Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen
21. februar 2016 – De amerikanske og russiske udenrigsministre, hhv. John Kerry og Sergei Lavrov, nåede i dag frem til det, Kerry kaldte »en midlertidig principaftale om betingelserne for en standsning af fjendtlighederne [i Syrien], der kunne komme i gang i de nærmest kommende dage«.
Under en nyhedskonference i Amman sammen med den jordanske udenrigsminister Nasser Judeh sagde Kerry: »Betingelserne for en standsning af fjendtligheder er nu ved at blive fuldført. Vi er faktisk i dag tættere på en våbenhvile, end vi har været.« Kerry tilføjede, at han forventede, at præsident Obama og den russiske præsident Putin i de kommende dage ville forhandle, for at fuldstændiggøre den midlertidige principaftale.
Irans PressTV og Reuters rapporterede, at det Russiske Udenrigsministerium bekræftede, at Lavrov og Kerry havde talt i telefon sammen søndag, om betingelserne for en våbenhvile. Rapporten sagde, at diskussionerne gik omkring betingelserne for en våbenhvile, der ville ekskludere operationer imod organisationer, »som af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd var anerkendt som terrorister«. Dette inkluderer ISIS og Nusra Front.
Hvad den midlertidige principaftale vil føre til er ikke klart. Under pressekonferencen gentog Kerry Obamas holdning, at den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad må gå. »Med Assad der, kan, og vil, denne krig ikke ende«, sagde han. Assad sagde i går, at han ville gå med til en våbenhvile på betingelse af, at terrorister ikke udnytter en standsning af kamphandlingerne til deres fordel, og at lande, der støttede oprørere, ophørte med deres støtte. Elementer af den syriske opposition havde tidligere indvilliget i »muligheden« for en midlertidig våbenstilstand på betingelse af, at der blev givet garantier for, at den syriske regerings allierede, inklusive Rusland, ville stoppe deres luftangreb, at belejringer blev ophævet og at nødhjælp ville få adgang over hele landet. Og Rusland har sagt, iflg. Associated Press, at de ville fortsætte luftangrebene i Syrien mod dem, de anser for at være terrorister, selv under en våbenhvile. Disse divergerende holdninger gør en holdbar våbenhvile til en monumental udfordring.
»Jeg tror ikke på«, sagde Kerry, »at, i løbet af de næste par dage, hvor vi forsøger at få dette effektueret, der skulle opstå et ’magisk vendepunkt’ med hensyn til det, der foregår på jorden … Oppositionen har gjort det klart, at de er fast besluttet på at kæmpe tilbage«.
Hverken Kerry eller det Russiske Udenrigsministerium ville frigive detaljer om den midlertidige principaftale.
Foto: USA’s udenrigsminister John Kerry taler under en fælles pressekonference med Jordans udenrigsminister Nasser Judeh i Udenrigsministeriet i Amman, Jordan.
Jeg vil begynde direkte med at diskutere den meget dystre trussel om en international konflikt, der nu er ved at rejse sig, især fra den krudttønde, der udgøres af Syrien, Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Det syriske område, hvor, på trods af den fælles indsats fra udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov for at finde fælles fodslag, så truer Obamas afvisning af at give Saudi Arabien og Tyrkiet besked på at trække sig med at få det hele til at eksplodere.
Faren for en massiv, endnu større strøm af flygtninge, der kommer fra Afrika og ind i Europa, så vel som også den fortsatte krise centreret omkring Mellemøsten, betyder således, at Europa er absolut dømt til undergang, med mindre der finder et fundamentalt skifte i politikken sted. Og dette betyder, at USA og Europa indledningsvis må række hånden frem mod Rusland og Kina.
Engelsk Udskrift.
US & EUROPE MUST REACH OUT TO RUSSIA & CHINA TO AVOID WAR
International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, February 19, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 19, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you’re joining us for our weekly, Friday
evening broadcast here from larouchepac .com
I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jason Ross from the
LaRouche PAC science team, and we’re joined via video, from a
remote location, by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence
Review. The three of us, along with several others, had a chance
to have a discussion earlier today with both Lyndon and Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, so what you’re about to hear will be informed by
that discussion.
Now, I’m going to just start right off the bat with a
discussion of the very dire threat of an international conflict
arising, especially from the powderkeg of Syria, Northern Africa,
and the Middle East. The area of Syria, where, despite the
efforts of Secretary John Kerry to find common ground with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Obama’s refusal to tell
Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stand down is threatening to blow this
entire thing sky high. A very accurate discussion of this was
published earlier today in a piece on Consortium News by Robert
Parry, the editor of that publication, in which he says the risk
that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III,
continues, as Turkey and U.S. neo-cons seek an invasion that
could kill Russian troops, and possibly escalate the Syrian
crisis into a nuclear showdown.
What Robert Parry says in this article is that Barack Obama
took questions from reporters on Tuesday, but he did not take the
one that needed to be asked: which was whether he had forbidden
Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question
could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into
World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.
Now, this was part of our discussion earlier today with Mr.
LaRouche and what I know Jeff will elaborate much more on, was
LaRouche’s analysis. But in short, what Mr. LaRouche had to say
is that what Putin is doing in this situation, and overall in a
strategic manner, defines the point of action, defines the point
of reference, for action. Everything else is bluff.
So, let me hand it over to Jeff, and he’ll elaborate many
more of the details, and then we’ll come back to our
institutional question for this evening, which Jeff will also
answer. So, Jeff?
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. Well, as we were going
through the discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, he
actually drew a distinction between the bluff, and what he said
much more accurately is the folly of what Turkey and Saudi Arabia
are up to. It’s folly because they are caught in their own
madness, and don’t even realize the consequences of what they’re
doing in the real world. They don’t have the capability to carry
out the kind of provocations that they are threatening, and the
danger, of course, is that that does not mean that they’re not
going to try to do it.
Putin stepped into the Syria situation at a critical moment
last September, and the entire situation has shifted radically
since that point. The Russian intention is {not} to simply
accomplish a military victory on behalf of the forces of
President Assad. They’re creating the conditions to force the
intransigents, in this case Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of
the other Gulf states, and always lurking in the background when
you’re dealing with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood is
the British. So, Putin has established a clear sense of control
over the situation. Undoubtedly part of Putin’s configuration is
that Obama has been greatly weakened by the actions of Russia; on
the economic sphere, the actions of China; and there are sane
military forces in the United States who recognize the folly of
what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are doing.
This has been described by Parry, whose article you
mentioned, and by others, as the danger of a Sarajevo 1914 flash
point, along the Syria-Turkey border, but what Mr. LaRouche
emphasized today is that Putin has a very clear sense of the
military correlation in this situation, and has also a very clear
sense that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are acting on the basis of
their own irrationality. And he is luring them in to the kind of
trap that could be basically enclosed on them at any moment. It’s
a gravely dangerous situation, but you have at least one key
player, namely Russian President Putin, who knows what he’s
doing, and who is steering these events in a way that conforms to
an appropriate strategic analysis, and to an understanding of how
to basically defeat these forces that have been trying to destroy
Syria for the last five years, and in so doing, to deprive Russia
of one of its own critical access points in the Mediterranean
region.
Now, what Mr. LaRouche really emphasized, and I think that
this is the crucial point to take away from this issue, is that
the center of gravity of world affairs has dramatically shifted
to where the Asia-Eurasia region, anchored in the cooperation
between China and Russia and India, with other countries grouping
around that, is really where the strategic center of the world
economy has now been shifted. And if you look at the situation in
Europe, in particular, from one end to the other you see nothing
but bankruptcy and political failure. The United States is on the
verge of the same kind of bankruptcy. And so the only place where
you have growth and stability by any measure, and of course Asia
and Russia and Eurasia are not devoid of problems, but relative
to the state of absolute bankruptcy that we see in Europe and in
the United States, we see a disintegration of the political and
economic conditions in much of South America, as well. Of course,
Africa has been on the target list of the British and other
European colonial, imperial powers for the longest time.
But in Asia, you not only have a much more stable and
growing situation, but you have a commitment to an abandonment of
geopolitics in favor of what Chinese President Xi Jinping has
called the ”win-win” strategy. And if you look at the crisis in
Europe right now, leaving aside the fact that the entire European
financial system is bankrupt — hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt
under the present conditions and terms of thinking that dominate
Europe — if you look at the refugee crisis, you’re beginning to
see a glimmer of sanity, driven by desperation, by certain of the
people who are responsible for creating the European fiasco in
the first place.
So, you’ve got people like Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance
minister of Germany, who was one of the monsters behind the
destruction of Europe, including the German economy itself, now
saying there must be a Marshall Plan to rebuild Syria, to rebuild
other parts of the Middle East, and only on the basis of a
Marshall Plan, which gives people a clear incentive to go back to
their homes, to rebuild their country, only under those
circumstances, and those circumstances alone, can the refugee
crisis in Europe be remotely solved. And of course, what applies
to the Middle East applies doubly for Africa, where the
U.S.-British-French overthrow of Qaddafi unleashed absolute hell
throughout the African continent.
And so the danger of a massive, even larger flow of refugees
coming out of Africa into Europe, as well as the continuing
crisis centered in the Middle East, means that Europe is
absolutely doomed unless there is a fundamental change in policy.
And for starters, that change means that the United States and
Europe must reach out to Russia and China. You had the recent
visit by President Xi Jinping of China to Saudi Arabia, to Iran,
and to Egypt, and what Xi Jinping made very clear is that China
is prepared to move towards the building of the Silk Road
infrastructure, the New Silk Road land route, the Maritime Silk
Route, which will come up through the newly expanded Suez Canal
— China will do that. In fact, just this week, the first freight
train from Eastern China arrived in Iran, and this is part of the
entire European system of not just transportation corridors, but
development corridors that have been put forward by China as the
cornerstone of their foreign policy.
So, they’re presenting a win-win alternative. And in the
case of Europe, there is no alternative. Europe is so politically
and psychologically bankrupt — the leadership of Europe is so
bankrupt that China, through this Middle East development portion
of the One Belt, One Road policy, offers the only viable basis
for this Marshall Plan idea to actually be put into practice. And
were it not for the Putin intervention, beginning last September,
we couldn’t even be contemplating the possibility of that kind of
solution to this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle
East.
Now, Mr. LaRouche emphasized in this context that Europe is
completely gone; it’s completely bankrupt, and there are
solutions, but the present leadership is unprepared to consider
that kind of level of rethinking. In the United States, we’re
very close to the edge, but the United States {can} be saved and
the solution to the problems in the United States begins with
removing President Barack Obama from off ice immediately, and
moving to wipe out the thoroughly bankrupt Wall Street system.
Because until that system is put through basically a bankruptcy
shutdown, then none of the viable and available solutions are
going to be there. But, if you were to get rid of Obama, if you
were to wipe out Wall Street,–and, for example, immediately
passage of Glass-Steagall would be one critical element for that
process to happen almost overnight — then we have a history in
the United States. We had Alexander Hamilton. We had Franklin
Roosevelt. We had glimmers of the same policy with John F.
Kennedy. You go back to a credit system, a government credit
system that kick-starts production, that trains a young
generation that’s right now completely unqualified to serve in a
real economy.
All of that means the United States coming into alignment
with what we see going on with China, with Russia, with India,
with others. In other words, the United States becomes part of a
genuine trans-Pacific collaboration, and under those
circumstances, Europe itself would have no choice but to get on
with the program.
So, what we’re seeing from Turkey, from Saudi Arabia, and as
I said, always watch for the British lurking in the background
with those two countries — you have clinical insanity and folly,
which holds the danger of war. But Mr. LaRouche again emphasized,
Putin knows this. He sees all of this, and he is on top of the
situation, and is prepared to take the appropriate and necessary
actions. And there are some people who are not completely out of
their minds on the U.S. side, within the military-intelligence
community, who understand that partnering with Russia is the only
way to solve this problem.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, just really on the subject that
you ended on here, the bankruptcy of Wall Street and the extended
Wall Street system, and the relationship of that to the
conditions in Europe; that brings us to our institutional
question for this evening, which reads as follows: ”Mr.
LaRouche. The heat is turning up on British Prime Minister David
Cameron, who’s trying to get the upper hand over a referendum
that could result in the UK leaving the European Union. The
potential break-up of the European Union, which is called
‘Brexit’, has elicited warnings about the impact on the UK
economy should voters say that they want out of the EU. A recent
poll showed that 42% of UK voters would opt to leave the EU;
compared to 38% who say that they would vote to stay. This week
will be the first major test as to whether Cameron’s done enough
to secure an agreement to change some terms of the UK’s
relationship with the European bloc. Cameron says that he will
campaign to stick with the EU, if a deal can be reached. This
Thursday and Friday will be the first time that all 28 EU
countries will discuss a package of proposals recently released
by the EU, aimed at addressing the UK’s economic concerns.
Cameron negotiated the proposals with the EU leaders and Donald
Tusk, President of the European Council — the EU’s main
decision-making body. What is your view of a possible ‘Brexit’?”
STEINBERG: Well, you know, you’ve got ”Brexit” that was
preceded by ”Grexit”, and probably we’re going to have a much
larger lexicon; that all comes down to the fact that people have
the sense that the European Union, particularly the European
Monetary Union, is a sinking ship. And therefore, if the ship is
sinking, or the movie theatre is on fire, you get to the exit as
fast as possible. But the reality is, that the European Union —
and within that, the European Monetary Union — are the problem.
So, therefore, unless you address the more underlying issue,
which is that Europe is financially and economically bankrupt;
then it really is almost of secondary significance whether
Britain stays in or leaves. If Britain leaves the European Union,
then that’s virtually it for the European Union. Other officials
in Europe, even including Schäuble at the Davos Conference
earlier this month, said that if the Schengen agreement, the open
borders agreement in Europe is broken, then the European Union
will cease to exist. And already in Poland, in Hungary, in other
countries on the edge of Europe but within the European Union,
they’re already building those walls. So in effect, the European
Union, as it’s presently constituted, is a dead letter; it really
doesn’t exist. And the countries of Europe, either collectively
or individually, are going to have to come to face the reality
that their banking system is thoroughly bankrupt; they’ve lost so
much productive capacity that Europe from a physical standpoint
is no longer capable of self-reliance, self-preservation. So, the
whole thing is going under; and of course, there’s a certain
irony in the British threatening to leave the European Union,
since the bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic system is
largely the result of policies that were created in London, and
were then spread about Europe and the United States. You could
almost say that Europe was doomed from the moment that Margaret
Thatcher launched the Big Bang in 1985, and turned London into a
safe haven for speculative gambling operations, drug-money
laundering, anything other than investment in the real economy.
So now, we’re 30 years into that process, and Europe is
finished. So, the issues that are being negotiated between
Cameron and Tusk and the others on the European Commission, are
tiddlywinks; they’re not the real issues. Unless Europe comes up
with its own version of shutting down the City of London and Wall
Street, a genuine full-scale Glass-Steagall separation of
legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling,
then Europe is completely doomed. And the only hope that they
will have is that some sane future leaders, who emerge out of
this political rubble, recognize before it’s perhaps too late
that aligning with China and Russia — which is exactly the
opposite of the policies that are being pursued in Europe right
now — is the only answer. So, I think that that’s the context in
which the question can be answered; and so the issue is merely
that Europe in its present circumstance is doomed. And whether
Britain leaves the European Union or stays in, they are part of
that system of doom that’s going to have to be changed in a much
more fundamental — I’d say ”revolutionary” — way. And the
opportunities are there; they’re presented there because Europe
is at the western end of Eurasia; and the Chinese have already
established the rail links between central China and Germany.
There are opportunities galore under the umbrella of the ”One
Belt-One Road” policy; but the first step is that the European
leaders are going to have abandon their folly. And that’s a
difficult proposition to conceive of, given who the current
European leadership is.
OGDEN: Absolutely. And, let me just elaborate a little bit
what Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized, which is that if you
just look at the refugee crisis, for example, and the absolute
breakdown of Europe to even absorb and handle this under the
current economic conditions. This has pushed people to begin to
discuss the possibility of what the LaRouche movement has been
advocating for quite a long time; which is a new Marshall Plan, a
new program of economic development for the Middle East and North
Africa. It is what was published by the Schiller Institute and
{Executive Intelligence Review} in a major book-length
publication a number of years back, called ”A New Marshall Plan
for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”. What Helga LaRouche
emphasized is that at the point that the EU is really detonating
underneath people’s noses, there is no solution within the
current geometry.
The only solution is to go with this kind of Marshall Plan,
and to work with China and the BRICS and other countries, to
extend the Silk Road project into this region and to develop the
Middle East and North Africa in order to have an incentive for
millions and tens of millions of refugees not to leave to seek a
better condition. And Helga LaRouche’s emphasis was that this is
a very substantial example of what Xi Jinping has called the
”win-win” paradigm; the ”win-win” system. It is a win for
everybody, for Europe and the United States to work with China
and Russia to develop the Middle East and North Africa along the
Silk Road routes. This kind of cooperation between China and the
rest of the world is what China is seeking in inviting the rest
of the world to engage in; and this is the only way to solve the
crises and shift the geometry overall which is creating the
existential threat which is now being faced by Europe.
Now, this new paradigm; this is exactly what we have been
talking about for quite a while, but I think the foundation for a
new paradigm cannot be seen as merely some sort of extension of
former or present geopolitical ideas about how the world works.
This is not merely a rearrangement of political and economic and
strategic alliances between countries that would still be
dominated by the same axiomatic world view which is what has
brought us to this crisis point to begin with. Rather, there
needs to be a true renaissance; a new calibration, a
re-examination of what our view of mankind is. What our view of
man as a species is, and what mankind’s role within this galaxy
and his relationship to the entire universe; and indeed, what his
responsibility is as a uniquely creative species in this universe
must be.
So, on that subject, Jason Ross is joining us from the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, and I think we’re going to have a
somewhat exciting discussion of what are the implications of the
really profound work that Albert Einstein engaged in over a
century ago; and which is now grabbing the headlines again in the
form of this experiment that has revealed the affirmation of
Einstein’s hypothesis concerning the shape of space-time.
JASON ROSS: Thanks. As I imagine everyone has heard by now,
on September 14th of last year, a gravitational wave was detected
by the interferometer experiments that we had set up in
Washington state and in Louisiana. Over a few months, that signal
was studied to make sure that that really was what had occurred;
and a paper was submitted in January and published in February
announcing the news that a gravitational wave phenomenon
representing the merging of two black holes had been detected.
This meant that a change in space-time had been experienced in
that detector; where maybe we don’t know how the experiment
worked.
Very briefly, two tracks at right angles to each other,
allowed light to move up and down those tracks. Those tracks
reach 4 kilometers long. Due to some very clever engineering, the
effect of length was 100 times that; and by the motion of these
gravity waves — meaning a change in the shape of space due to a
varying intensity of gravity due to these two black holes
spinning around each other — the length of the two tracks varied
by an amount that was about 1/10 the diameter of a proton over a
track length of 4 kilometers. This is equivalent to the star
nearest to us getting closer and further away by the width of a
hair. It’s amazing that was actually able to be measured; that’s
an astonishingly tiny change.
And it says something about the difficulties and why it’s
been — as Matt said — it’s been a century since Einstein had
proposed the existence of these gravity waves; and now they’ve
been detected. So, the recent upgrades to these detectors here in
the US made this possible; there are other detectors around the
world. Some of them are being upgraded; new ones are being
brought on line. There is a proposal for a space-based
interferometry experiment — the Lisa experiment; which NASA had
been a part of, and has now left it to the European Space Agency,
currently scheduled to launch in 2034. Perhaps it’ll be sent
sooner than that, based on this news.
But what does all of this mean? What does it tell us about
— what are the implications? Well for one thing, this means we
really have an entirely new tool for looking at the universe that
we live in. All of our knowledge about the heavens beyond us,
comes from sight, or various forms of sight. You can’t smell a
star, you can’t taste it; you can’t hear it, you can’t fell it.
You can see it. So various forms of seeing are the way we learn
more about our surroundings. From simple observations with the
eyes here on Earth, which were all that were available to Kepler
when he determined how the planets moved; the use of telescopes
in the optical range — simple telescopes that could be seen with
the eye — into more complex telescopes, including ones that see
what we wouldn’t typically call light; radio telescopes.
Telescopes in Earth orbit, looking in other wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum; infrared telescopes, ultra-violet
telescopes, x-ray telescopes. We’ve got a lot of ways of
side of the Moon, where China is going to be within just a
few years sending a lander. The potential to do long wavelength
radio telescope work from that location; this represents
something new.
But what we’ve got with this successful detection based on
the change in space-time with the LIGO [Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory] experiments, this is something
totally different. This is like bringing in a new sense all
together. We’ve been seeing the universe; now we can probably
hear it would be the best analogy. It represents a vibration,
like the sound vibrations our ears are able to pick up. Only this
time, it’s incredibly faint, and it’s about space itself
vibrating; that really is what it is. So, that’s tremendously
important.
On the history of this, it’s important to keep in mind
people are very excited about this; there’s good reason to be,
it’s quite a development. But this can only indirectly be called
a scientific breakthrough; the science behind this — Einstein
proposed this in 1916. He had some more thoughts and wrote
another paper in 1918; some more discussion about it. Hypotheses
about black holes, breakthroughs in computing ability to try to
model these types of things; all of that took place. But what
could be called the fundamentally scientific change occurred 100
years ago with Einstein’s theory of relativity; with gravity
waves being one of the implications. Being able to detect them is
wonderful; it’s an amazing technological advancement. It shows
that we are capable of precision that was totally undreamed of in
Einstein’s time, certainly, or even a few decades ago. The
development that we’ve made has been tremendous.
But I think it’s fair to say this was not a scientific
breakthrough in the real sense of science. It is a new sensation;
it is a new technology. It is a whole new way of looking at
things; and that is tremendously important. I think that if we
look back at what Einstein did that made his hypothesis possible,
we can compare it to the really awful influence of Bertrand
Russell.
So, first on Einstein. We’ve got to recall that what
Einstein did in laying out his revolutionary theories was not
something that he derived; it wasn’t something that he proved. It
wasn’t something that he showed was true based on what was
already known. What Einstein said about the universe contradicted
the Newtonian view of space and time that had become dominant.
Einstein said that that simplistic view of space and time, which
went along somewhat intuitively with our senses, was in fact
untrue; and that basic concepts like simultaneity, or knowing
that two events happen at the same time, such a basic concept as
that. That there’s one time that applies everywhere; Einstein
showed that was untrue. That’s a very unintuitive thought. The
idea that space could have a shape to it; that’s a very
unintuitive thought. It’s not suggested by appearances.
But what Einstein was doing was implementing a world outlook
that goes back to Cusa — although I’m not going to talk about
him right now — but to Leibniz and to Bernhard Riemann. If we
consider the work of Leibniz, 1646-1716, the founder of physical
economy; there’s plenty to say about him, and plenty will be said
on this website. One of the specific things that he looked at was
in the world of physics, Leibniz’s demonstration that there was
no absolute space; that there was no absolute time. This was
contrary to Descartes, Newton, and others. Leibniz said there’s
no distinction between rest and motion, for example. If there’s
no absolute space, you can’t say that anything is at absolute
rest; that was a concept used by Descartes. Absolute space was a
concept used by Newton. But Leibniz was in a fight about this,
saying that space was a relation between concurrently existing
things; but it didn’t exist on its own. In a debate that he had
with a top Newtonian — Samuel Clarke — this seemingly physical
discrepancy about is space absolute or not, turned into very
directly a political one. That, both of these two — Leibniz and
Clarke — used their concept of space to make a point about God,
and implicitly also about government; about the basis of the
legitimacy of a ruler.
Clarke, the Newtonian, said that because everything could
have been created anywhere in space once God decided to do the
Creation, that showed that God made a choice without any
necessity; that it was just because God felt like doing then and
felt like doing it where he did, because he felt like doing that.
Sort of like a dog deciding to his business wherever he feels
like it. Leibniz said that if God had to do something without a
good reason, that God would be only all-powerful, but not good or
wise. And Leibniz said that that conception of God has to include
those perfections as well; goodness, wisdom, and power.
Now between the lines, what these two were also saying was a
view of government and a view of society. Implicit in this is
Leibniz’s view that the legitimacy of a ruler or of government is
not simply from having gathered power; but from using it in a
wise way to achieve good ends. That may seem a little bit far
afield, but it’s true; and this is part of the background on this
concept. That from the necessity for goodness came the
nonexistence of absolute space; that’s how Leibniz showed that.
He was right.
Bernhard Riemann, in 1854, delivered a presentation, wrote a
paper on the shape of space. And Riemann said that since the time
of Euclid up to his time, no one had ever really taken on in a
realistic way, what the basis of the shape of space is. That
Euclid said things like the sum of the angles in a triangle are
180; Riemann said that may or may not be true. On a curved space,
for example, it’s not true. The most important aspect is that
Riemann didn’t propose replacing Euclid with a similar geometry;
it’s that he said that the basis of our understanding of space
has to be the physical causes that make things occur within
space. He was right; that was Einstein’s approach. With
relativity, he said that our understanding of space can’t start
from a box; it has to start from physical principles that give
rise to the effects in space, and to the relationship of objects
in space. So light, gravitation, these became the basis of space
for Einstein; and those concepts lie outside of space. They
aren’t geometrical concepts in the way Euclid’s concepts were
geometrical. Light is a real thing; gravity is a real principle.
So, Einstein, in following on this and implementing it, and
developing his theories, developing his breakthroughs of
relativity, created something that contradicted; he made a new
hypothesis. To contrast that, let’s look at the past 100 years.
We’ve now affirmed something that Einstein had proposed 100 years
ago; but where are the new Einsteins? Where are the new theories
that contradict? Where are the new concepts that don’t follow
from what we already know, but introduce fundamentally new
principles? And more importantly, why is that not understood as
what science really is?
To say just a little bit about Bertrand Russell’s role in
all of that, LaRouche has called Russell the most evil man of the
20th Century; and we have given ample demonstrations of that.
Some of the more straightforward evidence of it is his views
about keeping the world population down; especially dark-skinned
races, who Russell particularly was upset about there being more
of. Proposing a scientific dictatorship, using murder to
eliminate people who became intelligent and opposed the ruling
class, keeping science secret from the majority of people; this
is some of the nice outlook that Russell had on things. He also,
in his own work as a ”professional” you might say, worked on
destroying the concept of science and turning it into
mathematics. He did this before and after the year 1900; this is
somewhat earlier in his life, where he wanted to throw away what
Einstein ended up doing, which was creating a new concept that
contradicted the past. And say instead, that every thought in the
future, will have to derive from thoughts in the past; that we
can replace creativity with logic.
Russell really put that into practice. Many people who are
familiar with Russell might think of him as being an anti-war
demonstrator, as being a peace-loving activist. Somebody who was
opposed to war, to conflict; especially to nuclear weapons. And,
included in that, technology itself; the concept that science is
dangerous, that perhaps science should be held back, because
these technologies allow us to exterminate ourselves. The idea
that the appropriate response to that would be to eliminate
technologies, rather than to have a productive, future-oriented
basis for relations among nations. This really sprung up in a
major way around anti-nuclear activism, of which Russell was a
major proponent.
So, I think what we can reflect on, what we can take from
the excitement around these gravitational findings, is that: 1)
it’s an opportunity to really go back and really develop and
understanding of who Einstein was. How did he think? Who was this
man, who a century ago, put forth the hypothesis that was
detected in this way only this year. Who was Riemann? How did he
actually think? We can reflect on the opportunities that we have
for the use of these kinds of instruments to provide us an
entirely new window to understanding the universe around us. Not
only are we seeing things in a different band, we’re using a
different sense all together. We’re hearing the universe; we’re
able to listen in on a completely different kind of physical
process than the electromagnetic ones that are the basis of all
astronomy otherwise. Using light, radio waves, x-rays and that
sort of thing. And I think it also demonstrates that the ability
to develop new technologies, to rise to a challenge, certainly
exists. And we saw this in the Apollo program, which similarly,
going to the Moon itself did not involve as much new science as
it did new technologies, new social organizations to implement
those technologies. Which we saw with some of the breakthroughs
of the truly amazing apparatus used to detect these gravitational
waves. But we have to have grand objectives. I mentioned the LISA
experiment; a space-based interferometry experiment, similar to
ones which did this recent detection, which NASA had been a major
player in and then pulled back on, as part of the Obama
destruction of a national mission, a natural future. NASA, as the
leading representative of that future orientation of the nation.
So, we have to have human objectives for the nation, for
ourselves. We have to, as a nation, have objectives like what
China’s doing now; as represented by China’s moves towards the
Moon from the Helium-3 standpoint. From the sheer excitement of
the population of China being asked to put forward proposals for
experiments to take up to the Moon. This is something that people
are actually thinking about as citizens of this nation. ”Wow!
What are we going to send up there?” ”What are we going to take
to the Moon for the next trip?”
We’ve got a lot of objectives that have been defined that we
have just been sitting on for decades. And if we eliminate the
source of this culturally, the frankly unscientific view of
science, this anti-human view of humanity, we can do great
things. And we can do it by removing Obama and giving this nation
a future-oriented mission again.
OGDEN: Well thank you very much, Jason. I think that’s
certainly exciting; the idea to be able to directly perceive
changes in space-time itself. So, I’d like to thank Jason for his
presentation, and I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us remotely
today. And I’d like to thank all of you for joining us; and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Lyd:
17. februar 2016 – Tirsdag blev Tyrkiets beskydning af syrisk territorium taget op i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd efter anmodning fra Rusland, og Rådet vedtog enstemmigt at henstille til Tyrkiet om at standse sine angreb. I et møde bag lukkede døre fik Rådets medlemmer en briefing om Tyrkiets krænkelser af syrisk suverænitet. Efterfølgende sagde Sikkerhedsrådets formand, Venezuelas ambassadør Rafael Ramirez, til journalister, at ”alle medlemmer af sikkerhedsrådet … var enige om at bede Tyrkiet om at overholde international lov”, som det citeredes af TASS. Rådet bekræftede sine forpligtelser i forhold til München-aftalen,
Ramirez sagde, at “medlemmerne af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd er bekymrede over de tyrkiske angreb på et antal syriske regioner … ” Han talte specifikt imod angreb på kurderne. ”Et at de spørgsmål, som nogle lande, inklusive Venezuela, har rejst, er, at det kurdiske folk må inddrages i diskussionerne … Noget, som er vigtigt – kurderne kæmper mod terrorist-grupper på landjorden, og dette er en betydningsfuld faktor for alle … ”
At russerne tager lederskabet i forsvaret for suverænitet og international lov i FN-processen står indlysende klart. I sidste uge sendte den syriske regering breve til Rådet og rapporterede om Tyrkiets angreb på kurdiske militsstyrker i Syrien, samt hævdede, at Tyrkiet krænkede Syriens suverænitet. I går anmodede Rusland om at få dette spørgsmål sat på Rådets dagsorden.
Den russiske Udenrigsministerium offentliggjorde en udtalelse d. 15. februar, der sagde, at Rusland ser den tyrkiske aktion som ”en direkte støtte til international terrorisme, i modstrid med relevante resolutioner i FN’ Sikkerhedsråd og de forpligtelser, som Tyrkiet har påtaget sig i Wien, New York og München, som medlem af den Internationale Støttegruppe for Syrien.” Derfor ”vil Rusland støtte initiativet for at sætte dette spørgsmål på Sikkerhedsrådets dagsorden, hvilket burde afstedkomme en utvetydig vurdering af Tyrkiets provokerende politik, der truer fred og sikkerhed i Mellemøsten og derudover.”
17. februar 2016 – Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel opfordrede i dag til, at man overvejede en sikkerhedszone med flyveforbud langs den tyrkisk-syriske grænse, inde i Syrien, »for flygtninge«. Dette medførte en russisk respons, der gik ud på, at kun med tilladelse fra den syriske regering kunne en sådan zone skabes.
»Det ville være en hjælp, hvis der i Syrien var et område, hvor ingen af parterne i konflikten lancerede luftangreb«, sagde Merkel til det tyske parlament den 17. februar, iflg. avisen Hurriyet.
»Vi kan ikke forhandle med Islamisk Stats [ISIL] terrorister«, sagde Merkel, »men hvis vi kunne nå frem til en aftale mellem anti- og pro-Assadstyrker om en form for flyveforbudszone, forstået som et fristed for de mange flygtninge, så ville det redde mange liv og fremhjælpe den politiske proces om Syriens fremtid«. Det samme sagde hun i et avisinterview den 15. feb.
Talsmand for Rusland, Gatilov, sagde, »Kun med den syriske regerings godkendelse og opbakning fra FN’s Sikkerhedsråd kunne en sådan zone skabes.«
15. februar 2016 – General Harald Kujat (pensioneret), den forhenværende chef for NATO’s Militærkomite (2002-05) og forhenværende stabschef for det tyske Bundeswehr (2000-02), talte igen den 14. feb. om behovet for at arbejde sammen med Rusland i Syrien for at afslutte krigen og således undgå en global konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland. Søndag aften optrådte han på ARD-TV’s Anne Will show, hvor han fortsatte sin helligelse til at fremprovokere en offentlig debat og sætte standarden for en strategisk evaluering.
Mod showets slutning gik Kujat imod de andre gæsters anti-russiske ytringer med et realitetschok. Han lagde ud med at sige, at vi burde behandle Medvedevs tale den 13. feb. ved München Sikkerhedskonferencen som »en appel« til os om at tale sammen. Vi havde skåret alle vore bånd til Rusland over, såsom suspenderingen af NATO-Rusland Rådet, »som er et særdeles fleksibelt instrument … Vi kunne på fremragende vis bruge Militærkomiteen i et arrangement med lederen af den russiske generalstab til at aftale forholdsregler i Ukraine, der opbygger tillid til militæret. Det er ikke blevet brugt!«
Over for afbrydelser, der sagde, at »det er alt for simpelt« fra gæsten Martin Schulz, præsident for EU-parlamentet (Tysk, SPD), påpegede general Kujat konsekvenserne af ikke at gøre dette nu: »Den fare, som Syrien repræsenterer, er totalt undervurderet. Hvis Tyrkiet invaderer Syrien og render ind i russiske tropper, så står vi med et NATO-medlem i konflikt med Rusland. Vi er så alle i konflikt med Rusland … Tyrkiet har igen og igen prøvet på at trække NATO ind i det, nøgleord Patriot-missiler, nøgleord AWACS. Jeg kan kun advare om, at man ser denne situation for at være så alvorlig, som den er, og lægger pres på vore allierede, og en af disse er Tyrkiet.« Tidligere i debatterne sagde han, at, hvis Tyrkiet invaderer, »så ville det blive en atomar nedsmeltning«, og vi må holde os virkeligheden for øje. Han brugte termen super-GAU (tysk: Grösste Atom-Unfall; det største atomuheld), et udtryk, der refererer til en atomar nedsmeltning.
Som svar til en schweizisk journalist-gæst, der opfordrede til at bevæbne den »moderate opposition« i Syrien med missiler til at nedskyde russiske kampfly, benyttede general Kujat lejligheden til at påpege, at vi for to år siden lå i forhandlinger med Rusland om at afslutte krigen, men lige præcis denne »moderate opposition« standsede det ved at insistere på, at Assad måtte gå som en forudsætning. Resultatet? »I denne periode har vi fået titusinder af døde og millioner af flygtninge.« Han fortsatte, lad os ikke gentage denne fejltagelse. Vi har brug for tre skridt for en fredelig løsning: afslutte borgerkrigen, fordrive ISIS og en demokratisk, legitim, parlamentarisk regering i Syrien, »der skaber forudsætningerne for en form for Marshallplan til genopbygning af dette land.«
14. februar 2016 – Under spørgsmål & svar-sessionen ved Sikkerhedskonferencen i München den 13. feb. udtalte den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, at den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry, under sin forudgående tale i München, sagde, at militært samarbejde med Rusland er, hvad USA ønsker. Men, sagde Lavrov, han finder, at udtalelser, der kommer fra Ashton Carters Pentagon, modsiger ønsket om samarbejde. Lavrov nævnte USA’s insisteren på at fortsætte sine egne militære handlinger i Syrien samtidig med, at det forlanger, at Rusland standser sin kampagne – til trods for, at begge kampagner har terrorgrupper som deres mål, rapporterede RT i dag.
Lørdag understregede Lavrov ved Sikkerhedskonferencen i München: »Nøglen til at afgøre både det humanitære problem og spørgsmålet om en våbenhvile er etablering af et dagligt, time-for-time samarbejde og ditto koordinering mellem det amerikanske militær, som leder af deres koalition, og Ruslands militær, eftersom vi [Rusland] arbejder i Syrien efter invitation fra den syriske regering.« Lavrov sagde, at samarbejde med den Russiske Føderation er vigtigt, eftersom Moskva »har en vis indflydelse i Damaskus«.
Lavrov sagde: »Diskussionen omkring våbenhvilen bevæger sig ud på et sidespor for at standse den russiske luftstyrke-gruppering og rejser således mistanker og giver anledning til fortrydelige tanker omkring, hvad resultatet af alt arbejdet i München om [Støttegruppens kommunike] vedtaget den 12. februar har været.« »Hvis der ikke finder ærlige, daglige kontakter sted mellem militæret – i regionen, på ethvert andet, passende sted, hvorfra det er muligt klart at se, hvad der foregår på ’jorden’, og hvorfra det ville være muligt at styre det, der foregår på ’jorden’, så vil intet blive gennemført. Kontakter mellem militæret er fastlagt i denne erklæring [Gruppens kommunike]. Hvis USA ’bakker ud’, påtager det sig et kolossalt ansvar«, sagde Lavrov.
»Det faktum, at diskussionen omkring denne våbenhvile er ved at glide over mod at prioritere standsningen af de russiske luftstyrkers operationer, får mig til kraftigt at mistænke, at vore anstrengelser for fred vil ende surt. Hvis militæret ikke opretholder en ærlig, dag-til-dag kontakt, kan intet opnås«, sagde Lavrov. »Hvis amerikanerne forsøger at spole tilbage nu, ville ansvaret være deres«, tilføjede han, iflg. RT’s rapport.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Wiesbaden, 12. februar 2016 – Tidligere formand for NATO’s Militærkomite (2002-05) og stabschef for Bundeswehr (2000-02), den tyske general Harald Kujat (pensioneret), gentog offentligt, hvad alle ved München Sikkerhedskonferencen den 12.-14. feb. ved: Rusland kan ikke ignoreres.
Som han i dag sagde til Neue Passauer Presse, der spurgte, om det var Putins plan, at operationerne omkring Aleppo skulle øge konflikten i Syrien: »Nej. Rusland går frem efter en strategisk plan. Putins mål er at støtte de syriske tropper i deres offensiv i Islamisk Stats områder. Hidtil har Aleppo været et punkt, der blokerede for dette mål, idet byen har været kontrolleret af den syriske opposition. Man bør ikke glemme, at Rusland har foreslået en våbenhvile med start 1. marts. Dette er en chance.«
På spørgsmålet, »Argumenterer De for samarbejde med russerne?« svarede han: »For det første har russerne med deres militære intervention gjort fredsprocessen mulig. Frem til september 2015 befandt vi os i et totalt dødvande. Hverken amerikanerne eller europæerne havde en strategi for et fredeligt Syrien, og de var heller ikke rede til at blive massivt engageret. Vi må give denne proces en chance. Før den russiske intervention var situationen denne: Den syriske hær stod på randen af kollaps. Jeg ville kun have givet dem nogle få ugers eksistens tilbage. Men så ville Syrien være kollapset, og IS ville have overtaget landet. Det næste mål ville have været Libanon – og derefter Israel. Det ville have haft vidtgående konsekvenser for os.«
Samtidig med, at Kujat blev interviewet i går, gav også formanden for München Sikkerhedskonferencen, Wolfgang Ischinger, et interview i går aftes, til ZDF-TV’s aggressive nyhedsvært Klaus Kleber – dette efter, at det forlød, at den russiske premierminister Dmitry Medvedev gav interview til Handelsblatts globale udgave, hvor han advarede om, at udenlandske troppedeployeringer i Syrien ville udløse en permanent Tredje Verdenskrig.
Først gav Ischinger udtryk for Medvedevs ønske om, at alle skulle sætte sig ved forhandlingsbordet, men så kom Ischinger pludselig med, at russerne også måtte standse deres offensiv. ZDF’s Kleber spurgte dernæst, men hvis russerne ikke standser, og Vesten massivt øger sin støtte til oprørerne, »Vil dette simpelt hen ikke betyde mere krig?« Ischinger svarede, at det ikke ville være godt, men hvis der ikke sker noget i denne weekend, her, så »må Obama og Putin tale med hinanden for at komme sammen ved et topmøde, hvor de indgår en overordnet, strategisk aftale. Dette kan kun forhandles igennem af lederne af disse to magter. Det kan udenrigsministre ikke gøre; der jo i alle tilfælde er underlagt ordrer, især i USA’s og Ruslands tilfælde. Dernæst mener jeg, at vi må have et topmøde af den art, som blev afholdt for 30 år siden mellem Ronald Reagan og Mikhail Gorbachov.«
Kleber, der skiftede emne, spurgte, Vesten kaster også bomber; findes der »onde russiske bomber og gode vestlige bomber?« Ischinger svarede, at, i en ideel situation, burde de to magter ikke blot have en fælles, strategisk løsning, men også, at de udefra kommende magter, der var involveret i Syrien, burde »sætte deres militære enheder, så at sige, under fælles miltærkommando«.
13. februar 2016 – I en tale, der var fjendtligtsindet over for Rusland, helligede NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg hele sin korte tale ved Sikkerhedskonferencen i München til at angribe Rusland. Idet han hurtigt afviste truslen fra ISIL, sagde Stoltenberg i begyndelsen, »Vi har set et mere selvhævdende Rusland. Et Rusland, der destabiliserer den europæiske sikkerhedsorden.«
Idet han hyklerisk talte om at forhindre krig og om nødvendigheden af at åbne op for en dialog, meddelte han endda, at han havde talt med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov på sidelinjen af München, »for at udforske muligheden for at sammenkalde et møde i NATO-Rusland Rådet«. Men dernæst understregede Stoltenberg, »Politisk engagement betyder ikke en tilbagevenden til sædvanlige gøremål. Vi befinder os i en ny virkelighed mht. Rusland.«
Han pralede med den internationale enhed omkring sanktionerne, suspenderingen af Rusland fra G-8 og »voksende støtte til vore partnere i øst« som respons til »Ruslands handlinger i Ukraine«.
»Og NATO er i gang med den største styrkelse af vores kollektive forsvar i årtier«, sagde han, »for at sende et magtfuldt signal for at afskrække enhver aggression eller intimidering«, sagde han.
Denne »multinationale«, »fremskudte tilstedeværelse« i Øst er »for at gøre det klart, at et angreb på én allieret ikke kun vil blive besvaret af nationale styrker, men af styrker fra hele Alliancen.«
Den russiske premierminister Dmitry Medvedev, der talte hurtigt efter Stoltenberg, bemærkede NATO-chefens fjendtlighed. (Se nedefor)
Medvedev: Amerikansk-russisk dialog er nødvendig hver dag for at standse en krise som den Kolde Krig i 1962
13. februar 2016 – Den russiske premierminister Dmitry Medvedev sagde i dag, under den årlige Sikkerhedskonference i München, til USA, NATO og Europa, at de skulle stoppe deres krigspropaganda imod Rusland, fordi det kun reflekterer en farlig, ny kold krig.
»Vi mener, at NATO’s politik imod Rusland stadig er fjendtlig og generelt set forstokket«, sagde premierministeren. »For at sige det ligeud, så er vi hastigt i færd med at glide ind i en periode med en ny, kold krig. Rusland er blevet fremstillet som så godt som den største trussel mod NATO, eller mod Europa, Amerika og andre lande (hvilket hr. Stoltenberg netop havde demonstreret). De viser skræmmende film om Rusland, der starter en atomkrig. Jeg er undertiden forvirret: er dette 2016, eller 1962? (Parentes tilføjet).
For at gøre det fuldstændig klart, at en sådan propaganda kunne føre til et atomopgør, nævnte Medvedev udtrykkeligt missilkrisen på Cuba. Men, understregede han, forskellen dengang var, at en dialog forhindrede en »atomar apokalypse«.
»Jeg vil gerne citere John F. Kennedy, der brugte meget enkle, men passende ord, ’Indenrigspolitik kan kun besejre os; udenrigspolitik kan dræbe os’«, sagde han. »I begyndelsen af 1960’erne stod verden ved indgangen til en atomar apokalypse, men de to rivalerende magter fandt modet til at indrømme, at ingen politisk konfrontation var tabet af menneskeliv værd.«
Men, med dagligt samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland, sagde han, »og jeg mener dagligt – hver dag«, kan krig undgås.
»Næsten hver dag henviser man til os som den mest forfærdelige trussel mod NATO som helhed eller mod Europa, Amerika og andre lande specifikt«, sagde Medvedev, [men] »vi er blevet klogere … Og vi er ikke splittet af ideologiske fantomer og stereotyper. Jeg mener, at de udfordringer, som vi i dag står overfor, ikke vil føre til konflikt, men snarere vil opmuntre os til at komme sammen i en fair og ligeværdig forening, der vil gøre det muligt for os at bevare freden i de næste 70 år, mindst.«
Han lagde ikke fingrene imellem mht. Syrien. »Terrorisme er en udfordring for hele civilisationen: vi må ikke opdele terrorister i venner, fjender, ekstremister eller ’moderater’. … Jeg tror, at Daesh [arabisk for ISIS] bør være taknemlige over for mine kolleger, visse vestlige ledere, der umuliggjorde et sådant samarbejde« mellem Rusland og Vesten, sagde Medvedev.
»Det er vigtigt at bevare en forenet, syrisk stat og forhindre, at den falder fra hinanden i religions-baserede fragmenter. Verden har ikke råd til endnu et Libyen, Yemen eller Afghanistan.«
10. februar 2016 – Vil Tyrkiet invadere Syrien, eller ej?
»Jeg tror ikke, koalitionen under anførelse af amerikanerne, og med Tyrkiet som medlem, vil lade sådanne vanvittige planer blive realiseret«, sagde den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov i et interview til avisen Moskovsky Komsomolets, rapporterer TASS. »Ved mødet i Wien med den Internationale Gruppe til Støtte for Syrien var vi og USA villige til, og tilbød, at indsætte i dokumenterne, og siden i resolutionen fra FN’s sikkerhedsråd, én meget enkel sætning – krisen i Syrien har ingen militær løsning. USA, Rusland og de europæiske stater gik ind for dette«, bemærkede Lavrov. »Nogle amerikanske allierede i området blokerede afgørende ideen. Således, at [det militære scenario – TASS] er helt muligt. Nu hører vi udtalelser om planer om at indsætte landtropper«, tilføjede han.
Lavrov hævdede anklagende, at der finder hemmelige diskussioner sted mellem Tyrkiet og ISIS. Han advarede om, at Tyrkiet stadig sender budskaber, både offentligt og privat, om, at det allerede gør krav på dele af det nordlige Syrien under påskud af at etablere flygtningelejre.
»Tyrkiet fortsætter med at tale om at skabe en sikkerhedszone i det syriske territorium, der er fri af Islamisk Stat«, sagde han. »Alle forstår, at de taler om den del af grænsen, der ligger mellem de to kurdiske enklaver – som forbinder de to styrker, Tyrkiet anser for at være absolut uacceptable, ikke mindst, fordi det ville blokere for Tyrkiets midler til at supplere kæmpere i Syrien og modtage deres kontrabande forsyninger«, sagde Lavrov. »Der er indikationer på, at Islamisk Stats lederskab holder hemmelig kontakt med tyrkiske regeringsfolk«, fortsatte han. »De diskuterer alternative muligheder under de aktuelle omstændigheder, hvor angrebene fra vore luftstyrker alvorligt har begrænset mulighederne for traditionelle smuglerruter«, tilføjede han.
9. februar 2016 – Efter drøftelser med den tyrkiske premierminister Ahmet Davutoglu i Ankara i går, annoncerede den tyske kansler Angela Merkel en fælles, tysk-tyrkisk deployering af politi for at kontrollere indstrømningen af flygtninge ved den syrisk-tyrkiske grænse. Hun sagde desuden, at NATO’s forsvarsministermøde den 10.-11. feb. burde undersøge, om alliancen kunne øge sin flådetilstedeværelse i Ægæerhavet – angiveligt for at »standse menneskesmuglere«.
Om det ville hjælpe noget med at dæmme op for flodbølgen af flygtninge er mere end tvivlsomt, men det er rimeligt snarere at antage, at det er en orkestrering af nok et påskud for NATO til at opgradere sin tilstedeværelse i området – imod Rusland, naturligvis. Den kendsgerning, at Merkel gjorde Rusland »medansvarlig« for den nye flygtningestrøm fra Aleppo til den syrisk-tyrkiske grænse, synes at passe ind i dette. Den planlagte deployering af AWACS-overvågningsfly fra Tyskland til Tyrkiet, der ikke giver anden mening end at være rettet mod Rusland, kommer i samme sammenhæng.
8. februar 2016 – Den pensionerede, tyske general Harald Kujat, tidligere stabschef for Bundeswehr (2000-2002) og formand for NATO’s Militærkomite frem til 2005, blev interviewet til en artikel i Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung på tærsklen til kansler Merkels møde i dag med den tyrkiske præsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan i Ankara, med overskriften, »Ex-stabschef advarer mod NATO-deployering«.
NATO’s forsvarsministre mødes i Bruxelles den 10. feb., hvor en afgørelse kan blive truffet om en provokerende anmodning fra Obamaregeringen om, at NATO skal koordinere »koalitionens« luftstyrker over Syrien med anvendelse af NATO AWACS-fly, hvilket i realiteten vil forvandle tysk, amerikansk og anden tilstedeværelse der til et NATO-anliggende. AWACS, der i øjeblikket flyver over Tyrkiet, har intet NATO-mandat til Syrien. General Kujats bemærkninger har særlig vægt, da han var chef for NATO’s militærkomite fra 2002-2005.
Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung citerer ham for at sige, at »en involvering fra NATO’s side i kampen imod terrorgruppen Islamisk Stat i Syrien kræver et strategisk koncept og politisk mål … Vi bør ikke lade os trække skridt for skridt ind i en konflikt uden at vide, hvad næste skridt vil blive, og hvordan det fortsætter derfra … NATO kan ikke afgøre borgerkrigen i Syrien med et par AWACS-fly«. Det ville blive nødvendigt med landtropper, udtaler han, og stiller spørgsmålstegn ved, om NATO virkelig er parat til at påtage sig denne farlige opgave. Hvis ikke, bør NATO holde sig udenfor: »Man må anskue situationen fra et slutpunkt; ellers bliver en NATO-deployering til en prekær glidebane.«
Flere presserapporter har meldt om utilfredshed i regeringen i Berlin over USA’s ønske om at deployere AWACS-fly, fordi en NATO-rolle kunne forvandle den næste hændelse til et strategisk opgør mellem NATO og Rusland. Desuden kunne et NATO-mandat til AWACS-fly åbne en dør for at indkalde NATO-landtropper fra Tyrkiet, den eneste troværdige landtroppestyrke i området bortset fra den syriske hær, med dens tætte russiske luftstøtte.
I sidste uge krævede i modsætning hertil NATO-general Hans-Lothar Domröse, en tysker, der er kommandør over NATO’s Fælles Kommandostyrke i Brunssum, Holland, deployeringen af NATO AWACS-fly, så vel som også forholdsregler til at imødegå russerne i Baltikum.
Det tyske nyhedsagentur Deutsche Welle oversatte artiklen om general Kujat til sin russisksprogede nyhedsdækning. General Kujat er en offentlig fortaler for en Marshallplan for Syrien og området der.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Uddrag af LPAC Fredags-webcast, 5. feb. 2016. Så hvis man ønsker at standse en umiddelbar krigsfare, hvis man har noget som helst ønske om, at USA skal genoptage sin indsats for menneskehedens fælles mål – hvilket vil sige en alliance med Rusland, en alliance med Kina for at avancere med disse store projekter i rummet, i vores Solsystem, for at udforske disse dybder og dernæst fortsætte ud i galaksen – så må man træffe visse omgående hasteforanstaltninger for grundlæggende set at afskære faren for krig, før vi befinder os i en situation, hvor denne planet vil befinde sig i den største fare i hele menneskehedens hidtidige eksistens.
Februar, 1., 2016 – Rusland har deployeret fire Sukhoi Su-35S kampfly til Syrien, rapporterer Sputnik, der citerer en artikel i Kommersant. Kampflyet Su-35S med kun én siddeplads, det mest avancerede kampfly, der i øjeblikket produceres i Rusland, beskrives som et Generation 4++ fly, idet det er et stealth-design og inkorporerer visse stealth-egenskaber og er et af de mest manøvredygtige fly i luften. »Generalstaben har besluttet at gennemføre en test i marken af den splinternye Su-35S i Syrien for første gang nogensinde«, sagde en militærkilde til Kommersant. De fire fly, der er blevet deployeret, blev iflg. rapporten først leveret til det Russiske Luftvåben i oktober og november 2015.
Dette er selvfølgelig ikke en direkte respons til Tyrkiets beskyldning, endnu engang, om, at russiske fly i weekenden skulle have krænket tyrkisk luftrum. Men sammen med deployeringen af S-400 luftforsvarssystemet ved den russiske flyvebase i Latakia, krigsskibet Varyag med sit S-300 luftforsvarssystem ud for kysten og bevæbningen af russiske kampfly, der flyver over Syrien, med luft-til-luft-missiler, betyder deployeringen af Su-35S, at Tyrkiet nu er gjort »skakmat« i Syrien, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det i dag.
25. januar 2016 – Den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble har en kronik den 24. jan. i Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, hvor han erklærer, at Europa må yde et større bidrag end tidligere for at stabilisere Sydvestasien. »Vi berøres mere end andre kontinenter af det, der foregår i dette område. Og vi kan sikkert ikke undgå at blive mere engageret i en stor del af Afrika.«
Han tilføjer, at Rusland spiller en nøglerolle i enhver løsning på konflikten i Syrien og således også i enhver løsning på flygtningekrisen. En europæisk strategi for Mellemøsten og det øvrige Sydvestasien kan afgjort ikke fungere uden Amerika, men den har også brug for Rusland: »Hvis jeg har forstået Ruslands sikkerhedsinteresser mht. islamisk terrorisme korrekt, så har Rusland snarere problemer med sunnimuslimsk relaterede aktiviteter. Hvorfor kan vi således ikke udvikle en fælles strategi sammen med Rusland for at deeskalere konflikter mellem den saudisk-ledede sunni-koalition og den iransk-ledede shia-koalition?«
Eftersom termen »Marshallplan«, som Schäuble brugte ved forummet i Davos den 21. jan., da han krævede investeringer i størrelsesordenen milliarder af euro til genopbygning i Syrien, ikke forekommer i denne kronik, må man antage, at den blev skrevet før dette forum.
Størstedelen af denne kronik domineres af Schäubles favoritemne, nemlig at bruge denne krise til mere europæisk integration og overførsel af suverænitet. Han mener f.eks., at det ikke var en god idé at lade de nationale centralbanker forblive autonome vis-à-vis Den europæiske Centralbank. Han erklærede også, at en europæisk bankindskudsgarantifond og et europæisk bankopløsningsreglement er en nødvendighed, med vanskeligt at virkeligøre i øjeblikket, hvor nationale regler stadig mangler at blive harmoniseret.
Foto: Flygtninge på grænsen mellem Makedonien og Serbien.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Video i 2 dele. Her er playlisten:
Lyd:
20. januar 2016 – General Harald Kujat (pensioneret), den tidligere formand for NATO’s Militærkomite (2002-2005) og Stabschef for Tysklands Forbundshær (2000-2002), afsluttede sine bemærkninger på talkshowet »Under den Linden« på Phoenix TV den 18. jan. med en appel til omsider at udarbejde en altomfattende strategi for Syrien for at drive Islamisk Stat ud, og han understregede behovet for en genopbygningsstrategi i lighed med Marshall-planen. General Kujat optrådte på programmet sammen med regeringens rådgiver i terrorisme, Guido Steinberg.
Studieværten bad general Kujat om en afsluttende erklæring, der adresserede den kendsgerning, at deres diskussion havde demonstreret manglende udsigter, der således skabte et vakuum, som terroristerne udnyttede.
Her følger en oversættelse af general Kujats bemærkninger:
»Jeg må selvfølgelig komme tilbage til det, jeg sagde før. Terroristerne ser selvfølgelig, at vi ikke har en, jeg vil bruge konceptet, altomfattende strategi, til hvilken ville høre, f.eks., en økonomisk genopbygningsplan, en Marshall-plan for denne region og lignende ting. Det er meget synligt. Og det, som hr. Steinberg netop sagde med, at USA er faldet bort som en stabiliserende faktor, men det kan ændre sig. Amerikansk politik er kendt for pludselige skift. Det kan ændre sig igen, men i øjeblikket har det været sådan siden 2003 [Irakkrigen], og Europa alene kan ikke udfylde denne rolle. Det har vi set. Vi så bare til i mange år, mens flygtningene fra Syrien samledes i Libanon og Jordan. Vi har så at sige fulgt katastrofen her fra tribunen, og vi var ikke engang i stand til at forudse konsekvenserne af dette for vort eget land, for ikke at tale om at udvikle i det mindste en idé om, hvordan man kunne skabe en mere stabil situation. Og man må desværre sige, at dette fører til de resultater, der er kommet frem her i vores diskussion, at man bliver frustreret, fordi man ikke kan komme med en omfattende løsning, eller nogen som helst form for løsning, for man ser kun selektive tilgange, reaktioner, krisestyring, og så, når det faktisk allerede er for sent. Det er det store underskud i vores vestlige politik; det er især også et underskud i europæisk udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik, og især et underskud i den tyske udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik, den største og økonomisk stærkeste magt i Europa.«
15. januar 2016 – Det ene afgørende aspekt, som er helt udeladt i de fleste medier og den offentlige dækning af flygtningespørgsmålet – nemlig spørgsmålet om at lancere et økonomisk/infrastrukturelt genopbygningsprogram for Syrien – er langsomt ved at komme i gang i Tyskland, Østrig og Schweiz.
De respektive initiativer er stadig meget begrænset, men er et skridt i den rigtige retning. Der må komme meget mere, og det må sættes på dagsordenen for forhandlingerne om en våbenhvile i Syrien i Wien, der genoptages den 25. januar.
I Tyskland har udviklingsminister Gerd Müller gentagne gange, og atter ved årets slutning, opfordret til et forceret program på 10 milliarder euro, hvor mindst halvdelen af dette beløb skal bruges af EU i Syrien, Jordan, Libanon og Tyrkiet til programmer for faglig uddannelse, skoleundervisning, lægehjælp og infrastrukturel genopbygning. Der er imidlertid ikke sket meget, med undtagelse af en særlig udbetaling fra Müllers ministerium på 140 mio. euro til at støtte UNHCR-programmer i de nævnte fire lande.
Udenrigsministeriet og den tyske udenlandske tjeneste for akademiske uddannelser (DAAD) har lanceret et program, “Ledere for Syrien”, for henved 300 unge syrere, udvalgt blandt 5.000 ansøgere, og som vil blive optaget på tyske universiteter og modtage stipendier til at gennemføre deres studier.
Et lignende program er undervejs i Schweiz, hvor et tværpolitisk initiativ inden udgangen af januar i det nationale parlament vil fremlægge et forslag om lancering af et stipendieprogram for unge syrere: det understreges, at disse udgifter vil betale sig selv ind, når disse syrere vender tilbage til deres land for at hjælpe med genopbygningen. Her er det interessant, at det schweiziske initiativ henviser til en nylig undersøgelse foretaget i Østrig af arbejdsmarkedstjenesten (AMS) blandt ca. 1.000 flygtninge fra flere lande, og som viser, at procentdelen af unge syrer, der har kvalifikationer på gymnasie- og universitetsniveau, er høj, og højere blandt kvinder med 36 % end blandt mændenes 21 %.
Resultaterne af undersøgelsen er blevet rapporteret i mange medier i Tyskland, Østrig og Schweiz i de sidste par dage.
I den østrigske hovedstad Wien præsenterede AMS og den nationale Marshallplan-fond i går en opfordring til en “EU-Marshallplan for Syrien”, der – som fondens præsident Wolfgang Petritsch sagde – bør indledes nu, selv om en våbenhvile for Syrien endnu ikke er blevet forhandlet. Planen vil henvende sig til unge syrere med erhvervskvalifikationer såvel som med gymnasiale og universitetskvalifikationer.
Foto: fra Kobane i det nordlige Syrien.
15. januar 2016 – Ifølge Defense News langede den tidligere amerikanske forsvarsminister Chuck Hagel under en tale i onsdags i det nordatlantiske råd ud efter Obamaregeringen. ”Vi har ladet os blive indfanget og lammet i vores Syrien-politik med erklæringen om, at ”Assad må gå”, sagde han og bemærkede, at Rusland og selv Iran begge har givet udtryk for, at de var villige til at samarbejde med USA imod ISIS, såfremt USA ville droppe politikken med regimeskift. Men, sagde Hagel, ”der kan ikke, og vil ikke være nogen mulighed for en afgørelse eller løsning, før der er en stabil platform. Stabilitet i den forstand, at situationen er stabil nok til, at den kan tages til det næste niveau, hvor man forsøger at udrede, hvad det er, der foregår.”
“Det er klart, at det indebærer samarbejde med Rusland”, fortsatte Hagel. ”Jeg mener, at det betyder samarbejde med iranerne. Jeg tror ikke, man vil se nogen mulighed for stabilitet i Mellemøsten, før russerne, iranerne, USA og de arabiske nationer tager del i det.” Han tilføjede, at Assad i sidste instans vil træde tilbage, men ”Det bør ikke binde os til alt muligt andet.”
”Assad har aldrig været vores fjende. En brutal diktator? Ja. Der er mange brutale diktatorer derude. Jeg går ikke ind for brutale diktatorer. Men vi burde have lært fra Saddam Hussein og Gaddafi, at man kan fjerne en brutal diktator, men man må hellere forstå, hvad man får til gengæld”, sagde Hagel. ”Lad os komme frem til denne stabile platform.”