31. juli 2016 (Leder) – Det Britiske Imperiums oligarker, både dem i London og dem i Washington og på Wall Street, er i panik. Obama begynder at smuldre, alt imens forsøget på at skabe et præsidentvalg i USA ud af lort har skabt en sådan stank, at hele partisystemet er ved at falde fra hinanden. På den anden side har Vladimir Putin bevist, at han er en sand leder for mennesker og nationer, og som er i stand til at handle på en måde, som den store tyske digter Friedrich Schiller, der engang var kendt i Amerika som »Frihedens Poet«, identificerede som, at vi på én og samme tid må være patrioter for vores nation og verdensborgere.

Obama, så vel som Bush, Cheney og Tony Blair, er blevet afsløret som krigsforbrydere og kolleger til det britisk/saudiske terrorapparat, gennem en kombination af Chilcot-kommissionens rapport i Storbritannien og offentliggørelsen af det hidtil hemmeligholdte, 28-sider lange kapitel af den Fælles Kongres-efterretningsrapport om terrorangrebet i USA den 11. september [2001].

I dag sagde Lyndon LaRouche, at »vindersiden allerede er blevet afgjort – ikke fuldstændigt, men i det væsentlige – under Putins ledelse. Putin har udført den opgave, han havde forpligtet sig til at udføre, og nu, hvor et voksende antal andre personer, især i Tyskland, støtter ham, er sejren bogstavelig talt for hånden. Putin har fortjent den«.

Ikke sådan, at Obama-klonerne ikke gør deres bedste for at starte en atomkrig. Tidligere forsvarsminister i Obamas regering og chef for CIA, Leon Panetta, sagde i sidste uge til det Demokratiske Konvent, at Putin var en »diktator«, som Hillary Clinton vil vide at håndtere. Panettas stabschef i både CIA og DOD, Jeremy Bash, en toprådgiver til Hillary Clinton, gik direkte til selveste ’Babylons Hore’, i et eksklusivt interview med Londonavisen The Telegraph, hvor han grundlæggende set erklærede krig mod det i stigende grad succesfulde samarbejde mellem Ruslands præsident Putin, den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov og USA’s udenrigsminister John Kerry om at besejre terrorisme i Syrien og på globalt plan, og således yderligere demonstrerer den totale splittelse i Obamaregeringen. Bash sagde, at Clinton vil arbejde for at tvinge præsident Bashar al-Assad »ud derfra«, og at en præsident Hillary Clinton som første punkt på sin dagsorden ville gennemføre en total »revidering af politikken over for Syrien«. Planen er her at sabotere Kerry-Lavrov-initiativet nu og her, ikke engang i fremtiden i løbet af den næste regering, ligesom også den nuværende forsvarsminister Ashton Carter i sidste uge modarbejdede Kerrys indsats sammen med Lavrov og med bestemthed erklærede, at en fjernelse af Assad er hans (Carters) første prioritet, og at han først derefter vil bekymre sig om ISIS, al-Nusra eller andre terroristgrupper.

Men dette er alt sammen et svindelnummer, understregede LaRouche i dag. Hillary Clinton-krigsholdet har slet ikke den nødvendige kapacitet til at gøre det – som kun lige undlader at indlede Tredje Verdenskrig – som de truer med at gøre. Deres plan er simpelt hen at ødelægge alle skridt henimod et nederlag for de saudiskkontrollerede terrorister, samtidig med, at de desperat prøver at ødelægge det nye paradigme, centreret omkring det kinesisk-russiske partnerskab og den Nye Silkevejsproces med global udvikling. Det transatlantiske banksystem, der blev underkastet falske »stresstests« kl. 22 om aftenen sidste fredag, for at gøre det muligt hen over weekenden at sammenklistre en facade, bestående af en ny bail-out, står over for en eksplosion mandag morgen, eller snarest derefter. Imperiet stoltserer rundt i den bare skjorte.

De er ved at gå bankerot. I Kina i den forgangne weekend ko-sponsorerede flere førende institutioner, som forberedelse til G20 stats- og regeringschef-topmødet, der skal afholdes den 4. – 5. september i Kina, et T20 (Think-20) Forum, med 500 akademiske eksperter fra 25 lande, omkring temaet om »at opbygge nye, globale relationer – nye dynamikker, ny vitalitet og nye udsigter«. Blandt talerne var Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der talte om det presserende nødvendige i at »Opbygge nye, globale relationer« på basis af den Nye Silkevejs perspektiv om en »win-win«-udvikling for alle nationer, som det nødvendige grundlag for at afslutte den fremstormende trussel om global krig og i stedet implementere en ny æra med ægte fred og udvikling internationalt.

Lyndon LaRouche fremførte i dag med bestemthed, at vi må inspirere folk til at forstå deres eget intellekts kapacitet til at skabe en vision om fremtiden, til at se, hvor betydningsfulde deres liv er for menneskeheden mht. at opnå det, som vi ellers måske ikke vil opnå. »Vi er nu meget tæt på at vinde krigen imod det Britiske Imperium«, sagde han.

Han bemærkede også, at folk må opgive denne dødbringende mentalitet med at »være praktisk« (pragmatisk) i dette øjeblik, hvor civilisationen er i krise. LaRouche vil ikke stille op som præsidentkandidat, men han vil gøre alt, hvad der står i hans magt, for i den kommende periode at udforme en regeringspolitik.

Foto: »POTUS møder Rembrandt. Præsidenten kigger på ’Rembrandts selvportræt som apostlen Paulus’ under en rundvisning i Æresgalleriet på Rijksmusæet i Amsterdam, Holland.« 24. marts, 2014 (Officielt foto fra Det Hvide Hus af Pete Souza)

(POTUS = Præsident Of The United States)

30. juli 2016 – Den russiske viceforsvarsminister Anatoly Antonov gav udtryk for forsigtig optimisme i forbindelse med den russisk/syriske, humanitære indsats i Aleppo, i bemærkninger, som i går blev offentliggjort af det russiske Forsvarsministerium. Han understregede, at det russiske militær gjorde alt, hvad der stod i dets magt, for at afhjælpe den humanitære situation dér, efter at de havde omringet byen. Dette er faktisk operationens eneste mission, og Ruslands Udenrigs- og Forsvarsministerium havde allerede udsendt appeller til udenlandske modparter og organisationer om at tilslutte sig denne indsats. »Den indledende respons er ganske positiv«, sagde Antonov. »Organisationerne ’Læger uden Grænser’ og ICRC, så vel som også FN’s generalsekretær for kontoret for Syriens særlige udsending, Staffan de Mistura, har vist interesse for operationen.« Antonov bemærker samtidig, at »reaktionen fra visse medieagenturer og politiske personer, der har set en forklædt plan i de russiske handlinger, er overraskende«. Operationen er udelukkende af humanitær art, men det russiske militær, sagde han, »vil ikke på nogen betingelser tillade indstrømningen af våben til de regioner, der kontrolleres af de militante oprørere«.

De Misturas respons var imidlertid lidt mere kompliceret, end Antonovs fremstilling kan have indikeret. »Det er vores job«, sagde de Mistura om planerne om en korridor, under en pressekonference i Geneve, rapporterer Associated Press. Han gav udtryk for støtte »i princippet« til humanitære korridorer, men sagde, at det skulle finde sted »under de rette betingelser«. »Hvordan kan man forvente, at mennesker – i tusindvis – skal gå igennem en korridor, mens der stadig finder beskydning, bombning og kampe sted?« sagde de Mistura. Russerne ønsker imidlertid tydeligvis, at FN skal være involveret på jorden. »Vi vil grundigt analysere de Misturas initiativer, af hvilke mange fortjener støtte, og vi vil komme med vore kommentarer«, sagde Antonov. »Vi er parate til et tæt og konstruktivt samarbejde med alle internationale, humanitære organisationer og, naturligvis, med kontoret for FN’s særlige udsending til Syrien.«

Pentagons pressesekretær Peter Cook sagde i går, at den russiske operation i Aleppo gennemføres uden nogen koordinering med USA. Den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier sagde imidlertid, at den situation, der nu hersker i Aleppo, kræver, at USA og Rusland kommer til en eller anden form for gensidig forståelse. Han tilskyndede Rusland til at »få Assad-regeringen« til at samarbejde med FN og gøre det muligt at levere humanitær hjælp til Aleppo. »Situationen i Aleppo gør en gensidig forståelse mellem USA og Rusland endnu vigtigere«, sagde han, iflg. TASS. »Jeg håber, at de aktuelle forhandlinger mellem Washington og Moskva vil give resultater«, afsluttede han.

Alt imens det ikke står klart, hvad der sker på jorden med korridorerne – vestlige medier hævder, at ingen civile tager væk, og ingen militante kæmpere overgiver sig, mens alternative medier, såsom Al Masdar og Fars, rapporterer om det modsatte – så står det klart, at operationen fortsat er en indsats, der gør fremskridt. Russiske militæreksperter, som blev konsulteret af Sputnik, »advarer imod at være for optimistisk. Omringning, bemærker de, betyder ikke sejr«. Den form for by-krigsførelse, som et angreb på de tilbageværende dele af Aleppo, der kontrolleres af oprørerne, ville medføre, er vanskelig, farlig og absorberer en temmelig stor, militær indsats og en hel del militære ressourcer. Det er derfor, fremsatte en ekspert, at Damaskus og Moskva i stedet forsøger at overtale de militante kæmpere til at forlade Aleppo. »Hvis dette sker, vil en organiseret modstand ikke være mulig, og byen vil kunne indtages.« Tilbage står dog at se, om dette vil ske.

Foto: Det smadrede Aleppo, omkring første uge af juli.   

22. juli 2016 – I et gennemborende angreb på vestens igangværende politik i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, der har resulteret i endeløse krige, ødelæggelse af institutioner og tab af hundreder tusinder af liv, sagde den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov: »Det, der foregår i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, er et direkte resultat af en meget inkompetent og uprofessionel holdning til situationen.« Som TASS i dag rapporterer, sagde Lavrov: »I deres ønske om at bevare deres dominans, handlede vore vestlige partnere som en elefant i en porcelænsbutik. I Irak blev den voldelige afsættelse af regeringen annonceret under falske påskud. Partnere siger, ’lad os løse problemet med Libyen, Syrien og Irak, arrangere valg og udradere terror’. De siger, ’Først må vi fjerne Assad [den syriske præsident Bashar Assad], og så tager vi kampen op mod terror bagefter.’«

Idet han bragte katastrofen i Libyen på banen, påpegede Lavrov, at »der var en autoritær leder der [i Libyen], der også var ilde lidt, men der var ingen terrorister overhovedet under hans regime«. Lavrov fortsatte: »Og da han blev fjernet, blev Libyen forvandlet til et udklækningssted for terrorisme, og det i et land, gennem hvilket militante kæmpere og våben passerer mod syd [Afrika], mens de selvsamme migranter, der er et problem for Europa, rejser mod nord.«

Med et udfald mod amerikanere, der siger, »hvis det ikke er gået i stykker, så lad være med at fikse det«, bemærkede Lavrov, at Vesten gjorde det modsatte. »Irak var ikke knækket, Libyen var ikke knækket og Syrien var ikke knækket. De begyndte at fikse det og fik det, der nu foregår der«, sagde Lavrov iflg. TASS.    

20. juli 2016 – I en kommentar til det nylige tyrkiske kup sagde den amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche, at ideen om, at den tyrkiske præsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan skulle have iscenesat et falsk kup for at retfærdiggøre en udrensning af oppositionen imod ham, er vanvittig. I stedet sagde LaRouche, at man skulle se på den tjetjenske vinkel, hvor de afgørende britiske forbindelser skal findes. En gennemgang af de nylige begivenheder peger præcist i denne retning. LaRouche nævnte sit eget, direkte samarbejde med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin om bekæmpelse af de tjetjenske terrorister.

Den 27. juni sendte præsident Erdogan et brev til præsident Putin, hvor han undskyldte for Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk kampfly den 24. november 2015, hvor det blev påstået, at kampflyet krænkede tyrkisk luftrum. Dengang meddeltes det også, at Putin og Erdogan kunne mødes i den nærmeste fremtid, i august eller september. Inden for 24 timer, den 28. juni, blev Istanbuls Ataturk-lufthavn mål for et tredobbelt selvmordsbombeangreb, der dræbte flere end 40 mennesker og sårede flere end 200; bombemændene var tjetjenere, der hørte til Islamisk Stat (ISIS/ISIL), og de havde opereret i Syrien fra baser internt i Tyrkiet. Dette var første gang, at en tjetjensk ISIL-terrorcelle havde udført et selvmordsbombeangreb i Tyrkiet. I betragtning af timingen havde bombeangrebet tydeligvis forbindelset til den tyrkiske regerings plan om at normalisere relationerne til Rusland. Og siden dette bombeangreb er denne proces fortsat: Tyrkiet, der arresterer lejesoldaten fra de Tyrkiske Grå Ulve, der skød og dræbte en af piloterne fra det russiske kampfly, der var sprunget med faldskærm til sikkerheden på syrisk jord. Og nu, efter kupforsøget, har den tyrkiske regering arresteret de tyrkiske kamppiloter, der nedskød det russiske kampfly, og fremført deres involvering i kuppet.

I en diskussion over telefon mellem Erdogan og Putin blev det ligeledes besluttet, at de to ledere skulle mødes i august. Det skal understreges, at det tyrkiske militære efterretningsvæsens rolle, samt også de organisationers rolle, der har tilknytning til tyrkiske efterretningskredse, længe har haft forbindelser til russiske og tjetjenske terrorister – siden 1990’erne, hvor de tjetjenske krige imod Rusland blev forsynet og støttet fra tyrkiske og saudiske baser. Der er nu 1.500 tjetjenske flygtninge i Tyrkiet, hvoraf de fleste findes i en flygtningelejr uden for Istanbul og har udgjort en rekrutteringspulje til ISIL-kæmpere i Syrien.

Det er ligeledes en udbredt opfattelse, at den tyrkiske militære efterretningstjeneste har støttet tjetjenske jihadi-grupper, der opererer i Syrien. Der findes en enorm mængde af åbent kildemateriale herom, som vi ikke behøver gennemgå her; ikke desto mindre rapporteres det, at tjetjenere, der har været loyale over for Aslan Maskhadov, er den gruppe, som tyrkiske efterretningskredse foretrækker. Maskhadov var anfører for tjetjenerne i den første tjetjensk-russiske krig og blev dernæst præsident for den halvautonome Tjetjenske Republik efter en fredsaftale med den russiske regering. Dette brød hurtigt sammen og førte til endnu en krig, i hvilken Maskhadov også deltog. Han døde i 2005.

Som EIR har rapporteret det, så besøgte Maskhadov London i 1998, mens han var præsident for den kortlivede republik. Hans vært var den daværende finansminister fra det Konservative Parti, Lord McAlpine; han dinerede sammen med tidligere premierminister Baronesse Thatcher, og han talte for det Kongelige Institut for Internationale Anliggender/Chatham House. Han dinerede også med rektoren for Oriel College, Oxford, og han besøgte det Imperiale Krigsmuseum, med feldmarskal Lord Bramall som vært. Hans besøg blev arrangeret af Timothy Bell, også kendt som Lord Bell, der var rådgiver til Thatcher. Det siges, at Bell hyrede soldater, der ikke havde tjeneste, til at fungere som æresgarde, som om Maskhadov repræsenterede en suveræn stat.

16. juli 2016 – Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov lukkede sig inde til møder fra morgenen den 15. juli og til langt ud på aftenen, kun afbrudt én gang kl. 18 for i fællesskab at tage til den franske ambassade i Moskva for at underskrive kondolencebogen til ære for ofrene i lastbilsangrebet i Nice, Frankrig. Da de omsider dukkede frem til en fælles pressekonference, skete det for at rapportere, at de var blevet enige om en ramme for amerikansk-russisk samarbejde imod terrorisme i Syrien.

»I modsætning til tidligere møder, hvor vi plejede at opremse problemer i vore relationer, så enedes vi denne gang om at udarbejde en køreplan for muligvis små, men praktiske skridt, der tilsigter at rette op på en temmelig usund situation i vores bilaterale samarbejde«, sagde Lavrov. »Vi har bekræftet målet om at eliminere trusler, som udgøres af Islamisk Stat, Nusra Front og andre terrorgrupper, og at standse tilstrømningen af støtte til terrorisme fra udlandet «, tilføjede han.

Kerry sagde, at disse skridt, »hvis de blev gennemført i tillid, kan behandle to alvorlige problemer, som jeg netop har beskrevet, omkring afbrydelsen [krænkelser af våbenhvile fra både regeringen og al-Nusra]. Det er muligt at være med til at genoprette stilstanden af fjendtligheder, betydeligt reducere volden og hjælpe med at skabe rum for en ægte og troværdig politisk overgang.« Ingen af dem ville beskrive, hvad det er for skridt, de er enedes om, men Kerry understregede, at de ikke er baseret på tillid. »De udstikker specifikt definerede forpligtelser, som alle parter i konflikten må påtage sig, med den hensigt totalt at stoppe den tilfældige bombning af Assad-regimet og at optrappe vores indsats imod al-Nusra.«

Lavrov istemte og tilføjede, at FN’s Sikkerhedsråd og den Internationale Gruppe til Støtte for Syrien enstemmigt har identificeret ISIS og al-Nusra som terroristgrupper. »De har tidligere historiske eksempler på, at visse regeringer forsøgte at kurre behageligt til terrorister, bejlede til terrorister og brugte dem til deres egne formål, med den hensigt at vælte regeringer i andre lande«, og at denne indsats aldrig har fået gode resultater, som det ses i Afghanistan i 1980’erne, der førte til angrebene 11. september 2001 i USA, og i Libyen 11. september, 2011.

Foto: Udenrigsministrene Lavrov og Kerry lægger blomster ved den franske ambassade i Moskva, for at ære ofrene for terrorangrebet i Nice.  

28. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttets internationale todages konference samlede flere end 300 gæster fra 24 nationer og fire kontinenter til en intens og dybtgående dialog om, hvorledes den umiddelbare fare for en verdenskrig kan standses ved i stedet at skabe et nyt paradigme for globalt samarbejde og udvikling, baseret på en dialog mellem civilisationer og den menneskelige arts enestående kreativitet. Konferencedeltagerne var ekstremt opmærksomme på optrapningen af den vestlige, geopolitiske konfrontation mod Rusland og Kina og faren for atomkrig, og en resolution vedtoges, der krævede den omgående afslutning af sanktioner mod Rusland og Syrien. At gøre en ende på krigen og genopbygge det krigshærgede Syrien og hele det sydvestasiatiske område var et hovedfokus på konferencen, hvor dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, medlem af Syriens præsidentskab, talte til konferencens tilhørere og deltog i en bevægende, Spørgsmål & Svar-live stream.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Onsdag, 1. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der i Kina har fået tilnavnet ”Silkevejsladyen”, og som, sammen med Lyndon LaRouche, er den fremmeste promoter af denne politik i Europa, blev interviewet af TASS den 31. maj 2016 om at træffe valget mellem enten en ny, global krig, eller økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde.

TASS: Hvordan vurderer De det aktuelle, internationale samarbejde?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Der er to radikalt modsatrettede bevægelser på planeten netop nu. På den ene side mødes kombinationen af præsident Putins meget succesrige militære flanker, såsom hans intervention i Syrien, der skabte potentialet for fred, og så hans forskellige diplomatiske interventioner i Asien, parallelt med Kinas initiativer for Den Nye Silkevej.

Disse indsatser repræsenterer allerede et win-win-perspektiv for flere end 70 lande.

På den anden side finder der en ekstremt farlig konfrontation sted fra USA’s, Storbritanniens, EU’s og NATO’s side imod Rusland og Kina, der har bragt verden ind i multiple kriser, der er farligere end på højden af den Kolde Krig.

TASS: På hvilke områder er dette mere aktivt, og hvor er det ikke?

Zepp-LaRouche: Med hensyn til Syrien, så er samarbejdet mellem [den russiske] udenrigsminister Lavrov og [den amerikanske] udenrigsminister Kerry, såvel som også Genève-samarbejdet mellem Rusland og USA, meget positivt. Men så længe USA imidlertid ikke opgiver sin politik for ’regimeskift’, er situationen fortsat farlig. Præsident Putin har vist sig at være en fremragende strateg.

Dette giver tiltro til, at det ikke vil lykkes krigshøgene i NATO at lokke Rusland ind i en fælde og give NATO et påskud til et lancere et førsteangreb.

TASS: Omkring hvilke spørgsmål må vi optrappe samarbejdet mellem Vesten og Rusland, og hvorfor?

Zepp-LaRouche: Kendsgerningen er den, at hele den transatlantiske sektor er bankerot og tæt på at eksplodere på en større måde end i 2008. Den japanske premierminister Abe understregede, efter et meget vigtigt besøg i Rusland, klart dette ved det nyligt afsluttede G7-møde, men blev afvist af præsident Obama, der hævdede, at ”den økonomiske genrejsning går fremad”, hvilket er absurd i lyset af centralbankernes negative rentesatser og debatten omkring ”helikopter-penge” (ubegrænset pengetrykning, -red.).

Vesten har derfor mere end Asien brug for den form for økonomisk samarbejde, som samarbejdet om Ét bælte, én vej/den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union byder på, og som integrerer Eurasien fra Vladivostok til Lissabon, men som også inviterer USA til at deltage i dette perspektiv. Vi kan kun undgå en katastrofe, hvis det lykkes os at overvinde geopolitik og nå frem til et nyt paradigme, baseret på et partnerskab for global udvikling og menneskehedens fælles mål.

TASS: Hvorfor forhindrer Vesten i den grad samarbejde med Rusland, på trods af den åbenlyse terrortrussel, cyberkriminalitet og andre internationale udfordringer?

Zepp-LaRouche: Næsten alle betydningsfulde konflikter stammer fra det anglo-amerikanske imperiums indsats for at bevare en unipolær verden, på et tidspunkt, hvor denne verden de facto allerede er ophørt med at eksistere. Flere og flere kræfter i verden indser, at de må træffe eksistentielle beslutninger, og at deres nationers interesser er meget bedre tjent med at standse sanktionerne og konfrontationen imod Rusland og Kina.

Den kendsgerning, at Rusland og Kina har skabt et meget stærkt, strategisk partnerskab, med Indien som en tredje partner, har flyttet den strategiske balance i verden. Flere og flere lande ser det som langt mere gavnligt at samarbejde om fælles udvikling end at befinde sig under åget af en militær konfrontation. Vi befinder os på et punkt i historien, hvor der må vælges, og det, der tæller, er lederskab af den art, som vi har set komme fra præsident Putin.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del:

Lyd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

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

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.

Nyhedsorientering december 2014: Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen; Introduktion v/Helga Zepp-LaRouche

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.

Nyhedsorientering maj 2015 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Tale ved seminar i København: Den Nye Silkevej Kan Forhindre Krig

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:

Introduction to the arabic-version of EIR's report by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (in English, Arabic and Danish)

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 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's speech

Hussein Askary's speech 

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del (5 min)

Lydfil:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen.
Lydfilen er fra mandag den 21. marts, ikke den 25. marts, som der blev sagt.

19. marts 2016 – Efter at der nu er gået flere dage, siden den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin gav meddelelse om den delvise tilbagetrækning af russiske militærstyrker fra Syrien, er de mere generelle principper, der ligger bag dette træk, ved at blive åbenbare for relativt kompetente iagttagere. Fyodor Lukyanov, redaktør for Russia in Global Affairs, skrev i går en artikel i Huffington Post, hvor han går mere i detaljer med, hvorfor og hvordan, Putins strategi i Syrien har lagt fundamentet for en politisk afgørelse. Putin har gjort det, han sagde, han ville gøre lige fra begyndelsen, bemærker Lukyanov. Han bemærker desuden det fundamentale skel mellem det russiske og vestlige verdenssyn: »Fra Moskvas standpunkt kan kun støtte til legitime regeringer, selv de ikke-demokratiske, i det mindste sinke det overvældende kollaps af det regionale sikkerhedssystem og understøtte generel stabilitet. Alle ambitioner om at forbedre den måde, nationer regeres på, fører til ukontrolleret socio-politisk eksplosion og nedtagelse af institutioner, hvilket er den bedste måde at skabe et vakuum for terrorisme på. Den vestlige fremgangsmåde er den modsatte: autoritære og dermed ’onde’ regeringer bør erstattes af demokratiske, ’gode’ regeringer. Det er derfor, det russiske mantra lyder ’rør ikke ved det, der er tilbage’, alt imens det vestlige mantra er ’diktator må væk’. Dette er grunden til, at Ruslands fremgangsmåde over for Syrien var at styrke staten, i modsætning til de amerikansk anførte operationer for regimeskift.«

I henseende til at skabe betingelserne for en politisk afgørelse har Moskva ændret betingelserne på jorden. »Oppositionen har ikke længere noget håb om at vinde militært, og det samme gælder for regimet efter en eventuel exit af russiske tropper [selv om en iagttager påpeger, at der har været meget få russiske tropper på jorden, mens luftstøtte til den syriske hær fortsætter, -red.]. Moskva ønsker ikke at blive et gidsel for Damaskus’ politik, der søger at bevare status quo«, skriver Lukyanov.  »Men det er kun få i Moskva, der mener, at det nuværende syriske regime vil holde længe uden ændringer. Syrien har brug for dybtgående reformer for at genoprette staten. Og Moskvas beslutning om delvis at trække sig tilbage er også et signal til de syriske myndigheder om, at Rusland ikke vil gøre deres arbejde for dem.«

Krigen mod ISIS må nu vende sig mod en krig på jorden, ideelt set med en forenet indsats fra både regeringens og oppositionens styrker. »Men dette kan kun opnås gennem en politisk proces«, skriver Lukyanov. »Ved at intervenere i oktober viste Moskva oppositionen, at den ikke kan forvente at vinde denne krig«, konkluderer Lukyanov. »Ved nu her i marts at trække nogle styrker ud, sender Rusland det samme signal til regimet: det kan ikke forlade sig på russisk militærmagt for at vinde en total, militær sejr.« Syrien vil forandre sig, men det vil blive et Syrien, hvor Moskva kan indgå med alle parter, og dette vil give mulighed for en politisk afgørelse.

Den tidligere officer i MI6, Alistair Crooke, skrev også en artikel i Huffington Post og fremfører, at Ruslands tilbagetrækning ikke så meget er en tilbagetrækning, som det er en rotation af styrker, idet russiske styrker aktivt støtter den syriske hær dér, hvor den er i kamp mod ISIS. Men hvad så siden, man ønsker at kalde det, så er det »et temposkift, der med overlæg bruges til at metastasere politikken, til med et voldsomt stød at vælte politikken af sporet og ud på nye veje«. Efter Crookes mening kunne en kickstart af forhandlinger mellem parterne i konflikten være mindre vigtig for Putin end at fremtvinge reelt samarbejde fra USA’s side, men han har under alle omstændigheder opnået begge dele. »Putins tilbagetrækning – eller rotation – har utvivlsomt galvaniseret den politiske ramme på forskellig vis. Det lægger pres både på Damaskus og på de oppositionsgrupper, der deltager i Genève-forhandlingerne – med mindre hele den russiske luftstyrke af en eller anden grund skulle blive tvunget til vende tilbage«, skriver Crooke. »Mere end noget andet, pålægger det USA det ubehagelige ansvar at standse sine allieredes (Tyrkiet, Saudi-Arabien og Qatar) bevæbning og finansiering af deres stedfortrædere i denne krig.«

Crooke fortsætter med at sige, at der er en fælles tråd, der løber igennem både krisen i Ukraine og Syrien for Putin: at undgå en konfrontation med NATO og Vesten, men han antyder, at et arrangement i stil med Minsk-aftalerne ikke ville passe til Syrien. Syrien var før jihadiernes ankomst ikke en sekterisk nation, så den form for føderalisme, som Rusland gerne ser i Ukraine, ville ikke fungere i Syrien. Men den virkeligt interessante del af Crookes rapport er indikeringen af, at det intense, russiske arbejde for at skabe våbenstilstand på jorden – flere end 40 sådanne lokale våbenhviler er blevet underskrevet – i realiteten er en flanke imod saudiernes potentielle sabotage i form af den Høje Forhandlingskomite. »Hvis Genève-processen slår fejl, vil vi få en proces fra bunden og op at se i stedet«, skriver Crooke. Han burde have sagt det ligeud: denne indsats er en flanke imod den saudisk sponsorerede Høje Forhandlingskomite. »På basis af disse aftaler, af hvilke nogle er blevet forhandlet af FN og andre af den syriske regering, vil lokale valg sluttelig blive afholdt. Dernæst regionale valg. Dernæst valg til parlamentet. Forfatningen vil blive revideret. Og sluttelig vil præsidentvalg blive afholdt under international overvågning. Kort sagt, så ville syrere – både hjemme og i eksil – sluttelig træffe beslutning om deres egen styrelse.« For at dette skal kunne lade sig gøre, er det dog afgørende med tillid mellem USA og Rusland. Der er intet andet valg på bordet nu, hvor regimeskift er taget af bordet.

17. marts 2016 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin holdt i dag en tale i Kreml ved en ceremoni for præsentation af statsmedaljer til dem, der deltog i den militære operation i Syrien. Flere end 700 officerer, mænd og kvinder fra luftstyrkerne, styrker på jorden og flåden, deltog i ceremonien i Skt. Georgs Sal sammen med repræsentanter fra den militær-industrielle sektor.

Præsident Putin bekræftede, at russisk militærstøtte til Bashar al-Assads regering vil fortsætte, og at den russiske flygruppe hurtigt kunne deployeres tilbage til Syrien, om nødvendigt.

»Hvis det bliver nødvendigt, vil Rusland være i stand til at forstærke sin gruppe i regionen i løbet af få timer til en størrelse, der kræves i en specifik situation, og at bruge alle de tilgængelige muligheder«, sagde Putin. »Det er ikke noget, vi ville ønske at gøre. En militær eskalering er ikke vort valg. Derfor regner vi stadig med begge siders sunde fornuft, med tilslutning fra både de syriske myndigheders og oppositionens side til en fredelig proces.«

Den primære opgave for den tilbageværende russiske styrke i Syrien »er at overvåge våbenhvilen og skabe betingelser for en intern, politisk dialog i Syrien«, sagde Putin, inklusive elementer fra luftforsvaret for at forsvare dem. Han bekræftede også, at Rusland har hjulpet med at genoprette det syriske luftforsvars kapacitet, der tydeligvis er et meget skarpt budskab til Tyrkiet og andre magter, der stadig kunne have ambitioner i stil med Sykes-Picot i Syrien. »Vi går frem fra fundamentale, internationale normer: ingen har ret til at krænke et suverænt lands luftrum, i dette tilfælde Syrien«, sagde Putin. »Vi har, sammen med den amerikanske side, skabt en effektiv mekanisme for at forhindre hændelser i luften, men alle vore partnere er blevet advaret om, at vore luftforsvarssystemer vil blive brugt imod ethvert mål, som vi vurderer som en trussel mod russisk militærpersonel«, fortsatte han. »Jeg vil gerne understrege: ethvert mål.«

Russisk støtte til den syriske regering vil fortsætte i form af finansiel hjælp, forsyninger af udstyr og våben, hjælp til uddannelse og opbygning af syriske bevæbnede styrker, støtte til rekognoscering og hjælp til hovedkvarterer til planlægningsoperationer.

Mod slutningen af sin tale mindede Putin atter om Ruslands lektier fra Anden Verdenskrig, der har formet hans syn, som Lyndon LaRouche har påpeget, selv om Putin endnu ikke var født. Han bemærkede, at de nyeste russiske våben bestod prøven, ikke på øvelsesområder, men i ægte kamp. »Livet selv har vist, at de er en pålidelig garanti for vort lands sikkerhed«, sagde han, og dernæst, »Vi bør holde os de trusler for øje, der kommer, når vi ikke gør tingene til tiden; vi bør huske lektien fra historien, inklusive de tragiske begivenheder fra begyndelsen af Anden Verdenskrig og den Store Patriotiske Krig, den pris, vi betalte for fejltagelser i militæropbygning og planlægning, og manglen på nyt militærudstyr. Alt bør udføres til tiden, hvorimod svaghed, sjusk og forsømmelse altid er farligt.«

Foto: Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin sammen med udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov (venstre) og forsvarsminister Sergej Shoigu (højre). 

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Engelsk udskrift: I denne uge får vi en opdatering fra Kesha Rogers i Texas, som anfører en politik for en genoplivelse af det amerikanske NASA-rumprogram; Jason Ross fortsætter sagaen om Gottfried Leibniz; og Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches analyse af betydningen for fredsprocessen i Syrien af de seneste udviklinger, med den russiske militære tilbagetrækning.

– DELIGHT IN CREATING SURPRISES! –

International Webcast March 18, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's March 18th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to thank you for joining us
for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}; and Jason Ross,
from the LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined via video by
Kesha Rogers, multiple-time candidate for Federal office from the
state of Texas, and leading member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee.
All of us had a chance to meet with Mr. LaRouche, both in
person and via telephone connection (in the case of Kesha),
earlier this morning. Mr. LaRouche had some very definite and
specific ideas which he wished for us to convey. Mr. LaRouche was
{emphatic} when we met with him earlier today, that the global
agenda right now is being set by Russia and by China, and their
allies. He said that the initiative in creating the future and
shaping present global policy, lies with those two countries,
strategically — in the case of Russia, as is very clear with
what is occurring in Syria right now; and economically and
scientifically — in the case of China.
You can see very clearly that the outdated and archaic
methods of the trans-Atlantic system are proving to be impotent,
both in the case of resolving the current grave crises which are
facing mankind as a planetary species right now, but also
impotent in setting the agenda and fulfilling and laying out the
vision for the future of mankind. The mission which has been
undertaken by China, in terms of their objective to explore the
far side of the Moon — something which is going to be unfolding
over the coming two years — exemplifies the necessary identity
which mankind must have in order to affirm and to fulfill our
true nature as a creative species.
Mr. LaRouche stated that something that we should develop,
in dialogue with him and with each other, is to think about the
open questions, the unanswered questions about how is mankind, a
species, reflective of a much larger, and as yet not fully
understood, creative characteristic of the galactic system as a
whole. This is a relationship which Johannes Kepler drew out in
very unique detail in terms of his discoveries about our {Solar}
System, but we have many, many large and unanswered questions of
what is the role of the human species in our relationship to the
galactic system as a whole, and then the complex of galactic
systems as a much, much larger whole.
Mr. LaRouche said that this mission to explore the "dark
side" of the Moon, so-called, is a pathway in order to begin to
understand even the opening of the questions along these lines.
The dark side of the Moon, his hypothesis was, is where you can
find some of the shadows of this much larger system, have insight
into it, and also to begin to understand mankind's role as
reflective of these broader creative processes which are involved
in these great astronomical systems.
This is the spirit of the United States at our best. Our
republic was founded on these kinds of unique ideas, as we've
discussed here in previous weeks. The role of the great
philosopher and scientist Gottfried Leibniz is a major
contributor, a "founding father", or "founding grand-father" of
our republic. This is something which I know Jason Ross has
presented multiple times and is in the process of having a series
of developing classes on that subject; and I'm sure we'll be part
of his discussion later today.
But also, this is what you can see in a great statesman,
such as Abraham Lincoln — very, very much so. Franklin
Roosevelt; and John F. Kennedy. Tragically, that spirit in the
United States has deteriorated drastically. We see now that the
leadership does indeed lie with China and with Russia; and this
is something which Kesha Rogers, who is joining us here today,
wrote about in an editorial which is appearing in this week's
edition of the {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine. Kesha's
editorial is titled, "To Save the United States Economy, Revive
the Space Program."
Kesha and I had a brief conversation earlier this afternoon.
I know she has some broader ideas to develop on this subject, so,
without further ado, I would like to hand over the podium to
Kesha Rogers.

KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matt. I think I'd like to start,
first of all, by continuing to develop what has and must be the
focal point by which we come to understand the necessity for the
revival and the defense of, not just the American and U.S. space
program, which I have continued to be a leader in championing the
development and the necessity of our space program and what it
truly represents for the progress of all mankind. But just on the
editorial that I wrote, I think, to understand it, it's not just
from the standpoint of looking at the economic conditions of the
United States and some practical applications to economics that
the space program will provide; but we also have to look at it
from the standpoint of is, the space program as a true conception
of real economic value. This is what's actually missing from our
thinking and what has been attacked by the current Wall
Street/British imperial system, is that economic value is based,
from {that} standpoint, on monetary value and not on the creative
powers and progress of the human mind.
The real question at hand right now, is to bring about — as
we're seeing and will be developed further in these discussions
today — a new conception of what is the identity and what is the
purpose of mankind. I have continued to use the example and the
works of the great pioneer of space flight, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke; and looking at his conception of mankind as a
space-faring creature, as the understanding of mankind's
"extra-terrestrial imperative," as that which must be identified
and understood.
If you look at the conditions of the space program and why
it's so important, you take the example, for instance, of what
China is doing now, as completely rejecting this monetarist
policy; that the space program is not how much money you're going
to put into pet projects and specific projects. It is creating
something that's never been created before, to actually create a
new conception and identity of mankind, from the standpoint of
the idea of acting on the future.  That's what this idea and what
is being developed, for instance with China in their
investigation of the far side of the Moon.
People may look at this, "Well what is this going to
benefit us? How is this going to improve the economic conditions,
in terms of monetary value, or any of this?" But that is the
wrong way to look at it; because the problem right now is that
what you have seen is two different opposing conceptions of the
view of mankind. One coming from the trans-Atlantic system,
coming from a collapsing imperial system that has been based on
money and monetary value that is dying; and the other is
represented by what Russia and China are doing. And as Matt
emphasized and what I developed in my recent writing, was that
this was the mindset of the great leaders of our nation,
represented by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, of Franklin
Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, [and] John F. Kennedy. It wasn't just
on the creating of new projects per se, but on a whole new
different conception of the identity of mankind.
And so, you take for instance, the example of what we
accomplished in the United States, of landing a man on the Moon
— the idea that Kennedy put forward, that by the end of decade
we would land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth.
What was the vision and intention behind that? Was it just the
idea that we would go and plant our flag on the Moon? This would
be some short-term gratification and so forth? Or, was it a
forward-thinking outlook, in terms of the direction of mankind in
recognizing what Krafft Ericke, the great pioneer of space
flight, recognized, that mankind was not just a creature of the
planet Earth. We were not just a part of, as he called it, a
"closed system," and so it was our responsibility to go out and
to do what no other animal had the capability of doing; of
actually conquering and developing, coming to understand what is
the purpose of mankind and what is the development of mankind in
the universe as a creature of our solar system and of the galaxy
as a whole.
One thing that I thought was very insightful, is that Krafft
Ericke wrote about the understanding of the Renaissance, the
Classical Renaissance, as an achievement of human progress. And
also the Classical Renaissance is something that contributed to
the development of what became our space program and what was the
intention that guided the direction of space travel and the space
program.
I'll just read a quick quote from what he expressed on this
idea. He says, "The development of the idea of space travel was
always the most logical and most noble consequence of the
Renaissance ideal, which again places man in an organic and
active relationship with his surrounding universe and which,
perceived in the synthesis of knowledge and capabilities, its
highest ideals."
So you look at this from the standpoint of Krafft Ericke
understanding that the Renaissance that was guided by the
scientific breakthroughs which I'm sure you'll hear a lot more
from my colleague Jason there, of Brunelleschi, or the
breakthroughs that came about from the works of Kepler. That the
idea of mankind, is to create something fundamentally new,
something that had never been created before, and increasing the
relationship of mankind to the Universe.
Now that's economic value! That is not what is being
discussed when you look at these debates going back and forth
from the standpoint of these Congress Members to the space
community, and what budgets are being cut and should not be cut.
But the reality is, as I stated before, we have to have, in the
defense of the space program, a new conception of the direction
of mankind. That means we're removing all limitations to
progress, all limitations that are put on mankind's ability to
continue to understand how to make new discoveries in the
principles scientifically of what's out there. Why should we
actually investigate the Solar System? What is our mission in
doing so? And it's not about a money-making short-term
gratification. And so, I think this emphasis that Krafft Ehricke
put on the renaissance as an ideal of looking at why we have, as
a human species, an extraterrestrial imperative, is really a
continued expression of what you're seeing coming from China; not
just in their space program, but in the development of the
win-win strategy of cooperation for all mankind, for every nation
to come to join together. And to further the progress of
addressing the necessary challenges to the economic condition of
the planet by actually recognizing that the solutions do not lie
right here on planet Earth.
So, I think that's the conceptions I wanted to get across;
and what I hope to have further discussion on as we continue this
fight to identify what is the real mission of the space program,
and how we come to rid the world immediately of this current dead
system that's keeping us from advancing in the way that we should
be.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Kesha; and I can recommend that
people read what you've written in the current edition of
{Executive Intelligence Review}. I also know that you're planning
on making a video statement — which will be posted on the
LaRouche PAC website and available for people — developing some
of these ideas a little bit more in detail.
So, if people have been watching this website, you know that
Jason Ross has also been working very closely with Kesha to
develop some of these ideas with their implications from the
standpoint of a scientist, whom I hope you are becoming more
familiar with by now — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As we
discussed last week on this webcast, I think if you begin to
consider this question which Kesha just laid on the table for us,
about how do you create a future for mankind. How do you initiate
the creation of something which is completely new, as we move
into the future? Now, this can never be done through the
replication of the past; there's no precedent for a discovery. A
discovery is something which is always new, and is created {de
novo} and is introduced, which changes the course of human
history. Obviously, there is a lineage that goes back to
Gottfried Leibniz, and many Leibnizians who have lived since him:
Karl Gauss; Bernhard Riemann; Albert Einstein; and I would even
include Mr. Lyndon LaRouche in that lineage.
So, without further ado, I'm going to ask Jason to elaborate
a little bit more; picking up on what Kesha just left off on.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, I think if you consider how
to conceptualize the value of the kinds of programs that Kesha
was discussing that we're promoting today, you reach a
contradiction if you try to approach them from a monetarist
standpoint. That is, the kind of economics that's generally
taught today, the kind of economics practiced as a religion —
well, I was going to say as a religion on Wall Street; the
primary religion on Wall Street is stealing — but, in general,
the basis of thinking is that economy is about money; we can
measure things in terms of money. How much is somebody willing to
pay for something? That's how valuable it is. That isn't. Money
doesn't measure different qualities; money doesn't measure the
future potential that something is able to create. And if you
base money on how much somebody's willing to pay for something,
you don't distinguish between things that are good and useful
versus bad and vices. People are willing to pay for heroin;
people are willing to pay for other opioids if they're addicted
to it. Does that mean that those drugs, as used by those people,
are valuable, or worth something because they're willing to pay
for them? Quite the contrary. So, we need a different way of
thinking about how we can measure economic value if we're going
to be human economists, instead of Wall Street magicians or
Satanists.
So, the reason we have economy is that we aren't animals;
animals don't have economies. Animals don't change what they do
from generation to generation; they don't improve, they don't
develop. We do. We create a new kind of time for ourselves. In a
very real way, humanity is a totally new and totally distinct
force of nature from anything else. Over geological time,
geologists describe to us how the Earth has changed, or how a
planet has formed; this is over hundreds of millions of years.
Over evolutionary time, perhaps tens of millions of years, we're
able to see transformations in the kinds of life that exists on
the planet. Over biological time, we have short-term periods of
the life of an organism, of its respiration, very much tied to
the daily cycle of the Earth, for example. And with humans, we
have a different kind of time. We create time. The flow of
history isn't always the same speed.
During the Dark Ages, when not much happened, you might say
that human time slowed down. And with the Renaissance, and with
the ability to discover more about nature by having a more
powerful way of thinking about it, and a more powerful conception
of us as human beings interacting with it; you could say that
time sped up. We create a certain time in that we create new eras
of humanity; not in the way that geology or evolution does, but
willfully by developing new principles that if we were animals,
you would say this is a whole new type of life all together. Life
moving from the oceans onto land; that's a totally different
quality of life. Life having developed photosynthesis and using
the Sun as a power source; that's a totally different kind of
life. But we're still human beings after the discovery of the
combustion engine, for example; the use of heat-powered
machinery. We create in ourselves the change that's comparable
only to large-scale evolutionary changes when we look at life in
general. So, we're distinct.
Now, how do we understand this? Both how do we understand
that world around us that we act on and interact with; and how do
we understand our thoughts about it and our ability to progress
and use the practice of science itself? What sort of terrain is
it? What sort of world is it? The physical world and the mental
world.
Well, here's where I'd like to take up some concepts that
Mr. LaRouche has been bringing up recently about Bernhard Riemann
and about Gottfried Leibniz, and a bit about Einstein, too, who
got the verification of his hypothesis of gravity waves announced
very near his birthday this year — which was on Monday. So,
let's think about it. Is the terrain that we're operating on, one
which is steady and indifferent to our actions? Or, is it one
where what we do and what we discover and how we interact with
it, changes that world around us in a way that the world is not
fixed; either in ourselves or in our understanding of it? And,
that is the case; we transform the world in changing our mental
understanding of it. The math that we use in understanding how do
we conceptualize that world; that changes our interaction with
it, and we're a force of nature. We change the operation of the
forces of nature by improving our understanding of the world
around us and of ourselves and our ability to discover such
things. How can we possibly think about that quality of change?
As a couple of other examples, think about the difference
between what you might say is a fixed object — let's say iron
oxide. Iron oxide is basically rust; it's a mineral that's rust.
It's reddish brown, it's not terribly useful; but with the
development of metallurgy, instead of being a deposit of some
compound, it's now a resource. It's an ore from which we can
create iron and steel. The substance itself, did it change
chemically? It did in terms of the potential of what we could do
with it. And remember, we're a force of nature; we changed what
it was. It has to be thought of that way.
Or, what's the value of a technology? How does it change
over time? In the 1400s, windmills were a great invention; they
were somewhat new on the scene. They allowed pumping water, they
allowed grinding grain. That's excellent; that's a breakthrough.
Are windmills valuable today for making electricity? I don't
think so. Consider helium; helium is an interesting element. It
was first discovered in the Sun, not on Earth. It was discovered
in the Sun by the kind of light that came from the Sun when that
light was broken up into a rainbow with a prism, and certain
bands of the absence or presence of color were the clue that
there was a new element out there named helium, after Helios, the
Sun. That element, what's it used for? You might think of it's
being used to fill up balloons for children; you might think of
it being used as a gas for cooling for physical purposes or for
experiments. It's also, as Helium-3, an ideal fuel for fusion.
So, this substance transforms its meaning based on our developing
understanding. How can we think about this?
Well, let's take the example of Bernhard Riemann. In 1854,
Bernhard Riemann delivered a presentation and a paper on the
subject of the hypotheses that underlie geometry. That might
sound like a dry title; it might sound like it has nothing to do
with physical economy or anything that we'd want to be doing
right now. But this paper is very important in the view of Lyndon
LaRouche for his own development and as a way of understanding
economics. So, let's say why. Very briefly, Riemann points out
that our conception of space itself and of the way things operate
in space is taken for granted. The ideas that we use to
understand it, they don't really come from experiments per se, or
from physical theories; they come from our thoughts about space.
For example, the idea that space has no particular
characteristics of its own; that was the view of Isaac Newton.
Newton said space is uniform, it's out there; things occur within
space. Space is there first, it's just space; it has no
characteristics in particular. Newton said the same thing about
time; that time flows on uniformly. That's what time is; it's
really not much of a definition, or an understanding.
Geometric ideas that people had, for example, are the idea
that if you add up the angles in a triangle, you get 180 degrees.
Now, if you're drawing triangles on flat paper, yes that's true;
if you draw them on a curved surface like a sphere, it's not
true. Triangles on a sphere have more than 180 degrees in them.
If you then ask, "What if I draw a triangle in space?"; that's a
tough question. When we connect points in space, is the space
between them flat, is it curved? How could we discover that, and
what would be the basis of it having a curvature if it wasn't
flat?
What Riemann does, is he discusses through all the possible
ways that this could come about. He discusses in general,
curvature — both of surfaces and of space; how a space could be
curved. He works out in general how you could do that; but he
can't answer the question. He says, to answer the question,
"What's the nature of the space, and which processes unfold?";
you have to leave the department of mathematics and you have to
go to the physics department. You can't answer questions like
that just be pure reasoning; you got to have a hypothesis —
"What physically makes space?" And in this way, he's coming back
to the view of Gottfried Leibniz, who, just to say very briefly,
Leibniz and Newton totally disagreed on a number of subjects.
People may have heard of the dispute over their invention of the
calculus; did Leibniz steal it from Newton, or vice versa? But
there's a lot more there.
One of the major disputes they had was about space. Newton's
view was that space and time were absolute; and Leibniz's view
that space was a way of understanding co-occurrences. The
relationship of things that are here at the same time — that's
space; and for Leibniz, time was the evolution of things, how
things change. But time didn't have its own existence. Now,
that's precisely what Einstein took up in his theories of
relativity; he did what Riemann said had to be done. He didn't
finish the job; but he did what Riemann said had to be done.
Einstein overthrew, in a very specific way, the outlook of
Newton; Einstein showed that space was not flat, that it was bent
in special relativity, that it was curved in general relativity.
And very importantly, the basis of its shape, the basis of how
things interact over distances — that sense of space — was
based not on what a mathematician might imagine, but on what a
physicist hypothesizes. Einstein hypothesized an equivalence
between different observers that the laws of nature shouldn't
depend on whether you're moving; something that Leibniz also said
very explicitly. Einstein considered that light moved at the same
speed to any observer; something he had been pondering since he
was a pretty young man. And he hypothesized that gravitation
would transform the shape of space; that straight lines wouldn't
be straight to the extent that gravity is affecting them. This is
what was seen with the experiments about the position of stars
around the eclipse of the Sun, performed earlier during
Einstein's life; and it's seen in the recent verification of
gravity waves.
So, most people acknowledge that Einstein, OK, this is
physically important; this is a scientist, he discovered things.
What does it have to do with this other point, though, about
understanding humanity, and our role in economy, and our creation
in economy? Well, what Riemann did was, he made it possible to
say that human discovery is a force of nature; it reshapes
nature, it transforms our understanding about the objects around
us. And the basis of that world outside of us, can't be
considered independently of our increasing knowledge about it.
What we know about the world around us changes it, in that it
changes our ability to interact with it.
So, if we're looking for a real idea of what economics is,
throw away any sense of monetarism that says money made in a
whorehouse is just as valuable as money made in a steel plant;
and instead say, "How do we foster scientific discovery? How do
we foster its social implementation through technologies that
physically improve our power over nature and our ability to
provide improving standards of living and promote the general
welfare of human beings?" If this is our basis of economics,
fostering that kind of outlook, then I think we can say that
Gottfried Leibniz was the first physical economist in that sense.
I'll just reference to the show on Leibniz from earlier this
week, and one of the documents I cited there; Leibniz's paper on
the creation of a society for science and economy in Germany. And
I think if you read that paper, you'll be astonished at how
Leibniz pulls together both promotion of discovery, how that
works, what kind of thoughts are needed, how people should work
together, and how to implement those thoughts to improve people's
lives to the betterment of mankind. And that really has to be the
basis of our economics.
One simple rough measure, proposed by LaRouche to measure
this, is the potential population density. How many people can be
supported in a given area? That's a measure that is fixed for
animals. For a certain kind of environment, the number of deer
that can live there; deer don't change that. Human beings do. And
as a rough measure of economic progress, we could take that
value. What's the potential population that we're able to
support? The ability to use these thoughts is one that is not
being expressed in the trans-Atlantic at present. In our
discussion today, Mr. LaRouche talked about the positive impact
that Riemann had had on Italian science. Riemann had
tuberculosis, and spent a good deal of time later in life — he
didn't live that long — but later in his short life in Italy;
where thoughts from Riemann influenced the development of
hydrodynamics, stretching all the way into the time of airplanes
and the consideration of getting out into space.
Today, this overall outlook is best represented by Russia,
and especially at present, by China. So, this doesn't have to be
a purely Chinese development; this is clearly something that we
can take up as a mission for ourselves to contribute to here in
the United States and in the nations around the globe. And we've
got very special and precious people in the past that we can look
to for insights in how to make the next breakthroughs in
developing our understanding of what it is to be human, the basis
of human culture, and how best to advance human economy.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. Now, as Jason just
mentioned, and as I said in the beginning, really right now you
do see the initiative — the economic and the scientific
initiative — being taken by China to lead mankind into the
future; especially with the space program. You also see the
initiative being taken by Russia; and this is very clearly
illustrated this week with the actions that have been taken by
Russia in Syria. The strategic initiative lies in Putin's actions
there. As Mr. LaRouche emphasized, Putin is setting the agenda;
he is constantly on the flank. You can see this going back to the
chemical weapons, where Putin took the initiative to say fine, we
will help Assad dismantle these chemical weapons. It can be seen
with the decision to intervene, a few months back, by Putin into
the situation in Syria; and then with the pull-out that happened
earlier this week. What's clear is that every step along the way,
Putin's actions have caught Washington and Obama by surprise;
constantly breaking profile. And this is what's called "taking
the flank" in a military sense. There's clear precedence, as Mr.
LaRouche always uses the example, of Douglas MacArthur's actions
in Inchon. You always, always act on the surprise.
Now, this was illustrated I think just anecdotally very well
in an article that was published March 15th — Tuesday of this
week — in the {New York Times}, with a very apropos headline
which read "Putin's Syria Tactics Keep Him at the Fore, and Leave
Everyone Else Guessing". I just want to read the first paragraph
of that article, actually, because I think it just describes very
vividly what we mean by this:
"President Vladimir Putin's order to withdraw the bulk of
Russian forces from Syria seemingly caught Washington, Damascus,
and everyone in between off guard; just the way the Russian
leader likes it. By all accounts, Mr. Putin delights in creating
surprises."
So, this is the subject of our institutional question for
this week; which Mr. LaRouche had some very specific words to say
in response to, which I'm going to let Jeff elaborate on for us.
But let me just read the text of this question to start off.
"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, earlier this week, at the start
of the Geneva Peace Talks, Russian President Vladimir Putin
announced that he ordered the withdrawal of some of the Russian
military forces in Syria. The withdrawal of Russian fighter
planes began the next day and has continued. A residual force
will remain at the naval base at Tartus and at the air base in
Latakia. How do you view Putin's decision? How might it impact
the Russian, American, and United Nations efforts to bring the
Syrian war to an end, now underway in Geneva?"

STEINBERG: Of course, we've taking up the bulk of this
week's report with a discussion about man's extraterrestrial
imperative; the need for man to get off of the planet Earth,
because man was never an Earthbound creature. So, we're at a
point right now where Mr. LaRouche was delighted in our
discussion earlier today at the prospect of over the next two
years, China going through the preparations for the launching of
an orbiter that will be hopefully landing on the back side of the
Moon. And will for the first time, give mankind a window into the
Solar System and the Galaxy beyond. And this is something of
enormous importance and enormous excitement, because it puts this
nature of man as an extraterrestrial creature capable through
creative discovery, of not remaining Earthbound, but of exploring
the near Solar System and beyond. And it reminds me that
virtually every astronaut and cosmonaut who has travelled in
space, has remarked at one point or other, that having the
vantage point of looking down on Earth, you become at one point
overwhelmed with the fact that so much of what goes on, on the
planet of Earth, is trivial relative to the challenges that are
very obvious when you look at man from the standpoint of man's
ability to explore the Universe and make these kinds of
discoveries. And it was that approach that actually informed our
discussion about the Syria situation per se. Because as Matt
said, Russian President Putin has demonstrated once again that he
has a certain understanding that at the core of grand strategy is
always the idea of continuously moving; continuously flanking;
continuously confusing your adversaries by constantly being on
this kind of offensive.
So, we do have the developments of the past days, where at
the very moment that the Geneva second round of peace talks were
beginning, President Putin announced a draw-down of the Russian
military forces inside Syria. And in fact, the very next morning
— Tuesday morning of this week — the first Russian bombers and
other air force equipment and personnel began leaving. Now, the
Russians are there still; make no mistake about it. Russia has
established a fundamental change in the situation on the ground,
which is both a military shift and a shift at the diplomatic
table taking place right now in Geneva. Russia has a permanent
naval base fully established and more secured than at any time
previously at the port of Tartus; and it has now a major air
force facility in the Latakia province. And more recently this
week, yesterday President Putin issued a statement where he said,
if the circumstances change, if the peace process does not go
forward, then Russian forces can be reinforced in Syria, not in a
matter of days, but in a matter of hours. And quite clearly, the
infrastructure is in place for that to happen.
But Mr. LaRouche wanted to make a larger and much more
fundamental point about what is going on here. What he emphasized
is that you can't lose sight of the fact that the war is still
going on. We don't know how things are going to play out; what we
do know, is that there has been a change of conditions. In fact,
there was a major change of conditions beginning on September
30th of last year, when the major Russian military presence
began. And when the situation systematically shifted from that
point on, and yet at the same time, certain leading political
figures around the world — the spokesman for the Jordanian
government; Steffan de Mistura, the UN representative for Syria
— they all said, "We're not surprised by President Putin's
announcement this past Monday." In the case of the Jordanians,
the chief of staff of the Jordanian military, the chief of staff
of the Syrian military, were both in Moscow last October; and
they met with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu, they met with
President Putin. And they were told quite clearly that the
Russian mission was not a permanent mission; but was a limited
mission in both size and in time duration. And that when the
circumstances reached the point where it was feasible to reach a
diplomatic solution to the Syria crisis, that the Russian forces
would begin to be withdrawn.
As Matt pointed out with the {New York Times} coverage,
people in the West were scratching their heads, because they
refused to take note of the fact that Putin is a strategic
thinker. And very often, what he says — in most cases, in fact
— is exactly what he intends to do; but he's not going to do it
in a predictable fashion. He's going to do it in a way that will
catch you by surprise. And the biggest surprise is that most
political thinkers in the West, most officials in government in
the West, are ignorant and prejudiced. So, their own prejudices
prevent them from understanding how Putin thinks about these
things. Their own prejudices prevent them from understanding
because they're incapable of thinking in this kind of a strategic
fashion. Now the problem is, that we're still in a state of
warfare; and that state of warfare will continue until certain
things occur that go way beyond the borders of Syria.
Until the British Empire ceases to exist, there will be a
condition of warfare on this planet. We see it, not necessarily
in the form of warfare that most people think about — soldiers
shooting, artillery pieces firing, bombers dropping bombs. Look
what's happening right now in Brazil. The British Empire is
waging a war against the new emerging Asia-Pacific-centered
global system. They're trying to destabilize Brazil, which is a
founding member of the BRICS. There's a similar effort underway
to destabilize the Zuman government in South Africa; because
South Africa is the latest country to join in the BRICS
initiative.
So, there are all kinds of problems going on; you can't look
for a simply linear expectation or projection of what's going to
happen by the situation now ongoing on the ground in Syria or in
Geneva. Another example: President Obama is taking a series of
measures that will lead unavoidably — unless they're reversed —
to a major confrontation between the United States and China. We
had a report earlier this week from David Ignatius in the
{Washington Post}, who is very often a kind of reliable leak
sheet for what's going on inside the administration. And the
Obama administration is preparing for confrontation with China
over the South China Sea; they're waiting for a ruling from the
World Court in the Hague on a complaint filed by the Philippines.
So the United States is preparing contingencies for poking China
in the eye, for carrying out new provocations against China. The
sanctions that President Obama announced this week, ostensibly
against North Korea, are in fact sanctions against China; they go
way beyond what was agreed upon by China and the United States at
the United Nations.
So, if you take all of these factors into account, and if
you think of them as a process, not simply as a series of
discrete events, then you get a very clear idea of what Mr.
LaRouche means when he says that the planet, in general terms, is
in a state of war. Now, ultimately what this state of warfare
comes down to, is the fact that you have a new emerging
Asia-Pacific-centered future. It's defined by the economic
initiatives of China, by the One Belt-One Road policy, and most
emphatically by China's systematic plan for collaborating with
other nations on the kind of space exploration that once was a
hallmark of American policy; but has not been abandoned.
President Obama has spent the last seven years systematically
taking down and dismantling America's space capability; and Kesha
is leading the fight to reverse that process.
Over the last 15 years, if you look at the Bush/Cheney
administration followed by the Obama administration, the United
States has been under British occupation. Both Bush/Cheney and
Obama were each, in their own way, governments that were at the
beck and call of the British Empire, of the policies of the
British financial oligarchy operating through Wall Street. And as
the result, the United States, really the entire trans-Atlantic
region, is dead. Germany was once a great prospering economy; the
result of the "economic miracle" that Franklin Roosevelt
envisioned for the post-World War II period; no replay of
Versailles, but a completely different approach. Germany has now
been destroyed by the policies largely coming from the British
Empire. All of continental Europe is hopelessly and irreversibly
bankrupt; and Mario Draghi's announcement of an expansion of
quantitative easing and a zero interest rate policy is a
reflection that certain people are desperate over the fact that
Europe is doomed, that the United States under present
circumstances. We've talked in recent months on this broadcast
about the death rate increase in the United States; the true rate
of unemployment; the epidemic of heroin addiction and heroin
overdose deaths; the declining life expectancy in the United
States. These are all measures of the fact that the
trans-Atlantic region is dead; and will only begin to reverse
that death if there is a revolutionary, fundamental change in
policy. That alternative policy is being carried out in the
Eurasian and Asia-Pacific region; led by China, led by Russia,
reflected in the way that Russian President Putin has navigated
the strategic situation.
So, the great threat is coming from the fact that a dying
British Empire — which is irreversibly doomed — is lashing out
and is trying to preserve something that can no longer be
preserved. There was a time when the British Empire could impose
petty tyrannies on countries around the world and achieve a
certain limited degree of stability. That's over with. All of the
efforts within the framework of the mindset of the British
Empire, the mindset of the Obama administration, the mindset of
virtually all European leaders — the French probably the worst
of the bunch on the continent — is doomed; it doesn't work. Yet,
there is an opportunity; and opportunity for all of mankind in
what's going on in the Asia-Pacific region, led by China, by
Russia. India is clearly stepping in to play a significant role
in this new emerging combination, cooperation among nations for
purposes that go beyond national interests, but address the
interests of all of mankind. Egypt is fully established as
orienting towards that new Asia-Pacific combination.
So, this is the larger picture; this is the framework for
judging the initiative taken by President Putin this week. And it
must be judged from the standpoint of the global consequences;
and not just simply the consequences for the immediate
negotiations around Syria. Although his actions this week have
certainly greatly improved the possibility of bringing that
five-year tragedy to an end.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I would just add, the
initiative being taken by these countries also very much has to
do with the decades-long work Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and Mrs. Helga
LaRouche have undertaken. The One Belt-One Road policy that China
has adopted, is the Eurasian Land-Bridge policy which the
LaRouche movement uniquely championed in the beginning of the
1990s. Now, you have an evolution of that to the World
Land-Bridge; and this is what is documented so thoroughly in the
350-page Special Report that was issued by {Executive
Intelligence Review} called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge". One very exciting announcement, because you
mentioned Egypt, just this week there was a very high-level event
which was sponsored by the Transportation Ministry in Cairo;
featuring a LaRouche collaborator, Hussein Askary, to announce
the formal publication of the Arabic language of this full,
350-page World Land-Bridge Special Report from {Executive
Intelligence Review}.
So, you can see that at the very highest levels of
government around the world, this is what is shaping the
discussion; the initiatives that the LaRouche movement have taken
for decades. And one final note along those same lines, as we
announced last Friday, Mrs. Helga LaRouche just got back from a
very important trip to India; at which she was one of the
featured speakers in a very prominent, very high-level dialogue
— the Raisina Dialogue. And if people have not seen it yet, a
wonderful half-hour interview that Jason Ross conducted with Mrs.
LaRouche was posted on the LaRouche PAC website earlier this
week. So, if you haven't watched that yet, I would really
encourage you to watch it; and to just think about everything
that has been said here today. Think about these initiatives that
are being taken by some of the world's leading countries to
create the future; and think about the role that the LaRouche
movement has played over years and decades in shaping the
possibility of these initiative being taken today.
So, thank you all very much for joining us here today. I'd
like to thank Kesha Rogers for joining us over video; and I would
like to thank Jeff and Jason here in the studio. Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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