, at hele verden er ved at gå fallit, især den transatlantiske region, specielt Europa, og også USA, og nationerne i Sydamerika og andre steder også …

Bankerotten fra USA’s perspektiv blev sat i gang tilbage i 2007, da man indledte processen med redningspakker. Siden da har hele den transatlantiske region, i særdeleshed USA og Europa, været fanget i en redningskrise, en hyperinflationær redningskrise. På nuværende tidspunkt er den gæld, der er blevet akkumuleret siden 2007 under dette program, af en sådan størrelse, at alle dele af Europa på nuværende tidspunkt under de nuværende regler og de nuværende ordninger er håbløst bankerotte! De vil aldrig kunne komme sig som eksisterende nationer under den nuværende gældsætning. Det samme gælder for USA; Europa er lidt mere akut. Det er hvad der er sket…. Ophavsmanden til dette forhold er briterne….

Se, hvad vi er nødsaget til at gøre – der er løsninger på denne konkurs. Først og fremmest må vi sætte verden under konkurs – det vil sige en lovlig konkursbehandling. Det kan vi for det første gøre ved, i USA for eksempel – og andre nationer kan kopiere denne foranstaltning i samarbejde med USA – at vi anvender en Glass/Steagall-lovgivning, en amerikansk Glass/Steagall-lov. Og der er nationer i Europa, som overvejer at vedtage den samme Glass/Steagall-lov.

Under en Glass/Steagall lov vil størstedelen af de europæiske nationers og USA’s og andre landes gæld blive slettet, i realiteten, fordi under Glass-Steagall vil spillegælden, som er den største del af USA’s gæld, simpelthen blive placeret i en særlig kategori, hvor nogen vil forsøge at finde ud af, hvordan man får denne gæld betalt – og den vil aldrig blive betalt! De vil simpelthen blive slettet af regnskaberne; der er ingen anden løsning.

At slette denne gæld fra bøgerne, at annullere redningsgælden vil betyde, at USA, og Europa, hvis de tilslutter sig, vil være i stand til at reorganisere deres finanser, skabe et kreditsystem og faktisk gå ind i en ny form for hamiltonsk kreditsystem, et banksystem, som vil sætte USA, og også Europa og andre nationer, hvis de tilslutter sig, i stand til at organisere en finansiel genopretning.

Med andre ord, hvad der ville ske omgående: Husk, at det meste af denne redningsgæld, Wall Street-gælden, London-gælden og den øvrige redningsgæld er absolut værdiløs! Den kan aldrig tilbagebetales! Den kunne aldrig tilbagebetales: Og den eneste løsning på dette var naturligvis at føre denne krig. Og hvis det britiske imperium kom ud som sejrherre i en sådan krig, med støtte fra USA, så ville de eftergive deres gæld og fortsætte deres forretninger. Men verdens befolkning ville blive reduceret kraftigt gennem sult, udsultning og så videre, hvilket alligevel er ved at ske.”




Pressemeddelelse den 6. januar 2021:
Hvorfor USA og NATO bør underskrive traktaterne foreslåede af Putin. 
Interview med rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen til Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Læs afskriftet på engelsk nedenunder.

KØBENHAVN — I lyset af den eskalerende spænding mellem USA/NATO og Rusland, som kan føre til en varm krig, ja endog atomkrig, foretog Schiller Instituttet i Danmark et timelangt engelsksproget video/lydinterview med Rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen den 30. december 2021.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er cand. mag. i idéhistorie og historie, og var i slutningen af​​ 1990’erne Politikens Moskva-korrespondent. Han er forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturelle forskelle på Niels Brock handelshøjskole. Jens Jørgen Nielsen underviser på Folkeuniversitetet og andre steder, ligesom han arbejder med danske eksportvirksomheder, der vil ind på det russiske, ukrainske og hviderussiske marked. Han har i mange år arrangeret rejser til Rusland.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen, med mange års erfaring i at analysere Rusland, Ukraine og vestlige holdninger og handlinger i forhold til Rusland, taler tydeligt om konsekvenserne, hvis ikke Vesten er villig til seriøst at forhandle en diplomatisk løsning på de “røde linjer”, som Putin og andre førende russiske talsmænd har udtalt er ved at blive krydset: Hvis Ukraine tilslutter sig NATO, og hvis NATO’s ekspansion mod øst fortsætter, og hvorfor USA og NATO burde underskrive Putins foreslåede traktater om disse spørgsmål.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen tager fat på de ændringer, der er nødvendige på den vestlige side, som vil afgøre, om de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland om disse “røde linjer” den 10.-13. januar vil lykkes med at trække verden tilbage fra randen af krig.

Interviewet er endnu vigtigere efter bekendtgørelsen den 3. januar 2022 for første gang af en fælles erklæring fra stats- og regeringscheferne for de fem atomvåbenstater, som også er de permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om, at “atomkrig ikke kan vindes og aldrig må udkæmpes”, og dermed anerkendelsen af hvad der er på spil under den nuværende krise.

—————————————-

 Nogle højdepunkter:

Et højdepunkt er Jens Jørgen Nielsens personlige diskussion i 1989 med Mikail Gorbatjov om NATO-udvidelse mod øst:

“Faktisk havde jeg en lang snak med Mikhail Gorbatjov, den tidligere leder af Sovjetunionen, i 1989, lige da NATO begyndte at bombe Serbien, og da de indlemmede Polen, Tjekkiet og Ungarn i NATO. Man bør huske på at Gorbatjov er en meget rar person. Han er en meget livlig person, med godt humør og en erfaren person. Men da vi begyndte at snakke, spurgte jeg ham om NATO-udvidelsen, som foregik præcis den dag, hvor vi snakkede. Han blev meget dyster, meget trist, fordi han sagde: Altså, jeg talte med James Baker, Helmut Kohl fra Tyskland og flere andre personer, og de lovede mig alle ikke at flytte en tomme mod øst, hvis Sovjetunionen ville lade Tyskland forene DDR (Østtyskland) og Vesttyskland, for at blive ét land, og komme til at blive medlem af NATO, men ikke bevæge sig en tomme mod øst.’… Det stod ikke skrevet, for, som han sagde, “Jeg troede på dem. Jeg kan se, at jeg var naiv.” 

Et andet vigtigt afsnit er, hvad Jens Jørgen Nielsen ville sige til Biden, og andre NATO-statschefer, i en privat diskussion før de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA/NATO og Rusland. “Jeg ville sige, ’Se, Joe, jeg forstår dine bekymringer. Jeg forstår, at du ser dig selv som en forkæmper for frihed i verden, … men ser du, det spil, du nu spiller med Rusland, er et meget, meget farligt spil. Og russerne, som et meget stolt folk, man kan ikke tvinge dem’, angående USA’s og nogle europæiske landes politik, til at skifte Putin ud med en anden præsident. “Jeg kan forsikre dig, Joe Biden, vær sikker på, at hvis det lykkes, eller hvis Putin dør i morgen, eller de på en eller anden måde får en ny præsident, kan jeg forsikre dig om, at den nye præsident vil være lige så hård som Putin, måske endda hårdere… Jeg tror,​​det ville være klogt for dig, lige nu, at støtte Putin, eller at handle med Putin, engagere sig med Putin og lave noget diplomati, fordi alternativet er en mulighed for krig, og du burde ikke gå over i historien som den amerikanske præsident, der sikrede menneskehedens udryddelse. Det ville være et dårligt, meget dårligt eftermæle for dig.’ 

Han forholder sig til den reelle mulighed for, at vi søvngængeragtigt går ind i atomkrig, som før 1. Verdenskrig, som svar på Schiller Instituttets memorandum Er vi søvngængeragtigt på vej til atomar 3. verdenskrig? den 24. december 2021.

“[Man] kan forestille sig, hvad der vil ske, hvis Kina, Iran og Rusland havde en militær alliance, der gik ind i Mexico, Canada, Cuba, måske også opstillede missiler dér… [T]anken om en atomkrig er forfærdelig for os alle, og det er derfor jeg synes, at politikere må komme til fornuft… for milliarder vil dø i dette. Og det er et spørgsmål, om menneskeheden vil overleve. Så det er et meget, meget alvorligt spørgsmål. Og jeg tror vi bør spørge om Ukraines ret til at have NATO-medlemskab, som dets egen befolkning egentlig ikke ønsker, er det virkelig værd at risikere en atomkrig for? Sådan vil jeg sige det.”

——————————

Interviewet har andre afgørende afsnit: 

Baggrund om NATO’s udvidelse mod øst.

Fuld støtte til seriøse forhandlinger med Rusland og underskrivelse af de to foreslåede traktater, som opfordret af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Forkerte forestillinger i vesten om Rusland og Putin, og manglen på vilje til at håndtere andre kulturer som ligeværdige, medmindre de er ligesom os.

Hvordan pro-vestlige holdninger i Rusland, herunder af Jeltsin og Putin, blev afvist, og Rusland derefter vendte sig mod Kina.

Hvordan Ukraine-krisen ikke startede med “annekteringen” af Krim, men med det han kalder “et kup” mod den ukrainske præsident Janukovitj, som ønskede økonomiske forbindelser både med EU og Rusland; plus baggrunden for Krim-spørgsmålet.

Vigtigheden af​​ en dialog mellem kulturer, herunder “Musikalsk dialog mellem Kulturer”-koncerterne i København, arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog og Det kinesiske Kulturcenter i København. 

Jens Jørgen Nielsens opbakning til mange af Schiller Instituttets idéer og indsatser.

Mere information, eller for at aftale et nyt interview, kontakt:

Michelle Rasmussen fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark: 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk, www.schillerinstitute.comwww.schillerinstitut.dk

Afskrift på engelsk: (Kortet på side 15 viser NATO, hvis Ukraine og Georgien bliver medlemmer.)

Download (PDF, Unknown)