A new paper written by Robert Blackwell and Ashley Tellis, “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” has been published by the CFR, arguing China will be the U.S.’s “most significant competitor” for the foreseeable future and demanding a confrontati…
A new paper written by Robert Blackwell and Ashley Tellis, “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” has been published by the CFR, arguing China will be the U.S.’s “most significant competitor” for the foreseeable future and demanding a confrontati…
This coming week could prove decisive on the Greek crisis, and trigger the blowout of the entire trans-Atlantic system. Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly noted that Greece can perfectly well survive departure from the Eurozone, by turning to the BRICS, whereas Germany cannot, and the whole trans-Atlantic system will disintegrate as a consequence. On Wednesday May 6, Greece has a EU200 million payment to the IMF, for which it is scrambling to come up with the cash without agreeing to the Troika demands for sharp austerity; it has a larger payment of EU 750 million due later in the month; and on Monday May 11, the EU Finance Ministers meet, purportedly to decide whether or not to provide Greece with any funds.
The executive managing director of the Institute of International Finance (IIF, the “bankers’ cartel”), Hung Tran, who was a representative of private bondholders during the 2012 Greek haircut negotiations, has warned that if Greece is driven to a Grexit, “the whole cohesion of the western alliance would be put in doubt.” He told the Telegraph that the consequences would be complex and were “not fully understood,” and that a Greek exit “would throw the [eurozone] bloc into chaos.” He said that the problem is not immediate contagion, but “the natural question is: who will be next… Questions will arise about the alignment of Greece in terms of foreign policy, security policy, and so on, and the whole cohesion of the western alliance would be put in doubt.” The Telegraph article explains that “there has been speculation that Athens would seek help from Moscow to ease the country’s debt crisis, and to counter pressure from its creditors in the EU.”
ECB head Mario Draghi’s QE policy has only created a false sense of security, while the whole of Europe has become progressively more polarized, Tran said. He insisted that there is “room for compromise… [and a] last minute deal,” and that it would not be wise to push Greece to the wall by reversing current plans to raise the minimum wage and by making further pension cuts—which is exactly what the Troika is now doing.
A second article in the Telegraph reported on May 1 demonstrations in Athens, with the participation of Syriza members and government officials including Finance Minister Varoufakis, rejecting pension cuts and demanding that wage increases go through. Labor Minister Panos Skourletis said the government’s policy would proceed, describing it as a “deep and immovable red line.” The article notes that German President Joachim Gauck on Friday supported the Greek government’s demand that Greece be paid reparations by Germany for crimes carried out by the Third Reich. Gauck said it was the “right thing to do for a history-conscious country like ours.”
This coming week could prove decisive on the Greek crisis, and trigger the blowout of the entire trans-Atlantic system. Lyndon LaRouche has repeatedly noted that Greece can perfectly well survive departure from the Eurozone, by turning to the BRICS, whereas Germany cannot, and the whole trans-Atlantic system will disintegrate as a consequence. On Wednesday May 6, Greece has a EU200 million payment to the IMF, for which it is scrambling to come up with the cash without agreeing to the Troika demands for sharp austerity; it has a larger payment of EU 750 million due later in the month; and on Monday May 11, the EU Finance Ministers meet, purportedly to decide whether or not to provide Greece with any funds.
The executive managing director of the Institute of International Finance (IIF, the “bankers’ cartel”), Hung Tran, who was a representative of private bondholders during the 2012 Greek haircut negotiations, has warned that if Greece is driven to a Grexit, “the whole cohesion of the western alliance would be put in doubt.” He told the Telegraph that the consequences would be complex and were “not fully understood,” and that a Greek exit “would throw the [eurozone] bloc into chaos.” He said that the problem is not immediate contagion, but “the natural question is: who will be next… Questions will arise about the alignment of Greece in terms of foreign policy, security policy, and so on, and the whole cohesion of the western alliance would be put in doubt.” The Telegraph article explains that “there has been speculation that Athens would seek help from Moscow to ease the country’s debt crisis, and to counter pressure from its creditors in the EU.”
ECB head Mario Draghi’s QE policy has only created a false sense of security, while the whole of Europe has become progressively more polarized, Tran said. He insisted that there is “room for compromise… [and a] last minute deal,” and that it would not be wise to push Greece to the wall by reversing current plans to raise the minimum wage and by making further pension cuts—which is exactly what the Troika is now doing.
A second article in the Telegraph reported on May 1 demonstrations in Athens, with the participation of Syriza members and government officials including Finance Minister Varoufakis, rejecting pension cuts and demanding that wage increases go through. Labor Minister Panos Skourletis said the government’s policy would proceed, describing it as a “deep and immovable red line.” The article notes that German President Joachim Gauck on Friday supported the Greek government’s demand that Greece be paid reparations by Germany for crimes carried out by the Third Reich. Gauck said it was the “right thing to do for a history-conscious country like ours.”
The article which follows will be included in next week’s EIR.
In a webcast and three major conferences in European cities during the last week in April, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke along with leading representatives of the BRICS nations, insisting the United States and Europe must join the BRICS in a new system for war-avoidance and credit for infrastructure.
Zepp-LaRouche welcomed the recent mass decisions by nearly all European nations to join the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), defying the Obama Administration in doing so. They demonstrate the potential to break Europe out of the grip of economic stagnation, deadly austerity policies, and NATO’s war confrontation with Russia.
But the realization demands that European nations reject the war policy, create new credit institutions and join China and the BRICS in building “land-bridge” development corridors across Eurasia, linking East Asia and Europe by land and sea and developing the landlocked nations between them. Zepp-LaRouche became known in China as “the Silk Road Lady” for her 30-year campaign for this. She told a business audience in Copenhagen Apr. 28 that she “jumped that high” for joy when President Xi Jinping announced it as China’s “Economic Belt and Road” infrastructure investment policy in October 2013.
Since that time she has waged an intensifying campaign in Europe for the new system of mutual economic and scientific development of nations which this offers, as the alternative to war and potential thermonuclear war confrontation.
The 20th Century was disastrous for Europe. With her 21st Century Silk Road/Eurasian Land-Bridge campaign, Zepp-LaRouche is reigniting Europe’s “American” economic development impetus of the late 19th Century.
Then, the world-changing success of Alexander Hamilton’s ‘American System’ in the United States, led European leaders like Bismarck and Russia’s Count Witte to apply its principles in rail-building, port development, creation of new manufacturing industries, etc., and radiated into Japan and Korea as well.
Now after a century of the “British System” of monetarism, free trade, depressions, wars, and population reduction, the China-led BRICS new development paradigm offers a new ‘Hamiltonian’ chance.
Following her Apr. 21 European webcast and her speech Apr. 24 to the Cultural-Business Dialogue in Baden-Baden, Germany, Zepp-LaRouche spoke together with a number of Chinese representatives, including China’s ambassador, to a large seminar at the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute Apr. 26; and then to a major EIR seminar in Frankfurt Apr. 28. The proceedings there show the impact her campaign is having.
The other speakers at the all-day Frankfurt event represented four nations. They were Prof. Shi Ze, Senior Research Fellow at the China Institute of International Studies; former Greek ambassador and diplomat Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos; Malaysian Investment Development Agency director S. Sundara Raja; and the Ethiopian Consul-General in Frankfurt. Other diplomats were in the audience of 75 at the seminar.
All the speakers agreed that they no longer listen to the dubious and destructive advice of the IMF experts, monetarist bankers and “geopoliticians,” but focus on policies that serve the development of their nations’ real economy and the well-being of their citizens. They view the grouping of BRICS-allied nations as a great growth and development potential that will be tapped.
Zepp-LaRouche opened the Frankfurt seminar by offering the “good news” that the BRICS development and the LaRouche movement are providing an alternative to the collapsing Wall Street-London dominated system — which even the IMF now predicts, is facing yet another crash. With bank and government credit dried up in the West, the many new international development banks being created by the BRICS countries are inviting huge investments for “great projects” of infrastructure which are urgently needed, she said.
Zepp-LaRouche described how her husband, EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche, had proposed such an International Development Bank and its necessary great projects 40 years ago; and that those projects and development corridors would have been built had banks done their job of serving the real economy with credit. China now repeatedly invites Europe — and the United States — to join and help capitalize the development banks the BRICS are creating.
The “Silk Road Lady” emphasized that Chinese political thought includes the Confucian principles of collaboration and harmony of nations, underlying both China’s massive development strides and its offers of collaboration in a new credit system to the West.
Prof. Shi Ze located the “New Silk Road” policy of China within the fact — of crucial importance for the economic future now — that after the 2008 crash of the trans-Atlantic banks, China dramatically increased its involvement (credit and investment), becoming a global economic driver, while some other regions’ contributions collapsed.
The Chinese expert presented a “nested” series of spheres of this credit and development: first, the drive to break down the once-vast differences in living standards between eastern China and its rural, partially desert West; second, the economic development of the landlocked Central Asian republics through the “New Silk Road”; third, the development through the AIIB of all of South Asia from ASEAN to the Middle East, and even Southeast Europe — “giving the America economy new opportunities and markets.” He explained that for China itself, the New Silk Road represents a new responsibility in world politics, for the creation of a new international community around a common principle of mutual economic and scientific progress.
Whoever doesn’t understand the New Silk Road in this way, said Prof. Shi, does not understand China.
Greek ambassador Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos presented the seminar with the most sobering possible picture of the economic desolation which must be overcome in Europe — the damage which the EU has done to the Greek economy and Greek people since 2002, causing the “downgrading of human rights of Greeks” as documented by human rights organizations. He stressed that every agency from the IMF to the UN to the ECB, every government in Europe including the Greek government, allowed economic austerity to remove human rights guaranteed under every European treaty and convention. “What went wrong with the EU?” Chrysanthopoulos asked. “Why is it destroying its member-states and peoples?”
“An answer to this [problem] may be the BRICS initiative,” he said. “This is an initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the benefit of humanity. To that end they have created a Development Bank to invest billions in necessary development projects. China recently initiated the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), joined by over 20 Asian nations as founding members and has set up a Silk Road Development Fund. China has also proposed within BRICS the creation of a Free Trade Area of Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP).The incorporation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to the BRICS initiative could create a formidable power, which if remaining out of the control of the bankers and big companies’ lobbyists, could lead to a point that humanity indeed has a chance to reach global peace and end poverty through common human economic development.”
Noting the “desperate need for the cooperation of the U.S.A. and … Europe with the BRICS countries and their initiatives,” the ambassador added: “Because of Greece’s special relationships with China and Russia, Athens can play an important role within the BRICS initiative.”
Along the same lines, the director of the Malaysian Investment Development Agency, Siva Sundara Raja, explained how Malaysia had learned from recent experience to ignore the instructions of the IMF and the London/Wall Street banking “consensus.”
That painful experience was the 1997-98 so-called “Asian financial crisis,” in which Malaysia’s previous 40 years’ manufacturing and technology development suffered a sharp backwards blow, because its financial policies had come from the IMF and western banking “experts.” Rejecting this “consensus” under Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, Malaysia imposed capital and currency controls and stopped offshore speculation in its currency. Only then could it resume is economic growth dynamic.
Not accidentally, this policy of capital and currency controls — and Glass-Steagall separation of its banks — has been the policy of China throughout its last 25 years’ astonishing economic, scientific, and technological growth.
The final and very important seminar contribution was made by Ethiopia’s consul-general in Frankfurt, Mehreteab Mulugeta Haile. Since its 1991 hunger crisis, he explained, Ethiopia has concentrated on strengthening nationally important economic branches — a “Hamiltonian” policy — and has now again reached food self-sufficiency. The country’s economic growth rates have rivaled those of China, recently at the level of 11% with plans to increase this further.
Mulugeta Haile said that his country sees collaboration with the BRICS as crucial to its present and future growth. Russian, Indian, and Brazilian credits are financing railroad projects, and China’s investment credits for Africa are available to fund new Ethiopian infrastructure projects. The African Union, he said, plans a paradigm shift for the next 50 years, based on this assistance in economic development.
The crucial question of China’s overall Africa policy — outside the “Silk Road” belts, but included in China’s “vision and action plan” for Eurasian development — was raised from the seminar audience. Dr. Shi — who had also spoken together with Helga Zepp-LaRouche at the Copenhagen conference two days earlier — said that although in Europe’s media China’s Africa policy is called “imperialist”, in Africa it is seen as partnership for the development of agriculture, modern transport, communications, education and healthcare.
The Frankfurt audience was fully engaged for three and one-half hours in the strategy of reversing Europe’s self-destructive recent policy; and at the conclusion, were anxious to know from Zepp-LaRouche and her colleagues, what the next public steps would be.
The article which follows will be included in next week’s EIR.
In a webcast and three major conferences in European cities during the last week in April, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke along with leading representatives of the BRICS nations, insisting the United States and Europe must join the BRICS in a new system for war-avoidance and credit for infrastructure.
Zepp-LaRouche welcomed the recent mass decisions by nearly all European nations to join the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), defying the Obama Administration in doing so. They demonstrate the potential to break Europe out of the grip of economic stagnation, deadly austerity policies, and NATO’s war confrontation with Russia.
But the realization demands that European nations reject the war policy, create new credit institutions and join China and the BRICS in building “land-bridge” development corridors across Eurasia, linking East Asia and Europe by land and sea and developing the landlocked nations between them. Zepp-LaRouche became known in China as “the Silk Road Lady” for her 30-year campaign for this. She told a business audience in Copenhagen Apr. 28 that she “jumped that high” for joy when President Xi Jinping announced it as China’s “Economic Belt and Road” infrastructure investment policy in October 2013.
Since that time she has waged an intensifying campaign in Europe for the new system of mutual economic and scientific development of nations which this offers, as the alternative to war and potential thermonuclear war confrontation.
The 20th Century was disastrous for Europe. With her 21st Century Silk Road/Eurasian Land-Bridge campaign, Zepp-LaRouche is reigniting Europe’s “American” economic development impetus of the late 19th Century.
Then, the world-changing success of Alexander Hamilton’s ‘American System’ in the United States, led European leaders like Bismarck and Russia’s Count Witte to apply its principles in rail-building, port development, creation of new manufacturing industries, etc., and radiated into Japan and Korea as well.
Now after a century of the “British System” of monetarism, free trade, depressions, wars, and population reduction, the China-led BRICS new development paradigm offers a new ‘Hamiltonian’ chance.
Following her Apr. 21 European webcast and her speech Apr. 24 to the Cultural-Business Dialogue in Baden-Baden, Germany, Zepp-LaRouche spoke together with a number of Chinese representatives, including China’s ambassador, to a large seminar at the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute Apr. 26; and then to a major EIR seminar in Frankfurt Apr. 28. The proceedings there show the impact her campaign is having.
The other speakers at the all-day Frankfurt event represented four nations. They were Prof. Shi Ze, Senior Research Fellow at the China Institute of International Studies; former Greek ambassador and diplomat Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos; Malaysian Investment Development Agency director S. Sundara Raja; and the Ethiopian Consul-General in Frankfurt. Other diplomats were in the audience of 75 at the seminar.
All the speakers agreed that they no longer listen to the dubious and destructive advice of the IMF experts, monetarist bankers and “geopoliticians,” but focus on policies that serve the development of their nations’ real economy and the well-being of their citizens. They view the grouping of BRICS-allied nations as a great growth and development potential that will be tapped.
Zepp-LaRouche opened the Frankfurt seminar by offering the “good news” that the BRICS development and the LaRouche movement are providing an alternative to the collapsing Wall Street-London dominated system — which even the IMF now predicts, is facing yet another crash. With bank and government credit dried up in the West, the many new international development banks being created by the BRICS countries are inviting huge investments for “great projects” of infrastructure which are urgently needed, she said.
Zepp-LaRouche described how her husband, EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche, had proposed such an International Development Bank and its necessary great projects 40 years ago; and that those projects and development corridors would have been built had banks done their job of serving the real economy with credit. China now repeatedly invites Europe — and the United States — to join and help capitalize the development banks the BRICS are creating.
The “Silk Road Lady” emphasized that Chinese political thought includes the Confucian principles of collaboration and harmony of nations, underlying both China’s massive development strides and its offers of collaboration in a new credit system to the West.
Prof. Shi Ze located the “New Silk Road” policy of China within the fact — of crucial importance for the economic future now — that after the 2008 crash of the trans-Atlantic banks, China dramatically increased its involvement (credit and investment), becoming a global economic driver, while some other regions’ contributions collapsed.
The Chinese expert presented a “nested” series of spheres of this credit and development: first, the drive to break down the once-vast differences in living standards between eastern China and its rural, partially desert West; second, the economic development of the landlocked Central Asian republics through the “New Silk Road”; third, the development through the AIIB of all of South Asia from ASEAN to the Middle East, and even Southeast Europe — “giving the America economy new opportunities and markets.” He explained that for China itself, the New Silk Road represents a new responsibility in world politics, for the creation of a new international community around a common principle of mutual economic and scientific progress.
Whoever doesn’t understand the New Silk Road in this way, said Prof. Shi, does not understand China.
Greek ambassador Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos presented the seminar with the most sobering possible picture of the economic desolation which must be overcome in Europe — the damage which the EU has done to the Greek economy and Greek people since 2002, causing the “downgrading of human rights of Greeks” as documented by human rights organizations. He stressed that every agency from the IMF to the UN to the ECB, every government in Europe including the Greek government, allowed economic austerity to remove human rights guaranteed under every European treaty and convention. “What went wrong with the EU?” Chrysanthopoulos asked. “Why is it destroying its member-states and peoples?”
“An answer to this [problem] may be the BRICS initiative,” he said. “This is an initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the benefit of humanity. To that end they have created a Development Bank to invest billions in necessary development projects. China recently initiated the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), joined by over 20 Asian nations as founding members and has set up a Silk Road Development Fund. China has also proposed within BRICS the creation of a Free Trade Area of Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP).The incorporation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to the BRICS initiative could create a formidable power, which if remaining out of the control of the bankers and big companies’ lobbyists, could lead to a point that humanity indeed has a chance to reach global peace and end poverty through common human economic development.”
Noting the “desperate need for the cooperation of the U.S.A. and … Europe with the BRICS countries and their initiatives,” the ambassador added: “Because of Greece’s special relationships with China and Russia, Athens can play an important role within the BRICS initiative.”
Along the same lines, the director of the Malaysian Investment Development Agency, Siva Sundara Raja, explained how Malaysia had learned from recent experience to ignore the instructions of the IMF and the London/Wall Street banking “consensus.”
That painful experience was the 1997-98 so-called “Asian financial crisis,” in which Malaysia’s previous 40 years’ manufacturing and technology development suffered a sharp backwards blow, because its financial policies had come from the IMF and western banking “experts.” Rejecting this “consensus” under Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, Malaysia imposed capital and currency controls and stopped offshore speculation in its currency. Only then could it resume is economic growth dynamic.
Not accidentally, this policy of capital and currency controls — and Glass-Steagall separation of its banks — has been the policy of China throughout its last 25 years’ astonishing economic, scientific, and technological growth.
The final and very important seminar contribution was made by Ethiopia’s consul-general in Frankfurt, Mehreteab Mulugeta Haile. Since its 1991 hunger crisis, he explained, Ethiopia has concentrated on strengthening nationally important economic branches — a “Hamiltonian” policy — and has now again reached food self-sufficiency. The country’s economic growth rates have rivaled those of China, recently at the level of 11% with plans to increase this further.
Mulugeta Haile said that his country sees collaboration with the BRICS as crucial to its present and future growth. Russian, Indian, and Brazilian credits are financing railroad projects, and China’s investment credits for Africa are available to fund new Ethiopian infrastructure projects. The African Union, he said, plans a paradigm shift for the next 50 years, based on this assistance in economic development.
The crucial question of China’s overall Africa policy — outside the “Silk Road” belts, but included in China’s “vision and action plan” for Eurasian development — was raised from the seminar audience. Dr. Shi — who had also spoken together with Helga Zepp-LaRouche at the Copenhagen conference two days earlier — said that although in Europe’s media China’s Africa policy is called “imperialist”, in Africa it is seen as partnership for the development of agriculture, modern transport, communications, education and healthcare.
The Frankfurt audience was fully engaged for three and one-half hours in the strategy of reversing Europe’s self-destructive recent policy; and at the conclusion, were anxious to know from Zepp-LaRouche and her colleagues, what the next public steps would be.
The article which follows will be included in next week’s EIR.
In a webcast and three major conferences in European cities during the last week in April, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke along with leading representatives of the BRICS nations, insisting the United States and Europe must join the BRICS in a new system for war-avoidance and credit for infrastructure.
Zepp-LaRouche welcomed the recent mass decisions by nearly all European nations to join the China-initiated Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), defying the Obama Administration in doing so. They demonstrate the potential to break Europe out of the grip of economic stagnation, deadly austerity policies, and NATO’s war confrontation with Russia.
But the realization demands that European nations reject the war policy, create new credit institutions and join China and the BRICS in building “land-bridge” development corridors across Eurasia, linking East Asia and Europe by land and sea and developing the landlocked nations between them. Zepp-LaRouche became known in China as “the Silk Road Lady” for her 30-year campaign for this. She told a business audience in Copenhagen Apr. 28 that she “jumped that high” for joy when President Xi Jinping announced it as China’s “Economic Belt and Road” infrastructure investment policy in October 2013.
Since that time she has waged an intensifying campaign in Europe for the new system of mutual economic and scientific development of nations which this offers, as the alternative to war and potential thermonuclear war confrontation.
The 20th Century was disastrous for Europe. With her 21st Century Silk Road/Eurasian Land-Bridge campaign, Zepp-LaRouche is reigniting Europe’s “American” economic development impetus of the late 19th Century.
Then, the world-changing success of Alexander Hamilton’s ‘American System’ in the United States, led European leaders like Bismarck and Russia’s Count Witte to apply its principles in rail-building, port development, creation of new manufacturing industries, etc., and radiated into Japan and Korea as well.
Now after a century of the “British System” of monetarism, free trade, depressions, wars, and population reduction, the China-led BRICS new development paradigm offers a new ‘Hamiltonian’ chance.
Following her Apr. 21 European webcast and her speech Apr. 24 to the Cultural-Business Dialogue in Baden-Baden, Germany, Zepp-LaRouche spoke together with a number of Chinese representatives, including China’s ambassador, to a large seminar at the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute Apr. 26; and then to a major EIR seminar in Frankfurt Apr. 28. The proceedings there show the impact her campaign is having.
The other speakers at the all-day Frankfurt event represented four nations. They were Prof. Shi Ze, Senior Research Fellow at the China Institute of International Studies; former Greek ambassador and diplomat Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos; Malaysian Investment Development Agency director S. Sundara Raja; and the Ethiopian Consul-General in Frankfurt. Other diplomats were in the audience of 75 at the seminar.
All the speakers agreed that they no longer listen to the dubious and destructive advice of the IMF experts, monetarist bankers and “geopoliticians,” but focus on policies that serve the development of their nations’ real economy and the well-being of their citizens. They view the grouping of BRICS-allied nations as a great growth and development potential that will be tapped.
Zepp-LaRouche opened the Frankfurt seminar by offering the “good news” that the BRICS development and the LaRouche movement are providing an alternative to the collapsing Wall Street-London dominated system — which even the IMF now predicts, is facing yet another crash. With bank and government credit dried up in the West, the many new international development banks being created by the BRICS countries are inviting huge investments for “great projects” of infrastructure which are urgently needed, she said.
Zepp-LaRouche described how her husband, EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche, had proposed such an International Development Bank and its necessary great projects 40 years ago; and that those projects and development corridors would have been built had banks done their job of serving the real economy with credit. China now repeatedly invites Europe — and the United States — to join and help capitalize the development banks the BRICS are creating.
The “Silk Road Lady” emphasized that Chinese political thought includes the Confucian principles of collaboration and harmony of nations, underlying both China’s massive development strides and its offers of collaboration in a new credit system to the West.
Prof. Shi Ze located the “New Silk Road” policy of China within the fact — of crucial importance for the economic future now — that after the 2008 crash of the trans-Atlantic banks, China dramatically increased its involvement (credit and investment), becoming a global economic driver, while some other regions’ contributions collapsed.
The Chinese expert presented a “nested” series of spheres of this credit and development: first, the drive to break down the once-vast differences in living standards between eastern China and its rural, partially desert West; second, the economic development of the landlocked Central Asian republics through the “New Silk Road”; third, the development through the AIIB of all of South Asia from ASEAN to the Middle East, and even Southeast Europe — “giving the America economy new opportunities and markets.” He explained that for China itself, the New Silk Road represents a new responsibility in world politics, for the creation of a new international community around a common principle of mutual economic and scientific progress.
Whoever doesn’t understand the New Silk Road in this way, said Prof. Shi, does not understand China.
Greek ambassador Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos presented the seminar with the most sobering possible picture of the economic desolation which must be overcome in Europe — the damage which the EU has done to the Greek economy and Greek people since 2002, causing the “downgrading of human rights of Greeks” as documented by human rights organizations. He stressed that every agency from the IMF to the UN to the ECB, every government in Europe including the Greek government, allowed economic austerity to remove human rights guaranteed under every European treaty and convention. “What went wrong with the EU?” Chrysanthopoulos asked. “Why is it destroying its member-states and peoples?”
“An answer to this [problem] may be the BRICS initiative,” he said. “This is an initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the benefit of humanity. To that end they have created a Development Bank to invest billions in necessary development projects. China recently initiated the Asian Infrastructure Bank (AIIB), joined by over 20 Asian nations as founding members and has set up a Silk Road Development Fund. China has also proposed within BRICS the creation of a Free Trade Area of Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP).The incorporation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to the BRICS initiative could create a formidable power, which if remaining out of the control of the bankers and big companies’ lobbyists, could lead to a point that humanity indeed has a chance to reach global peace and end poverty through common human economic development.”
Noting the “desperate need for the cooperation of the U.S.A. and … Europe with the BRICS countries and their initiatives,” the ambassador added: “Because of Greece’s special relationships with China and Russia, Athens can play an important role within the BRICS initiative.”
Along the same lines, the director of the Malaysian Investment Development Agency, Siva Sundara Raja, explained how Malaysia had learned from recent experience to ignore the instructions of the IMF and the London/Wall Street banking “consensus.”
That painful experience was the 1997-98 so-called “Asian financial crisis,” in which Malaysia’s previous 40 years’ manufacturing and technology development suffered a sharp backwards blow, because its financial policies had come from the IMF and western banking “experts.” Rejecting this “consensus” under Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, Malaysia imposed capital and currency controls and stopped offshore speculation in its currency. Only then could it resume is economic growth dynamic.
Not accidentally, this policy of capital and currency controls — and Glass-Steagall separation of its banks — has been the policy of China throughout its last 25 years’ astonishing economic, scientific, and technological growth.
The final and very important seminar contribution was made by Ethiopia’s consul-general in Frankfurt, Mehreteab Mulugeta Haile. Since its 1991 hunger crisis, he explained, Ethiopia has concentrated on strengthening nationally important economic branches — a “Hamiltonian” policy — and has now again reached food self-sufficiency. The country’s economic growth rates have rivaled those of China, recently at the level of 11% with plans to increase this further.
Mulugeta Haile said that his country sees collaboration with the BRICS as crucial to its present and future growth. Russian, Indian, and Brazilian credits are financing railroad projects, and China’s investment credits for Africa are available to fund new Ethiopian infrastructure projects. The African Union, he said, plans a paradigm shift for the next 50 years, based on this assistance in economic development.
The crucial question of China’s overall Africa policy — outside the “Silk Road” belts, but included in China’s “vision and action plan” for Eurasian development — was raised from the seminar audience. Dr. Shi — who had also spoken together with Helga Zepp-LaRouche at the Copenhagen conference two days earlier — said that although in Europe’s media China’s Africa policy is called “imperialist”, in Africa it is seen as partnership for the development of agriculture, modern transport, communications, education and healthcare.
The Frankfurt audience was fully engaged for three and one-half hours in the strategy of reversing Europe’s self-destructive recent policy; and at the conclusion, were anxious to know from Zepp-LaRouche and her colleagues, what the next public steps would be.
New events have occurred this week in the campaign to force the U.S. Government to declassify and disclose to the public, the 28-page chapter of Congress’s report on the September 11, 2001, attacks which was withheld when the report was published in December 2002.
On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Bob Graham (ret.) was interviewed by Larry King on King’s Internet-TV show PoliticKING to urge release of the chapter. Graham co-chaired the joint US Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees’ investigation of U.S. agencies’ failure to prevent the attacks, the subject of the report. In his introduction, King said that Graham is seeking disclosure of the 28 pages, because he says they implicate Saudi citizens in helping the terrorists who attacked the US.
King’s first question was why the 28-page section is classified. “It’s a mystery to me,” Graham said, and confirmed that he’s read the chapter, and helped write it, but cannot discuss the details, because it’s classified. However, he said, it’s been reported that it concerns who financed the attacks, and implicates Saudi Arabia. To flesh this out, he discussed at some length, events that were not in the 28 pages but about which much is known: the actions of Saudi agents and two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. After he mentioned funds transferred by the wife of Saudi Ambassador Bandar, King said he knows Prince Bandar, and asked why Bandar would get involved in this. Graham sketched out a hypothesis that Osama bin Laden had demanded — under threat of launching an insurrection in Saudi Arabia — that the Saudi Royal Family provide assistance from Saudi intelligence assets in preparing the 9/11 attacks.
The previous day, Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund quoted Sen. Graham‘s April 17 opinion piece published in the Tampa Bay Times, about the “unanswered question” of whether the 9/11 hijackers while in the US acted alone, or whether others facilitated them; Freund noted that Graham and others say there is a host of evidence that “senior figures from Saudi Arabia financed and assisted the atrocity.” Freund also endorsed Graham’s efforts to get the 28 pages released, quoting Graham that “Saudi Arabia was the home of al-Qaeda and was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.” These, he quoted Graham, “are the poisonous fruits that have grown from our refusal to sanction the kingdom for what it did.”
Freund concluded his article, “… the Saudis must finally be made to understand that they cannot continue to spread extremism and intolerance with impunity. Release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, President Obama, and let the public decide for itself if Saudi Arabia is truly worthy of being called ‘friend’ or ‘foe.'” Freund is described as having “served as Deputy Communications Director in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term,” 1996-1999.
New events have occurred this week in the campaign to force the U.S. Government to declassify and disclose to the public, the 28-page chapter of Congress’s report on the September 11, 2001, attacks which was withheld when the report was published in December 2002.
On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Bob Graham (ret.) was interviewed by Larry King on King’s Internet-TV show PoliticKING to urge release of the chapter. Graham co-chaired the joint US Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees’ investigation of U.S. agencies’ failure to prevent the attacks, the subject of the report. In his introduction, King said that Graham is seeking disclosure of the 28 pages, because he says they implicate Saudi citizens in helping the terrorists who attacked the US.
King’s first question was why the 28-page section is classified. “It’s a mystery to me,” Graham said, and confirmed that he’s read the chapter, and helped write it, but cannot discuss the details, because it’s classified. However, he said, it’s been reported that it concerns who financed the attacks, and implicates Saudi Arabia. To flesh this out, he discussed at some length, events that were not in the 28 pages but about which much is known: the actions of Saudi agents and two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. After he mentioned funds transferred by the wife of Saudi Ambassador Bandar, King said he knows Prince Bandar, and asked why Bandar would get involved in this. Graham sketched out a hypothesis that Osama bin Laden had demanded — under threat of launching an insurrection in Saudi Arabia — that the Saudi Royal Family provide assistance from Saudi intelligence assets in preparing the 9/11 attacks.
The previous day, Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund quoted Sen. Graham‘s April 17 opinion piece published in the Tampa Bay Times, about the “unanswered question” of whether the 9/11 hijackers while in the US acted alone, or whether others facilitated them; Freund noted that Graham and others say there is a host of evidence that “senior figures from Saudi Arabia financed and assisted the atrocity.” Freund also endorsed Graham’s efforts to get the 28 pages released, quoting Graham that “Saudi Arabia was the home of al-Qaeda and was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.” These, he quoted Graham, “are the poisonous fruits that have grown from our refusal to sanction the kingdom for what it did.”
Freund concluded his article, “… the Saudis must finally be made to understand that they cannot continue to spread extremism and intolerance with impunity. Release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, President Obama, and let the public decide for itself if Saudi Arabia is truly worthy of being called ‘friend’ or ‘foe.'” Freund is described as having “served as Deputy Communications Director in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term,” 1996-1999.
New events have occurred this week in the campaign to force the U.S. Government to declassify and disclose to the public, the 28-page chapter of Congress’s report on the September 11, 2001, attacks which was withheld when the report was published in December 2002.
On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Bob Graham (ret.) was interviewed by Larry King on King’s Internet-TV show PoliticKING to urge release of the chapter. Graham co-chaired the joint US Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence Committees’ investigation of U.S. agencies’ failure to prevent the attacks, the subject of the report. In his introduction, King said that Graham is seeking disclosure of the 28 pages, because he says they implicate Saudi citizens in helping the terrorists who attacked the US.
King’s first question was why the 28-page section is classified. “It’s a mystery to me,” Graham said, and confirmed that he’s read the chapter, and helped write it, but cannot discuss the details, because it’s classified. However, he said, it’s been reported that it concerns who financed the attacks, and implicates Saudi Arabia. To flesh this out, he discussed at some length, events that were not in the 28 pages but about which much is known: the actions of Saudi agents and two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego. After he mentioned funds transferred by the wife of Saudi Ambassador Bandar, King said he knows Prince Bandar, and asked why Bandar would get involved in this. Graham sketched out a hypothesis that Osama bin Laden had demanded — under threat of launching an insurrection in Saudi Arabia — that the Saudi Royal Family provide assistance from Saudi intelligence assets in preparing the 9/11 attacks.
The previous day, Jerusalem Post columnist Michael Freund quoted Sen. Graham‘s April 17 opinion piece published in the Tampa Bay Times, about the “unanswered question” of whether the 9/11 hijackers while in the US acted alone, or whether others facilitated them; Freund noted that Graham and others say there is a host of evidence that “senior figures from Saudi Arabia financed and assisted the atrocity.” Freund also endorsed Graham’s efforts to get the 28 pages released, quoting Graham that “Saudi Arabia was the home of al-Qaeda and was instrumental in the creation of ISIS.” These, he quoted Graham, “are the poisonous fruits that have grown from our refusal to sanction the kingdom for what it did.”
Freund concluded his article, “… the Saudis must finally be made to understand that they cannot continue to spread extremism and intolerance with impunity. Release the 28 pages from the 9/11 report, President Obama, and let the public decide for itself if Saudi Arabia is truly worthy of being called ‘friend’ or ‘foe.'” Freund is described as having “served as Deputy Communications Director in Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Binyamin Netanyahu during his first term,” 1996-1999.
When John Corzine’s MFGlobal brokerage liquidated, taking hundreds of millions in its clients’ illegally pledged deposits with it, ex-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote a column posing the question, what if a large commercial bank had done this with its depositor’s funds? It was one of Bair’s few public flirtations with calling for the Glass-Steagall Act to be restored.
Then came the “London Whale,” where a large commercial bank (JPMorgan Chase) did just that with its depositors’ funds. Then followed Wall Street’s December 2014 rampage over Congress, forcing repeal of a regulation which prohibited the big banks from backing their riskiest derivatives trades with their FDIC-insured commercial depository units.
Now Bank of America is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, for executing large, very complex securities transactions directly inside its largest customers’ depository accounts. BoA was doing this by making large loans to its large clients, with which its brokerage unit, Merrill Lynch, then purchased extremely complex securities products for those customers. Why? So that the bank would have lower net liabilities to its big depositors (because ostensibly it had made them loans whose repayment they owed), and therefore the bank would have to set less funds aside under bank regulations to cover its obligations to those clients. BoA would have more funds with which to “trade,” or speculate. In fact, BoA was freeing up its own funds for speculation, by making complex trades with its large clients’ money, and offering those clients a small “cut” of the bank’s resulting profits.
At any moment, the exact fate of MFGlobal’s unfortunate large brokerage clients (many of whom were farmers) was hanging over the heads of these large depositors of Bank of America.
There is no difference between this and the practice of National City Bank in the 1920s, of selling its depositors shares in the bank and its stock speculations — the practice exposed by Ferdinand Pecora which directly spurred passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933.
With the SEC investigation under way, Bank of America now states it ceased this practice two years ago — not likely — and that the Fed, its safety and soundness regulator, knew all about it — likely. At worst, the SEC will extract a civil fine. All the barriers to big bank crime are down until Glass-Steagall is restored.
When John Corzine’s MFGlobal brokerage liquidated, taking hundreds of millions in its clients’ illegally pledged deposits with it, ex-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote a column posing the question, what if a large commercial bank had done this with its depositor’s funds? It was one of Bair’s few public flirtations with calling for the Glass-Steagall Act to be restored.
Then came the “London Whale,” where a large commercial bank (JPMorgan Chase) did just that with its depositors’ funds. Then followed Wall Street’s December 2014 rampage over Congress, forcing repeal of a regulation which prohibited the big banks from backing their riskiest derivatives trades with their FDIC-insured commercial depository units.
Now Bank of America is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, for executing large, very complex securities transactions directly inside its largest customers’ depository accounts. BoA was doing this by making large loans to its large clients, with which its brokerage unit, Merrill Lynch, then purchased extremely complex securities products for those customers. Why? So that the bank would have lower net liabilities to its big depositors (because ostensibly it had made them loans whose repayment they owed), and therefore the bank would have to set less funds aside under bank regulations to cover its obligations to those clients. BoA would have more funds with which to “trade,” or speculate. In fact, BoA was freeing up its own funds for speculation, by making complex trades with its large clients’ money, and offering those clients a small “cut” of the bank’s resulting profits.
At any moment, the exact fate of MFGlobal’s unfortunate large brokerage clients (many of whom were farmers) was hanging over the heads of these large depositors of Bank of America.
There is no difference between this and the practice of National City Bank in the 1920s, of selling its depositors shares in the bank and its stock speculations — the practice exposed by Ferdinand Pecora which directly spurred passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933.
With the SEC investigation under way, Bank of America now states it ceased this practice two years ago — not likely — and that the Fed, its safety and soundness regulator, knew all about it — likely. At worst, the SEC will extract a civil fine. All the barriers to big bank crime are down until Glass-Steagall is restored.
When John Corzine’s MFGlobal brokerage liquidated, taking hundreds of millions in its clients’ illegally pledged deposits with it, ex-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair wrote a column posing the question, what if a large commercial bank had done this with its depositor’s funds? It was one of Bair’s few public flirtations with calling for the Glass-Steagall Act to be restored.
Then came the “London Whale,” where a large commercial bank (JPMorgan Chase) did just that with its depositors’ funds. Then followed Wall Street’s December 2014 rampage over Congress, forcing repeal of a regulation which prohibited the big banks from backing their riskiest derivatives trades with their FDIC-insured commercial depository units.
Now Bank of America is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, for executing large, very complex securities transactions directly inside its largest customers’ depository accounts. BoA was doing this by making large loans to its large clients, with which its brokerage unit, Merrill Lynch, then purchased extremely complex securities products for those customers. Why? So that the bank would have lower net liabilities to its big depositors (because ostensibly it had made them loans whose repayment they owed), and therefore the bank would have to set less funds aside under bank regulations to cover its obligations to those clients. BoA would have more funds with which to “trade,” or speculate. In fact, BoA was freeing up its own funds for speculation, by making complex trades with its large clients’ money, and offering those clients a small “cut” of the bank’s resulting profits.
At any moment, the exact fate of MFGlobal’s unfortunate large brokerage clients (many of whom were farmers) was hanging over the heads of these large depositors of Bank of America.
There is no difference between this and the practice of National City Bank in the 1920s, of selling its depositors shares in the bank and its stock speculations — the practice exposed by Ferdinand Pecora which directly spurred passage of Glass-Steagall in 1933.
With the SEC investigation under way, Bank of America now states it ceased this practice two years ago — not likely — and that the Fed, its safety and soundness regulator, knew all about it — likely. At worst, the SEC will extract a civil fine. All the barriers to big bank crime are down until Glass-Steagall is restored.
On Wednesday, April 29, a group of thirty retired generals and diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, India, Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Israel issued a dire warning that the world is in grave danger of thermonuclear extinction. The report, issued by the Global Zero Commission, chaired by former US Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, called on the US and Russia to immediately reach an agreement to end the policy of “launch on warning,” under which the world is held hostage to a hair-trigger doctrine of immediate thermonuclear exchanges.
The 100-page report, which was preceded by a New York Times op-ed on April 19, signed by Gen. Cartwright and by Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, the retired head of intelligence for Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force, echoed warnings that have been made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and others, for the last four years, about the growing danger of thermonuclear extinction.
LaRouche’s unique contribution to the war-avoidance drive is that he has identified the underlying reasons for the growing threat of thermonuclear Armageddon, in the desperation of the British Empire over the doom of its global financial dictatorship, and the emergence of a truly human alternative in the BRICS and New Silk Road initiatives, led by China, Russia and India in concert.
The only problem with the otherwise appropriate call, by the retired generals and diplomats, for a thermonuclear de-escalation, through an end to the short-fuse doctrine of launch on warning, is that it will never happen—so long as Barack Obama remains in office as President. Obama is a witting tool of the very forces that are desperate to eliminate the vast majority of the human race—even if it risks thermonuclear extinction. He is not only a British agent; he is too much of a relic of his mother and her killer antics in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.
Only by removing Obama from office—on readily available Constitutional grounds—can the world ever be secure.
The same Obama factor is evident in the escalation towards war in Southwest Asia. With the recent days’ purge in Saudi Arabia, the hardcore Al Qaeda faction within the Saudi Royal Family has not only tightened their grip on power. On behalf of their partners in London, they are driving the region towards a perpetual sectarian war, stretching from Yemen all the way to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in Syria and Lebanon. King Salman has sealed a secret deal with President Erdogan of Turkey to back Al Qaeda forces in an intensified drive to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus.
When Gulf Cooperation Council heads of state come to meet with Obama at Camp David on May 14, Obama is ready to throw his support behind the drive to blow up the entire Southwest Asia, Persian Gulf, Eastern Mediterranean region, by trading off support for the Saudi-led war drive in exchange for nominal support for the P5+1 deal with Iran.
Again, Lyndon LaRouche was way out ahead in warning, right after the Geneva announcement of a P5+1 framework agreement last month, that unless the U.S. really put the screws on Saudi Arabia, the deal would be nothing but a trigger for a big regional war. Obama persists in giving cover to the Saudis, by refusing to release the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, a chapter that details the Saudi funding of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
For these crimes—and many, many more—Obama must be removed from office now. Anything less than that immediate action places mankind at risk of extinction. Not only is the President guilty of impeachable crimes against the Constitution. His behavior—risking a thermonuclear Armageddon—qualifies him to be immediately ousted under the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of president who is no longer physically or psychologically fit to serve.
On Wednesday, April 29, a group of thirty retired generals and diplomats from the United States, Russia, China, India, Britain, Germany, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Israel issued a dire warning that the world is in grave danger of thermonuclear extinction. The report, issued by the Global Zero Commission, chaired by former US Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright, called on the US and Russia to immediately reach an agreement to end the policy of “launch on warning,” under which the world is held hostage to a hair-trigger doctrine of immediate thermonuclear exchanges.
The 100-page report, which was preceded by a New York Times op-ed on April 19, signed by Gen. Cartwright and by Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, the retired head of intelligence for Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force, echoed warnings that have been made by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and others, for the last four years, about the growing danger of thermonuclear extinction.
LaRouche’s unique contribution to the war-avoidance drive is that he has identified the underlying reasons for the growing threat of thermonuclear Armageddon, in the desperation of the British Empire over the doom of its global financial dictatorship, and the emergence of a truly human alternative in the BRICS and New Silk Road initiatives, led by China, Russia and India in concert.
The only problem with the otherwise appropriate call, by the retired generals and diplomats, for a thermonuclear de-escalation, through an end to the short-fuse doctrine of launch on warning, is that it will never happen—so long as Barack Obama remains in office as President. Obama is a witting tool of the very forces that are desperate to eliminate the vast majority of the human race—even if it risks thermonuclear extinction. He is not only a British agent; he is too much of a relic of his mother and her killer antics in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.
Only by removing Obama from office—on readily available Constitutional grounds—can the world ever be secure.
The same Obama factor is evident in the escalation towards war in Southwest Asia. With the recent days’ purge in Saudi Arabia, the hardcore Al Qaeda faction within the Saudi Royal Family has not only tightened their grip on power. On behalf of their partners in London, they are driving the region towards a perpetual sectarian war, stretching from Yemen all the way to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean in Syria and Lebanon. King Salman has sealed a secret deal with President Erdogan of Turkey to back Al Qaeda forces in an intensified drive to overthrow the Assad government in Damascus.
When Gulf Cooperation Council heads of state come to meet with Obama at Camp David on May 14, Obama is ready to throw his support behind the drive to blow up the entire Southwest Asia, Persian Gulf, Eastern Mediterranean region, by trading off support for the Saudi-led war drive in exchange for nominal support for the P5+1 deal with Iran.
Again, Lyndon LaRouche was way out ahead in warning, right after the Geneva announcement of a P5+1 framework agreement last month, that unless the U.S. really put the screws on Saudi Arabia, the deal would be nothing but a trigger for a big regional war. Obama persists in giving cover to the Saudis, by refusing to release the 28-page chapter from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, a chapter that details the Saudi funding of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
For these crimes—and many, many more—Obama must be removed from office now. Anything less than that immediate action places mankind at risk of extinction. Not only is the President guilty of impeachable crimes against the Constitution. His behavior—risking a thermonuclear Armageddon—qualifies him to be immediately ousted under the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of president who is no longer physically or psychologically fit to serve.