Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del (5 min)

Lydfil:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Alt dette er et mål for det faktum, at det transatlantiske område er dødt; og det vil kun begynde at vende denne død omkring, hvis der finder en revolutionær, fundamental forandring sted i politikken. Denne alternative politik gennemføres i det eurasiske og asiatiske Stillehavsområde, anført af Kina, af Rusland, og er reflekteret i den måde, hvorpå præsident Putin har navigeret den strategiske situation.

Så den store trussel kommer fra det faktum, at et døende Britisk Imperium – der er uigenkaldeligt dømt til undergang – kæmper for sit liv og forsøger at bevare noget, der ikke længere kan bevares.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd:

16. marts 2016 – Den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang holdt den endelige pressekonference efter de to sessioner i den Nationale Folkekongres og CPPCC (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference). I besvarelse af et spørgsmål fra en reporter fra Reuters, der fremførte den angivelige ’krise’ i den kinesiske økonomi, skitserede Li den grundlæggende idé, der lå til grund for Kinas økonomiske reform.

»Finanssektorens topprioritet er at støtte udviklingen af realøkonomien«, sagde Li. Han opsummerede dernæst nogle af tallene vedr. gældsraten i kinesisk industri, som, endskønt høje, ligger langt under det internationale gennemsnit. Han indikerede, at Kina, med udviklingen af nye finansformer, havde den opgave at udvikle et »fuldkomment udviklet finansielt regelsæt«. »Finanssektoren må tjene realøkonomien bedre«, sagde han og bemærkede også, at en dysfunktionel realøkonomi også vil give signifikant genlyd i finanssystemet. »Finanssystemet opererer også ud fra sine egne love«, bemærkede han. »Vi må derfor holde øje med mulige risici. Vi må beskytte imod risici og moralfare[1]«, sagde Li.

Senere, som svar på et spørgsmål fra Xinhua, gav Li udtryk for tillid til, at Kinas økonomi fortsat ville udvikle sig. »Min tillid er ikke begrundet i overfladiske betragtninger«, sagde Li. »Der ligger et stort potentiale i vores situation. Reformer på forsyningssiden vil stimulere markedsudviklingen. Vi vil opgradere de traditionelle drivers for vores vækst, alt imens vi implementerer nye. Der er et stort område for mere investering i de vestlige områder. Selv om der er usikkerhedsfaktorer i den globale situation, så har vi stadig redskaber i vores værktøjskasse til at imødegå alle uforudsete udviklinger«, sagde Li. »Vi har valgt en vej med strukturreformer«, sagde han. »Vi har bestået stresstesten. Og i takt med, at vi forener folk omkring vores vision, kan vi bibringe verden en stærk, frisk vind.«

[1] beskriver det problem, der opstår, hvis to parter indgår en aftale om risikodeling, hvor den enes indsats vil påvirke sandsynlighedsfordelingen for udbyttet for den anden part.

15. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Den vestlige verden var forbløffet i mandags, da præsident Vladimir Putin annoncerede begyndelsen på en tilbagetrækning af Ruslands militære styrker i Syrien – lige så pludseligt og uventet, som han indledte interventionen sidste september. Men Vestens overraskelse skyldes ikke Putin, men den kendsgerning, at stort set ingen i Vesten forstår, hvordan Putin tænker. Han er måske den største strategiske tænker siden general Douglas MacArthur, en fremtids-tænkning af en kvalitet, som i svær grad mangler i USA og Europa i dag.

I en tale, der blev vist over Tv, sagde Putin, der optrådte sammen med sin udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov og sin forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu, at missionen stort set var gennemført, og at terroristernes offensiv imod den syriske stat var blevet knust og ved at blive drevet tilbage – en betydningsfuld sejr over terror på internationalt plan. Han bemærkede, at, mens terroristernes styrker, som hans vestlige venner støttede, vandt frem, var disse vestlige venner ikke interesseret i fredsforhandlinger, men havde nu ombestemt sig til at gå med i fredsindsatsen. Han gjorde det klart, at den russiske støtte til den syriske hær imod ISIS og al-Nusra ville fortsætte – en indsats, som de kompetente ledere inden for USA’s militær og udenrigstjeneste støtter.

Flere politiske og militære kilder har informeret EIR om, at der finder intense diskussioner sted bag scenen, langs den linje, som samarbejdet mellem Kerry og Lavrov har lagt, og som vil blive afsløret i de nærmeste dage.

Lyndon LaRouche påpegede i dag, at denne succesfulde flankeoperation, som Putin udførte i Syrien, og som afslørede Obamas støtte til terrorister gennem hans venner i Tyrkiet og Saudi-Arabien, har lagt sig som en forhindring for det britiske imperieapparat internationalt og hjulpet Putins venner andre steder til at forsvare deres strategiske interesser – især Xi Jinping i Kina. Kineserne er nu i færd med at forberede et program, der skal lægge skat på spekulative, finansielle transaktioner – ikke for at tjene penge, men for at forhindre spekulanternes aktiviteter. Hedgefonde vil blive afkrævet bevis for, at genforsikrings- og valutatransaktioner er baseret på reel handel eller reelle investeringer og ikke er til spekulative formål – og har sendt spekulanterne ud i hysteriske anfald.

Hvorfor tolererer amerikanere ødelæggelsen af deres økonomi, politikken med evindelige krige og en valgkampagne, der er langt værre, og farligere, end en klovneforestilling? Svaret skal søges i troen på penge – det faktum, at alting måles ud fra monetære værdier og matematiske formler snarere end ud fra realøkonomiens og det menneskelige samfunds fremskridt. USA’s, Europas og Japans økonomier flyder med likviditet, med penge, men det er alt sammen fiktivt. Realøkonomien er i frit fald – med infrastrukturen, der forfalder, industrien, der kollapser og massearbejdsløshed – hvilket driver et stadigt større antal arbejdende mennesker til selvmord gennem narko, eller på anden vis.

Kina og Rusland og Indien har opbygget et nyt paradigme, gennem BRIKS, AIIB og Den nye Silkevej, baseret på principper, som amerikanere engang antog som deres. Amerikanere og europæere må atter engang antage konceptet om et fælles mål for menneskeheden, baseret på den succesfulde fremgang for menneskeheden som helhed, eller også se på, at Vestens nuværende imperieherskere leder verden til Helvede.

Foto: Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin holder en tale ved den officielle ceremoni for afsløringen af statuen af den russiske digter Alexander Pushkin i Seoul, Korea. 13. november, 2013.

Interviewet, som EIR's Tom Gillesberg lavede, fandt sted den 15. marts 2016 i København. Ambassadøren talte på persisk, som blev oversat til engelsk.

English:
Interview with Iran's ambassador to Denmark, H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian about Iran's relations with Russia and China, and Iran's role in the New Silk Road, after the P5+1 agreement with Iran. The interview was conducted on March 15, 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark by EIR's Copenhagen Bureau Chief Tom Gillesberg. Ambassador Moradian spoke Farsi, and his statements were translated into English.

Audio:

Interview with H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian, the ambassador from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom of Denmark, about Iran’s relationship with Russia and China, and Iran’s role in the New Silk Road, from a vantage point after the P5+1 agreement with Iran. The interview was conducted on March 15, 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark by EIR’s Copenhagen Bureau Chief Tom Gillesberg. Ambassador Moradian spoke in Farsi, and his statements were translated into English. Video and audio files are available at: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=12299
EIR: Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview, to give us an opportunity to hear what Iran’s views are on some extremely important questions, not only for Iran, but, I think, for the whole Middle East region, and, also, for the world. When Chinese President Xi was in the Islamic Republic of Iran, there was a lot of discussion with President Hassan Rouhani, and others, and agreements signed, aimed at reviving the ancient Silk Road, which the Chinese call the "One Belt, One Road."  Greek Prime Minister Tsipras was also in Teheran, and spoke about Greece's role as a bridge between Europe and Iran.
After years of war and lack of economic development, many countries in Southwest Asia are completely destroyed. What is urgently needed is the extension of the OBOR/New Silk Road policy for the entire region, as well as the Mediterranean countries — a Marshall plan, but without the Cold War connotations.
Do you see a potential for that, and if so, what are your ideas about it?
H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian: In the name of God, the compassionate and merciful, I would also like to thank you for arranging this session for me to be able to air my views on the issues of the region, and others. Both Iran and China have high ambitions regarding transportation issues. I think that there is extreme potential for economic development, arising from the idea raised by the Chinese president. Iran is situated at a very important juncture from a transportation point of view. This has nothing to do with the issues of today or yesterday, but it is an historical issue. Iran, and the region around it, are located along a very, very important corridor.
If we look at the important corridors in the world, there are three important ones. We can see that the North-South corridor, and the East-West corridors, all pass through Iran. The important thing is that transportation corridors necessarily need lead to the growth of economic development, and also, when economic development takes place, what follows that is peace and stability. Our country, and all of the countries of western Asia, are trying to find and develop these transportation routes. In this regard, the idea raised by China can have important consequences for the region. Just to sum it up, this idea of reviving the old Silk Road, would have a very positive influence on development.
As far as Iran is concerned, Iran enjoys a very good position in regard to all forms of transportation – air, sea and land. Iran has always followed up on the issue of reviving the old Silk Road, with China. We now see that the Chinese idea, and the Iranian idea, are now meeting at some point. I think that within the framework of two very important agreements, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and, also, the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), we can have very, very good cooperation. I will give more explanations later about the importance of the SCO and ECO cooperation. These are both in our region, and they can have cooperation with each other.

EIR: You have personally been involved in your country's relations with, especially, Russia and China — two countries which are playing leading roles in today's world, with Russia taking leadership in the fight against Daesh/Islamic State, and China pursuing an inclusive, multi-national, economic development strategy, which is an alternative to the transatlantic monetarist policy leading to economic collapse. Now, starting a new chapter after the sanctions against Iran have been lifted, how do you foresee the future of Iranian relations with Russia, and China, and what benefits will that bring to Iran and the rest of the world?

Ambassador Moradian: As you pointed out, I think the conditions are now conducive for good cooperation and development. During the years of the sanctions, we had extensive relations with China. There is now about $50 billion of trade between Iran and China. This has fluctuated some years, but it is between 50-52 billion dollars. China is the biggest importer of Iranian oil. We also had extensive relations with Russia during the years of the sanctions. It's natural, now that the sanctions have been removed, that the relationship between these three nations would develop further.
The important point that I would like to point out is that the three countries have common interests, and common threats facing them. We are neighbors with the Russians. We have common interests with Russia regarding the Caspian Sea, transportation, energy, the environment, and peace in the world. So, we have quite a number of areas where our interests coincide. Other there areas where we have common interests are drug trafficking, and other forms of smuggling, combating extremism and terrorism, and, also, our views on major international issues converge.
We also have quite a number of common interests with China. They include energy, in the consumption market, reviving the Silk Road, combating terrorism, the transportation corridors, and, also, in the framework of the SCO –- quite a number of areas where we have common interests. China needs 9 million barrels of oil on a daily basis. As I said, our trade relations amount to about $52 billion.
Iran enjoys some very important factors. First of all, it has enormous amounts of energy resources. Its coastline along the Persian Gulf runs up to 3000 kilometers. We are neighbors with 15 countries in the region. So these are very, very important points for Iran to be in the hub. I think that cooperation between these three powers, namely Russia, China, and Iran, can ultimately lead to stability and peace in the region. So the four areas — the combination of economics, trade, energy and transit — these are areas that can lead to the ideas that I mentioned. I think that effective cooperation between these three powers can lead to peace and stability, important in western Asia, and in the Middle East.
The revival of the old Silk Road, at this juncture of time, would be very meaningful. During the recent visit to Iran by the Chinese president, the two sides agreed to increase the volume of trade between the two countries, in the next 10 years, to $600 billion.
Also, in the recent visit to Iran by President Putin, there was also agreement on Russian investment in Iran. It has to be said that our trade relations, economic relations, with Russia is not as much as it should be. But among the topics discussed when President Putin visited Iran, was to make sure that the volume of economic cooperation increases between Iran and Russia.
Just to sum up our relations with Russia and China regarding economic cooperation, we think that with Russia, it is not enough, and we want to increase that. With China, it has been very good, but we still want to develop that further. Overall the situation is promising.
You are well aware that from the point of view of stability, Iran is unique in the region, and that actually prepares the ground for this cooperation to continue.

EIR: There is already progress on extending the New Silk Road from China to Iran. On February 15, 2016, the first freight train from Yiwu, China, arrived in Teheran. The 14-day-trip covered over 10,000 km. (about 6,500 miles), travelling through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, saving 30 days compared to the former route. What are the plans to extend this line, and how will that improve economic relations along the New Silk Road? And what new agreements were just made between Iran and China to develop the New Silk Road?
Ambassador Moradian: President Rouhani has very clear views on the Silk Road. In fact, President Rouhani is a specialist in transportation routes and communication. He believes that the basis for development lies in the development of transportation infrastructure. He and the Chinese president have talked over the revival of the Silk Road on a number of occasions.
There was a discussion that deviated from the main subject of the Silk Road, being propagated during the past few years. That was the idea of the new Silk Road, or the American Silk Road, so to speak, and it was not based on an historical issue. Basically, they wanted to bypass Iran, and deviate the route to bypass Iran, in effect. No one can fight against economic and geographical realities on the ground. When the route through Iran is the shortest route, and the cost effective route, then nobody can go against that. And because the Chinese ideas were more realistic, then Iran and China were able to come to some sort of understanding on the development and revival of the Silk Road.
There is also emphasis on the development of sea routes. We witnessed good investment by the Chinese in this regard, in the recent years. China has invested heavily in Pakistan, in the Gwarder port.
If I want to just come to the issue regarding Iran, then I can go through the following issues. The railroad between Khaf in Iran, and Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan, is an important connection. The Khaf-Herat section has been completed, but the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif section is still to be constructed. I think this is an important route that we believe, in my opinion, China would be advised to invest in. Also, within the framework of Danish development aid to Afghanistan, I think a portion of funds to the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif railroad link would be an important factor.
If this route between Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif were to be completed, then from there, there are two routes — one leading to Uzbekistan, and the other leading to Tajikistan, and that can be an important connection. At the moment, China is making good investments in both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in order to establish the links. In fact, the link between China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, is one of the most important links of the Silk Road. And there is a missing link between Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif, as I said, and I hope that the countries concerned, especially China, can help establish that link. Over the past two years, the corridor between Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iran has now borne fruit, and is now connected. In fact, the train that you mentioned, that arrived in Teheran, actually came through this route, and this corridor has extreme potential. I hear that quite a number of countries in the region are interested in joining this corridor. We have another corridor linking Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Oman, which is called the fourth corridor. And this has also come into operation over the past year-and-a-half.
We also have other corridors, which I call subsidiary corridors. All of these subsidiary corridors can actually enhance and complement the main East-West Silk Road. One very important corridor, that you are aware of, is the North-South corridor, and a section along this corridor is now under construction — the connection between the city of Rasht, and Astara on the Caspian coast. In fact, we have reached agreement with Azerbaijan on the connection between the two cities of Astara in Iran, and Astara in Azerbaijan. This corridor also needs some investment, and we hope that countries like China can help us in developing this.
Just to sum up regarding the corridors, there are two routes which need investment: Herat to Mazar-i-Sharif; and Rasht to the Asteras in Iran and Azerbaijan.
Regarding the third part of your question, about the agreements reached by Iran and China during the Chinese president's visit in Iran, 17 agreements were signed during the visit. The areas included energy, financial investment, communication, science, the environment, and know-how. Specifically, on the core of your question about the Silk Road, the two countries agreed to play a leading, and a key role, in the development and operation of this link. They agreed to have cooperation on infrastructure, both railroad and road. For example, electrification of the railroad link between Teheran and Mashhad, is part of this connection of the Silk Road that was agreed to. The other important thing is cooperation on the port of Chabahar in Iran. The two sides agreed to have cooperation in this, and the Chinese agreed to invest in Chabahar. Regarding industry and other production areas, they agreed that the Chinese would cooperate and invest in 20 areas. Regarding tourism and cultural cooperation, the two sides also agreed to develop cooperation in this regard, within the framework of the Silk Road. I think you can see that within the framework of the Silk Road, there are quite important agreements between the two countries.

EIR: Building great infrastructure projects is a driver for economic growth, and increasing cooperation among nations. Now, after suffering under the sanctions, Iran has an opportunity to build up its infrastructure, as is going on, in cooperation with other countries, to help create the basis for Iran to play in important, stabilizing role in the region.
The P5+1 agreement also cleared the way for Iran's peaceful nuclear energy program, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was just signed with China, to develop peaceful nuclear energy. What were the highlights of the agreement, and what are the plans for Russian-Iranian civilian nuclear cooperation?
Ambassador Moradian: Between Iran, Russia, and China, there has been good cooperation through the years regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
32:36
Because of the reneging of the Western governments, the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant was left unfinished, and after the Russians agreed to pick up the pieces, we reached an agreement, and were able to develop, and make this very important plant operational. The cooperation between Iran and Russia on peaceful nuclear energy has been very constructive. All of Iran's atomic activities have been under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As we have had no deviation from our peaceful nuclear program, after 10 or 12 years, the Western countries, the P5 + 1, finally came to the conclusion that Iran's nuclear program has always been peaceful. I believe that they knew this at the beginning, as well. This was just a political game. We have also had some kind of constructive cooperation with China over the past two decades on peaceful nuclear energy. During the recent visit to Iran by the Chinese president, an agreement was also signed in this regard. In the implementation of the cooperation agreement, China, Iran and America are also the three countries forming the committee for the implementation of the agreement. It was agreed during the recent visit that China will reconfigure the Arak heavy water plant. The Chinese and the Iranians have also agreed to have cooperation on the building of small-scale nuclear power plants. This, I think, is very important for Iran, in terms of producing electricity, and the Chinese welcome this. We have also signed a number of agreements with China on the construction of a number of nuclear power plants in the past. Iran, because of its extensiveness, has always welcomed cooperation on the development of peaceful nuclear energy for the production of electricity, and other things. In fact, based on the cooperation agreement between Iran and the P5+ 1, there will be agreements with a number of the members of the P5+1 regarding the nuclear issue.

EIR:  You already mentioned the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), linking India, Iran, and Russia with Central Asia and Europe. Is there anything more you would like to say about this project, and the benefits that are envisioned?

Ambassador Moradian: I explained about the corridors in my previous answers, but the North-South corridor is one of the most important corridors in the world. If this corridor were completed, it would be very effective in three most important areas — it would be a contributing factor in security, speed, and cost. This corridor starts in Finland, comes through Iran, then on to the Persian Gulf, from there to India, and then towards Africa. If we look at the present route now, it takes 45 days, but if we use the North-South corridor that I just mentioned, this would reduce the time to 20 days. The route will be 3,000 kilometers shorter. This can be a very important factor from a world economic point of view.
We are faced with realities, with situations, that nobody can ignore. For this reason, during the past few years, Iran has made endeavors, extensive efforts, to actually complete what I call the subsidiary corridors. Right now, in Iran, we have 10,000 kilometers of operational railroad lines. For our present government, the further development of railroad links is very important. We have plans to build another 10,000 kilometers in the future. It is my view, that in the next couple of years, we will see a revolution in transportation.
There are some missing links, which we think should be completed as soon as possible. As I said, from our point of view, the section between Rasht and Astara is very important, and it has to be completed very soon. In fact, during the recent visit of the Danish foreign minister to Teheran, this issue was also brought up. The Iranians announced that if the Danes are prepared to do so, they would be welcome to invest in this section. And we have that link to the Chabahar port. If this port is developed to utilize its full capacity, then this will serve as an important link in the North-South corridor. In the Persian Gulf we also have an island called Qeshm, which has an extreme potential. In fact, because Qeshm, itself, also has gas, and has a strategic location in the Persian Gulf, it can play an important role in the North-South corridor. We are seeing that various countries, like China, Japan, and South Korea, are interested in entering into these areas. In fact, there was a seminar on shipping in Copenhagen, a couple of weeks ago, and I said that to the Danish participants there, that this condition is conducive to involvement for mutual benefit. The benefits to be accrued from the North-South dialogue are global. Iran is making all efforts to complete this corridor.

A lot can be said about the North-South, and East-West corridors. Just to point out, very briefly, on the East-West corridor, some very important developments have taken place. We have had good negotiations with the Turkish side. One of the most important links in the East-West corridor, is the link between the cities of Sarakhs and Sero. Sero is located on the border with Turkey, and the Turks and the Iranians are now in very extensive negotiations to develop this route. The other route is the railway link between Iran and Iraq, and this is also being constructed on an extensive level. As I said, the subsidiary corridors – the one from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan to Iran; and the one from Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Oman – are now operational, and we are also planning on development, and making other subsidiary routes operational.

EIR: What about cooperation on water desalination, and nuclear fuel?
Ambassador Moradian: Iran is faced with a shortage of water. We have quite a number of projects for water desalination in the Persian Gulf. In fact, one of the main reasons that we wanted nuclear power plants in the Persian Gulf, was to use that energy to desalinate water. Currently, a number of Iranian companies are engaged in this. One of the very big projects came on stream during the past couple of years. Regarding the desalination plants, there is good cooperation between Iran and foreign countries. I think that this is another area where Danish companies can enter into the competition. President Rouhani made a trip to the city of Yazd, in the center of Iran, and he said there, that transfer of water from the Persian Gulf to the center of Iran, to the city of Yazd, is one of the important projects that the government has in mind.
Regarding nuclear fuel, within the framework of the P5+1 agreement with Iran, it envisages extensive cooperation between Iran and  these countries on nuclear fuel. Iran is now one of the countries that have the legal right to enrich uranium, and this has been recognized. So, based on the capacities that Iran has, we can exchange nuclear fuel. Within this framework, we have exchanged quite a lot of fuel with the Russians, and we have cooperation plans with China on the heavy-water plant in Arak.

EIR: Can you speak about cooperation on fighting terrorism and drug trafficking?
Ambassador Moradian: On the issues of combating extremism and terrorism, and trafficking with drugs, and otherwise, there is extensive groundwork for cooperation. The development of extremism, and the instability that follows, is extensive in the CIS countries, and part of China. Iran has extensive experience and knowledge about combating terrorism, and in this regard, Iran can cooperate with those countries regarding this menace. Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of narcotic drugs. In fact, unfortunately, after Afghanistan was occupied by the ICEF coalition, led by America, the level of production of narcotic drugs in Afghanistan has increased extremely violently.

EIR: While the British in the Danish troops were in the Helmand province, I think the production went up about 20 times.

Ambassador Moradian: Exactly. In that region, Helmand, in particular, there was an incredible increase in the amount of production. In fact, in combatting smuggling drugs to come to Iran, to this side, Iran has been a sturdy wall, and we have unfortunately lost quite a number of our security forces in that region, bordering on 4,000. Just something on the sideline which is very important. In fact, Iran is on the frontline in combatting drugs. When Europe talks about helping other countries stem the tide of immigrants to Europe, I think that stemming the tide of narcotic drugs coming to Europe, also requires the same sort of agreements. Iran is very active in combating and preventing drugs coming this way, and the death penalty, the capital punishment we have for the warlords of the drug traffickers, is, actually, in the pursuit of this policy of trying to prevent drugs from reaching outside of the region. Just imagine if Iran would stop cooperating, stop combatting these drug traffickers? The road would be an open highway, and just imagine how much drugs would then come across. There already exists very good cooperation between Iran, China, and Russia on combating drug trafficking. We have had multi-lateral sessions in the field of combating drug trafficking. I think that within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Iran can play a leading role in combating drug trafficking, extremism and terrorism. In the recent session of the SCO, it was agreed that after the sanctions were lifted against Iran, that Iran's status would be lifted from an observer to a full member. In the next session, which is planned in Uzbekistan, I think that this issue will be raised.

EIR: I think we have covered a lot of very many essential things. Is there anything else that you would like to say to our readers?

Ambassador Moradian: I would like to refer to a few points in this interview, which is about the cooperation between Iran, China, and Russia. The cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China is very important. The more this cooperation increases, the more it can help peace and security in the region. The revival of the old Silk Road is a very important issue. Within the framework of the revival of the Silk Road, the strengthening of the SCO cooperation, and the ECO cooperation is very important. In fact, the cooperation between ECO and SCO is also very important, and has to be developed.
Other very important issues that I would just like to briefly mention are — the first thing is that Iran's full membership in the SCO is important. In fact, in the area of security, SCO needs Iran’s experience and influence in this regard. The next thing is that cooperation within the framework of the SCO, can enhance security and peace in the region.
The next thing, is that China must make more investment in Iran. In order to actually develop the Silk Road, it has to invest more in Iran. China must also make more investments in the port city of Chabahar, and also in the Iranian island of Qeshm.
The other point I would like to mention, is that the Eastern SWIFT (financial transaction network) is also an important idea. I think that the important countries in the East, like China and Russia, should have an alternative financial connection. And the other thing is, the monetary exchange between these two countries is important. What I mean by this, is that these countries can conduct their transactions in the local currencies of the Iranian Rial, the Chinese Yuan, and the Russian Ruble.
The other thing I would like to point out, is that China is the number one country in the world that needs energy, and Iran is one of the leading producers of such energy. But the important point to be born in mind here, is Iran's independence in its decision making regarding its energy resources — oil and gas. In fact, if you look at its record, Iran has never played games with its energy policy. Any country that wants to have economic cooperation with Iran, must take this aspect into consideration, and it is an important consideration. Other countries in our region do not operate in this way.
Finally, I am very pleased that this opportunity arose for me to air my views on economic development in the region, and very important issues that will have global consequences. Thank you.

EIR: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

End

Engelsk udskrift: Matthew Ogden kommenterer Helga Zepp-LaRouches besøg og tale i Indien om behovet for en Marshallplan/Silkevej i Sydvestasien; Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches meget skarpe kommentar om EU’s korrupte aftale med Tyrkiets Erdogan om mod betaling at tage syriske flygtninge tilbage, og Jason Ross fra LPAC Videnskabsteam taler om Gottfried Leibniz og nødvendigheden af kreativ nytænkning, som Kina i dag legemliggør.

WE NEED THE NEW SILK ROAD NOW FOR ALL OF MANKIND! –
International Webcast for March 11, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. It’s March 11, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday
night broadcast from LaRouche PAC.com. I am joined in the studio
today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science Team and Mr.
Jeff Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and the
three of us had the opportunity to have an extensive discussion
with both Mr. LaRouche and also Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier
today.
Now, as you know, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just recently
returned from an extraordinary trip that she took to India. This
is the first time that either one of the LaRouches has been to
India since I think at least 2003; so this was a very important
trip, and during that visit to India, Helga was a featured
speaker on one of the keynote panels at a discussion in New Delhi
called the Raisina Dialogue Forum. This was a major conference
which included international representation, former prime
ministers, former heads of state, finance ministers, elected
parliamentarians, and so forth.
Now during that speech, Helga LaRouche focused her remarks
on the necessity for a new win-win, Marshall Plan development
project for the Middle East and North Africa. She remarked that,
in the wake of Xi Jinping’s visit to Iran, to Saudi Arabia, and
to Egypt where he brought the development vision of the Chinese
New Silk Road, that now was the time to adopt what she’s been
calling for, for years: which is, a New Marshall Plan to develop
that region of the world and to create a new era of peace and
prosperity for a region of the world that has suffered so much
under perpetual war, and a total breakdown of society.
Now this is very relevant, because obviously, as a
representative of the Schiller Institute from Germany, Helga
LaRouche was speaking directly from the standpoint of the
perspective of a European, who is witnessing the unprecedented
refugee crisis of millions and millions of refugees fleeing the
Middle East and North Africa, and flooding into Europe.
Our institutional question for this week actually focusses
directly on that topic, and what I’m going to do is read the
institutional question, and then give Jeff Steinberg and
opportunity to go through, both specifically and more in general,
what both Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche’s remarks were concerning this
question, and some broader questions as well.
So the question is as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has blamed

European nations for
unilaterally shutting the Balkan route for migrants. She said
that this has put Greece in a very difficult situation, and such
decisions should be taken by the whole of the EU. Austria,
Slovenia, Croatia, and non-EU member states — Serbia and
Macedonia — have all acted to stem the migrant flow. The
European Union and Turkey — from which migrants reach Greece —
have set out a plan to ease the crisis from their perspective.
Under the proposals that have been hammered out at a summit that
occurred in Brussels on Monday, but still to be finalized, all
migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey, would be sent back. For
each Syrian returned, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in
the EU. European Council President Donald Tusk has said that the
plan would spell the end of ‘irregular migration to Europe.’ What
is your view on the EU’s new migrant policy?”

So, Jeff.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: To put it very mildly, Mr. LaRouche was
extremely blunt. You’ve got to start from the standpoint that
this is a rotten deal; it’s not going to work. And furthermore,
that nobody has any business making any kind of backroom deal
with President Erdogan of Turkey. Here’s somebody who has been a
principal sponsor of the jihadist terrorism, including the
Islamic State and the Nusra Front; who has robbed his country
blind; he’s one of the most notorious thieves on the planet. He’s
killed his own people. He shut down the entire opposition
newspaper, and, quite frankly, he’s carried out a 6 billion euro
extortion operation against the European Union.
So the problem, in fact the disease that we’re dealing with,
is the tendency that’s rampant in the entire trans-Atlantic
world, to make these kinds of rotten deals with people who have
no business being allowed to remain in power. You have an entire
trans-Atlantic system that was really, in effect, characterized
this week by two developments. Number One: this rotten deal with
Erdogan, which should never be allowed to happen. And number two,
by the announcement by the European Central Bank head, Mario
Draghi, that the ECB was going to replicate the insane policies
that were carried out in the United States under the Quantitative
Easing, bail-out, and Dodd-Frank bill, all of which are
universally known to have been complete and total failures. So,
Draghi announced zero interest rates, and announced that the QE
policy of the ECB would be extended up to $80 billion euro a
month, and furthermore, that the ECB would begin purchasing
absolutely worthless private sector bonds to keep what one
columnist called the “zombie banks” in business.
Now, there’s been an absolute revolt in Germany, in
particular, against this Draghi policy, because the net effect is
that, with zero interest rates, people are going to be pulling
their money out of the actual savings banks and regional
commercial banks, through which all of the lending into the real
economy takes place. And as the result of that, you’re going to
see rampant bankruptcies on top of the already advanced complete
breakdown of the European real economy. All of the European
too-big-to-fail banks are already hopelessly bankrupt.
So you’ve got these two examples of absolute policy
insanity, of attempting to operate and make compromises and
“reforms,” within a system that is already dead. As Mr. LaRouche
said, you don’t make deals with dead people; there’s nothing in
it for you. There’s no future in it. Yet that’s exactly what
we’re seeing as the dominant phenomenon throughout the
trans-Atlantic region.
Now the fact of the matter is that there are viable
solutions. In the case of the United States, you could just
simply say, the Wall Street debt is unpayable, and we’re going to
just simply cancel it, and we’re going to go back to the
traditional American, Hamiltonian credit system, and we’re going
to just simply let Wall Street sink, period. It’s already
bankrupt. The people involved in it are absolutely correct —
they should have been frog-marched off to jail a long time ago.
So, by and large, when you talk to people in the political
system at a relatively high level, you’re dealing with a system
that is absolutely paralyzed with fear, and overwhelmed by
corruption. Because you press the issue, and you’ll get
widespread admission that the system is doomed, we’re headed for
another blow-out far worse than 2008; it could happen any moment
now. It could happen Monday morning when you wake up. And
furthermore, you could cancel this rotten debt, wipe out those
cancerous aspects of the whole system, and you could go ahead to
rebuild, but based on a completely different set of premises.
Same thing with the arrangement with Turkey. There’s no
grounds whatsoever for paying 6 billion euros in extortion,
knowing that a character like Erdogan is going to come back again
and again and demand more, and will continue to threaten to
unleash massive waves of migration, while at the same time Turkey
is trying to sabotage the efforts of Lavrov and Kerry to bring an
end to this five-year monstrosity of a war that’s been going on
inside Syria.
So, if you operate within a dead system, you are doomed to
go down with it. Now there are things that are working in the
world today. Putin is functioning. Putin is carrying out very
effective flanking operations in Syria. China is functioning, and
is in fact functioning at a much higher level from the standpoint
of real economic growth. And China is willing to invest in real
physical economic growth all across Eurasia, down into Africa,
into Latin America. And furthermore, China is leading a global
science driver policy. The plans to actually land an orbiter on
the dark side of the Moon have been discussed frequently in
recent weeks on this broadcast. China is now the leading R&D
nation on the planet, and they embody the principle of human
creativity. They’re not trying to draw deductive, pragmatic,
practical conclusions from policies that have failed. You can
never derive success by trying to scrutinize and analyze
systematic failure. You need human creativity, and you see that
in China.
Increasingly, there are nations that are grouping around
these opportunities that are posed for real development, centered
around China. Russia has taken certain measures to assure that
Russia survives, and that Russia has the military and material
resources to be able to conduct the kind of flanking operations
that may very well save Syria and the Middle East, and major
parts of Africa, from the genocidal destruction that will occur
if the existing trans-Atlantic forces, led by the British Empire
and stooges that they’ve got at their disposal like President
Obama, with his Dodd-Frank madness; like Mario Draghi; like the
corrupt Erdogan.
So, anytime that there’s an offer to make a rotten deal with
a rotten SOB like Erdogan, the obvious answer should be, run in
the other direction. Don’t do it. And so, in response to the
question that’s been posed, this is a rotten deal that is doomed
to failure, but it’s typical of a much larger problem, which is
the tendency to be stuck thinking inside the deductive box when
the only avenue for survival for mankind is to think creatively,
and align with those people who’ve demonstrated that they’ve got
a viable commitment to the future.
You find that in China. You find that in many of the actions
taken by Putin in Russia, and it’s pretty scarce everywhere else.
And it’s certainly virtually nonexistent in the entire
trans-Atlantic region.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I also neglected to
mention in my remarks in the beginning that, coinciding with
Helga’s trip to India and these very important developments with
Xi Jinping’s visit to the Middle East. The Arabic version of the
EIR Special Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the New
Land-Bridge,” which was available in English and also has been
translated into Chinese; has now been translated into Arabic. And
I think Helga LaRouche’s foreword or preface to that will put it
very appropriately; that “either this is an extraordinary
coincidence or an act of divine intervention” that this would be
available at a time like this, when this is precisely what you
need. This sort of vision for a new Marshall Plan, the World
Land-Bridge, to bring development to this part of the world which
is in such dire need of it.
Now, as Jeff summarized quite succinctly, what Mr.
LaRouche’s focus in our discussion was, is that we are on the
edge of a total implosion of the trans-Atlantic system. That you
have a community of nations which is, in its present form, dead,
because of its own behavior; it has brought this upon itself. On
the other hand, you have nations such as China and others, who
are engaged in a process of real physical economic progress. And
this was a willful choice that was made by China to invest in
exactly the types of things that would create a future potential
of growth, scientific development and otherwise. So, Mr.
LaRouche’s question was, why would you associate yourself with a
dead system, when the alternative is immediately at hand?
So, Mr. LaRouche had a much more developed idea, however, of
what it is that brings success to a nation and to the human race
in general. And he was very specific to say that real creativity
is never a replication of the past; real creativity depends on
new ideas that are new in a very real sense. That creativity is
always {ad novo}, he said; and it’s not achieved through the
reform of a bad system. But it is only achieved through the
introduction of an entirely new principle which is truly new. He
said, Einstein is a good example of this; the personality of
Brunelleschi is an ideal example of this. But the goal is never
to deduce what the solution to a crisis must be from some sort of
precedent; but rather, to ask the question, “What is it that we
actually wish to accomplish for the future of mankind?” And, with
that question in mind, therefore, what must be done? What must be
done to achieve that future? And we tend to fail to ask that
question, and we get too consumed by the details of the present;
when we should be thinking from a total global standpoint about
what we wish to achieve in the future.
Now, I think at a time like now, where it’s very clear that
the nations of Europe and the United States are imploding,
socially, economically, politically; what brought us to this
point? But also, more significantly, what must be done to save
civilization now? And we discussed, I think very appropriately,
that when a nation loses its {raison d’etre}, when a nation loses
its mission, it tends to implode and fall in upon itself. And we
can learn a lot from the mission that China has, and the
optimistic vision of the future which is shared by all of its
citizens. So, with that said, I would like to invite Jason to
come to the podium. As you know, Jason Ross has been conducting a
many-part series of presentations, classes on the LaRouche PAC
website on the unique genius of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; this
is a series which will continue. But I would like to invite him
to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Well, this year, 2016, is the 300th anniversary
of Leibniz’s death in 1716. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716. And
a number of the disputes that he was in, the discoveries that he
made, are very freshly relevant for us today. Both historically
from the standpoint of understanding where we came from, and
because there are disputes that continue to the present. Disputes
over the nature of the purpose of the nation, disputes over the
nature of the Universe, disputes over the nature of mankind.
To discuss one of those, I’d like to frame it by contrasting
the views of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. Many people are
probably familiar, certainly if you’ve been watching this
website, with the concept of the dispute over the calculus. That
Leibniz plagiarized the calculus from Newton, as Newton and his
friends said; no. Did Newton steal the calculus from Leibniz, who
invented it first? Let’s leave that aside; that’s really not at
issue for what I want to talk about today. Let’s consider the
dispute that was represented between the British outlook of
Newton and the outlook of Leibniz in terms of the purpose for
humanity, as seen in their views of creation and of the Universe
as a whole. In the very last years of Leibniz’s life, he was
engaged in a dispute via letters with a follower of Isaac Newton,
Samuel Clarke. And in this discussion, one of the primary topics
that came up was the basis of considering God to be great. On
this, the two differed in a very fundamental way. Newton, via
Clarke, said that God’s greatness came from his power; Leibniz,
while not disputing that, said that God’s wisdom is also one of
His perfections, and that in leaving this out, you have a total
misunderstanding about God.
Now, I’m not going to make a theological point about this
today. I want to look at this in terms of the existence of the
nation-state. While Newton said that because God can do anything,
that shows how wonderful He is; and while this same outlook — a
religious outlook — was applied to man and society by John Locke
and Thomas Hobbes, who said that a powerful ruler of society
really exists for himself, and that people form a society through
a compact to not infringe upon each other, not with the idea to
have a mission together, but simply to get along as a way of
putting under control the impulses of people to steal from each
other and this sort of thing. So, on the one side, you have the
notion that the state exists, the ruler exists and is justified
in existing to maintain power; that that is the basis of
legitimacy of a ruler — holding power. It’s a somewhat circular
reason.
On the other side, you have Leibniz, who — in keeping with
his view of God being worth reverencing, respecting, loving
because of His wisdom; and having chosen in making the Universe,
to make it the best of all possible universes that could be
created. Leibniz applies that idea as well to society; saying
that the justification, the legitimacy for a ruler for a nation,
lies in how it is creating a happy society. And how it is imbuing
its people with wisdom, and developing science and economy to
create a more productive and a happier future. Happiness is an
important thing.
So, if you consider that today, and you look at — Matt had
brought up where is the {raison d’etre}; what is the
justification for the United States, for example, right now? What
is our {raison d’etre} right now under Obama? We don’t have one.
Obama’s destruction of the space program, which as a policy
better encapsulates an attack on the future than anything you can
imagine, has left us without a future in the stars; contrasted
with other nations, being led by China, with a serious,
comprehensive, really breath-taking mission of advancements that
they have been making towards reaching out into the heavens, and
the potential of developing new scientific breakthroughs in that
way.
So, as Jeff and Matt said, LaRouche, in the discussion that
we had with him today, was stressing that, in creating the
future, it is made {de novo}; it isn’t something we deduce from
the past, although we can certainly learn from the past. The
essential characteristic is making something where nothing of
that sort existed before. He had singled out Brunelleschi and
Einstein in this regard. Einstein, who made breakthroughs
scientifically that did not follow from, or result from, the
thoughts of his day; but rather, contradicted and overthrew them.
This is an example of the kind of thinking that’s necessary. In
the United States in our most recent history, the time under the
Apollo program, as launched in its strength by Kennedy to go to
the Moon and back; this was in recent times, probably the most
singly powerful example of a potential to reach that. That
program didn’t result in Einstein’s per se; it didn’t have that
kind of effect. Amazing technological developments were made. The
potentials that the space program has as a whole to make new
scientific breakthroughs, however, is absolutely tremendous.
So, consider China. China, which has brought hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty in just the past few decades.
China, which currently lends out more internationally in
investments in nations than the whole World Bank does. China,
which has played a major role along with Russia in setting up the
BRICS; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for Peace and
Stability; the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to address
the $5 trillion or more needs for infrastructure within that
region of the world; offering loans that are without the
conditionalities that are the hallmark of the World Bank. This
ability to put into very specific practice a concept of “win-win”
cooperation, as it was put by President Xi; these specific ways
of cooperating with neighbors, with other nations for development
projects. As for example, the railroad operating in Ethiopia at
present, allowing the transport of food to the interior of the
nation in a timely fashion; preventing the intensity of
starvation that would otherwise be likely given the agricultural
disasters they’ve faced recently.
Take a look at space and science. China’s East Tokamak, a
super-conducting tokamak, recently had a 50 million-degree plasma
held for 100 seconds; a breakthrough for them on their way
towards developing fusion. Their space program — that was the
first soft landing on the Moon in decades — the Chang’e 3 with
the Yutu rover. Planning to come out next year, Chang’e 5, a
sample return mission to the Moon; again, the first time in
decades, and they’ll be only the third nation to have done this.
And then in a few years, a space first — not only for them, but
for the world — the Chang’e 4 mission, to land on the far side
of the Moon. The first time ever; this is something new that
mankind has never done before. It opens up new windows
scientifically in terms of the potential the far side of the Moon
offers for different types of telescopes — such as radio
telescopes.  They’ll be able to show us things that no other —
it’s the most convenient place to be able to do these things. It
simply is impossible from here on Earth, or in orbit; you need a
body to place these things on.
So, I think when we think about what’s the purpose of a
nation, it can’t be a short-term survival; it certainly can’t be
dominance per se, or maintaining a place in the world. For
example, the United States; there’s an unfortunate form of
thought that the United States should be first in everything.
Well, how did the United States become such a powerful nation?
The policies that made that possible, the outlook that made that
possible, the sense coming from the American Revolution that
there’s a mission for the nation that is beyond having
sovereignty itself, per se; but lies in a mission for development
and for the pursuit of happiness — as it’s put — that’s the
concept that has to guide us today. Now, if we were to adopt this
in the United States, which we must, as we force the adoption of
this policy in our own nation, we have the potential for the US
to play a very important role among other nations internationally
in reaching these objectives. And there’s really no reason for
conflict among nations; it’s simply not necessary at this point.
There might be some specific examples, but on the whole, by
throwing out the British-led creation of conflicts, and putting
the US on a path towards cooperation, participation, and
leadership on these sorts of ventures, we can regain in terms of
history, the right to exist, or reason for existing; a mission
for the nation.
So, if we’re going to turn around our domestic conditions,
as we see frighteningly in the dramatic rise in deaths by drug
overdoses or suicides in other forms that are increasing
dramatically; if we’re going do this, we have to have a mission.
We have to have a vision for the kind of future that we’re going
to make that doesn’t exist a present. The opportunities for this
exist; there are plenty of the particular policies that are
needed. These things are known. What is necessary is a demand and
a change in direction in the United States without Obama, to
adopt this orientation as our own. And if we do that, we can look
to the future with the knowledge that there is a reason for the
existence of the nation; and there’s a purpose to be fulfilled,
and that we’re taking up that purpose in our future which lies
beyond the Earth and out in the stars.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. And I think we can use
that as a promotional to encourage you to tune in to all of his
classes, which are available and will continue to be available on
larouchepac.com. And I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us here
as well, today. So, that’s what we have to present to you here
today; short and sweet. And we thank you for tuning in; and we
encourage you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good
night.

10. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Under en diskussion den 9. marts med LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi karakteriserede Lyndon LaRouche kampagnen for at bryde BRIKS-gruppen op som følger:

»Det er britisk. Se på omstændighederne. Der er visse kendsgerninger her, der er meget klare. For det første står briterne bag alt dette, og briterne triumferer over den fordærvelse, de har været i stand til at indføre i USA og i den amerikanske befolkning. Det er et faktum. Når man lige har fordøjet dette, så må man se på, hvad det er for problemer, der findes i Europa, og så bliver man virkelig lidt skræmt, for man ser hele områder af Europa, der disintegrerer for øjnene af os, og især dem, der er på den forkerte kurs.

Det, Putin gør, er virkelig godt; det er meget effektivt – det er rigtig godt. Og det er succesfuldt, og det hænger sammen med Kina og andre former for operationer omkring dette, der bygger det op. Så det er en god situation for os mht. tingenes udsigt. Der er ikke noget problem her. Der er bekymring, men ikke noget virkeligt problem.

Vores problem ligger hovedsageligt i USA. Det er den kendsgerning, at USA’s befolkning er blevet gjort sindssyge, voldsomt, af Bush-familien, og nu af Obama. Det har været en degeneration. Disse ting er så åbenlyse, at det må siges højt, fordi det er så åbenlyst. Kongressen er i et forfærdeligt rod.

Hvis man indser disse ting, og man laver en liste med en sammenligning af det ene mod det andet, finder man ud af, at tingene ikke står så dårligt til i det ene kvarter, men at de er forfærdelige mht. USA og den amerikanske befolkning. USA er i en tilstand af desperation. Desperation, fordi de accepterer spekulativ investeringsbankvirksomhed, men de accepterer ikke Glass-Steagall, der automatisk ville hjælpe udviklingen. Sådan står det til. Vi har i virkeligheden ikke noget andet problem end dette. Vi har Wall Street, som er rådden, FBI er råddent, og en masse mennesker er ikke andet end de rene svindlere. Og vores befolkning er på både kunstig vis, men også aktivt, blevet demoraliseret. Demoraliseringen af den amerikanske befolkning er en meget farlig ting.

I Sydamerika ser man også, at udsigterne er ved at blive forfærdelige. Det behøver de ikke at være, men det er de. Så vi må virkelig samle vore tanker og ikke udbrede sygdomme, der ikke er virkelige.

LaRouchePAC-leder Kesha Rogers er ved at komme tilbage, og det er vigtigt. Hendes rolle med udgangspunkt i Texas, og i baggrunden dernede, er meget styrkende mht. hele situationen.

Wall Street og Washington ved, at Dodd/Frank-loven har været en total fiasko. De ved det! De er rædselsslagne. Folk har tendens til at være bange; en meget stærk frygt. Men det bliver bare til hysteri. Det politiske system er råddent: der var nogle styrkeområder, men det meste af det er råddent. Demoralisering er nøglespørgsmålet; situationen er forfærdelig, men der er noget, der er værre: demoralisering. Og demoralisering kan selvfølgelig ikke bekæmpes, med mindre der er reel styrke bag; man kan ikke bare bluffe det.

Dette er en ekstremt dødbringende situation. Spørgsmålet er, om hele USA’s økonomi vil kollapse, før balladen virkelig begynder. Kina befinder sig i en god situation; Putin er i en god situation, relativt set, og der finder en opbygning sted i visse dele af planeten.

Vi har endnu ikke fået kontrol over tingene. Vi har udsigter, men ingen kontrol. Og denne kontrol må vi selv levere.«

Rachel Brinkley (fra LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, -red.) fra Boston sagde, at befolkningen er rasende over, at økonomien er i færd med at kollapse, og at ingen gør noget ved det.

LaRouche svarede:

»De tror ikke på, at de kan gøre noget ved det; det er derfor. De tror på, at det er noget, der overgår dem; ikke noget, som de gør.

Jeg håber på, at vi kan bryde igennem med noget her, for der er gennembrud i ting, der er internationale faktorer. Men jeg har ingen præcise beviser, så jeg er lidt forsigtig. Jeg mener, at der er muligheder; helt bestemt i Kina og Rusland og så fremdeles, er der gode tegn. Men en stor del af det transatlantiske område og relaterede tilfælde er en stor katastrofe. Det vil formentlig vedblive at være en katastrofe, endda forværrende. Så vi står ved et punkt lige nu, hvor vi ikke har nogen præcis konklusion om noget som helst; vi har en masse tilkendegivelser.

Det kommer til at handle om globale faktorer; jeg tror ikke, der er mange chancer i lokale områder; jeg tror, at globale faktorer er de eneste, der virkelig er signifikante. For se på økonomien, se på moralen osv., som vi ser generelt. Der er intet at hente her. Der er visse udviklinger, der omfatter nogle af problemområderne og giver folk en vis fornemmelse af et optimistisk syn. For situationen er ikke så dårlig, som mange mennesker tror, hvis den blev håndteret korrekt. Eller den er værre – hvilket er mærkeligt. Man har noget, som folk tror, vil være godt for dem, når det er ubrugeligt. Men de får også undertiden et frisk pust af at se frem til noget.

Det er vores job at blive ved med at kæmpe og opbygge ting, som vi kan opbygge. Vi ser ingen mirakler lige nu, undtagen når vi en gang imellem får en smule fordel – og det må man arbejde videre med. Og der kommer nogle lyspunkter her og der.«

Titelfoto: Lyndon LaRouche fortsætter med at arbejde for Det britiske Imperiums afslutning og for udløsningen af menneskehedens kreativitet.

.

7. marts 2016 – Kinas landbrugsminister, Han Changfu, talte i dag om Ruslands og Kinas planer om et samarbejde omkring opdyrkning af Ruslands enorme fjernøstlige distrikt. Han talte på en pressekonference på sidelinjen af den Nationale Folkekongres’ årlige møde i Beijing.

Kinesiske firmaer er allerede aktive inden for landbrug på mere end 600.000 ha i det fjernøstlige område. Nu vil der, sagde Han, blive kinesisk-russisk samarbejde for at udvide dette gennem fælles landbrugsmæssig forskning og udvikling, samt uddannelse i agronomi og dyrkningsmetoder. Han opfordrede flere kinesiske landbrugsvirksomheder til at blive involveret.

Det russiske, fjernøstlige distrikt, der udgør to tredjedele af USA, har store, frugtbare områder og en befolkning på kun 6,3 million (omkring to tredjedele af den amerikanske stat New Jersey).

Foto: Sceneri fra Amur regionen, der har grænser mod Kina, ikke langt fra hovedbyen Blagovesjtjensk. Denne region med sit areal på 363.700 km² (Danmarks er 43.094 km²) og en befolkning på ca. 810.000 er blot en lille del af Ruslands enorme fjernøstlige distrikt.

8. marts 2016 – Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi sagde under en pressekonference på sidelinjen af den Nationale Folkekongres i Beijing, at Kina »forsøger at spille en større rolle i den eksisterende internationale orden og det internationale system«, men at det aldrig vil søge at opnå overherredømme – »Kina vil aldrig blive et nyt Amerika. Kina har ingen intention om at erstatte eller lede andre«, rapporterer Xinhua.

Han advarede specifikt om, at USA i øjeblikket griber ind i det Sydkinesiske Hav på en farlig og provokerende måde.

»Sejladsfriheden betyder ikke, at man kan gøre, hvad der passer én … Takket være en fælles indsats fra Kinas og andre landes side i regionen, er det Sydkinesiske Hav fortsat blandt verdens sikreste og frieste sejlruter. Ethvert forsøg på at skabe forstyrrelse i det Sydkinesiske Hav og destabilisere Asien, ville ikke blive tilladt af Kina og de fleste andre lande i regionen«, sagde han. Han advarede USA mod at »forplumre vandene«, der kunne »kaste Asien ud i kaos« og tilføjede, at »Filippinernes stædighed i det omstridte spørgsmål i det Sydkinesiske Hav er et resultat af anstiftelse bag scenen og politisk intrigeren.«

Han rapporterede, at Kina har tilbudt at oprette to ’varme linjer’ til at håndtere maritime nødsituationer og fælles redningsaktioner.

Wang erklærede også, at Beijing ikke blot vil være en tilskuer i Mellemøsten, men vil spille en mere aktiv rolle uden at gribe ind i regionens nationers interne anliggender. Han understregede Kinas »modne og stabile« bånd med Rusland.

Foto: Wang Yi besvarer spørgsmål fra journalister under en pressekonference på sidelinjen af den Nationale Folkekongres i Beijing.

7. marts 2016 – Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi sagde i dag til den Nationale Partikongres, at der havde været signifikante fremskridt, siden Bælt-og-Vej-politikken var blevet indledt i 2014.

»I dag har flere end 70 nationer udtrykt deres interesse i Bæltet-og-Vejen, og flere end 30 lande har indgået aftale om at bygge det«, sagde han. »Og de første projekter i Silkevejsfonden er blevet lanceret.« Han påpegede dernæst de forskellige projekter om jernbanekorridorer, der er blevet igangsat: Kina-Mongoliet-Rusland, Pakistan-korridoren, Budapest-Beograd-højhastighedsjernbanen, Jakarta-Bandung-højhastighedsjernbanen og jernbaneforbindelserne til Laos og til Thailand.

Han sagde også, at aftaler om samarbejde om industrielle kapaciteter var blevet indgået af 20 lande.

»Bæltet-og-Vejen var et projekt, som Kina lancerede, men mulighederne tilhører hele verden«, sagde Wang. »Dette projekt er en genklang af de asiatiske og europæiske landes generelle trend for samarbejde og udvikling. Det viser, at Kina hastigt er ved at gå fra blot at være en deltager i det internationale system, og til at levere statsfinansierede, offentlige goder. Med vores konstruktion af Bæltet-og-Vejen følger vi princippet om udbredt rådslagning, fælles bidrag og fælles gavn. Det er et åbent initiativ, ikke en Monroe-doktrin eller en form for ekspansionisme. Det, som Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet udfolder for verdens øjne, vil blive et nyt, historisk maleri af fælles udvikling og fremgang på hele det eurasiske kontinent.«

Foto: En stolt linje: Kinas højhastigheds-jernbanenet er det længste i noget land i verden.

Tom Gillesberg til Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg den 1. marts: Vi står netop nu med en enestående mulighed for at sikre, at den langvarige mareridtsagtige proces med krig og ødelæggelse, der har præget Mellemøsten i årtier, og som har spredt sig til Europa og resten af verden i form af terror fra Islamisk Stat og en flygtningebølge, der er ved at løbe Europa over ende, kan bringes til ophør og erstattes af et nyt paradigme for fred gennem fælles økonomisk udvikling.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

6. marts 2016 – Sådan karakteriserer Xinhua udkastet til den 13. Femårsplan, der er blevet forelagt Den Nationale Folkekongres til gennemgang. For første gang, bemærker videnskabsmænd, anerkender planen for Kinas økonomiske vækst innovation som videnskabeligt fundament. Og Kina har til hensigt at være på den fremskudte grænse.

»I tusinder af år har tænkere kæmpet for at forstå universets oprindelse. Nu er dette spørgsmål blevet inkluderet, ligesom mere jordiske emner såsom landbrug, i Kinas nye plan for økonomisk og samfundsmæssig udvikling«, opsummerer artiklen.

Artiklen citerer den kinesiske forfatter Han Song: » … ligesom oldtidens filosoffer Lao Tzu og Chuang Tzu for mere end 2.000 år siden, så tænker moderne tænkere over det store spørgsmål om eksistens. Fundamentale spørgsmål som dette har magt til at øve indflydelse på løsninger på nogle af de mest fremtrædende problemer, som samfundet og verden som helhed står overfor.«

Zhang Xinmin fra Instituttet for Højenergifysik, og som også er involveret i forskning i gravitationsbølger i Ali-programmet i Tibet, sagde, at uden forskning kan innovation i stor skala ikke opnås. På lignende måde udtalte Wu Ji, direktør for Kinas Rumforskningscenter, og som i løbet af den seneste uge har skitseret Kinas planer for videnskabelig rumforskning: »Hvis man ønsker at innovere, må man have viden om videnskaberne. Rumforskning er uadskillelig fra Kinas innovationsdrevne udvikling«, der, som det rapporteres, er fokus for den næste femårsplan.

Ifølge Wu er en 15-årig strategi for rumforskning blevet udarbejdet af Centret, og som vil takle spørgsmål såsom universets dannelse og udvikling; udenjordisk intelligens; planeter uden for solsystemet samt andre spørgsmål. »Hvis Kina ønsker at blive en stærk, global nation«, formanede Wu, »bør det ikke kun varetage sine umiddelbare interesser, men også bidrage til menneskeheden. Kun dette kan vinde Kina verdens respekt.«

6. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Da Barack Obama annullerede USA’s planer om udforskning af rummet, begik han den største af sine forbrydelser, selv i sin egenskab af en »Vinder af Nobels Fredspris«, der udartede til en krigspræsident og massedræber. Rumprogrammet var Amerikas kultur, dets mission og fremtid, og Obamas handlinger vendte i realiteten den historiske kurs omkring og drev USA tilbage.

Tilstanden for økonomien i USA – for ikke at tale om Europa – er i en håbløs spiral for nedadgående og dræber millioner af mennesker gennem håbløshed, narko- og medikamentafhængighed og krig, som truer hele den amerikanske befolkning.

En total genoplivelse af udfordringerne i forbindelse med udforskning af rummet kan ændre alt. NASA’s rumprogrammer, der nu er skåret væk og suspenderet, er Amerikas eneste potentielle center for økonomisk håb.

For at vende degenerationen af USA og dets befolkning omkring, er den totale genoplivelse af rumprogrammet, på et højere niveau, den eneste farbare vej.

LaRouche-demokraten Kesha Rogers fra Texas fører an på denne vej, med den mobilisering, hun har genlanceret sammen med veteraner fra NASA, for at bringe rumprogrammet tilbage. EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche kalder dette for videnskabeligt arbejde af højeste rang; det er den eneste, videnskabelige aktivitet i USA, der har ægte betydning for menneskehedens fremtid.

Og Amerika vil stå foran et samfundsmæssigt kollaps, hvis vi ikke meget snart gør dette.

De eksempler, som USA må samarbejde med om enhver bestræbelse inden for rumfartsvidenskab, som der gives mulighed for, er Kina og Rusland.

Dér, hvor den amerikanske »fremskridtskultur« engang blomstrede – i udforskningen af rummet – dér er Kina nu den drivende kraft. Kinas plan for de næste fem år er centreret omkring rumforskning. Med målet om at undersøge galaksen fra Månens bagside inden for de næste to år, inkluderer Kinas nye plan for økonomisk og samfundsmæssig udvikling »en forståelse af universets oprindelse«.

­Under en diskussion om det økonomiske program den 5. marts sagde chefen for Kinas største rumforskningslaboratorie: »Rumforskning er uadskilleligt fra Kinas innovationsdrevne udvikling. Hvis Kina ønsker at være en stærk, global nation, bør det ikke kun varetage sine umiddelbare interesser, men også bidrage til menneskeheden. Kun dette kan vinde Kina verdens respekt.«

USA har mistet verdens respekt under Bush, og især under Barack Obama. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, omgående, og hans onde »værk« må omstødes. Og mere presserende end alt andet må hans mord på Amerikas rumforskningsprogram vendes omkring i en total genoplivelse af rumforskning – »for en forståelse af universets oprindelse«.

Titelfoto: NASA’s adm. dir. Griffin præsenterer en billedmontage for formand og adm. dir. ved Kinas Akademi for Rumteknologi, dr. Yuan Jiajun, i 2006, under det første besøg i Kina af en NASA-direktør.    

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

3. marts 2016 – Kina har sat sig et mål om at bygge omkring 30 atomkraftværker i lande langs med ruterne i Bælt-og-Vej-programmet frem til 2030, iflg. Sun Qin, præsident for Kinas Nationale Atomkraftselskab, CNNC, rapporterer China Daily i dag.

Sun sagde, at 70 lande i alt allerede er i gang med at planlægge eller udvikle deres egne projekter for atomkraftværker, og man skønner, at flere end 130 atomkraftværker vil være bygget frem til 2020.

»Men vi står også over for meget stærk konkurrence på det internationale atommarked«, sagde han. »Lande som Rusland, Sydkorea, Japan og USA udforsker alle aggressivt det globale marked for atomkraft.«

CNNC er en af Kinas tre store atomkraftgiganter. Selskabet håber at kunne bruge sin nationale erfaring som en løftestang for at øge sin eksport af atomteknologi, sagde China Daily. Det har allerede bilaterale aftaler om samarbejde om atomkraft med lande, der omfatter Argentina, Brasilien, Egypten, Storbritannien, Frankrig og Jordan, sagde Sun.

CNNC har allerede eksporteret seks atomkraftreaktorer – fem miniature neutron source reaktorer (MNSR), to atomforskningsfaciliteter og en eksperimentalreaktor.

Foto: Atomkraftreaktorer under konstruktion i Sanmen, Zhejiang-provinsen, Kina. (Xinhua).

2. marts 2016 – Den franske senator, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, der var premierminister i Frankrig fra 2002-2005, roste Kinas Silkevej som »det eneste, betydelige, nye og globale projekt« og tilføjede, at dette var virkelige lederes rolle. I et skriftligt interview med avisen Xinhua sagde han, at Kinas projekt Ét bælte, én vej har gjort landet til en af verdens pionerer, der vil »spille dets rolle som forener og innovator«.

»Under et møde sidste år i Boao Forum for Asien[1] (BFA)«, sagde Raffarin, »fortalte den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping mig følgende: ’Vær forvisset om, at, i det 21. århundrede, vil intet land kunne opnå succes solo.’ Hele verden har forstået hans budskab, med flere end 70 lande, der er engageret i Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Et fællesskab baseret på gensidig interesse er blevet skabt«, sagde Raffarin.

Raffarin sagde også, at multinationale projekter blev undersøgt inden for alle områder, inklusive industrielle, finansielle, landbrugsmæssige og videnskabelige felter, på en måde, der skal støtte »mere relevante og betydningsfulde, multinationale investeringer … Kina kræver sine rettigheder, men påtager sig sine forpligtelser for verdensfred«. Han sagde, at Paris og Beijing havde den samme, fælles tilgang til global styring og win-win-løsninger på multilateralt, internationalt samarbejde.

»Vi har en fælles bestemmelse, fordi uordenen i verden svækker nationerne. Gennem en bedre indbyrdes forståelse, respekt for forskelligheder og analyse af alle truslerne vil en fælles bestemmelse blive dannet«, sagde Raffarin til Xinhua.

Raffarin roste de »fremragende relationer« mellem Kina og Europa og fremførte, at Kina havde hjulpet euro-området, da det stod over for finansielle vanskeligheder.

[1] En oversættelse af Xi Jinpings hovedtale på Boao Forum, ’Mod et samfund for vor fælles bestemmelse og en ny fremtid for Asien’, kan læses her.

København, 2. marts 2016 – På sin første udenlandsrejse efter sin udnævnelse til præsident for Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, AIIB, kom Jin Liqun til Danmark og Finland. I Danmark talte han ved et offentligt arrangement, der var arrangeret af Københavns Universitet og Copenhagen Business School. Medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet deltog, stillede et af de to spørgsmål, uddelte materiale om EIR’s Rapport om Den nye Silkevej og rapporten over Schiller Instituttets foretræde for Folketingets Udenrigspolitiske Komite i går, samt fik en del kontakter.

En video med Jin Liquns tale, samt engelsk rapport, kan ses her. 

Formålet med AIIB er at fremme en ’win-win’ økonomisk og samfundsmæssig udvikling gennem investering i infrastruktur. Jin sagde, at han ikke tror på reduktion af fattigdom i sig selv, og af sig selv. I 1980, da hovedlandet Kina erstattede Taiwan i Bretton Woods-institutionerne, havde Kina intet andet end en menneskebefolkning. Så begyndte Kina at låne for at bygge infrastruktur, og der var nogle, der var bekymrede for gældsskabelse. (Det var på det tidspunkt, hvor Mexico havde en stor gældskrise.) Men den gavnlige effekt af infrastruktur-investeringerne viste sig 25 år senere, da økonomien begyndte at komme i gang. Denne politik gjorde det muligt for Kina at løfte 600 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom. Samtidig lånte andre lande for at opretholde forbrug.

I besvarelse af det spørgsmål, han selv stillede, om det var AIIB’s formål at finansiere projekter under programmet for Ét bælte, én vej (One Belt, One Road; OBOR), sagde Jin, at banken ejes af de 57 medlemslande, og endnu 50 andre ønsker at gå med, hvor 30 af disse har truffet beslutning om at tilslutte sig. Dette er ikke Kinas bank; OBOR vil blot udgøre en del af bankens engagement, og der må være en balance mellem finansiering af projekter i hele regionen.

Formålet er at finansiere varig, økonomisk udvikling, skabelse af rigdom, samt skabelse af infrastruktur i Asien, der bidrager til forbindelsesmuligheder i den vidtstrakte, eurasiske landmasse, og ikke kun i selve Asien, med f.eks. højhastighedstog, der nedbringer omkostningerne for transport mellem Europa og Asien. Det er nu blevet lettere at rejse fra Beijing til Europa, end det er at rejse mellem de asiatiske nationer. Der er behov for at harmonisere politikken til fordel for eksempelvis at krydse grænserne.

AIIB vil udrette ting, der ikke hidtil er blevet udrettet af Bretton Woods-finansinstitutionerne, inklusive Verdensbanken, fordi AIIB vil lære af disses plusser og minusser. Asien har likviditet i overflod, men i øjeblikket må disse penge først rundt om Europa og USA, før de kommer tilbage til Asien.

Investeringer i infrastruktur kan være pengespild, hvis der ikke foreligger gode, gennemtænkte projekter – som et kraftværk uden et moderne el-net. AIIB vil være med til at udtænke koordinerede projekter.

Vist er der uoverensstemmelser over det Sydkinesiske Hav, men de fælles infrastrukturprojekter mellem Kina og nationerne i ASEAN har opbygget en gensidig tillid og et win-win-samarbejde. Se på Syrien; vi ønsker ikke at se det ske andre steder; men vi må lære at mindske kaos og løse uoverensstemmelser.

Udvikling er også med til at forbedre miljøbeskyttelse. Man bekymrer sig jo ikke om miljøet, hvis ens bekymringer går på, hvordan man skal få morgenmad næste dag.

Tom Gillesberg fik lejlighed til at stille følgende spørgsmål:

»Mange tak for Deres fremlæggelse. Jeg synes, det er meget spændende, at Danmark er medlem af AIIB. Jeg er formand for det danske Schiller Institut. Mit spørgsmål lyder: Hvis I arbejder så tæt sammen med Verdensbanken og disse institutioner, hvordan vil I så forhindre dem i at bruge, som det sker i dag, spørgsmål som f.eks. miljøhensyn, klimaspørgsmål osv. til at forhindre udvikling? Der er et stort behov for udvikling, og mange penge i verden, der kunne investeres i udvikling, men de siger, ’Nej, det kan vi ikke gøre. Vi har en truet frø-art her, og derfor kan vi ikke bygge denne dæmning, og I kan ikke få elektricitet’. Så hvordan vil I sikre, at denne form for ideologisk korruption ikke kommer til at influere på AIIB således, at disse spørgsmål ikke anvendes til at forhindre udvikling?«

Som svar på spørgsmålet sagde Jin, at man undertiden må ofre noget i form af indvirkning på miljøet for at få udvikling, og at nettoeffekten vil være positiv. Udvikling er løsningen. »Vi er stadig ikke parat til at blive afvænnet fra fossile brændstoffer … Men pga. udvikling kan vi mennesker opfinde en teknologi, opnå teknologiske gennembrud. Vi vil sluttelig kunne tappe solenergi direkte, men man kan ikke med ét springe direkte til dette stadium … Folk er bange for atomkraft [fission], men hvis vi kunne opnå et gennembrud inden for fusionskraft, kan vi måske løse problemet én gang for alle. Hvordan skal vi kunne opnå dette? Gennem udvikling! Lad os samarbejde« for at opnå gennembrud.

20. februar 2016 – »Beijing må fuldt ud forberede sig militært og diplomatisk til krig på den Koreanske Halvø. Vi bør tilpasse vores militære deployering langs den nordøstlige grænse og vore maritime sikkerhedsstrategier så snart som muligt«, skriver Wang Haiyun, den tidligere kinesiske militærattaché ved ambassaden i Rusland, og nuværende ekspert ved Kinas Internationale Institut for Strategisk Samfund.

Wang kritiserer skarpt Nordkorea for sin atomprøvesprængning og lancering af en rumraket og fremfører, at »For mellemstore og små lande vil ethvert forsøg på at udvikle atomvåben og strategiske bomber for at sikre den nationale sikkerhed ikke medføre andet end ulykke«.

Vi må imidlertid, siger han, »også få Seoul til at forstå, at introduktionen af udefrakommende styrker for at øge regionale spændinger vil være destruktiv … Sydkoreanerne må huske på, at deres land vil bære den fulde effekt af kaos på den Koreanske Halvø, hvis der udbryder krig«.

Men USA’s mål, siger han, er Kina. Kina må »mønstre de relevante modforholdsregler imod de amerikanske og japanske flåder, der omgiver vore vande, og Washingtons deployering af missilforsvarssystemet i Sydkorea« og tilføjer, at »USA og dets to, asiatiske allierede er i færd med at forstærke deres militære deployering i Nordøstasien under påskud af, at de håndterer truslen fra Nordkorea«.

Rettet mod Obama skriver han: »Washingtons plan om at inddæmme Beijing ved at øge den militære deployering og skabe vanskeligheder på halvøen vil blot lemlæste dets egen militærmagt, der gradvist er blevet svagt.«

Foto: THAAD missilforsvarssystemet, som USA vil deployere til Sydkorea.

17. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Efter endnu et fejlslagent »topmøde«-forsøg på at vende ASEAN-landene imod Kina, brugte Barack Obama sin pressekonference den 16. februar på at fordømme og forsøge at nedgøre Rusland, og i særdeleshed den russiske præsident Putins succesrige forandring af situationen i Mellemøsten.

Obamaregeringen forsøger, gennem medierne, at hævde, at våbenhvilen i Syrien, som den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry forhandlede igennem med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, vil mislykkes! Dette, fordi Obama ikke kan tolerere de succesrige økonomiske og politiske roller, som Rusland og Kina nu spiller i verden, og sine egne fiaskoer.

Det, som Putins succesrige rolle repræsenterer, er overførslen af indflydelse over menneskelige anliggender fra det britiske imperiesystem – for hvilket Obama har været en villig faktor – og over til de fremvoksende eurasiske nationer.

Det repræsenterer også en næsten 20 år lang succesrig kamp imod al jihadistisk terrorisme, både i Rusland og internationalt – et samarbejde, der uafbrudt er blevet tilbudt USA siden 11. september [2001], og som altid er blevet afvist af Bush og Obama.

Kina og Rusland og Indien er blevet de primære agenter for en ændring af civilisationens fremtid. De europæiske nationer og USA er for en nedadgående kurs, og de vil gå ned, med mindre de radikalt ændrer deres politik for den krise, der omslutter deres banksystemer.

Siden præsident Franklin Roosevelts død har USA befundet sig i en lang nedgangsperiode for økonomisk produktivitet; og siden mordene på JFK og RFK, for et accelererende tab af videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt, og for de fleste af sine borgeres livsbetingelser.

Spørgsmålet drejer sig ikke om, hvad Obama siger; det drejer sig om, hvad man skal gøre med ham. Vil USA være intelligent nok til at gå sammen med Rusland og Kina om samarbejde om rumprogrammer, i internationale kreditbanker, i store infrastrukturprojekter, i overvindelsen af terrorisme, der er fostret af briterne og saudierne? Hvis ikke, vil USA blive ødelagt som magt.

Præsident Putin udøver ikke stor magt, men effektiv magt, og han udøver den med intelligens. Rusland, Kina og Indien styrer i stigende grad planetens fremtidige historie.

Og USA har – Obama! Hvis han blev dumpet nu, så har USA en historisk afprøvet politik for økonomisk genrejsning, der kunne genoprette dets fremtid: FDR’s politik. Luk Wall Streets kasino-banksystem, der er ved at få fallit, ned, og skab dernæst statslig kredit til genindførelse af produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse. Det er det eneste alternativ, og det vil ikke ske med Obama i embedet.

Foto: Præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin mødes under G20-mødet i Tyrkiet i 2015.

Kinesisk general kræver krigsberedskab over krisen i Korea

16. februar 2016 – I en meget tankevækkende artikel i den kinesiske udgave af Global Times, advarer general Wang Haiyan, seniorrådgiver ved Kinesisk Selskab for International Strategi, en tænketank, der ledes af Sun Jianguo, vicechef for den Centrale Militærkommissions Fællesstab, om faren for en krig på den Koreanske Halvø. General Wang advarer om, at, i betragtning af denne eventualitet, må Kina være forberedt og bør omgående tage forholdsregler i denne henseende, inklusive at forøge troppestyrkerne på grænsen, så vel som også at deployere en forøget flådetilstedeværelse i området. Kina bør også overveje, hvordan det skal håndtere et eventuelt radioaktivt nedfald, stammende fra en udveksling af atombomber på halvøen, samt håndtere en situation, hvor nordkoreanske soldater flygter fra krigsskuepladsen.

General Wang fremlægger situationen. På den ene side giver han den nordkoreanske regerings handlinger skylden for krisen, med den nordkoreanske regerings seneste atombombeprøvesprængning og dens raketaffyring. Dette har givet Japan og USA et påskud til at øge deres militære stilling på halvøen, som samtidig er et yderligere skridt i deres forsøg på at inddæmme Kina, siger han. Han kræver klar tale med det nordkoreanske lederskab for at advare dem om, at ethvert forsøg på at gøre fremstød for en militær konflikt vil gøre dem stor fortræd. Han siger også, at det bør siges tydeligt, at Kina ikke er indstillet på at yde de ofre, landet ydede under Koreakrigen, og han indikerede således, at en krig, fremprovokeret af Nordkorea, ikke ville blive støttet af Kina, der ville handle for at forsvare sine egne, nationale interesser.

General Wang giver også udtryk for bekymring over de forøgede militære deployeringer i området og over verserende rygter om, at et angreb på Nordkorea måske er undervejs, ved månedens afslutning. Han siger, at der bør udøves pres på »fornuftens stemmer« i de vestlige lande for at forhindre dem i at begynde en krig på halvøen. Han appellerer også til FN om ikke at yde støtte til NOGEN SOM HELST nation, der har planer om at indlede en krig på halvøen, og at indkalde til en genetablering af Sekspartsforhandlingerne. Han appellerer til Rusland, som medlem af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, om også at spille sin rolle i at effektuere dette.

General Wang gentager opfordringen til USA fra tidligere på ugen fra Fu Ying, viceminister i Udenrigsministeriet, om, at USA må gøre mere på det diplomatiske plan for at bringe spørgsmålet om Nordkorea tilbage til forhandlingsbordet, inklusive en villighed til at påbegynde forhandlinger om en permanent fredsaftale med Nordkorea.

Sydkoreas præsident Park kapitulerer yderligere til Obamas krigsplaner

16. februar 2016 – Den sydkoreanske præsident Park Geun Hye, der har forladt sin tidligere, forsigtige balancegang mellem USA på den ene hånd og Kina og Rusland på den anden, har nu yderligere undermineret Sydkorea ved åbenlyst at true med regimeskift i Nordkorea – Obamas og hans ligesindede neokonservatives drøm om at levere gnisten til en krig med Kina. Park befinder sig i et humør for selvdestruktion over Nordkoreas prøvesprængning af en hybridbrintbombe i januar og en succesfuld lancering ud i rummet i denne måned, som Obama, i et nyt udtryk for teknologisk apartheid, fejlagtigt kalder en ballistisk missiltest.

Udover at gå med til opstilling af THAAD-missiler i sit land – en alvorlig, strategisk trussel mod Kina og Rusland – lukkede hun også ned for den i fællesskab udviklede Kaesong industripark i Nordkorea i sidste uge, der nedlukkede 124 sydkoreanske selskaber, og som rammer den sydkoreanske økonomi på et farligt tidspunkt, med kollapsende handel og investering.

I dag holdt hun i parlamentet en tale, der blev udsendt over nationalt fjernsyn, og hvor hun forsvarede sin beslutning om at nedlukke Kaesong, imod stærk opposition fra oppositionspartiet og fra kræfter i sit eget parti, og Park sagde, iflg. Korean Herald: »Fra nu af vil regeringen gennemføre en række magtfulde og effektive forholdsregler for at få det nordkoreanske regime til at indse, at udvikling af atomvåben ikke vil sikre overlevelse, men kun fremme systemets ødelæggelse.« At referere til »regimeskift« på denne måde har været tabu i Seoul, eftersom planer om regimeskift netop udgør Nordkoreas retfærdiggørelse af at opbygge en atomvåbenkapacitet.

Park er tydeligvis bekymret for, at hendes handlinger skal splitte hendes land, og siger, »At pege sværdspidsen tilbage på os og splitte os er noget, der ikke må finde sted«, iflg. AP.

Situationens farlighed blev også demonstreret i mandags, da Nationalforsamlingens formand, fra Parks regeringsparti, åbenlyst krævede, at Sydkorea skulle udvikle atomvåben. Parlamentsmedlem Won Yoo-chul sagde: »I betragtning af Nordkoreas atomvåben- og missilkapaciteter, må vi tænke over vores egen overlevelsesstrategi og modforholdsregler, der inkluderer fredelige [sic] atomvåben- og missilprogrammer til brug for vores selvforsvar.«

Kolossal stor deployering af amerikanske, strategiske styrker til Sydkorea

16. februar 2016 – Yonhap rapporterer i dag, at USA vil sende fire F-22 Raptor stealth kampfly til Sydkorea, iflg. officielle forsvarsfolk, der beskriver flyet som »et amerikansk, strategisk hovedvåben«. Pentagon udsendte et B-25 bombefly til Sydkorea kort efter Nordkoreas atomvåbenprøvesprængning i sidste måned. For nylig ankom angrebs-ubåden USS North Carolina til Sydkorea til fælles træning, og det atombevæbnede hangarskib USS John C. Stennis skal efter planen tilslutte sig de årlige, fælles sydkoreansk-amerikanske forsvarsøvelser, der begynder i marts måned.

I mellemtiden gentog det Sydkoreanske Forsvarsministerium, at det ville prioritere »militær effektivitet« ved valg af lokalitet for opstillingen af det amerikanske THAAD-missilforsvarsbatteri, sagde Yonhap. THAAD X-Band radarsystemet vil give USA radardækning over næsten hele Kina og en stor del af det russiske Fjernøsten, sammen med THAAD missilkapaciteten, der tilsigter at ødelægge Kinas gengældelses-angrebsstyrke.

Kina forbereder sig til krig over Korea

17. februar 2016 – En usigneret lederartikel i Kinas Kommunistiske Partis officielle avis Global Times i dag, med overskriften, »Kina må forberede sig på det værste på den Koreanske Halvø«, advarer om, at USA’s politik i Nord- og Sydkorea i høj grad øger chancen for krig. Med en påpegning af den massive opbygning af luftvåben- og flådekampstyrker i Sydkorea, og planerne om at opstille THAAD-missiler der, advarer lederartiklen: »Hvis Washington og Seoul overskrider den 38. nordlige breddegrad (der efter Anden Verdenskrig opdelte i Nord- og Sydkorea, –red.) og skrider til omfattende militær handling, bør de tage risikoen for Kinas militære intervention med i betragtning. Vi støtter denne analyse.«

Artiklen kommer kun en dag efter en artikel i den samme avis, Global Times, hvor general Wang Haiyan krævede krigsberedskab som respons til den eskalerende Koreakrise, og dagens leder bemærker skiftet i tone og handling hos den sydkoreanske præsident Park Geun-Hye, inklusive hendes advarsel fra i går til Nordkorea om, at en fortsættelse af deres atomvåbenprogram vil føre til »regimets sammenbrud«. Artiklen siger: »Ud fra det store perspektiv om det asiatiske Stillehavsområde er fraværet af en løsning på den nordkoreanske atomvåbenkrise resultatet af USA’s planer om at kontrollere det Nordøstlige Asien og blande sig i Kinas opkomst … Hvis en krig finder sted, vil den offentlige, kinesiske mening støtte landets handlinger i betragtning af, hvordan Kinas sikkerhed er truet.«

I en anden lederartikel, der blev udgivet i går, fordømmer Global Times Nordkoreas »hensynsløse træk«, men advarer dernæst Seoul: »Når THAAD-systemet først er opstillet i Sydkorea, vil det kinesiske samfund være nødt til at støtte Folkets Befrielseshær i at respondere via en stærk, militær deployering i nordøst. I så tilfælde kunne Sydkorea forvandles til et særdeles følsomt område i spillet om militære deployeringer mellem Kina og USA. Det vil få det Blå Hus (officiel residens for det sydkoreanske statsoverhoved, -red.) til yderligere at miste sin nationale uafhængighed og blive en skakbrik i spillet mellem stormagter.«

Kina har gentagne gange advaret Filippinerne på en lignende måde med, at det at agere skakbrik for Obama kunne forvandle deres land til murbrokker, når USA aktiverer Prompt Global Strike-doktrinen imod Kina.

Foto: Sydkoreas præsident Park Guen-Hye og USA’s præsident Barack Obama på vej ud af det Blå Hus. Foto fra april 2014.

20. januar 2016 – Præsident Xi Jinping ankom til Egypten for andel del af sit besøg i Mellemøsten. Egypten var det første mellemøstlige land, med hvilket Kina i 1956 etablerede diplomatiske relationer, som nu kan fejre 60 år. Det egyptiske besøg vil understrege betydningen af de kulturelle, så vel som de politiske bånd. Præsident Xi vil deltage i et kulturelt arrangement med præsident el-Sisi ved det historiske Luxortempel, der daterer sig tilbage til 1400 f.Kr. 2016 er blevet udnævnt til Egyptisk-Kinesisk Kulturår.

Præsident Xi har også skrevet en artikel, der blev udgivet i avisen Al Ahram i tirsdags. Heri understregede han de historiske, kulturelle bånd. »Både Kina og Egypten er oldgamle civilisationer. Venskabelige relationer mellem vore folk går tilbage til oldtiden. For mere end 2000 år siden sendte det kejserlige hof under Kinas Handynasti gesandter til Alexandria. Den antikke Silkevej var et bånd, der knyttede de to sider sammen«, skrev Xi. I artiklen understregede han også sine personlige bånd til Egypten, som han besøgte for 16 år siden, og hvordan han, med reference til Nilen, lærte, »hvordan egypterne udnyttede oversvømmelserne til landbrugsproduktion«. Han understregede de tætte bånd, der er etableret med præsident el-Sisi, og bemærkede med tilfredshed præsident el-Sisis deltagelse i mindefestlighederne i anledning af 70-året for Anden Verdenskrigs afslutning, sidste år i Beijing. Xi bemærkede mødet mellem Zhou Enlai og Gamal Abdul Nasser ved Bandung-konferencen i kampen mod kolonialisme og overherredømme. Dette førte senere til oprettelsen af diplomatiske relationer mellem de to lande.

»Kinas relationer med Egypten markerede begyndelsen af vores relationer med arabiske nationer og er indikerende for højden og varmen i de kinesisk-arabiske relationer«, skrev Xi. »I mere end seks årtier har det kinesisk-arabiske venskab og samarbejde undergået en historisk transformation, og vi har vundet megen værdifuld erfaring. På trods af forandringer i den internationale situation respekterer de to sider hinanden og behandler hinanden som ligeværdige og har handlet som hinandens ven, broder og partner. Vi har et fælles, forpligtende engagement over for win-win-samarbejde og fælles udvikling. Uanset tingenes foranderlighed har fælles interesser og bæredygtig udvikling altid været en fælles stræben for begge sider. Vi respekterer hinandens samfundssystemer og udviklingsvej og har fremmet en dialog mellem civilisationer. Kinesisk-ægyptisk interaktion og samarbejde i årenes løb ledes af principperne om gensidig tillid, gensidig assistance, gensidig gavn og gensidig fremgang.« Her understregede præsident Xi også betydningen af projektet ’Ét bælte, én vej’[1] og bemærkede, at begge sider har udarbejdet en handlingsplan for dette projekts virkeliggørelse.

Xi påpegede også behovet for at skabe et fredeligt Mellemøsten. »Kina og arabiske lande må forsvare regional fred. Verden kan ikke være et fredeligt sted, hvis der er ustabile forhold i Mellemøsten. Et studie af historien viser, at magtanvendelse aldrig er den rette løsning på problemer, og logikken bag nulsums-mentalitet og vinderen-tager-alt er ikke i overensstemmelse med tidens krav. Den sikreste vej til at finde den størst mulige fællesnævner mellem forskellige parters interesser er at søge konsensus og vise forståelse og være imødekommende. Som altid vil Kina forsat støtte fredsprocessen i Mellemøsten. Kina støtter oprettelsen af en uafhængig palæstinensisk stat med fuld suverænitet, baseret på grænsen fra 1967 med Østjerusalem som hovedstad. Kina vil yde flere offentlige tjenesteydelser og samarbejde med Egypten og andre arabiske lande for at garantere fred og stabilitet i Mellemøsten«, skriver Xi.

Foto: Traditionelle kinesiske lamper skal udsmykke templet i Luxor til den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings besøg i Luxor, Egypten, onsdag, den 20. januar 2016.     

[1] Se: Kinas politik for Ét bælte, én vej er nøglen til fred og fremgang i Eurasien og Mellemøsten 

19. januar 2016 – Xi Jinping ankom i dag til Saudi Arabien på et todages besøg, før han rejser videre til Iran og Egypten på en rejse, der har til formål at intervenere imod briternes fremprovokering af en krig mellem sunni og shia. Før han ankom til Riyadh, offentliggjorde Xi en artikel i den saudiske avis Alriyadh med titlen, »Vær gode partnere for fælles udvikling«. Besøget kommer blot få dage efter at Kina offentliggjorde sit første dokument om »Arabisk Politik«, der fremlagde Kinas intention om at forlænge konceptet med Silkevejen ind i Sydvestasien.

Xis artikel nævner ikke Iran eller faren for krig, men fokuserer på Kinas venskab og handelsforbindelser med saudierne – Kina er Saudi Arabiens tredjestørste handelspartner, og Saudi Arabien er Kinas største kilde til import af olie.

»For over 2000 år siden«, skrev han, »rejste utallige kamelkaravaner fra de to sider langs med den antikke Silkevej. Diplomatiske udsendinge fra Seljuk-imperiet besøgte Kina under Tangdynastiet. Zheng He, Kinas muslimske søfarer under Mingdynastiet, rejste til Jeddah, Mecca og Medina, og han beskrev dem som paradisiske steder, hvor folk levede i fred og harmoni. De kinesiske og islamiske civilisationers interaktioner, og at de gensidigt lærte af hinanden, er en vigtig del af historien om udvekslinger mellem civilisationer.«

Xi sagde, at de to nationer bør »huske på de kinesisk-saudiarabiske relationers strategiske natur … Lad os smede et win-win-partnerskab til gensidig gavn og fælles udvikling«, og han understregede »rumfart, fredelig anvendelse af atomkraft og bæredygtig energi … Vi håber og har tiltro til, at Saudi Arabien, med sin placering ved ’Bæltet og Vejens’ vestlige korsveje, vil blive en vigtig deltager, bidragsyder og modtager af dette initiativ«.

Foto: Den kinesiske præsident ankommer til Saudi Arabien.