Med formand Tom Gillesberg
16. juli 2016 (Leder) – Det er en stor ironi, at Frankrig er blevet ramt af et tragisk stik af sin tætte accept af Saudi-Arabien – og hermed også al-Qaeda i Syrien – lige så vel som, at Obamaregeringen er blevet tvunget til at frigive beviser, der har været hemmeligholdt i 15 år, på Saudi-Arabiens rolle i »al-Qaeda«-terrorangrebene i USA, den 11. september, 2001.
Den franske præsidentkandidat og leder af Solidarité et Progrès, Jacques Cheminade, understreger dette forhold i sin stærke erklæring (se: »Stop kilden til terrorisme«), om katastrofen i Nice. Frankrigs regering har heppet på al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda i Syrien) imod den syriske præsident Assad. Den gav førsteprioritet til relationer med Saudi-Arabien, om hvem regeringen vidste, at de leverede våben, der skulle til al-Nusra og denne organisations aflægger i Syrien – lige indtil al-Nusras meget store og berygtede rekrutteringscelle i Nice udløste et dødbringende stød hjemme.
Samme tragedie fandt sted, med Bushregeringens oprindelige undertrykkelse af ’de 28 sider’, der omsider blev frigivet i fredags, og som viser årelang saudisk assistance til al-Qaeda samtidig med, at angrebene 11. september blev planlagt og forberedt. Hvis dette hemmeligholdte afsnit var blevet frigivet sammen med resten af Kongressens 11. september-rapport fra 2002, kunne USA ikke være blevet inddraget i krig med Irak, »for at hævne 11. september«.
Nu er ’de 28 sider’ omsider blevet tvunget frem af pres fra offentligheden, og deres offentliggørelse får ekstraordinær bred og fremtrædende mediedækning i hele verden. Dette giver os en enorm åbning for at ændre hele den transatlantiske politik for bekæmpelse af terrorisme og til forhindring af krig, som Cheminade understreger – og ligeledes til at skaffe retfærdighed for ofrene for jihadisme.
Obamaregeringens Hvide Hus hævdede, mens de 28 sider blev frigivet – og fortsat med henved 150 redigeringer (overstreget af censuren) – at de ikke indeholdt »noget nyt«. Men i realiteten er helhedsbilledet i dette kapitel nyt; et langt mere fyldestgørende efterretningsbillede af en langt mere mangesidet saudisk operation for at assistere al-Qaeda, med det formål at undgå amerikanske operationer imod det.
New York Times, der anstrengte sig for at være enig med Obama, kunne ikke: »Men dokumentet, der blev frigivet fredag, er skånselsløst i sin kritik af den saudiske indsats for at underminere de amerikanske forsøg på at afmontere al-Qaeda i årene op til angrebene 11. september. Det fremstiller ydermere FBI som generelt set befindende sig i mørke mht. saudiske regeringsfolks manøvreringer internt i USA i denne periode.« Dette henviser til de sidste seks sider i kapitlet, som hidtil har været totalt ukendte for offentligheden. Overskriften i The Times var »Et overblik over saudisk indsats for at forpurre USA’s aktion mon al-Qaeda«.
Intet nyt? Storbritanniens Guardian fremfører: »De såkaldte 28 sider indikerer et langt større netværk af forbindelser mellem al-Qaeda og den saudiske kongefamilie, end det hidtil har været kendt.«
En gennemgribende og helt ny undersøgelse kan nu være med til, at den amerikanske offentlighed kan se et nyt paradigme, et paradigme, gennem hvilket USA og hele Europa, inklusive Frankrig, kan komme ud af de seneste 15 års regimeskift- og terrorhelvede.
Dette betyder, at vi skal have en undersøgelse, der går et godt stykke tilbage til den nu afslørede 11. september-fremmende, Prins Bandars berømte »Al Yamama-aftale (’olie-for-våben’) med Storbritannien, der leverede de hemmelige offshore-konti til så mange destabiliserings- og terroraktioner.
Det er, hvad vi nu har krævet. Det samme har familierne til ofrene for 11. september, der i går voldsomt angreb Obama for at forsøge at lukke døren i ansigtet på sandheden netop, som den er begyndt at åbne sig.
Vi henviser til nedenstående udstrakte dækning af ’de 28 sider’ fra både vores danske hjemmeside og ligeledes fra LaRouche-bevægelsens ditto.
Vi anbefaler især LPAC’s 56 min. lange featurefilm fra 2011, »Ten Years Later«. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quYYA1wtUwc
15. juli 2016 (Leder) – Under enormt pres fra familierne til ofrene fra 11. september, fra et par modige medlemmer af Kongressen og fra LaRouchePAC, der har været forkæmper i forreste linje for denne historie siden 2009, har Efterretningskomiteerne fra Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet endelig offentliggjort en redigeret version af de hemmeligstemplede 28 sider af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelse (2002), der detaljerer den saudiske involvering i terrorangrebene den 11. september, 2001. Disse sider, der i 15 år er blevet holdt skjult for det amerikanske folk, må nu blive begyndelsen af en de novo undersøgelse, fra toppen og ned, af angrebene 11. september og den efterfølgende mørklægning. Lad denne sejr blive begyndelsen til et nyt paradigme for sandhed og ansvarlighed i USA. For evigt fremad!
»Kongressen frigiver ’de 28 sider’« Inkl. pdf af siderne.
»Frigivelsen af ’de 28 sider’ en strategisk sejr. Nu må vi have en ny undersøgelse.
Den 10. september, 2011, udgav LaRouchePAC en feature-film, »11. september, ti år senere, der undersøger de politiske, økonomiske og overordnede geo-strategiske motiver til angrebene 11/9«. Må se!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quYYA1wtUwc
15. juli 2016 – Obamaregeringen ventede til de allersidste timer af Kongressens samling, før den går på seks ugers ferie, med at frigive det let redigerede, 28 sider lange kapitel af den oprindelige rapport fra 2002 over den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001. På trods af denne timing var frigivelsen en enorm sejr, der nu anbringer hele det Anglo-Saudiske Imperium i direkte skudlinje pga. dets nu dokumenterede rolle i den værste terrorgrusomhed, begået på amerikansk jord. Desuden gør en omhyggelig gennemlæsning af de delvist redigerede 28 sider det ganske klart, at kongresmedlem Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) havde fuldstændig ret, da han sidste år sagde, at de 28 sider tvinger os til fuldstændigt at gentænke alt, hvad der er sket i løbet af de seneste 15 år.
Graden af bevis for det saudiske monarkis involvering i angrebene 11. september går langt ud over det, der hidtil har været offentligt kendt. Snesevis af saudiske regeringsfolk og medlemmer af den kongelige familie var intimt involveret med al-Qaeda, og mange havde direkte forbindelse til selve flykaprerne. Amerikanske tjenester havde beviser for et dybtgående saudisk sponsorskab af al-Qaeda i årevis før angrebene den 11. september, men ethvert forsøg på at slå ned på dette forhold blev undertrykt, og detektiver blev fyret eller forflyttet, hvis de stillede for mange af de rigtige spørgsmål.
Det, der nu er et presserende behov for, er en undersøgelse, fra toppen og ned, der begynder med den anglo-saudiske hånd bag 11. september, men som går langt videre end til disse begivenheder for 15 år siden og undersøger alle de efterfølgende terrorgrusomheder og terrorbegivenheder, såsom invasionerne ind i Irak og Libyen, den igangværende indsats for at fremtvinge et regimeskifte i Assads Syrien, samt meget mere endnu.
Lyndon LaRouche understregede i dag, at vi må bevare dette momentum for en ny undersøgelse, der udforsker dybderne i det anglo-saudiske kompleks. Intet mindre vil være i stand til at rykke terrorpesten op ved rode.
Udgivelsen af de 28 sider, der kommer blot få dage efter udgivelsen af Chilcot-kommissionens rapport i Britannien, udgør et dødbringende, et-to-stød mod hjertet af Det britiske Imperium og dets saudiske partnere.
Efter udgivelsen af den 28 sider, overbragte kongresmedlem Walter Jones, der anførte i kampen i Kongressen, sin tak og sine lykønskninger til LaRouche-bevægelsen for vores afgørende rolle i at fremtvinge en frigivelse af dokumenterne. Han afgav løfte om at gå videre til næste niveau af undersøgelse og ikke stoppe, før den fulde sandhed er offentliggjort, for åbent tæppe.
Foto: Walter B. Jones (født 1943) er kongresmedlem i USA's Repræsentanternes Hus for North Carolina 3rd kongresdistrikt. Han er medlem af det Republikanske Parti.
Følgende er citeret fra en historie i RT: https://www.rt.com/usa/351327-congress-releases-pages-saudi/
15. juli 2016 – De længe ventede 28 sider af Den fælles Kongres-undersøgelsesrapport fra 2002 om begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, er blevet frigivet, og et afsnit peger på, at prominente medlemmer af den saudiarabiske regering var involveret i planlægningen og udførelsen af terrorangrebene.
Hemmeligstemplingen af dokumenterne blev ophævet af Kongressen fredag og frigivet til offentligheden samme dag. Dokumenterne bekræftede mistanken om, at terroristerne, der var involveret i angrebene den 11. september 2001 – og af hvilke de fleste var saudiske statsborgere – efter al sandsynlighed modtog støtte fra højtplacerede saudiske efterretningsofficerer.
Saudi-Arabien, der er USA’s allierede i Mellemøsten, har på det bestemteste benægtet enhver involvering i angrebene og har afvist disse anklager, og de havde tidligere bekæmpet ophævelsen af hemmeligstemplingen af de 28 sider. Nu har piben fået en anden lyd, efter fredagens offentliggørelse af dokumenterne, hvor Riyadh nu officielt hilser rapporten velkommen i det håb, at den vil fjerne mistanken om den saudiske regerings handlinger.
»Siden 2002 har Kommissionen for 11. september og flere regeringskontorer, inklusive CIA og FBI, undersøgt indholdet af de ’28 sider’ og har bekræftet, at hverken den saudiske regering eller højtplacerede saudiske regeringsfolk, og heller ingen person på vegne af den saudiske regering, har ydet nogen som helst støtte eller tilskyndelse til disse angreb«, sagde Abdullah al-Saud, Saudi-Arabiens ambassadør til USA, i en erklæring, iflg. Reuters.
»Vi håber, at frigivelsen af disse sider én gang for alle vil opklare alle spørgsmål eller mistanker, der måtte hænge i luften, om Saudi-Arabiens handlinger, planer eller mangeårige venskab med USA.«
Vedhæftet dokument: de 28 sider, pdf.
Hr. LaRouche havde en langt mere fundamental pointe, som han ønskede at fastslå for os i dag, og det er, at, uagtet disse faktorer på kort sigt, så er hele det transatlantiske finansielle system parat til at nedsmelte. Vi ved ikke præcis, hvornår det vil ske, men vi ved, at det er fuldstændig uundgåeligt, og det afgørende spørgsmål er derfor: hvilken slags planer vil der foreligge; hvilke fornuftige spillere her i USA og Europa vil udvikle en strategi for en erstatning af det nuværende system? Det er håbløst bankerot. Der findes ingen måde, hvorpå denne proces kan løses.
Fuld dansk oversættelse af LPAC Fredags-webcast, 17. juni 2016:
– Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, er blot det seneste i en række forfærdelige terrorangreb, der, ligesom 11. septenber 2001, udspringer af den 30 år gamle Al Yamama olie-for-våben-aftale mellem de britiske og saudiske monarkier. En aftale, der skabte nutidens jihadistiske apparat som et dække for krigsoperationer, der har til formål at destabilisere rivaliserende nationer, med Rusland og Kina som hovedmål. Få hele historie her: lpac.co/orlando
16. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Det indledningsvise børneeventyr, der fortalte, at massedrabene i Orlando var Islamisk Stats værk, disintegrerer hastigt i takt med, at nye beviser peger på den selv samme kombination af magter, der udførte de oprindelige 11. september-angreb – briterne, saudierne og FBI.
Massemorderen fra Orlando, Omar Mateen, var en mangeårig ansat hos et af den britiske Krones største og mest modbydelige private sikkerhedstjenester – G4S, der har 620.000 ansatte i flere end 100 lande. G4S er det tredjestørste, private selskab i verden, og det er en afgørende del af det britiske monarkis »usynlige imperium«, bestående af private lejesoldater, mordere og hemmelige operatører. I USA har G4S sikkerhedskontrakter på 90 % af nationens atomkraftværker, er en hovedunderentreprenør for USA’s Departement for Intern Sikkerhed (Homeland Security), og udførte endda sikkerhedsopgaverne for offshore olieboreplatformene fra British Petroleum i Den mexicanske Golf, hvilket er det sted, hvor Omar Mateen arbejdede i en årrække.
På trods af den kendsgerning, at kolleger krævede, at Mateen blev fyret pga. hans psykotiske og voldelige adfærd, beholdt firmaet ham og arrangerede en tilladelse til at få et hemmeligt våben for ham.
Mateen foretog to rejser til Saudi-Arabien, i 2011 og 2012, hvor han boede på firstjernede hoteller og andre indkvarteringer i den dyre klasse. Det vides ikke, hvad han lavede der, men begge rejser fandt sted, mens han var ansat af G4S.
I næsten et helt år var Mateen genstand for en FBI-undersøgelse pga. mistanke om bånd til terrorister, men FBI droppede sluttelig sagen, og hans job hos G4S var på intet tidspunkt i fare. Faktisk gør nylige rapporter i New York Times og The Intercept det klart, at selve FBI har styret en hær af betalte »islamistiske« provokatører, der kørtes gennem de klassiske »sting-operationer«[1], der blev berømte gennem 1970’ernes og ’80’ernes Operation Abscam og Brilab, hvor FBI-agenter forklædte sig som rige, saudiske prinser for at narre kongresmedlemmer og medlemmer af fagforeninger i fælder. Halvdelen af alle de såkaldte »terrorsager«, som FBI har indledt siden 11. september, involverer disse sting-teknikker, og i mange tilfælde var ofrene mentalt syge eller i desperat pengenød, eller begge dele.
Hvis man vil forstå, hvordan briterne kontrollerer og manipulerer amerikansk politik, skal man blot omhyggeligt studere denne anglo-saudiske-FBI-forbindelse. Det er dette apparat – der har været en dominerende faktor siden lanceringen af den anglo-saudiske Al Yamama olie-for-våben-aftale i 1985, med dens hemmelige offshore-konti til at finansiere global, jihadistisk terror – som må afsløres og knuses fuldstændigt, hvis USA nogensinde igen skal genvinde sin selvstændighed.
Dette er grunden til, at briterne og saudierne og FBI er rædselsslagne ved udsigten til, at de 28 sider [af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelses-rapport om 11. september fra 2002, -red.] skal blive frigivet til offentligheden. Beviserne, som indeholdes i disse sider – uagtet de løgne, der kommer fra John Brennan og Barack Obama – åbner vinduet for hele det Britiske Imperiums topstyrede kontrol over global terrorisme. Den netop indgivne Resolution i Repræsentanternes Hus nr. 779 (H.Res.779), der kræver, at det hemmeligstemplede 28 sider lange kapitel fra den Fælles Kongresundersøgelses-rapport om 11. september omgående udgives i Kongressens protokoller, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres779/text
uden indblanding fra Obama eller John Brennan, under den forfatningsmæssige opdeling af magten, er en magtfuld intervention. Det faktum, at lovforslaget blev fremstillet samme dag, som den saudiske vicekronprins og magten bag tronen, prins Mohammed bin Salman, ankom til Washington for at mødes med [udenrigsminister] John Kerry, [forsvarsminister] Ashton Carter, [chef for CIA] John Brennan, [efterretningschef] James Clapper, [formand for Repræsentanternes Hus] Paul Ryan og [tidl. formand for R.H, nuværende leder af mindretallet i samme] Nancy Pelosi, viser en perfekt timing.
Dette er et opgørets øjeblik, og alle mentalt raske kræfter må mobiliseres for at tvinge sandheden om det Britisk-Saudiske Imperium frem, og for at bringe dette imperium til fald én gang for alle.
[1] Et kompliceret undercover-spil, der planlægges og udføres omhyggeligt af agenter (især for at fange forbrydere)
Følgende præsentation indeholder arkivoptagelser af angrebene på World Trade Center og Pentagon, den 11. september 2001.
Lyndon LaRouche, juni 2007: »Verden har levet under et system, som er 11. september-systemet – der allerede eksisterede, som jeg advarede om, i begyndelsen af 2001. FØR præsident George W. Bush blev indsat første gang, og hvor jeg sagde, ’Verdens system har nået et punkt, hvor et fremstormende kollaps af systemet nu er i gang. Og jeg sagde dengang, at faren består i, at noget lignende dette vil indtræffe, under de nuværende tendenser i USA, og det indtraf! Og det hed ’9/11’ – 11. september.’«
Se også: USA: I har nøglerne til at standse terrorbølgen. Brug dem!
13. juni, 2016 – På tærsklen til den saudiske stedfortræder-kronprins Mohammed bin Salmans besøg i Washington, annoncerede CIA-direktør John Brennan faktisk, at han arbejder for den saudiske kongefamilie.
I sit omfattende interview med TV nyhedskanalen Al-Arabiya d. 11. juni, angreb Brennan Iran for at være den vigtigste terroristtrussel i Mellemøsten, alt imens han uddelte savlende ros til kong Salman og stedfortræder-kronprins Mohammad bin Salman, for at være USA’s stærkeste partnere ”i denne kamp mod terrorisme.” Han fortalte sin interviewer, ”Vi har et fortræffeligt samarbejde med Saudi Arabien. Jeg har arbejdet med mine saudiske partnere i mange, mange år. Jeg gjorde tjeneste i Saudi Arabien i omtrent 5 år under lederskab af kronprins Mohammad bin Nayef, som også er indenrigsminister. Over de seneste 15 år er saudierne blevet en af vores bedste partnere i kampen mod terrorisme.”
De seneste 15 år? Inkluderer det d. 11. september 2001?
Idet han frikender saudierne for nogen som helst meddelagtighed i det rædselsvækkende angreb i 2001, rapporterer Brennan, at han fortsat er meget bekymret over ”Irans støtte til terroristaktiviteter og terroristgrupper inden for Irak, i Syrien og andre lande i regionen.” Idet han kalder Iran for en ”statssponsor for terrorisme”, spiller Brennan klog på, at Iran ”stadig har lang vej tilbage, før jeg er overbevist om, at de er interesseret i at imødegå og knuse terrorisme.” Han tilføjede, at han har ”nul” kontakt med sine iranske kolleger.
Idet han hyklede forståelse for behovet for forhandlinger for at løse den syriske krise, klagede Brennan over, at Rusland ikke gør nok for at bruge sin ”indflydelse på Syrien til at tilskynde til en overgang væk fra Bashar al-Assad-regimet.” Rusland ”sidder i virkeligheden med nøglen” til, hvorvidt Assad går af, hævdede Brennan, og tilføjede igen, hvor ”skuffet” han er over, at Rusland ikke gør mere for at ”bringe denne konflikt til ende.” Brennan anklagede Assad for at være lovligt ansvarlig for tilvæksten i terrorisme og ekstremisme i Syrien. ”Der er behov for, at han forlader scenen.”
13. juni 2016 (Leder) – Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, angiveligt begået af en tilhænger af Islamisk Stat, Omar Mateen, er blot det seneste i en række af forfærdelige terrorangreb, der alle udspringer af den tredive år gamle »olieaftale« mellem det britiske og det saudiske monarki. Denne aftale har givet dem stor magt og store, skjulte ressourcer til at skabe nutidens globale jihadistiske organisation for angreb imod nationer.
Med mindre, og før, denne anglo-saudiske organisation afsløres – som vi kan gøre det med afsløringen af de dokumenter om 11. september, der er blevet hemmeligholdt i 15 år – og opløses, vil verden konstant stå over for blinde terrorangreb, over alt og til enhver tid.
Præsident Obama blev en overlagt og villig agent for briterne og saudierne i sine evindelige krige, der har spredt kaos i hele Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og terror i hele verden.
Hvilket »sammentræf«, at Obama skal mødes med den saudiske kronprins Salman i Washington, mens hans CIA-direktør, John Brennan, gør sit yderste for at »frikende« Saudi-Arabien for sin rolle i at arrangere angrebene den 11. september og drabene på 3.000 amerikanere. Både Obama og Prins Salman mødes med blodige hænder.
EIR’s stiftende radaktør Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede i dag, at han har været klar over denne britisk-saudiske magt for ondskab i årtier; og at dette bidrog til, at han den 2. januar, 2001, fremkom med en særdeles offentlig og publiceret advarsel om, at der forelå en trussel om et større terrorangreb mod USA, der ville finde sted i efteråret 2001.
»Det er stadig det samme, det drejer sig om, selv i gårsdagens massemord i Orlando«, sagde LaRouche.
Den unge Orlando-drabsmand var rejst til Saudi-Arabien i 2011 og 2012, mens han var ansat i det britiske, internationale sikkerhedsfirma G4S; og han kom tilbage som en tilsyneladende meget forandret person.
LaRouche understregede, at, fordi Obamas krige nu umiddelbart fører til en konfrontation med Rusland, og truer med at blive til Tredje Verdenskrig, er det af afgørende betydning at afsløre de saudisk/britiske hænder bag – begyndende med 11. september – og at tvinge Obama ud.
I 1985 indgik Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, daværende saudisk ambassadør til USA, et langvarigt partnerskab med den britiske regering under daværende premierminister Margaret Thatcher. Under dække af en olie-for-våben-aftale ved navn Al Yamamah (arabisk for »duen«), etablerede de britiske og saudiske monarkier en offshore-fond, der voksede til enorme proportioner og er blevet brugt til at føre global terrorisme imod udpegede nationer.
I løbet af de mere end 30 år, siden Al Yamamah blev lanceret, har de britiske og saudiske monarkier ophobet langt over $100 mia. i en kæde af hemmelige offshore-fonde, til finansiering af terrorisme, politiske mord, kupplaner og andre forbrydelser som den aktuelle saudisk/britisk/amerikanske invasion og bombning af Yemen.
Under Al Yamamah sendte den britiske våbenproducent BAE Systems for anslået $40 mia. våben til det Saudiske Forsvars- og Luftvåbenministerium, og for anslået yderligere $20 mia. i bestikkelser til saudiske prinser og regeringsfolk inden for forsvaret. Til gengæld sendte saudierne 600.000 tønder olie pr. dag til briterne. Gennem de anglo-hollandske oliegiganter British Petroleum og Royal Dutch Shell blev olien solgt på de internationale spotmarkeder og skabte profitter for hundreder af milliarder af dollars. En EIR-undersøgelse fra 2007 anslog, at, som et minimum, blev $100 mia. i overskud ophobet og deponeret i hemmelige offshore bankkonti, til brug for hemmelige, fælles anglo-saudiske operationer.
I en officiel biografi pralede Prins Bandar med at bruge disse hemmelige midler og med den særlige natur af Al Yamamah-aftalen, som kun kunne have været gennemført mellem to absolutte monarkier, der kunne agere over loven og udviske skellet mellem offentlige og private handlinger.
ISIS har, med andre ord, absolut IKKE været verdens rigeste, islamistiske terroroperation.
I 2007, da de britiske medier gennemførte en begrænset afsløring af Al Yamamah-bestikkelsesskandalen, lukkede den britiske premierminister Tony Blair den britiske Afdeling for Alvorligt Bedrageris (SFO) efterforskning, med den begrundelse, at det anglo-saudiske partnerskab var af afgørende betydning for den britiske nationale sikkerhed. Ordren til at lukke efterforskningen kom få timer efter, at den schweiziske regering havde besluttet at give SFO adgang til de hemmelige bankkonti, tilhørende Wafiq Said, en stråmand for Al Yamamah-midlerne.
Al Yamamah-aftalen var en lukrativ transaktion for Prins Bandar, som fik en kommission for sin rolle i lanceringen af programmet på mindst $2 mia. (amerikanske efterretningskilder anslår, at Bandar fik mere end $10 mia. for aftalen).
Bandar er direkte indblandet i angrebene den 11. september på World Trade Center og Pentagon. Penge fra den personlige bankkonto tilhørende Bandar og hans hustru, prinsesse Haifa (søster til den mangeårige direktør for saudisk efterretning, Prins Turki-al-Faisal), blev videregivet til to af de oprindelige flykaprere fra 11. september, Khalid al-Mihdhar og Nawaf al-Hazmi, via de saudiske efterretningsofficerer Omar al-Bayoumi og Osama Basnan. Penge overførtes fra Bank of Englands konti fra det Britiske Forsvarsministeriums Støttekontor til Forsvarseksport (DESO) til Bandars konto i Riggs National Banks. Desuden modtog al-Bayoumi og Basnan penge gennem en ’skygge’-ansættelse i et saudisk forsvarsfirma, Dalah Aviation, der var eneste entrepriseindehaver for det Saudiske Forsvarsministerium.
En føderal dommmer (dvs. udpeget af præsidenten) i Sarasota, Florida, gennemgår nu flere end 80.000 sider af tilbageholdte FBI-dokumenter, der drejer sig om en celle bestående af flykaprerne den 11. september, og dennes forbindelser til en prominent, rig, saudisk forretningsmand med stærke bånd til det saudiske monarki. Nogle uger før angrebene den 11. september, forlod den saudiske familie, der opholdt sig i et indhegnet bosted i Sarasota, meget pludseligt landet. De efterlod sig ejendele, der indikerede, at de brød op med meget kort varsel. FBI gennemførte en uddybende undersøgelse af familien, fordi de husede tre af flykaprerne fra 11. september, inkl. ringlederen Mohammed Atta i mange tilfælde, iflg. sikkerhedslogs og videooptagelser, der viser Atta og de andre gå ind og ud af ejendommen.
FBI hemmeligholdt dokumenterne og det faktum, at de foretog en undersøgelse, for den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse og 11. september-kommissionen. Tidligere senator Bob Graham, der var med-formand i den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse, hævder nu, at eksistensen af forbindelsen mellem de saudiske royale og Sarasota-cellen, når dette ses i sammenhæng med beviset for den saudiske regerings støtte til San Diego-cellen, nu rejser yderligere spørgsmål om angrebene 11. september. Hvad med Herndon, staten Virginia, og Paterson, staten New Jersey, har senator Graham offentligt spurgt?
Et 47 sider langt dokument, skrevet af de to stabsmedlemmer af 11. september-kommissionen, der tidligere havde arbejdet for den Fælles Kongresunderundersøgelse, og som havde skrevet det 28 sider lange, undertrykte kapitel, identificerede i alt 20 saudiske regeringsfolk med beviselige bånd til de 19 flykaprere forud for angrebene 11. september.
Disse forbindelser gik fra det sydlige Californien til den Saudiske Ambassade i Washington og til den Saudiske Ambassade i Berlin, Tyskland. Tidligere flådeminister John Lehman, medlem af 11. sept.-kommissionen, sagde til ’60 Minutes’, at kommissionen ikke førte en uddybende undersøgelse af de ledetråde, der burde have været forfulgt, og som relaterede til det saudiske monarki og det saudiske regimes støtte til flykaprerne. Lehman, blandt andre kommissionsmedlemmer, har krævet en tilbundsgående, fra øverst til nederst, ny undersøgelse af 11. sept. – en undersøgelse, hvor alle de undertrykte ledetråde og åbne spor til de saudiske royale fuldt ud forfølges.
I løbet af denne trediveårige periode med Al Yamamah-programmet er der flydt penge fra disse hemmelige offshore-konti, så vel som også gennem saudiske velgørenhedsorganisationer, til finansiering af et globalt netværk af moskeer og madrasser (skoler), der har rekrutteret flere generationer til det ekstreme wahhabi/salafist-apparat, som udgør rekrutteringspuljen til sunni jihadistisk terror over hele verden.
De beviser, der indeholdes i det stadigt hemmeligstemplede, 28 sider lange kapitel af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. sept., åbner døren til en optrevling af hele det anglo-saudiske terrorapparat. Uden en forståelse af den rolle, som det britiske monarki og de britiske efterretningstjenester har spillet i det jihadistiske apparat, er det umuligt at lukke dets evne til at operere ned.
CIA-direktøren fremførte i et interview søndag, at amerikanere »ikke burde tro på« dette 28-siders kapitel, som han nu frygter, vil blive tvunget til at blive frigivet, med en ophævelse af hemmeligstemplingen. Men et republikansk medlem af Kongressen rapporterede i et tweet, »CIA-direktøren må referere til nogle andre 28 sider end dem, jeg har læst. Frigiv dem, og lad det amerikanske folk træffe afgørelsen.« I har i jeres hænder midlerne til at gå til modangreb mod denne britisk/saudiske operation. Brug dem. Fremtving en offentliggørelse af de saudiske beviser. Fremtving Obamas afgang. »Dette må gøres hurtigt«, sagde LaRouche i dag, »for at forhindre yderligere international ødelæggelse.«
Video: 'Beyond the 28-pages – 9/11: Ten Years Later' – Otte måneder før angrebene 11. september, 2001, forudsagde Lyndon LaRouche, at USA havde en høj risiko for en begivenhed à la ’Rigsdagsbranden’, en begivenhed, der ville gøre det muligt for dem, der var ved magten, gennem diktatoriske midler at styre en økonomisk og samfundsmæssig krise, som de i modsat fald ikke var kompetente til at håndtere. Vi lever nu i det ubrudte kølvand af dette stykke historie.
Titelbillede: Obama og Kong Salman bin Abdulaziz under et af præsidentens mange besøg i Saudi-Arabien samtidig med, at han opretholdt mørklægningen af 11. september. [flickr/whitehouse]
]
Med formand Tom Gillesberg:
Uddrag fra LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast, den 29 april 2016
Senator Bob Graham fortsætter med at være meget kontant i sine beskyldninger omkring hvem der er ansvarlig for at dække over, det som han før har kaldt det "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad der virkelig skete den 11 september 2001. I dette interview opfordrede Senator Graham ikke kun til frigivelsen af de 28 sider. Han opfordrede også til frigivelse af de titusinder af andre dokumentsider, der er blevet tilbageholdt fra det amerikanske folk og Kongressens efterforskere, og kaldte for en genåbning af 9/11 undersøgelsen. I dette interview gjorde Senator Graham som han har gjort før, men på en meget kontant og meget ærlig måde. Han placerede ansvaret lige uden for døren af FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), som han beskyldte, i utvetydige vendinger, for at lyve til Kongressen og engagere sig i dette "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk.
Lad mig indledningsvis læse nogle uddrag fra Senator Graham's interview. Senator Graham sagde:
”Grunden til at de 28 sider er så vigtige, er at de var konklusionen på Kongressens undersøgelse af hvordan 11te september operationen var finansieret. Hvem betalte for det? Og mens jeg ikke kan diskutere detaljerne i dette kapitel, peger det kraftigt på Saudi-Arabien.
"Hvad vi officielt ved er, at der var agenter for den saudiske regering, som støttede mindst to af de flykaprere der endte med at bo i San Diego. De blev hjulpet med økonomisk støtte, med anonymitet, med et sted at bo, med flylektioner og med beskyttelse. I et tilfælde, i over et år.
FBI har udleveret 80.000 sider [ærligt talt blev de tvunget til at udlevere MO*] til en føderal domstol, gennem en Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) sag, der involverer en undersøgelse der fandt sted i Sarasota, Florida af forholdet mellem Mohammed Atta, lederen af de 19 flykaprere og to af hans håndlangere og en fremtrædende Saudisk familie, som havde boet i Sarasota i seks år. De tog afsted to uger før 9/11 under betingelser, som blev beskrevet som presserende for at vende tilbage til Saudi-Arabien, hvilket skaber den logiske slutning, at de blev varskoet og besluttede at de ville være bedre stillede andetsteds end i Sarasota, når 9/11 indtraf."
Intervieweren spurgte da Senator Graham følgende. Hun sagde, "Tror du, at de på hinanden følgende administrationer har beskyttet den saudiske kongefamilie imod amerikanske statsborgeres interesser?”
Senator Graham svarede, "Ja. Og jeg tror, det har været mere end en tilsløring. Jeg tror, det har været det, jeg kalder aggressivt bedrag. Der er tilfælde, hvor FBI offentligt har publiceret udsagn, som jeg ved fra personlig erfaring var usande. De erklærede at de i forbindelse med Sarasota sagen havde afsluttet undersøgelsen, og at undersøgelsen havde fastslået at der ikke var nogen forbindelse mellem flykaprerne og den fremtrædende Saudiske familie, og at de havde overleveret alle disse oplysninger til både Kongressens undersøgelse og 9/11 Citizens Commissions. Jeg ved det som en kendsgerning, at ingen af disse tre udsagn er sande."
Så sagde intervieweren til ham: "Lad mig få dette på det rette, Sir. Du påstår at FBI bevidst løj om dette spørgsmål, og at der har været en tilsløring.".
Senator Graham afbrød hende, og sagde: ".. det er mere end en tilsløring. FBI misinformerede om hvad der er i deres egne registreringer i forhold til situationen i Sarasota"
Han blev spurgt: "Hvad tror du der skal gøres?"
Senator Graham svarede:. "Jeg tror, vi er nødt til at have en generel genåbning af efterforskningen af 9/11. Både Kongressens og 9/11 Kommissionens undersøgelse foregik under stramme tidsrammer, hvilket udelukkede den fuldstændige undersøgelse, der nødvendigvis må gøres, når 9/11 sagen er genåbnet."
Hr. LaRouche sagde, efter at have lyttet til dette interview, at dette er meget klart og tydeligt. Dette kan der ikke gøres indsigelser imod. Alt, hvad senator Graham sagde, var helt rigtigt.
Han sagde: "Retfærdighed skal endelig ske fyldest overfor de amerikanske borgere. Det kan ikke længere udskydes. Ingen kan sige, "Lad os bare udsætte dette, lad os udsætte dette, lad os udsætte det endnu en uge. Det skal ske nu.” Den sande historie er blevet tilsløret alt for længe”, sagde Hr. LaRouche, og han fortsatte:" Sen. Grahams udsagn om dette er klare og tydelige. Hans identifikation af FBI's aggressive bedrag er lige i øjet, og kan ikke diskuteres. Husk, at FBI juridisk er underlagt justitsministeriet, som er medlem af den udøvende magt, hvilket placerer hele denne operation lige på Obamas dørtrin. Den udøvende magt kan ikke handle uden præsidentens direkte ordrer.
Ethvert forsøg på varigt at fortsætte som nu," sagde Hr. LaRouche, "er en krænkelse af de amerikanske borgeres forfatningsmæssige rettigheder, og det i interessen af det der beviseligt er en fjendtlig fremmed magt, helt op til det punkt af hvad man kan sige nærmer sig forræderi. Faren er 3. verdenskrig, hvilket ville betyde ødelæggelse af ikke kun USA, men hele verden. Der går ikke en dag uden at der forekommer en provokation, et eller andet sted i verden af Obama mod både Rusland og Kina, der hver vil kunne tænde lunten til 3. verdenskrig. Vi kan ikke vente, vi kan ikke udsætte det. Vi kan ikke sige, 'Åh, bare et par uger mere, blot et par måneder mere.' 3. verdenskrig er på vores dørtrin, og 3. verdenskrig ville betyde ødelæggelsen af menneskeheden.
"Våbenhvilen i Syrien nærmer sig opløsningspunktet. Saudi-Arabien og Tyrkiets rolle i dette er klar og udgør en meget indlysende pointe, at det strategiske momentum, der er nødvendigt gennem de-klassificeringen af de 28 sider, ville forhindre denne krig. Dette viser dig blot et eksempel – et meget umiddelbart eksempel – men det er blot ét eksempel på den strategiske nødvendighed af at frigive de 28 sider og blotlægge saudierne og deres partnere i det britiske monarki for hvad de er og hvad de gjorde i tilfældet med 9/11 forbrydelsen"
* MO: Modus Operandi – måde at agere på
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Et uddrag:
Ogden: I løbet af en tidligere diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche snakkede vi også om dagens institutionelle spørgsmål, som lyder: »Hr. LaRouche, vær venlig at fremlægge dine anbefalinger om, hvordan man opbygger de institutioner og strukturer, der skal til, for at gennemføre en global indsats mod terrorisme, i et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Europa. Hvilken form for organisering og politik kan du anbefale, og hvilken rolle tror du FN kan spille i en sådan indsats?«
Steinberg: Efter vores diskussion med Hr. LaRouche og Fru Zepp-LaRouche, som fandt sted for nogle få timer siden, vil jeg svare, at det første der må gøres, er at fremlægge en præcis redegørelse for, hvor den globale terrorisme har sin oprindelse. Og det har den i London – Londonistan – og i lande, der i stigende grad er blevet simple håndlangere for det Britiske Imperium og dets politik. Saudi-Arabien er en sådan håndlanger. Det har landet været i hundrede af år. Men i særdeleshed siden al-Yamamah aftalen fra 1985 har der været en britisk-saudisk organisation, der har ophobet store pengesummer, øremærket til at understøtte terrororganisationer som al-Qaeda og aflæggeren ISIS. Prøv engang at se på Sydamerika og Mexico, ødelagt af narko-terrorisme, og bemærk så, hvordan London har været centrum for den internationale narkohandel og de terrororganisationer, der er sprunget frem deraf. Hvis man ikke starter med at sige sandheden omkring terrorismens natur, omkring dens oprindelsessted; hvis man ikke våger at angribe det britiske og det saudiske monarki, så kan der ikke opstå et solidt grundlag for den form for samarbejde, der er nødvendig.
Det er klart at de fire ledende nationer, USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien alle er konfronteret med denne Angelsaudiske terrortrussel. Og for så vidt som disse nationer ikke samarbejder omkring udformningen af en entydig handlingsplan, der involverer nedlæggelsen af de britiske oversøiske finanscentre, der stiller finanserne til rådighed for terrororganisationerne, er der intet grundlag for sejr. Hvis disse lande går sammen – for hvilke FN's sikkerhedsråd ville udgøre den perfekte platform – kan der føres en succesfuld krig mod den form for terrorisme, der udfolder sig globalt i dag. Og det er en afgørende del af den krig, der allerede er undervejs.
Og så er der selvfølgelig det mere langsigtede spørgsmål omkring, hvordan man skaber en tilstand hvor mennesker ikke har noget incitament til at gå med i den slags terrororganisationer. Det spørgsmål ligger implicit i Kinas politiske projekt kaldet »Ét bælte, én vej«: Udviklingen af Asien gennem denne »Win-Win«-politik. Visse desperate politiske ledere i Europa – sågar i Tyskland – lufter ideen om en »Marshallplan«, der skal genopbygge Syrien og Irak. Det vil give flygtningene en mission, så de vil tage tilbage og hjælpe med at opbygge deres lande med en masse opbakning udefra. Og det er en del af den slags passende og holdbare antiterrorstrategi, der skal til for at skabe en langtidsholdbar løsning. Allerede tilbage i 1970'erne fremlagde Lyndon LaRouche en plan for at skabe fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten. Udgangspunktet var at en økonomisk udvikling af regionen var den mest effektive antiterrorstrategi. Ligeledes sagde LaRouche i kølvandet på Oslo-aftalen i 1993, at man blev nødt til med det samme at køre bulldozer og arbejdsmaskinerne i position og begynde at genopbygge Gazastriben og Vestbredden og skabe et velstående område, hvor mennesker har en fremtid at leve for og se frem til.
Men nu har vi i stedet Saudi-Arabiens tyranni. Hen over de seneste dage har vi set, hvordan Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan forsøger at etablere et brutalt diktatur i sit land og hvordan han afpresser Europa med truslen om at oversvømme Europa med endnu en omgang af flygtninge på flugt fra Syrien, Irak, Libyen og Afghanistan. Så der findes en holdbar og effektiv politik, men kun, hvis man tager tingene fra toppen og tager udgangspunkt i sandheden om, hvor terrorismen kommer fra. Således og kun således kan vi danne den rette form for sammenslutning af nationer, der samarbejder om et fælles mål. Og terrorismen kan overvindes, det er der ingen tvivl om, men ikke hvis udgangspunktet for processen er et svindelnummer.
Ogden: På den front så vi hvordan CIA-direktør, John Brennan, i TV-udsendelsen »Meet the Press« sidste søndag (1. maj) udtalte, at de 28 sider ikke vil blive offentliggjort af Obama-administrationen. Det viser med al tydelighed at USA ikke er klar til en alliance med Rusland, Kina og Indien, FN og Europa omkring en effektiv krig mod terror, men stadig bukker og skraber for den saudiske kongefamilie, som stod bag 11. september.
Putins afgørende intervention i Palmyra, foruden hvilken byen stadig ville være under ISIS' belejring, skaber en stærk kontrast og viser vejen for at overvinde terrorisme. Så måske kan du forklare, hvad dette viser om, hvor Obama-administrationens sande alliancer ligger.
Steinberg: Det er meget ligetil. Det Brennan sagde på nationalt TV i »Meet the Press« i søndags var præcist, hvad vi regnede med, at han ville sige. Og alt dette var forårsaget af den vedholdende mobilisering for at få offentliggjort de 28 sider, som LaRouches politiske aksionskomité (LaRouchePAC) har været hovedansvarlig for. Denne mobilisering har tvunget Obama-administrationen til at bekende kulør og sige at den på ingen måde har tænkt sig at bryde med den Angel-saudiske alliance. Så længe Obama er præsiden og Brennan er CIA-direktør vil der være en beskyttelsesmur mod enhver form for afsløring af det Britiske Imperiums og Saudi-Arabiens rolle i terrorangrebet d. 11. september. Og naturligvis har FBI's topledelse været dybt involveret i at mørklægge denne sag. Hvis nogen troede at FBI på en eller anden vis havde skiftet identitet siden de mørke dage under J. Edgar Hoover, får de sig noget af en overraskelse. Den eneste forskel er, at teknologierne og ressourcerne, der er tilgængelige i dag, er langt mere vidtrækkende. Og det var daværende FBI-chef Robert Mueller, der personligt satte en stopper for, at de 28 sider blev offentliggjort.
Og så udtalte pressesekretæren for det Hvide Hus, Josh Earnest, tirsdag – han har ellers under pres fra de pårørende til ofrene for 11. september flere gange udtalt, at en i det mindste delvis offentliggørelse af de 28 sider ville finde sted indenfor de næste måneder – at han bakkede fuldt op omkring Brennans udlægning af sagen i »Meet the Press« udsendelsen og at der ikke ville blive nogen offentliggørelse. Og han løj så det drev, idet han gentog Brennans løgn om, at de 28 sider indeholder ubegrundede foreløbige ledetråde. Og det på trods af, at der er snesevis af saudiarabiske embedsmænd og politiske figurer, der er dybt involveret i at samarbejde med flykaprerne før angrebet d. 11. september.
Så USA befinder sig på sin vis i sandhedens time. Hvis I, det amerikanske folk, ikke kan gennemtvinge denne sag, hvis ikke vi kan få offentliggjort de 28 sider, så er det muligvis et tegn på at denne nation ikke længere har den moralske integritet, der skal til, for at overleve. Tilbage i 70'erne, da Vietnamkrigen viste sig som et monster, der åd USA op indefra, havde Senator Mike Gravel modet til at offentliggøre de såkaldte »Pentagon Papers« (Pentagons hemmelige dokumentation af USA's Vietnam-politik – red.) ved at læse dem højt fra talerstolen i senatet, og det ændrede historien. Og det er den slags øjeblikke vi lige nu befinder os i. Vi har brug for at nogen udviser samme mod i dag, som Mike Gravel gjorde dengang. For hvis mørklægningen af den Angel-saudiske hånd bag 11. september bliver tilladt at fortsætte meget længere, vil denne nation have opgivet det, der retfærdiggør nationens eksistens.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Obama-administrationens beslutning søndag om at kritisere Kongressens rapport om 11. september og dens 28 siders sektion om Saudi Arabiens medvirken i anslagene, kan få en omgående boomerang-effekt mod Obama selv. Spørgsmålet om meddelagtighed i uhyrlige terrorforbrydelser er involveret; og ligeså er spørgsmålet om at forhindre Obamas britiske/saudiske krigspolitik i at udløse global termonuklear krig.
Obama har – ligesom hans forgænger George W. Bush – holdt disse 28 sider hemmelige i otte år mere, og arrogant ignoreret og modsat sig et ønske fra ofrene og de overlevende fra 11. september, om at få dem frigivet.
CIA direktør John Brennans fremtræden i ”Møde med Pressen” søndag, hvor han hævdede at bevismaterialet i de 28 sider er usandt, og modsatte sig at frigive dem, optrapper Obamas forræderiske dækken over Saudi Arabiens forbrydelser d. 11. september.
I næsten en måned, efter tidligere senator Bob Graham i programmet ”60 minutter” påviste hvor isoleret det Hvide Hus er i at lægge skjul på bevismaterialet – idet man bruger FBI til at intimidere dem, der indsamler og undersøger det – har der været en større debat i de politiske institutioner og medier overalt i USA.
Men spørgsmålet er blevet virkeligt varmt i New York City, hvor Lyndon LaRouches “Manhattan Projekt” har mobiliseret en by, hvis befolkning stadig ønsker retfærdighed ved at få sandheden om 11.september offentliggjort.
Frigivelse af de 28 sider og andet skjult dokumentarisk bevismateriale om 11. september kunne tillige i en bredere forstand slippe retfærdigheden løs. Det kunne betyde retsforfølgelse af Obama og Bush for forsætlig undertrykkelse af beviserne for, hvem der virkeligt myrdede 3000 amerikanere, og skræmte millioner af andre til at indvillige i katastrofale krige og vidtstrakte nye FBI beføjelser.
Da CIA direktør Brennan i søndags sagde “Nej”, burde de forskellige balloner, som det Hvide Hus har sendt op vedrørende review af de 28 sider med henblik på ”snarlig” frigivelse, være punkteret. Sandheden vil ikke komme ud på denne måde, med retfærdighed til følge. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, ved en rigsretssag, med henblik på yderligere retsforfølgelse ved domstolene for forræderi. Det er hvad LaRouches ”Manhatten Projekt” mobiliserer for, og på den måde kan der sættes en stopper for hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider af Kongressens undersøgelse, sammen med Saudiernes straffrihed for deres forbrydelser.
Men det giver os også chancen for retfærdighed i en endnu bredere forstand: Forbrydelserne inkluderer (fortsat) at starte krige for at erstatte stabile regeringer med kaos, og (fortsat) – til denne dag – at støtte islamistiske jihadgrupper. Særligt siden attentatet på den Libyske leder Gadaffi i 2011 har det stået klart for os, at målet i sidste instans for disse krige er Rusland og Kina.
Ultimativt har planlæggerne været den britiske imperialistiske finansmagt, der søger at destruere Kina/Indien/Rusland–alternativet til dets kollaps. Obama og Saudierne har udført arbejdet.
Obama har optrappet provokationenerne til krig med Rusland, Kina eller begge, en krig, der kun kan være termonuklear og total. At tvinge ham ud nu standser kursen mod krigskonfrontation, der kun kan ende med destruktion af civilisationerne.
Deltag i mobiliseringen for retfærdigheden.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Kommer senere på dansk.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche Addresses Seminar in Copenhagen,
April 18, 2016 [unproofed draft]
We Need a New Paradigm for Humanity
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, thank you very much for this
kind introduction.
Dear Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to
start my presentation with showing you a point of view which may
be unusual to discuss the strategic situation, but I think it is
quite adequate.
This is a time-lapse video where you can actually have a view
from space. This is the kind of view normally only astronauts,
cosmonauts, taikonauts have. They all come back from their space
travel with the idea that there is only one humanity, and that
our planet, which is very beautiful and blue; however, it is very
small in a very large solar system and an even larger galaxy, not
to mention the billion galaxies out there in our universe.
With that view comes, naturally, the question of the future.
Where should mankind be in 100 years from now, in a 1000 years,
in 10,000 years? Well, you have to exercise your power of
imagination. In 10,000 years, we probably are well beyond having
colonized the Moon, we have completed very successful Mars
missions, we will have a much, much better understanding about
our solar system, our galaxy, and we will have gotten a much
deeper understanding about the principle of our universe.
Just think, that it took 100 years before modern science
could confirm that Einstein's conception about gravitational
waves was correct. Ten thousand years of the past human history
has brought tremendous progress. But just think that this growth
can go on, exponentially. And since there is no limit to the
creativity and perfectibility of the human species, in 10,000
years we can have a wonderful world.
So, let's look from that view, into the future, to the
present, to have the right perspective.
Yesterday, the {New York Times}, in the Sunday edition, had
an article saying "The Race Escalates for the Latest Class of
Nuclear Arms," portraying in detail that the United States, and
Russia, and China are developing new generations of smaller and
less destructive nuclear weapons, which would make them more
useable. They quote in the article James Clapper, the Director of
the National Intelligence of the United States, that the world
has now entered a new Cold War spiral, where, basically, totally
different laws and rules govern, than it used to be the case with
Mutual Assured Destruction.
The previous NATO doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction
proceeded from the assumption that the destructive power of
nuclear weapons is so horrible, because it will lead to the
annihilation of the human race, that nobody in their right mind
would ever use it. And therefore, it was a deterrence that these
weapons would never be used.
This is now no longer valid. What they are now discussing,
openly, on the front page of the {New York Times}, is that what
we, for a very long time, only we and a few of military experts,
have said, namely, that these modernized tactical nuclear
weapons, like the B12-61, in combination with stealth bombers,
with hypersonic missiles, can actually lead to the winning of a
nuclear war.
Ted Postol and Hans Kristensen, very respected military
analysts, have detailed at great lengths, why the idea of a
limited nuclear war is completely ludicrous, and it is the nature
of the difference between thermonuclear weapons and conventional
weapons, that once you enter a nuclear exchange, that it is the
logic of such a war that all weapons will be used, and that will
be the end of mankind. We are closer to that possibility than
most people dare to even consider, because if they would, they
would not remain so passive as they are now.
This is why I want to make emphatically the point–and this
is the purpose of conducting meetings like this seminar and many
other conferences we are engaged in–that we have reached a point
in human history where geopolitics must be superseded with a
completely new paradigm. And that is why I started with the view
from space. We need a new paradigm, basically saying goodbye to
the very idea of geopolitics, which has caused two world wars in
the 20th century. That new paradigm must be completely different
than that which is governing the world today.
We have, right now, rising tensions in the South China Sea.
Policymakers and the neighboring countries are extremely worried
about what will happen in the period between now and the trial in
The Hague. You have the largest maneuver around North and South
Korea right now, where people in the region are extremely worried
that the slightest provocation could lead to an exchange of
nuclear weapons.
You have the NATO expansion up to the Russian border.
Countries like Poland and Lithuania are asking to have these
modernized nuclear weapons located on their territory, even that
makes them prime targets.
The United States is continuing to build the anti-ballistic
missile system which, supposedly, was against Iranian missiles,
but after the P5+1 agreement has been reached, it is obvious this
was always a pretext and the aim was always to take out the
second strike capability of Russia.
Then you have the entire region of Southwest Asia, still
being a terrible destruction and consequence of failed wars.
North Africa is exploding. You have new incidents between NATO
and Russia, all of a sudden in the Baltic Sea, which was, up to
now, a calm region where there are no conflicts, or, there have
been no conflicts.
In the Middle East briefing, discussing President Obama's
trip to Riyadh on the 21st of this month, they say that this trip
will open up a new page of NATO in the relationship to the Middle
East, that what Obama will try to establish is a new relationship
between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
So, we have a situation where the {New York Times}, also
yesterday, and I'm quoting these papers to say that these are not
some opinions of us, but this is now the public discussion, that
what is really at stake in the South China Sea is not so much the
fight around some uninhabited reefs and cliffs, or some tiny
islands, but it is the American effort to halt China's rise. And
not only China's rise, but that of Asia. China, Asia arising; the
trans-Atlantic region is in decline.
Just now, we are heading towards a new financial crisis, and
all signs are, that we are going into the same kind of crash like
2008. Already since the beginning of this year, $50 billion
corporate defaults were taking place, which is on the same level
like what happened in 2009.
What the United States is trying to assert under this
conditions, where the trans-Atlantic world is in decline or
marching towards collapse, to insist that nevertheless a unipolar
world must be maintained. The problem is, that unipolar world,
effectively, no longer exists. But still, what carries American
policy to the present day, is the Project for the New American
Century, the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is a neocon idea
which says that no country and no group of countries should ever
be allowed to challenge the power position of the United States.
In the age of thermonuclear weapons, the insistence to maintain a
non-tenable world order could very quickly lead to the
annihilation of civilization.
It is a fact: China has made an economic miracle in the last
30 years which is absolutely breathtaking. And it is continuing,
despite all the media rumors about China's economic collapse.
India has by now the largest growth rate in the world; it's above
7%. Many other Asian countries have explicitly formulated the
goal for themselves to be developed countries in a few years. The
Chinese economy right now is rebounding. They just announced that
in the next five years China is going to import $10 trillion
worth of imports. They will invest $600 billion worth of
investments abroad. Every day 10,000 new firms are being created
in China.
So, if you look at the development, especially since
President Xi Jinping announced in September, 2013 in Kazakhstan,
that the New Silk Road, the One Belt One Road, is put on the
agenda. In the Two and a half years since that time, more than
sixty nations have joined with China in this development. They
have created the New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road; these
nations have created a whole set of alternative
economic-financial institutions, such as the AIIB, which, despite
massive pressure from the United States not to do so, immediately
was joined by sixty founding members. The New Development Bank
also started just now its functioning. The New Silk Road Fund,
the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the Shanghai Cooperation Bank, and
many more. All of these were created because the IMF and the
World Bank had not invested in the urgently required
infrastructure.
These banks are now engaged in very, very impressive, large
projects. For example: China invested $46 billion in the
China-Pakistan corridor. When President Xi Jinping recently went
to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, consequently Iran,
fool-heartedly, declared that they are now part of the One Belt
One Road, New Silk Road development. Greece is now talking about
that after China is investing in the Port of Piraeus, that Greece
will be the bridge between China and Europe. The 16+1, that is
the East and Central European countries, just declared that they
absolutely want to participate in China helping to build a fast
train system in these countries. Those projects which the EU has
not bid, China is now building. Part of it is, for example, the
Elbe-Oder-Danube Canal, which will connect the waterways of these
countries. When President Xi recently was in the Czech Republic,
President Zeman announced that the "Golden City" of Prague will
be the gateway between the Silk Road and Europe. Also, Austria
and Switzerland are now fully on board and see the benefits of
their country's joining with the New Silk Road.
When President Xi Jinping at the APEC meeting in October
2014 offered to President Obama to cooperate in all of these
projects in a "win-win" perspective, he not only proposed
economic cooperation, but he put on the agenda a completely new
model of international relations exactly designed to overcome
geopolitics. The new model is supposed to be based on the respect
for sovereignty, non-interference into the internal affairs of
the other country, respect for the different social system the
other country chooses to adopt. It would really be, in a certain
sense, a fulfillment of the principles which are laid out in the
UN Charter anyway.
How was the Western response? Very, very ambiguous. The
United States in spite of this, never really responded to
President Xi's offer. They keep insisting on an unipolar world.
For example, in the TPP, like in the TTIP for Europe, it is said
very, very clearly, the U.S. sets the rules of trade for Asia and
not China. Recently, the American Defense Secretary Ash Carter,
and also NATO commander General Breedlove, declared the enemies
#1 of the United States are, first, Russia, second, China, third,
Iran, fourth North Korea, and only fifth terrorism.
Now that is in spite of the fact that many other statesmen,
such as United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign
Minister Steinmeier, and many others, have recently also stated,
that all crucial problems of the world cannot be solved without
the cooperation of Russia, and China. For example, the P5+1
agreement with Iran, would never have come into being without a
constructive role of {both} Russia and China . Without Putin's
very intelligent intervention in the military situation in Syria,
this situation could not have come to the potential of a
political solution.
Also, apart from the military pressure, there is massive
pressure on the new institutions such as the AIIB and the New
Development Bank, to {not} be outside of the casino economy but
to follow the "international standards."
Now, in these times of the Panama Papers, of the various
LIBOR scandals, of the money laundering of many of these banks,
it is a sort of laughable thing, what should be these
"international standards" of the Western financial system.
Now, let's be realistic. At the IMF/ World Bank meeting
which just concluded in Washington over the weekend, behind the
scenes there was complete panic, but nobody dared to speak about
it openly, behind the scenes people were talking, what former
IMF boss Strauss-Kahn has said repeatedly, publicly, that we are
heading towards the "perfect political storm." That if one of
the too-big-to-fail banks collapses, it will lead to a crisis
much, much worse than 2008.
At the recent Davos Economic Forum, the former chief
economist of the BIS William White said that the world system is
so utterly overindebted, that there are two roads only possible:
Either you have an orderly writeoff of the debt, like in the
religious Jubilee, so that you just say "these debts are not
payable," and you write them off, or it will come to a disorderly
collapse.
Now, the situation is all the more urgent, because unlike
2008 when everyone was talking about the "tools" of the central
bank, like interest rate reduction, rescue packages, bailouts,
all of these tools don't function any more. As a matter of fact,
when the competition for more zero interest rate, or even
negative interest rate, when into high gear in the last month,
when, for example, the Bank of Japan or the central bank of
Norway, or the ECB declared a zero interest rate policy, or even
a negative interest rate policy, it boomeranged! It had the
opposite effect: Rather than leading to more investment, in the
real economy, it led to a deflationary escalation of the
collapse.
When Mario Draghi, the chief of the ECB, recently announced,
"yeah, yeah, we have a discussion about helicopter money." And
Ben Bernanke echoed it and said, "yes, now we need helicopter
money," meaning electronic printing of {endless} amounts of
worthless money, virtual money, they de facto announced that the
trans-Atlantic financial system is absolutely in the last phase.
Because after helicopter money comes only evaporation.
But this is only the most obvious of the crises. Another
one, which is in a different domain, but equally systemic is the
refugee crisis in Europe. Now, I supported Chancellor Merkel
when she initially said, we can manage that, we can give refuge
to these people, and for the first time, I was saying "this
woman is doing the right thing." I know there was a lot of
international criticism, but she acted on the basis of the Geneva
Convention on refugees, but it was the right thing to do. But
the reactions from the other European countries, revealed an
underlying, basic flaw of the EU, a flaw which was not caused by
the refugees, but it was revealed by the first serious challenge,
that in the EU, as it has been conceptualized in the Maastricht
Treaty going up to the Lisbon Treaty, there is no unity, there is
no solidarity; and with the collapse of the Schengen agreement
which allows free travel within the internal borders of the EU,
the closing of the so-called Balkan routes, to prevent refugees
from coming, the basis for the European common currency is also
gone, because without the Schengen agreement, the possibility to
have the euro last is extremely dubious.
Now, with the recent response by the EU to basically have a
deal with Turkey, I mean, this is beyond the bankruptcy of the
whole EU policy if you can top it. At a point when the Russian
UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, presented the UN Security Council
with evidence that the Turkish government, is continuing up to
the present day to supply ISIS with weapons and other logistical
means, to then say, we pay Turkey EU6 billion, for what? To have
them receive refugees; and Amnesty International has already
said, there is no guarantee that these people will be protected,
but rather that Turkey is sending them back to the war zones,
like Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
So, if you look at the pictures of Idomeni, where the
Macedonian police are using tear gas against refugees who are
absolutely desperate; if you look at the fact that Greece is now,
rather than having refugee camps which would somehow process
these unfortunate human beings, they have, on pressure of the EU,
been turned into detention centers. Pope Francis was just in
Lesvos, together with the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew, and this
Patriarch said, the present EU policy on the refugee crisis, is
the completely bankruptcy of Europe. The Doctors Without Borders
left their job in Greece, because they said they cannot be
accomplices to the murderous policy of detention, where the
police decide who is a patient and not doctors. Instead of
protecting the people running away from wars and persecution,
they are now being treated as criminals.
Immediately, days after this disgusting EU-Turkey deal, it
turned out that it's a complete failure, the so-called "European
values," human rights, humanism, well–they're all in the
trashcan, because now the refugees, obviously still fleeing for
their lives, go to Libya trying to get into small boats to Italy.
And just yesterday the news came that another 400 people drowned
in the Mediterranean. And this will keep going on. And it will
haunt the people who are refusing to change their ways.
Now, there is a new element in the situation which may cause
sudden surprises, and that is a program which was presented by
CBS, a week ago Sunday, in the so-called "60 Minutes" program
portraying the coverup, of the U.S. governments from Bush to
Obama, of the famous 28 pages omitted in the publication of the
official Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 by the U.S.
Congress; and as many people have said, and was said in this
program, this pertains to the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11.
Yesterday, {all} the U.S. talk shows, and all the U.S. media,
pointed their finger to the coverup of the Bush administration
and even to the present day of the present government, that there
is a coverup of criminal activity.
Now, the Saudi Arabian government reacted very unnerved, and
this was again reported in the {New York Times}, that they would
sell off $750 billion in U.S. Treasuries, if the U.S. would allow
a bill that would allow Saudi Arabia to be held responsible in
court, for their role in 9/11. Now, that's not exactly a sign of
sovereignty, but of despair. There are several U.S. Senators,
among them Mrs. Gillibrand from New York, who demand that this
whole question of the Saudi Arabian role in 9/11 must be on the
agenda when President Obama goes to Riyadh this week. Which in
any case, may not happen, but it will not be the end of the story
because the genie is now out of the bottle.
OK: How do we respond to these many, many crises? Well,
there is a solution to all of these problems. The trans-Atlantic
should just do exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933, in
reaction to the world financial crisis at the time. Implement
the full banking separation — Glass-Steagall — and the whole
offshore nightmare which is being revealed in the Panama Papers,
and remember, that this firm Mossack Fonseca is only the fourth
largest of such firms, and 11 million documents still need to be
read through, and processed. But we have to go back to the kind
of international credit system, as it existed in the Bretton
Woods system, before Nixon ended the fixed exchange rate in 1971,
opening the gate for floating exchange rates and especially the
creation of offshore money markets for the unlimited creation of
money and other illegal operations as it now is coming out.
Then we need a writeoff of the absolutely unpayable state
debt, which has accumulated and ballooned after the bailouts of
2008 and afterwards. And we have to basically get rid of the
toxic paper of the whole derivatives markets, because they are
the burden which is eating up the chance for the investment in
the real economy.
Then, we need a Marshall Plan Silk Road; and the only reason
I'm talking about a Marshall Plan, despite the fact that China
is {emphatic} that they do not want a Cold War connotation to the
New Silk Road, it gives people in the United States and Europe a
memory, that it is very possible to rebuild war-torn economies,
as it happened in Europe after the Second World War.
Now, with the ceasefire which was negotiated between Foreign
Ministers Kerry and Lavrov, you have now a still-fragile, but you
have the potential for a peace development in Syria, and soon
other countries in the region. But it is extremely urgent, that
the peace dividend of this ceasefire is becoming visible for the
people of the region, immediately. That is, there has to be a
reconstruction and economic buildup, not only of the territory
and the destroyed cities, but the entire region, has to be looked
at as one: From Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the North
Caucasus to the Persian Gulf. Because you cannot build
infrastructure by building a bridge in one country. You have to
have a complete plan for the transformation of this region, which
mainly consists of desert.
Now, the idea is to have a comprehensive plan, greening the
deserts, building infrastructure, creating new, fresh water from
desalination of ocean water, of tapping into the water of the
atmosphere through ionization, and various other means. And then
build infrastructure corridors, new cities, and give hope to,
especially, the young people of the region, so they have a reason
not to join the jihad, but to become doctors, to become
engineers, to care for their family and their future.
Now this is not just a program any more, because when
President Xi Jinping visited Iran about two months ago, he put
the Silk Road development on the agenda for this region. So, all
you need to do, is extend the Silk Road, and the first train has
already arrived in Tehran; you have to continue to build that
road, from Iran, to Iraq, to Syria all the way to Egypt. Other
routes should go from Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to India. From
Central Asia to Turkey to Europe, and this obviously can only
work because the problem is so big, that all the neighbors of the
region, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, but also the countries
which are now torn apart by the refugee crisis such as Germany,
Italy, Greece, France, and all other European countries must all
commit themselves to work on such a Silk Road Marshall Plan for
the reconstruction and economic buildup of the Middle
East/Southwest Asia, {and} all of Africa, because the economic
situation is equally dire in that continent.
The United States must be convinced that it is in their best
interest to cooperate in such a development, and stop thinking in
terms of geopolitics. Now, the United States should only be
encouraged to cooperate in the development of these regions, but
the United States needs {urgently} a New Silk Road itself.
Because if you look at the condition, not only of the financial
sector in the United States, but especially the physical economy;
if you look at the social effects of the economic collapse, like
the rising suicide rates, in all age brackets of the {white}
population, and especially rural women in the age between 20 and
40, the suicide rate is quadrupling and even beyond. This is a
sign of a collapsing society.
Now, China has built as of last year, 20,000 km of fast
train systems. Excellent, top-level technology fast-train
systems; it wants to have 50,000 km by I think the year 2025.
How many miles of fast train as the U.S. built? I don't any.
But if the United States would join the New Silk Road and
participate in the economic reconstruction, as Franklin D.
Roosevelt did it with the Tennessee Valley Authority plan, with
the Reconstruction Finance Corp. in the '30s, the United States
could very, very quickly be a prosperous country, and could again
be regarded by the whole world as "a beacon of liberty and a
temple of freedom," which was the idea of America when it was
founded.
So, the whole fate of the whole world will depend if we all
succeed to get the United States to go back to its proud
tradition of a republic, and stop thinking like an empire,
because that cannot be maintained in any case; because all
empires in the whole history of mankind always disintegrated when
they became overstretched and collapsed. There is not one
exception to this idea.
Now, therefore, let's go back to the idea from the
beginning: Let's approach all problems in the present from the
idea, where is the future of mankind? Where should mankind be?
Do we exist, or will we destroy ourselves. And that requires a
change in paradigm, which must be as fundamental and thorough,
like the paradigm shift from the European Middle Ages to the
modern times. And what caused that shift was such great figures
as Nikolaus of Cusa, but also Brunelleschi, Jeanne d'Arc, and
many others; but what they introduced was a rejection of the old
paradigm–scholasticism, Aristotelianism, all the wrong ideas
which led to the destruction of the 14th century, and they
replaced with a completely {new} image of man, man as an {imago
viva Dei}, which was a synonym for the unlimited creative
potential and perfectability of the human being. It led to a new
image of man which created a blossoming of science, of modern
science, of the modern sovereign nation-state; it made possible
the emergence of Classical arts.
And that is what we have to do today: We have to stop
thinking in terms of geopolitics, and we have to focus on the
common aims of mankind. Now, what are these "common aims of
mankind"? It is, first of all scientific cooperation to
eradicate hunger, poverty, to develop more and more cures for
diseases, to increase the longevity of all people. We have to
study much more fundamentally, what is the principle of life?
Why does life exist? How does it function? What, really, is the
deeper lawfulness of our universe? And that must define the
identity of human beings, which is unique to the human species.
And I have an idea of the future, which will be full of joy.
Because we will discover new principles in science and in
classical art, and we will create a new Renaissance. As the
Italian Renaissance superseded the Dark Age of the 14th century,
what we have to do today, is we have to revive the best
traditions of all great nations and cultures of the world; and
make them known to the other one. Have a dialogue of the most
advanced periods of Chinese, of European, Indian, African, other
cultures, and revive–and that is being done in China,
already–the great Confucian tradition, which is in absolute
correspondence with the best neo-Platonic humanist ideas of
Europe. We must revive the great Vedic tradition in India, the
Gupta period; the Indian Renaissance of the late 19th to the 20th
century. We must revive the Abbasid Dynasty of the Arab world;
the Italian Renaissance; the Andalusian Spanish Renaissance, the
Ecole Polytechnique in France, the great German Classical period.
The great Italian method of singing in Verdi tuning and the bel
canto method. And if all of these riches of all the different
countries become the common good of all children of this planet,
and everyone can learn universal history, other cultures as if it
would be their own, I can already see how humanity can make a
jump, and how we can create the most beautiful Renaissance of
human history so far.
I think everybody who is thinking about these questions, has
a deep understanding, that we are at the most important crossroad
in human history. And it is not yet clear which way we will go,
but it is clear to me, that we will {only} come out of this
crisis if we mobilize the subjective emotional quality, which in
the Chinese is called {ren}; and the European equivalent, you
would call {agapë}, love. And we will only solve this problem if
we are able to mobilize a tender, maybe even {passionate} love,
for the human species. [applause]
Kommer senere på dansk.
Hussein Askary Speech in Copenhagen to the Schiller Institute-EIR
Seminar “Extend the World Land-Bridge to Southwest Asia and
Africa,” April 18, 2016
{Hussein Askary had fair number of graphics and charts, which he
used to illustrate his presentation.}
TOM GILLESBERG: The next speaker is somebody very unique
and unusual, Hussein Askary originally comes from Iraq and had
to get out under very nasty circumstances, as many others. But
that became a blessing at least for our organization, because
Hussein, through Norway, ended up to become part of the
international LaRouche organization in 1994, and has since then
been contributing quite fantastically to our international work.
And he is one of the authors of the original {New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge} report; but then also made a
decision, that this cannot simply stay in the English language,
or Chinese. This also has to be in the Arabic language. So
Hussein took it upon himself to translate this into the Arabic
language and then also of course, write some extra parts to it,
which is necessary for the present circumstances in Southwest
Asia to have.
This report just came out. It was release on March 17, in
Cairo, in a meeting presided over by the Egyptian Transportation
Minister who then introduced Hussein, and the hope of course is
that this will become something read and studied and acted on in
the whole Arabic world, as well as the rest of the world. So
Hussein?
HUSSEIN ASKARY: You have heard Helga today, giving a very
stern and sobering warning about the state of affairs in the
world, the dangers are very real to the world today. What I am
going to do, and please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not going to
give you a picture of how rosy and nice things are, either in
Southwest Asia, the so-called Middle East, or in Africa, but, as
they say in sports, you have to keep your eye on the ball. What
Helga just said, is that there is a new paradigm in the world,
which can lead to a completely different, and new world order.
And it’s that paradigm, within which myself, the Schiller
Institute, and the people we are talking to, we want to direct
their attention to that new paradigm.
I’m thankful to Leena Malkki for her beautiful singing, and,
especially, the {Aida} aria. It was actually performed at the
opening of the Suez Canal, the second Suez Canal, last year.
The idea of great projects, the idea of great challenges,
like Hela was explaining, this idea of being in space, looking at
the world from space, and, also, the idea of major projects, like
the Suez Canal, like the Three Gorges Dam in China, the New Silk
Road, the effect they have on people, is that they challenge
their imagination, and challenge their creativity, because they
represent major difficulties, major technical problems,
intellectual problems, that have to be solved, before you achieve
these major projects. And that transforms the idea of people. It
also gives people an idea of a creative constructive identity,
and the position of man in the world, on this Earth, and also in
the universe. That is why we try to work on these concepts of the
New Silk Road, the extension of the New Silk Road, to {inspire}
people to think outside of the box, outside of the box of
geopolitics, which Helga was trying to explain. We have to get
out of geopolitics. We have to act {human} again. But that has
practical implications. There are practical problems, and other
issues, and even scientific issues we have to resolve.
So, for those who are not familiar, this is the extension of
the New Silk Road. The New Silk Road has existed as the new
strategic policy of China since 1996, but we want to expand this
into a global collaboration, a blueprint, as Tom said, a concept
for peace and cooperation among nations. We have to connect the
Economic Belt of the Silk Road (the one with the yellow), which
is already being built. As Helga said, the first train arrived
from China to Tehran last month. There are projects going on in
Siberia. So there are trains going from Asia to Europe. There is
no problem with that. We need to extend it into the Southwest
Asia region, the so-called Middle East (I can explain later why I
say Southwest Asia, and not the Middle East), and into Africa,
and of course, into the Americas.
So, you can see that the red lines are where we have the
biggest deficits, the biggest deficits in infrastructure, both
transportation infrastructure, but also in other needs, deficits
in water, and deficits in electricity.
What is different in the Arabic part, which I rewrote
certain parts of it, like the Southwest Asia part, we also added
the Arabian Peninsula, also, to the idea of the connection to the
New Silk Road. This is no longer simply a Silk Road; this is the
World Land-Bridge, which can unite all the continents of the
world.
In 1996, I had the great fortune to work with Helga
Zepp-LaRouche and the team of {EIR} to make the first major study
of the New Silk Road, and it was that one which was adopted by
the Chinese government as the strategic policy of China. It was
also a thick report like this.
This work is being done, mostly in East Asia, Central Asia,
Iran, Turkey, Russia, all these nations are involved, but what is
lacking is the connection to the rest. So it has been 20 years
since that idea emerged, but there was no response from the
countries in the Arab world, for example, or in Africa.
Now, the idea with all these lines is not only about trade.
We want to warn people, that we are not talking about moving
goods from China to Europe. That’s not our concept. That’s a
byproduct. What we mean by the New Silk Road, the World
Land-Bridge, that we need to create development corridors: a
development corridor where you bring power, water, and technology
to areas that are landlocked, that are far from industrial zones,
and, explore the resources, human and natural resources of that
region, to develop new centers of economic activity. Like
landlocked nations, like in Central Asia, or the Great Lakes
region in Africa. That’s the concept. It’s not about trade,
although trade is an important aspect of this.
In 2002, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, the American economist and
political leader, the husband of Mrs. LaRouche, was in Abu Dhabi,
in a conference about oil, and the role of oil in world politics,
and the future of oil. And there were many ministers of oil
actually from the Arab countries — the gentleman to the right is
the energy minister of the United Arab Emirates — and Mr.
LaRouche shocked everybody, and said that the Arab countries, or
the Gulf countries, have to gradually stop exporting raw oil, and
actually use raw oil and gas as an industrial product, for
petrochemicals, plastics, where every barrel of oil will give
many times its value, rather than burning it as energy. He said
that you should use your position in the world, as a crossroads
of continents. You have to utilize that position as a crossroads
for world trade, but also, the connection between Africa, Asia
and Europe.
So I added these to the Arabic version, because I think that
this is a very unique area in the world, not only that its
strategic location is very unique, no other part of the world has
that; you also have two-thirds of the world’s energy resources,
so-called, oil and gas in that region, but also, most
importantly, you have about 450 million people. Most of them are
young people. And actually, many of them have a good education.
You also have nations with a very ancient history and culture,
and a very historical identity, like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and
so on, and they also have an idea of themselves as becoming key
players in the world, but we hope that they will become key
players in the world in the economic, scientific and cultural
sense.
The problem is that all these advantages have been turned
into disadvantages. So this region has become a center for global
politics, for global geopolitics, and that is why we see the
conditions we have in the whole Middle East region becoming like
this.
Our idea is, now we have this new situation with the Russian
intervention, the prospect, the possibility of having a peaceful
political solution in Syria, the prospect of uniting many powers
to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda, and so on, both in Iraq and Syria,
and also in Libya. But this should be followed, as Helga said, we
need a Marshall Plan, we need an economic development plan, to
establish peace on a true basis.
The reason I joined the Schiller Institute in 1994, was that
I was in Oslo, and I was working as a translator, and there was a
Palestinian children’s delegation coming with Yasser Arafat; and
I was going around with them, and, at that time, you had the Oslo
peace agreement. A week later, I saw a sign that the Schiller
Institute was having a meeting in Oslo. They had a very
interesting title. They said in the meeting that if you don’t
start with the economic development of the Palestinian people,
the people in Jordan, Syria, Israel, and so on, if you don’t base
the peace process on a solid economic basis, this whole thing
will fail. And the peace process is, of course, dead now, both
because of that, but also because of geopolitics which has
prevented reaching a true peace.
So, therefore, to establish true peace, we need an economic
and scientific program. Helga referred to president Xi Jinping’s
visit to the region in January this year. I consider this as an
historic turning point, actually, because at that point, in late
January, Saudi Arabia and Iran were at the point where there was
a big risk of a direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, because
of the beheading of a Shi’a clergy in Saudi Arabia, which led to
demonstrations, the burning of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, and
so on. So the Chinese intervention came at a very crucial point,
where they said, “Look, all these religious conflicts and
problems you have with each other, can lead the whole world into
a disaster. Why don’t we work on our method? We offer you to join
the New Silk Road. We offer economic development, and technology,
and even financing, so we can connect all of your countries which
are in conflict with each other together into this global
process.” And this is very, very important. And nations in the
region have to really grasp that opportunity now, and, instead of
discussing the fate of President Assad, they should discuss what
kinds of economic projects they should work together on.
One of the issues that I didn’t mention, is that, for
example, even as Helga said, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they can
join this, if they stop this other policy, because we also have
one of the largest concentrations of financial power in the Gulf
countries; the so-called sovereign funds of the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries is about $2 trillion. This can be transformed
into credit.
In the report, I propose the establishment of the Arab
Infrastructure Investment Bank. A bank which will be financed by
these rich countries, which would have a capital of $100-200
billion, and that capital will only be earmarked for
infrastructure and development projects.
So every nation has a role in this. And in the report, we
have also added, which is not in the English report, a plan, a
general outline for the reconstruction of Syria, by utilizing
Syria’s position also as a bridge for the Silk Road, both from
Asia, and from Europe, into Africa. We also propose the
construction of a Syrian National Reconstruction Bank, which is
very important. We have a very important chapter in the report
about how nations can internally finance major infrastructure
programs. Because, the big question, which comes all the time
when I am in Arab countries, or in Africa, is, they say “OK. This
sounds good. Who will pay for this? Where will the money come
from?” Actually, you don’t really need money, in that sense. You
can create the money, but you have to know where to use that
money. As Helga said, the central banks in Europe and the United
States are pumping massive amounts of liquidity into the
financial and banking system. But none of that is transformed
into technologies or projects, public projects, or housing
projects, or industrial projects in Europe or anywhere. So money
is being printed, but it is not being used.
But there is a method, which we call the Hamiltonian
national credit system, which every nation can actually
internally generate credit to finance part of its national
development plans, and this is one thing we put in the Syria
plan. Because every time there is a war like in Bosnia, in
Lebanon, and so on, you have donor conferences, where every
nation says that we will give you so much money, 100 million, 50
million, but there is no centralized idea about how to rebuild
the whole country. It all depends on donations, small drops which
come. We want something massive. We want something big. Foreign
governments should contribute to that by exporting technology to
Syria, for example, which Syria cannot afford to build, or afford
to buy, in the current situation.
Also, a part of our plan for Southwest Asia is to fight
against desertification, by managing and creating new water
resources, stopping the expansion of the desert. This is the
Iraqi Green Belt project to stop the effect of sand and dust
storms, which actually is a big problem for many cities in Iraq,
sometimes even reaching into Iran, by building a Green Belt,
planting trees in a large scale, a belt by using both ground
water and water from the rivers. This is a kind of national
program which can unite the people of Iraq for an idea of their
future together. Not Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, Turkish, and so on,
and so forth. These are the kinds of projects, real physical
projects, which will challenge people to work together in a
country like Iraq.
Now, I took this Egyptian model, because in Egypt, you have
a very terrible situation, which is the accumulation of 30 years
of destructive economic and financial policies, mostly caused by
former President Mubarak’s and Anwar Sadat’s collaboration with
the IMF and the World Bank. There should be a shift in the way
Egyptians consider their economy. Because Egypt always waits for
the IMF or the World Bank, the EU or the United States to give
some money so that they can start something new. And usually
money does not go to large scale. Europe, the United States, the
UN, the IMF and the World Bank will {never} finance large
infrastructure projects. That’s the policy. Small, small, small
is beautiful. That’s what they say.
But in Egypt, with the new leadership in Egypt, you have the
focus on mega-projects, which is a necessity. If you want to save
Egypt’s economy, Egypt’s entire infrastructure has to be built
from scratch again. There should be new industrial and
agricultural centers, which they are focusing on.
Using high technology, they try to attract the highest
levels of technology, and internal financing. You know, President
el-Sisi, when they wanted to build the Suez Canal, there was no
money, as usual, they said. So what he did was something unique.
He went outside the central bank. He went outside the budget, and
said, “I will go on TV, and I will tell the Egyptian people that
we want to build this canal. It’s crucial for our nation. We want
you to give the money.”
In 2013 I wrote a memorandum for Egypt, an Egyptian Economic
Independence Document, I called it. Actually, inside Egypt, you
can raise more than $100 billion, because there are resources
inside Egypt. People, even today, buy dollars. They take part of
their salary, and buy dollars or gold, and keep it at home, so
that financing disappears from the system. It’s not reinvested in
the system. People keep their money because of the unstable
economic situation.
But if you encourage the Egyptian people with this kind of
national development projects, which will put their kids to work,
unemployed young people, they would come out with the money. And
this is what el-Sisi did. I wrote at the time, that they should
build a National Development Bank, not just one fund for the Suez
Canal, as they did. But as soon as President el-Sisi came on TV
and said, “We want to build this canal, but we don’t have the
money. We want the Egyptian people to pay for it.” So they went
out, and in one week they raised $8 billion. And people were
queuing late into the night; I met a banker last year, who said,
“We had to stay open into the night, because people were queuing
at the banks to buy the bonds!” Egyptians are real patriots. They
love their country, but if they are encouraged by good
leadership.
Of course, the Suez Canal is not giving back what was
supposed to be already from the beginning, because world trade
has collapsed. The level of transit in the Suez Canal has gone
down, not because of Egypt’s policy, but because the world
economy is going down. Global trade has been collapsing. But the
idea is to use the Suez Canal as a development zone. And this is
what I got from people in the Suez Canal Authority — that they
are not only thinking about transport of goods, but they want to
utilize that route to build new industrial zones around the
canal, like we showed in the development corridor idea. And, of
course, Egypt has a very key role, both in the Arab world — it’s
the most important Arab country — and also in Africa.
Now Egypt has one big problem — it’s the demographic
problem. People say that Egypt is overpopulated. That’s not true.
Egypt is not overpopulated. Cairo is overcrowded! Ninety million
people live on only 5% of the land of Egypt; 95% of the land of
Egypt is empty. It’s not used, but it’s not overpopulated. The
United States and Europe have been financing the Egyptian
government with hundreds of millions of dollars for family
planning, so that women will have fewer children. But no projects
were built to expand Egypt’s economic potential to accommodate to
the new generations, so that they can have new agricultural and
urban centers out in the desert!
After I was in Egypt last year, I wrote a report for a major
economic conference in Egypt to attract investment; but these are
the ideas which came out of both the conference, and my
observations about Egypt’s role in the New Silk Road. In Egypt,
people were very negative to the idea of the New Silk Road,
because they said that the transshipment on the Silk Road will
take away trade from the Suez Canal — that shipments will go
from Asia to Europe by land, and we will lose. So there are a lot
of people in Egypt who are actually against the idea. But I was
telling people, “Look. It’s not about trade. If you have economic
development, you will need more Suez Canals to accommodate the
trade. But if the world economy is not growing, there is no
development, there will be no trade. And people will compete on
attracting trade into other areas.”
So the idea is to develop Egypt’s economy, but also
contribute to more development and more trade among nations. And
it’s in utilizing Egypt’s position to connect to Sub-Saharan
Africa, to North Africa, the Middle East, and to the Arabian
Peninsula. Interestingly, after I was in Egypt, last week the
Saudi King was in Egypt, and they decided to build this bridge.
At Sharm el-Sheikh, there is a connection over the Gulf of Aqaba.
I think that the Egyptian President invited the Saudi King to
support the building of this bridge between the Saudi territories
and southern Sinai, which will turn Sinai from an isolated area,
suddenly into becoming the center between two major economies.
There are now big problems in Egypt, because the President
made a terrible mistake by conceding sovereignty over the Tiran
and Sanafir islands to the Saudis. There was a dispute between
the two countries for many years, but President el-Sisi suddenly
declared that they are Saudi islands, and now there is a big
uproar in Egypt. And the mistake was that there was no public
discussion about it. The parliament didn’t have anything to say
about this. So, now there will be a review of the agreement. But
the idea of this project is very important.
Now, for Egypt to get out of that demographic box, is for
Egypt to expand its economic activities into the desert. This is
the development corridor proposed by Dr. Farouk El-Baz, who is a
space scientist, and he is right now an advisor to the President.
And he designed this idea of creating the new valley, the new
Nile Valley, by building railways, roads, and new urban centers.
I added these green zones, because these are actually becoming
new agricultural areas that the Egyptian government wants to
invest in, by creating new farmlands — they are talking about 4
million acres of land, and settling young people into these
regions, and building new agro-industrial centers. But what is
needed is to extend the development corridor, the black line,
into the economic zones.
This is the Africa Pass. One of our Egyptian friends, an
engineer, presented this at our conference in 2012, it’s the same
idea, connecting Egypt to North Africa, to Europe, and into the
Great Lakes region of Africa. Now, the Great Lakes region
countries, like Rwanda, Burundi, the eastern Congo, Uganda, they
have massive problems of economic development, also because they
are very far from the transport corridors of the world. We wrote
a series of reports two years ago about the cost of shipment of a
container. The Danish shipping company A.P. Møller-Mærsk has
statistics that the cost of a shipment of a container from
Singapore to Alexandria is $4,000, to Mombasa in eastern Kenya,
it becomes $5,000; but to the capital of Uganda, it goes to
$8,000, because there are no good roads to ship that container!
Into Rwanda and Burundi it reaches $10,600 per container. So they
cannot bear the cost of shipment of containers that maybe have
technology inside them, and machines, and that is a major problem
for these so-called land-locked countries. So you need to have
new lines of transport which will reduce the cost of the
transport.
Now these are ideas which the African nations, the African
Union, have had for many years. There are many very nice plans,
but the attitude of the rest of the world to Africa, because
Africa, by itself, does not have the technology, at least, to
build these projects, and there has been no willingness in
Europe, or the United States, to finance, or contribute to
building the projects proposed in any of these major reports, to
integrate the infrastructure of Africa and enhance economic
development. Because without infrastructure, you cannot have
economic development.
But some of these lines are now coming on the agenda, thanks
to the intervention of the BRICS nations, and also of China. For
example, the Cairo-Cape Town highway idea, President Jacob Zuma
of South Africa, presented this actually twice at the BRICS
summit in 2013 and 2014, and he said, “This is a crucial, a key
element in the development of Africa. We need to work with the
BRICS nations and China, Russia and India to build these
projects.” There are 400 road and rail projects involved in this.
But this is a big challenge, both in terms of financing, and in
terms of technology.
There is also the possibility of connecting the river
systems of Africa for river transport, like in Europe, the
Main-Rhine-Danube Rivers are an important transport artery, and
development artery. In the same way, you can connect the Nile to
the Great Lakes, to the Zambezi River through a number of canals,
and so-called trans-modal transport systems, where you can ship
from rivers to rail, and back to rivers, to lakes, and so on, in
an easy way.
Filling the gap which the United States and Europe have left
for many, many years, now the Chinese–. Well, in Europe, we
have a very problematic and twisted relationship to poverty, to
poor countries, to underdeveloped countries. Europeans look at
Africa as a burden. It’s a problem. How do we solve this problem?
But the problem is that the whole focus has been on aid,
emergency relief, and so on, and so forth, but that really
doesn’t solve problems. I mean, people talk about genocide. In
Africa, every year there are 4 million children who die. Now,
talk about a war crime. There are 700,000 children before the
age of five who die every year in Africa. So, you cannot solve
these problems with small aid projects here and there. You need
to think big. You need to provide those people with adequate
transport, electricity, water systems, and this cannot be done by
so-called aid programs. In Africa 600 million people don’t have
access to electricity, out of 1 billion.
But you look at the Chinese, when they look at an
underdeveloped country, they see an opportunity. They see
potential. They see a “win-win” strategy — new markets, new
areas of development, and they should intervene in that
situation.
It is the same idea that President Franklin Roosevelt of the
United States had. All of his fights with Churchill were exactly
about this problem. Roosevelt told Churchill in the middle of
World War II, that you British are very stupid, because you suck
the blood of the Africans, and you get pennies, you get nothing,
by sucking their blood. But if you develop Africa, as independent
nations, as modern nations, as we did with the United States,
then you will gain much, much more; if you treat them as humans,
if you develop their infrastructure, schools and hospitals.
And this is exactly what the Chinese are thinking about. Out
of the problem, they see an opportunity. Prime Minister Li
Keqiang was in East Africa, and also Nigeria in May 2014, and
immediately said, “We want to help Africa to connect all the
capitals with railways,” which is a big deficit problem. And they
started from East Africa. And now there are projects being built
from Lamu, a new port, into the land-locked South Sudan, into
Uganda, into Rwanda and Burundi. And China is both financing
major parts of this, but also contributing to building it, to
solve the problems of the land-locked countries and the need for
development.
China recently completed, it’s not running yet, but part of
the railway is running, from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. There is an
old railway, which is not functional, built by the French
colonialists, but now there is a new, electrified railway, which
goes from Djibouti to Addis Ababa.
Two interesting things about this railway are, firstly, that
Ethiopia is always associated with famine and food problems. Some
of these problems still exist. These are on the way to being
solved, but to bring food from the ports to inside the country
usually took two months, because of the lack of infrastructure.
So starving people could not have food in time. Even if the food
existed in the port, coming from around the world to Djibouti, it
was almost impossible to bring the food to the people who needed
it. Now, that food can be shipped in 10 hours, to the capital,
and also to other areas. The other interesting fact about this
railway is that China is not just building the railway, and
financing it, but training and educating engineers and workers to
run these systems.
Now, Ethiopia has a massive infrastructure plan for
connecting all the major cities of Ethiopia, with the railway and
roads. The other thing about the railway is that it is all
electrified. And the Ethiopians will use all these new dams they
are building, to electrify the railway. So they don’t need import
oil, and gas and diesel to run the railway system. They will
domestically provide the energy to run the trains.
So, Ethiopia, I am very sure it will never be associated
anymore with famine and poverty. Ethiopia is a great nation, a
very proud nation. They have massive resources, but these
resources have been dormant, have not been utilized. But now,
with the Chinese intervention, and also India is active there,
these resources will be developed.
This is just a metaphorical picture. This is the
Mombasa-Nairobi railway being built by a Chinese and a Kenyan
worker. In Africa, the propaganda goes that the Chinese never let
the locals work in these projects. They bring their own workers,
they bring their own engineers, their own technology, they build
the thing, and then they leave. It’s not true. They always
involve local workers. They train them, because they cannot run
these systems; the locals will have to run these systems
themselves.
But they are also training the labor force in Uganda. They
are building an Army Corps of Engineers, so that the Army can
play a positive role in the development of the country.
Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers played a very
important role, even in advanced countries. So this is part of
the same project.
Another important infrastructure project for Africa is
Transaqua. Lake Chad is drying up, which is a known fact, and 30
million people are affected, because they live as fishermen, or
they have grazing land around the lake in Chad and Nigeria, and
Niger. All these countries are affected. There are 30 million
people around that region, and there will be massive migration
actually from the Lake Chad region. So there is an idea called
Transaqua, which was developed by one of our friends, an Italian
engineer, to bring 5% of the water from the Congo River, or the
tributaries of the Congo River, and build a 2,800 km.-long canal
into the Chari River, and then flow downwards into Lake Chad, to
refill the lake; but also to have a new economic zone, and build
the Mombasa-Lagos highway, which was one of the plans I showed
earlier.
So you can transform that part of Africa, which in people’s
minds is a complete jungle, into a new economic zone, but also to
bring water to the Lake Chad region.
Now, there are some other issues I want to address. One of
the big deficits of course in Africa, is the energy consumption.
And as I said not everybody has that; the average international
level of energy consumption is about 2,800 [kw?] but that’s not
equal. The only two countries which are exception are South
Africa and Libya, before that. So the energy needs in Africa are
{enormous}! I mean Africa has a lot of wealth, but also the
hydropower potential which has never been built. But the
attitude of the Western countries, like the Obama administration,
they have something called “Power Africa Initiative,” that
certain nations in Africa will get energy provided. But they’re
not talking about hydropower, they’re not talking about nuclear
power, they’re not talking about coal or gas or so on. They’re
talking about so-called “renewable” or “sustainable energy.” And
the International Energy Agency has a criteria for access to
energy, which is a modern access to energy is about 100kw-hours
per year per person. And this diagram shows very ironically,
that that amount will be consumed by an American in three days!
But they expect Africans to live with that for a whole year!
Here’s just one more ironical idea: My refrigerator can consume
many times as much as an Ethiopian individual.
These are the criteria for President Obama’s Power Africa
plan, that the plan will eventually help these nations come to
this line, while the real needs are that big now, and they will
be that big in a few years. So, all these ideas to help Africa
from the Obama administration, they’re not adequate! It’s just a
complete bluff. It does not help, if you just look at the
numbers.
And this is also another irony of the Obama administration
policy. These are the sources of energy for the American people,
the American economy, and these are what the Obama administration
{doesn’t} want you to do. So it’s “do as we say, not as we do.”
So the United States produced 37% of its energy from coal, that’s
forbidden for Africa; 30% produced by natural gas, that’s a very
suspicious policy, because there’s the carbon problem; 19%
nuclear — absolutely no nuclear for Africa; 7% hydropower — the
United States is very suspicious of hydropower projects, and so
on and so on. So what is left is solar, so-called geothermal,
and biomass, which the United States produced only 0.1% of its
needs. But that’s recommended for Africa. [laughter]
So anyway, the idea is that if Africa joins the new paradigm
shift, African nations, they have exactly, in African families
and African individuals, they have exactly the same needs as we
have; as we have in Europe or in the United States. There is
absolutely no difference. So they’re trying to convince the
Africans that they should just, maybe, if they’re lucky they
could get a lightbulb at home, so the kids can read, by having a
solar battery. They will not bite!
I mean, if you bring electricity to a village, what people
will do, is not simply have a lightbulb, if you bring electricity
to a village, — and one of our friends made a study in India —
is that people will start to want to use new devices. They have
to have other appliances at home, you need to have a stove, so
women don’t have to many hours and cut trees and come home and
cook with the wood, and suffocate with the smoke. Farmers will
have to have tractors. They will need to have workshops which
use electricity; people will want to have TV sets, computers.
They want to build industrial projects. They will need
refrigeration which is a big problem in Africa, because most of
the food produced in the Sub-Saharan goes wasted because there’s
no refrigeration.
So just to give yourself an illusion that you will provide
every African lightbulb, just forget about it! Because the needs
of those people are so immense, and they will not give up on
their right to have a living standard which is similar to ours.
Why shouldn’t they have it? And this is what — here, in the
ideology in Europe and the United States I know, they should not
have this kind of technology, they should not have this kind of
development in Africa, because that’s not “sustainable.” Which is
not true. It is sustainable, if you provide the tools and the
technology to do that. Actually in Africa, there are more
resources than in Japan or in the United States and Europe, to
sustain industrial development!
So the problem is in the policy. The problem is how they
look at Africa, and how they look at the problem of poverty and
so on. And that has also to change, exactly as we changed with
geopolitics, we have to change our attitude to the problems of
Africa, and have really the right methods to solving them, and
treating African nations as equal to us, and African families as
equal to us, and African individuals as equal to us.
Nobody here will give up their living standard, and live in
the forest — maybe some people who do, there are some Danes and
Norwegians… [laughter] But we want to have education. We want
to have warm housing, we want to have clean water; we want to
have a future for our kids; we want to have trains which go on
time. This is what the Africans want. You know, there’s nothing
different, we’re all one human race!
So, when you design policy and you say, “No, Africans should
have ‘sustainable energy,’ not nuclear power,” then you are
breaking with that idea of a real human family and equality. So
I think I’ll stop here. [applause]
Dias til talen:
Schiller Instituttet og Executive Intelligence Review holdt et seminar mandag den 18. april 2016 på Frederiksberg på engelsk.
Inkl. en diskussion om EIR’s specialrapport Den Nye Silkevej Bliver til Verdenslandbroen
Introduktion:Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark
Musik:
Fischerweise af Schubert
Ritorna Vincitor! fra Aida af Verdi
Leena Malkki, soprano fra Sverige
Dominik Wijzan, pianist fra Poland
Teksterne på originalsprogene med engelsk oversættelse
Video: Introduktion og musik
Talere: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets internationale præsident, kendt som “Silkevejsdamen” (via Skype video)
Video: Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Audio: Introduktion, musik og Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Afskrift: Et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden: Afskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale
Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Mellemøsten og Afrika: Hussein Askary, EIR’s Mellemøstredaktør, som lige har oversat den arabiske version af rapporten.
Den Nye Silkevej og den iranske rolle; Hr. Abbas Rasouli, først sekretær på Irans ambassade i Danmark.
Video: Hussein Askary og Hr. Abbas Rasouli.
Audio: Hussein Askary og Hr. Abbas Rasouli
Afskrift: Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Sydvestasien og Afrika: Afskrift af Hussein Askarys tale
Afskrift: Den Nye Silkevej og Irans rolle: Afskrift af Hr. Abbas Rasoulis tale
Mere om Den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen på dansk:
Specialrapport: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Den Nye Silkevej fører til menneskehedens fremtid! Oktober 2014
Den kommende fusionsøkonomi baseret på helium-3. En introduktion til en kommende EIR-rapport om Verdenslandbroen.
BYG VERDENSLANDBROEN FOR VERDENSFRED
Helga Zepp-LaRouche var taler ved et seminar for diplomater, der blev afholdt i Det russiske Kulturcenter i København den 30. januar 2015, med titlen: »Økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde mellem nationer, eller økonomisk kollaps, krig og terror? Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Nyhedsorientering febr. 2015.
Tema: Den Islamiske Renæssance var en Dialog mellem Civilisationer, af Hussein Askary
Genopbygningsplan for Syrien: Projekt Fønix: Diskussionspunkter om Syriens genopbygning
Link: Homepage about the EIR report The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge
The English, Arabic and Chinese versions of EIR's report are available from EIR and The Schiller Institute in Denmark.
Prices for the 400-page report:
English: printed 500 kr.; pdf. 300 kr.; Arabic: printed 500 kr.; Chinese: pdf. 300 kr.
Please contact tel. 53 57 00 51 or 35 43 00 33, or si@schillerinstitut.dk
Invitation:
Terror in Europe, and elsewhere. Waves of refugees leaving countries racked by war and economic ruin, from Afghanistan to Africa. Threats of financial crash in the trans-Atlantic region. Dangers of escalating confrontation and war against Russia and China. Is there any hope for the future?
The Schiller Institute and Executive Intelligence Review, led by the ideas and efforts of Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, have been working for decades to create a paradigm shift, away from "geopolitics," to a new era of cooperation between sovereign nations, based on an ambitious infrastructure-driven economic development strategy — a plan for lasting peace through economic development.
In 2013, this New Silk Road and Eurasian Land-Bridge strategy was adopted by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who called it the “One Belt, One Road” policy, which now includes agreements with 60 countries. In addition, the economic development alliance among the BRICS countries, and the establishment of new credit institutions, constitute an alternative in the making.
In December 2014, EIR published a ground-breaking special report in English, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, the sequel to its 1996 report, which elaborates the new set of economic principles needed for world economic development. The Chinese version was issued in 2015.
Now, if there is to be a solution to the heart-wrenching suffering of the people of the Middle East and Africa, and the effects of the crisis in Europe, the New Silk Road must be extended to those regions, on its way to becoming the World Land-Bridge. The recent negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State Kerry (despite opposition from other factions in the Obama administration), and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, regarding Iran and Syria, have also helped to create the political preconditions for such a new “Marshall Plan” to immediately come into effect.
There are already moves in that direction. An example of “win-win” cooperation was demonstrated during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, where he confirmed China’s support for real economic development in the region, backed up by $55 billion in loans and investments.
And on March 17, the Arabic version of EIR's report was presented in Cairo by Egyptian Transportation Minister Dr. Saad El Geyoushi, and EIR Arabic desk chief Hussein Askary, who translated the report, at a well-attended launching at the Ministry. An expanded chapter on proposals to rebuild Southwest Asia is included.
The Copenhagen seminar will present the vision of a new paradigm, instead of geopolitics, terror, war and economic collapse. Mustering the creative efforts of populations collaborating to rebuild their nations, is the only way forward.
We hope that you will be able to attend this important seminar, and join in the discussion about how this alternative can be brought about.
Links:
Here are links to information about EIR's March 24, 2016 Frankfurt seminar, co-sponsored by the Ethiopian consulate, including the speeches of Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Hussein Askary.
Report about the Frankfurt seminar
Homepages:
Danish: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com
www.schillerinstitute.org
www.larouchepub.com/eiw
Arabic: www.arabic.larouchepub.com/
Other languages: Click here
Søndag aftens ’60 Minutter’ – eksposé af den saudiske rolle i de originale 11. september angreb og Bush- og Obama-administrationernes dække over de 28 sider, har forårsaget total panik i det Hvide Hus, i Riyadh og i London. Med krav fra både tidligere formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Pelosi og senator Kristen Gillebrand (D-NY) om, at Obama omgående af-klassificerer de 28 sider, har presset på Obama og det anglo-saudiske apparatur, som han og Bush har beskyttet i de sidste 15 år, nået en tærskel.
Obamas medskyld i at dække over det saudiske monarkis forbrydelser mere end overstiger målet for omgående rigsretssag og afsættelse. ’60 Minutter’–udsendelsen har været parat til at gå i luften i månedsvis, og det faktum, at showet blev sendt ti dage før Obamas planlagte besøg i Saudi Arabien for at mødes med GCC ledere, er en indikation af, at voksende magtfaktorer har erkendt, hvad Lyndon LaRouche erklærede så tidligt som i april 2009: At Obama er et redskab for det britiske monarki og deres saudiske slagtere, og at selve USA’s overlevelse er i fare for hver dag han forbliver i embedet.
’60 Minutter’-dokumentaren inddrog et antal veletablerede nationale sikkerheds-veteraner fra forhenværende flådesekretær John Lehman til tidligere CIA direktør Porter Goss og forhenværende senator Bob Graham, der alle forlangte en øjeblikkelig frigivelse af de 28 sider. Medlem af kongressens fælles undersøgelsesudvalg Tim Roemer pegede på tidligere FBI direktør Robert Mueller, som en af nøglefigurerne bag tilsløringen af den saudiske rolle.
’60 Minutter’-afsløringen gik I luften blot en uge efter frigivelsen af ’Panama-papirerne, ‘ der afslørede det virkeligt beskidte ømme punkt i det britiske imperium: ‘offshore’ penge-centrene, der hvidvasker narko- og andre former for sorte penge samt styrer skatteunddragelse og anden kriminalitet. Som Lyndon LaRouche har gjort det klart igennem årtier, er det britiske imperium et kriminelt oligarki opsat på befolkningsmord. Nu findes der 11 millioner sider med beviser imod det London-centrerede kriminelle og morderiske imperium.
Dette ‘et-to stød’ til hjertet af oligarkiet kommer endvidere på et tidspunkt, hvor briterne er desperate for at starte en verdenskrig imod Rusland og Kina, som en respons på det faktum, at deres system er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. Obama er deres ynkelige instrument i denne stræben efter krig, og hans fjernelse fra embedet er på nuværende tidspunkt den eneste ægte løsningsmodel for at undgå krig.
Kampen om de 28 sider er nu nået til et punkt, hvor den kan bringe Obama og hele det rådne anglo-saudiske system til fald. Det er på tide!
Kampagnen for frigivelse af de 28 siger får nu også prominent dækning i Europa, som for eksempel på det velkendte franske sikkerhed- og forsvars website Dedefensa.org, der er baseret i Belgien. Dets omfattende dækning begynder med en rapport om ”60 minutter” exposéen: ”I søndags steg det politiske og folkelige pres for en af-klassificering af de famøse 28 sider fra den oprindelige amerikanske regeringsrapport om 11. september skarpt. Det skete med udsendelsen af et TV-program, for første gang med et stort nationalt publikum – ’60 Minutter’ med CS’s Steven Kroft som vært, et program, der helt og holdent var helliget spørgsmålet om 11. september. Det er en vigtig sejr for en offentligt lanceret bevægelse, udenfor politiske netværk……”
Link til udsendelsen på dansk TV:
Link til “60 minutter” programmet på DR TV
D. 11. april, 2016 – En tværpolitisk række af ledende medlemmer fra de to større undersøgelser af angrebene d. 11. september optrådte i det amerikanske Tv-program ”60 minutter” søndag aften, og opfordrede til frigivelse af hemmelige dokumenter, der viser Saudi Arabiens medvirken i angrebene. Programmet blev udsendt umiddelbart før Barack Obamas sidste præsidentbesøg i Saudi Arabien i næste uge, og samtidig med en presseerklæring fra Kongressens demokratiske leder Nancy Pelosi med opfordring til frigivelse af de hemmelige ”28” sider af Kongressens undersøgelse af 11. september.
Dagsordenen for Obamas “kronings-“visit til hans krigsallierede er nu uden tvivl blevet ”vanskeliggjort.” Det saudiske wahabit-monarkis kongelige ambassade i Washington, der er svækket og ikke så affærdigende som ved tidligere eksponeringer af 11. september, tog øjeblikkeligt afstand fra udsendelsen, der blev betegnet som ”en sammenskrivning af myter og fejlagtige anklager, der allerede er blevet grundigt adresseret, ikke alene af den saudiske regering, men også af 11. september Kommissionen, og de amerikanske domstole.”
I årene siden Obama første gang lovede familierne til ofrene for 11. september at han ville af-klassificere de 28 sider, har han og saudierne gået hånd i hånd i så meget katastrofalt og folkemorderisk krigsførelse – og gør det stadig –, at en afsløring af saudisk ansvar for angrebene d. 11. september ville være en dynamit-anklage, der tillige ville ramme London. Segmentet i ”60 minutter” begyndte med præcist at fastslå, at der er ”dyb mistillid” mellem de krigsallierede, hvoraf en del er opstået på grund af den åbenlyse saudiske støtte til sunni-jihadistgrupper og terrorist-ideologier verden over.
Og til sidst må retfærdigheden dog ske fyldest for ofrene for 11. september. Medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Peloci udtalte, at ”Som tidligere højtplaceret demokrat i Husets Efterretningskommité, der undersøgte angrebene d. 11. september, er jeg enig med tidligere senator Bob Graham i, at disse dokumenter skulle af-klassificeres og gøres offentlige.” Graham sagde på CBS-udsendelse, at flykaprerne nødvendigvis må have haft opbakning indenfor USA, og da han blev spurgt, ”Tror De, at der var støtte fra Saudi Arabien?” svarede han, ”i betydelig grad,” og indikerede, at han medregnede den saudiske regering. Medlemmerne af 11. september Kommissionen, pensioneret admiral John Lehman, forhenværende senator Bob Kerrey og U.S. repræsentant Tim Roemer bekræftede alle, at de fleste medlemmer af begge undersøgelser – inklusiv deres ledere – ønsker de 28 sider af-klassificeret af Obama. Og det gør familierne og EIR ikke mindre.
Mest bemærkelsesværdig var Kerrey’s bemærkning. Den saudiske regering har i 14 år påberåbt sig en enkelt sætning i 11. september Kommisionsrapporten om, ”at den ikke fandt bevis for, at ledende saudiske officials stod bag angrebene.” Til trods for den ekstreme og overlagte tvetydighed i ordet ”ledende”, har saudierne offentligt, og ved amerikanske domstole, hævdet, at Kommissionen fritog dem for skyld. Kerrey sagde ligeud til værten på ”60 minutter” Steve Kroft, ”Nej, vi fritog ikke saudierne for skyld”.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
29. februar 2016 – Generalløjtnant Sergei Kuralenko, chef for det russiske militære koordinationscenter i Latakia, sagde i går, at, ikke alene var der indløbet rapporter om, at Tyrkiet havde skudt ind over grænsen ind i Tel Abyad, men også, at skønsmæssigt 100 militante kæmpere var krydset over grænsen fra Tyrkiet og ind i Syrien for at tilslutte sig et ISIS-angreb på landsbyen. Tel Abyad, der ligger omkring 70 km øst for Kobani, blev tilbageerobret af det kurdiskanførte Folkets Beskyttelsesenheder (YPG) og hermed allierede arabiske militser i juni måned 2015. Den russiske rapport kom tilsyneladende fra YPG, der hævdede at have slået ISIS-angrebet tilbage.
Den russiske viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov udstedte i dag en ligefrem advarsel til, og om, Tyrkiet. Det er meget farligt, at Tyrkiet »ikke har forladt ideen om angreb hen over grænsen … for at skabe visse zoner på syrisk territorium langs den tyrkiske grænse«, sagde Ryabkov. »Vi har tidligere set eksempler, hvor følelserne rent faktisk løb af med dem, der traf beslutningerne i Tyrkiet.« Hvis dette skulle ske under våbenstilstanden, »kunne det udvikle sig til en tidsindstillet bombe, der ville afstedkomme, ikke en forsinket, men en omgående handling. Jeg ønsker at advare mine tyrkiske kolleger imod dette«, sagde han.
Unavngivne tyrkiske regeringsfolk benægtede, at de skulle have beskudt Tel Abyad; men i dag indrømmede andre derimod, at der var blevet skudt hen over grænsen ind i Azaz og hævdede, at deres mål er ISIS og ikke de kurdiske YPG-styrker, der er omfattet af våbenstilstanden.
Den saudiske udenrigsminister Adel al-Jubeir anklagede også Rusland og den syriske regerings luftvåben for at overtræde våbenstilstanden og sagde, at Riyadh diskuterede spørgsmålet med internationale magter. Under en pressekonference med den danske udenrigsminister [Kristian Jensen] i Riyadh sagde al-Jubeir, at der ville foreligge en »Plan B«, hvis det blev klart, at den syriske regering og dens allierede ikke var seriøse mht. våbenstilstanden, selv om han ikke kom med nogen detaljer. Virkeligheden er den, at saudierne ikke har magt til at gennemtvinge nogen Plan B.
Foto: Den saudiske og danske udenrigsminister, hhv. Adel al-Jubeir og Kristian Jensen, under den fælles pressekonference i Riyadh, 28. februar 2016.