Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 23, June 14, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL One Single Human Mission

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 23, June 14, 2019

- I. Memorial for Lyndon LaRouche

- In the Garden of Gethsemane by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (January 17, 1990)

- The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Manhattan Memorial Program

- Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.:The Door to True Humanity by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

- INTERVIEW: SPEED AND SIGERSON LaRouche’s Beautiful Music of Freedom, June 9, 2019

- FROM SANA’A, YEMEN Solemn Commemoration and Solidarity Stand for Lyndon LaRouche

- II. U.S.-Chinese Partnership for Peace

- INTERVIEW President of Italian OBOR Institute: Belt and Road Is a Strategically Stabilizing Factor

- U.S.-CHINA COOPERATION IN THE PHILIPPINES Operation Marcos: A Development Plan for Asia and the World by Michael Billington

- III. The Four-Power Partnership

- Agreement Among Four Powers Can Avert Total Collapse by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (November 18, 2009)

The Triumph of Lyndon LaRouche

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2019 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

One Single Human Mission

June 6—Today is the 75th anniversary of the Normandy Landing, which led to the final victory over fascism in World War II. June 8 will be the date of a Manhattan Memorial for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., who passed away Feb. 12. July 20 will be the 50th anniversary of the first manned landing on the Moon—an anniversary which is suddenly sacred not because it is the 50th, but because it is the first anniversary since mankind has determined to return to the Moon to stay, and to prepare there for the Mars mission.

Call it coincidence, but the resonance between the Normandy invasion and the Moon landing evokes in an extraordinary way the life and achievement of Lyndon LaRouche, of his “mission to mortality” as he once put it. In this way, it forces us to confront the question: “Where would mankind be today if this one man had not lived and fought as unrelentingly as he did, decade after decade? Would the present potentials for advancement exist, or would we be at a dead end?”

President Trump captured the spirit of the World War II generation throughout his remarks in Normandy, as when he said, “The GIs who boarded the landing craft that morning knew that they carried on their shoulders not just the pack of a soldier, but the fate of the world. Colonel George Taylor, whose 16th Infantry Regiment would join in the first wave, was asked: ‘What would happen if the Germans stopped them right then and there, cold on the beach—just stopped them? What would happen?’ This great American replied: ‘Why, the 18th Infantry is coming in right behind us. The 26th Infantry will come on too. Then there is the 2nd Infantry Division already afloat. And the 9th Division. And the 2nd Armored. And the 3rd Armored. And all the rest. Maybe the 16th won’t make it, but someone will’.”

Lyndon LaRouche was one of the few of that generation who kept and deepened his commitment to the war aims of President Franklin Roosevelt through the months and years after the war, while most of his fellows turned aside to try to make up for the relative material deprivation their families had experienced in wartime. Later, under Trumanism-McCarthyism, they gave up all right to independent thinking, while LaRouche would never yield an inch to Joe McCarthy.

Lyndon LaRouche is no longer with us in the flesh, but he is very much with us. Now, immediately after his passing, he has become the vital link between the World War II Generation, and the “Artemis Generation” which NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine discussed in his May 23 address at the Florida Institute of Technology—where he stressed, as LaRouche had done more than 30 years earlier, the need to rebuild our culture around the Moon-Mars mission. Like the World War II generation, but unlike the Gen-X’ers and Millennials in between, the Artemis Generation gets its name from its mission, rather than the year in which it was born.

The Four Powers and the Moon-Mars Mission

Lyndon LaRouche saw, as we must now see, the mission of the Four Powers (the United States, China, Russia and India) to establish a new international credit system and bury the British Empire forever—he saw this mission as one and the same as the Moon-Mars mission, which he also worked tirelessly to develop and propagate. LaRouche put this all together vividly in a brief, videotaped address to a Moscow meeting in 2009 on the occasion of a Russia-China economic development agreement, the transcript of which is reprinted in this issue of EIR. There he said:

The future of mankind, even though it’s some generations distant, now, depends upon the development of the colonization of the Moon, as a manufacturing center for building pieces of equipment which will convey man to the colonization of Mars. This will be a fundamental change in the character of the apparent human destiny, over this period of time. And this program, which is now agreed upon, so far, by Russia and China, will be the starting point.

Those in the United States who know their history, who know their strategic history, realize this is a fundamental change. The world is now going to have a trans-Pacific orientation, as opposed to a trans-Atlantic orientation. And that will be for a long time to come. Because combining the populations, which are numerous, but underdeveloped, with a process of development of the raw-materials areas of Siberia and related places, is the solution for the present world problem. And we should look at these things in that way.

We also have to look ahead to Mars, the Mars colonization, which this will help to make possible. It will be several generations distant, before we do that. There are numerous problems, scientific problems, that have to be overcome, not so much in getting to Mars—we already know how to get to Mars—but to get men and women safely to Mars, and back, there are some problems that have to be worked out, on that one.

So, therefore, this will be the character of the coming period of history, provided we get through the present crisis.

But, there are certain parts of the world, which are not willing to accept this. The British Empire, for example. . . . But, in general, you’re going to have opposition from what we call the British Empire, which is not the empire of the British people; it’s an empire which is based on London and the British interests, which is international. It’s the international monetarist system.

And what we’re going into, with this reform, with the Russia-China agreement, is the inception of an alternative to a monetarist system: a shift to a credit system. That is, instead of having an international currency, which exerts imperial power, authority over the power of nation-states, and over their economy; instead of a globalized system, we’ll have a system of sovereign nation-states, in cooperation through their credit systems in the development of the planet. That’s the direction we should be going in. That’s what my purpose is in this.

However, in order to meet that mission—the mission not merely of starting this development, which the Russia-China cooperation begins, including Russia-China-India and other countries—we have to develop the science and technology which goes together with a Mars orientation. . . .

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 23, June 14, 2019

Cover This Week

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

---------------------------------------------

THE TRIUMPH OF LYNDON LAROUCHE

2 EDITORIAL

One Single Human Mission

I. MEMORIAL FOR LYNDON LAROUCHE

5 In the Garden of Gethsemane

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

January 17, 1990

8 Manhattan Memorial Program

10 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.: The Door to True Humanity

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

13 INTERVIEW: John Sigerson and Dennis Speed

LaRouche’s Beautiful Music of Freedom

18 FROM SANA’A, YEMEN

Solemn Commemoration and Solidarity Stand for Lyndon LaRouche

II. U.S.-CHINA PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

22 INTERVIEW

Michele de Gasperis, President of Italian OBOR Institute: Belt and Road Is a Strategically Stabilizing Factor

25 U.S.-CHINA COOPERATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

Operation Marcos: A Development Plan for Asia and the World

by Michael Billington

III. THE FOUR-POWER PARTNERSHIP

39 Agreement Among Four Powers Can Avert Total Collapse

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

November 18, 2009

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche at lpac.co/exonerate

I. Memorial for Lyndon LaRouche

January 17, 1990

In the Garden of Gethsemane

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

“A prophet is not without honor,

save in his own country.”

—Matthew 13:57

Those of us who find ourselves in Gethsemane—a Gethsemane where we are told that we must take a role of leadership with our eye on Christ on the Cross—often experience something which, unfortunately, most people do not. We tend to look at things from a different standpoint. Before trying to situate how I see the recent period, and the period immediately before us, I should try to communicate what my viewpoint is, a viewpoint which I know is shared in some degree of very close approximation by everyone who has gone to Gethsemane with the view of the Cross in his eyes, saying, “He did it, I am now being told that I must, too, walk in His way.”

What I suggest often, in trying to explain this to a person who has not experienced it, is to say: “Imagine a time 50 years after you’re dead. Imagine in that moment, 50 years ahead, that you can become conscious and look back at the entirety of your mortal life, from its beginning to its ending. And, rather than seeing that mortal life as a succession of experiences, you see it as a unity. Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, “Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me? If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.”

If I am wise, then 50 years after my death, in looking back at my mortal life, I know that from the beginning with my birth, to the end with my death, that my truest self-interest was the preservation and enhancement of that which made my having lived important to those around me and those who came after me.

That is the beginning, I think, of true wisdom; that is the beginning of the Passion, which sometimes enables each of us when called to walk through our own peculiar kind of Gethsemane. It is from this standpoint, that the mind of an individual such as our own, can efficiently comprehend history in the large.

A second point, which I often raise, I think is essential to understand the few simple observations I have to make here. It is that, in human reason, in the power, for example, to effect a valid, fundamental scientific discovery, which overturns, in large degree, previous scientific opinion, we see a fundamental distinction between man and all beasts. This power of creative reason, typified by the power to make a valid, fundamental scientific discovery, and also the power to transmit and to receive such a discovery, is that which sets man apart from and above the beasts.

The emotion associated with that kind of human activity, whether in physical science, in the development of creative works or performance of creative works of classical culture or simply in the caring for a child to nurture that quality of potential for discovery in the child, is true love. Creative activity is human activity, and the emotion associated with that kind of activity, is true love.

We start from that and say that society must be based on these considerations, that every human being, being apart from and above the animals, has the right and the obligation to live an important life. Every human being has the right to do something, such that if one looked back 50 years after the death of that person at his or her whole mortal life, one could have said, that life was necessary to all humanity. At the same time, one could distinguish some use of this creative power of reasoning as the activity which made that life important, simply, sometimes, the development of that creative power.

We have, in the entirety of the approximately 2,500 years of Western European history, which includes the history of the Americas, two conflicting views of mankind. One view shares more or less the standpoint I’ve just identified: We view the human individual as bearing the divine spark of potential for reason, as a sacred life; a spark of reason which must be developed by society, nurtured by society, given opportunity for fruitful expression by society; a quality of activity whose good works must be adopted by society, protected by society, and preserved by society, for the benefit of present and future generations. That is the republic, the republic as conceived by Solon’s constitution of Athens—a notion of republic, which, in our time, is made nobler by the Christian understanding, which transforms and elevates the contributions of Solon and Socrates after him.

On the other side, there is the conception of Sparta, a privileged oligarchy, brutalizing the Helots, the slaves, the so-called lower classes. That, too is a model society, not a republic, but an oligarchy.

The struggle between these two views of mankind is epitomized by the struggle between President and General George Washington, on the one side, and King George III on the other. George Washington was a soldier and statesman of the republic, not a perfect one, but a good one. On the opposite side was poor King George III, the puppet of the evil Earl of Shelbourne, and the epitome of oligarchism, the heritage of Sparta. The tradition of King George III, which deems that some men must be kept slaves, is an oligarchical view, which hates the idea of the equality of the individual in respect to the individual human being’s possession of that divine spark, the individual human being’s right to the development of that spark, the nurture of its activity, and the defense and perpetuation of its good works.

Such is the conflict. In our time, the great American Republic, by virtue of the cultivation of ignorance and concern with smallness of mind, and neglect of the importance of what comes after us in the living of our mortal lives, has been so undermined, degraded, and corrupted, that we as a nation no longer are the nation we were conceived to be, but instead have become a nation brain-drained in front of our television sets, thinking with greater passion about mere spectator sports or mere television soap-opera than we do about urgent events in real life. We are a nation seeking gratification in drugs, in sordid forms of sexual activity, in other sordid entertainments, in that kind of pleasure-seeking, which echoes the words Sodom and Gomorrah.

And so, oligarchism, that which George III of England represented back in the eighteenth century, has taken over and rules the land which was once George Washington’s.

What this leads to is this. Today, there is a great revolution around the world against tyranny in all forms. So far, this revolution has manifested itself within the communist sector against communist tyrannies. But it is coming here, too. Wherever the divine spark of reason is being crushed by oligarchical regimes, with all their cruelties, the divine spark of reason within human beings inspires them to arise, to throw off the tyranny—not out of anger and rage against tyranny, but because the divine spark of reason in each person must be affirmed. We seek not merely to be free from oligarchy; we seek to be free from oligarchy, because not to do so would be to betray the divine spark of reason in ourselves and in others.

The secret of great revolutions, of great civil rights movements, as Dr. King’s example illustrates, is this capacity, which the Greek New Testament called agapē, which Latin called caritas, which the King James version of the Bible calls charity, which we otherwise known as love. Whenever this power of love, this recognition of that divine spark, setting us above the beasts, prevails, wherever people can approximate that view of the sum total of their lives, as if from 50 years after their deaths, whenever movements arise which, out of love, produce people who are willing, not fruitlessly, but for a purpose, to lay down their lives, so that their lives might have greater meaning, for this purpose—there you have the great revolutions of history.

If we were to project events on the basis of what is taught in the schools about revolutions and other struggles of the past, then the human race at present were doomed. If we say that people struggle against this and that oppression, and so forth, and out of rage or whatnot, overthrow their cruel oppressor, we should lose; the human race would lose. However, if we touch the force of love, the spark of divine reason, we unleash a force, a creative force, a divine force, which is greater than any adversary, and we win. Those revolutions, which are based upon the appeal to this divine spark of reason within the individual, prevailed. Those which worked otherwise produced abominations, or simply failed.

Yes, we must struggle against injustice. But it is not enough to struggle out of anger. We must struggle out of love. And that we learn best, who have had to walk as leaders of one degree or another, through our own Gethsemane, with the image of the Cross before us.

That is the best I can say. I might say it better, but what I try to say with these poor words, is the best I can say summarily, on the subject of current history. I believe, that the great upsurge of humanity, implicit in the optimism I express, is now in progress. I am persuaded that we shall win, provided that each of us can find in ourselves, that which makes us the right arm of the Creator, a man, a woman of providence, within the limits of our own capacities and opportunities.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Dictated from prison,

Rochester, Minnesota

January 17, 1990

June 8, 2019

The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Schiller Institute Memorial for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.,

September 8, 1922 – February 12, 2019

Manhattan, New York

Memorial Program

Introduction – Dennis Speed

Prologue – Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche in His Own Words

Dennis Speed, narrator

Hall Johnson (arr.):

“When I Was Sinkin’ Down”

Hall Johnson (arr.):

“I Don’t Feel No-Ways Tired”

Reginald Bouknight, tenor soloist

Schiller Institute Festival Chorus

Diane Sare, director

J.S. Bach: “Jesu, meine Freude,” BWV 227

Schiller Institute Festival Chorus

Andrés Vera, violoncello

Bruce Director, contrabass

John Sigerson, director

INTERMISSION

The Third Trial of Socrates

Dennis Speed, narrator

Roland Hayes:

“They Led My Lord Away”

Elvira Green, alto

Roland Hayes: “Crucifixion”

Frank Mathis, baritone

Johannes Brahms:

“Dem dunkeln Schoß der heil’gen Erde”

Schiller Institute Festival Chorus

John Sigerson, director

Ludwig van Beethoven:

Sonata for Violoncello and Piano, Op. 69

I. Allegro ma non tanto

II. Scherzo

III. Adagio cantabile

IV. Allegro vivace

Andrés Vera, violoncello

My-Hoa Steger, piano

INTERMISSION

Ludwig van Beethoven: “Adelaide,” Op. 46

John Sigerson, tenor

Margaret Greenspan, piano

Johannes Brahms:

“Immer leiser wird mein Schlummer,”

Op. 105, No. 4

Elvira Green, alto

My-Hoa Steger, piano

The Triumph of Lyndon LaRouche

Dennis Speed, narrator

Epilogue – Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Robert Schumann:

Mit Myrthen und Rosen, Op. 24, No. 9

John Sigerson, tenor

Margaret Greenspan, piano

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart:

“Ave verum corpus,” K. 618

To be sung by everyone

J.S. Bach: Chorale, “Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden,” from St. Matthew Passion

Schiller Institute Festival Chorus

John Sigerson, director

“Taps” for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Mikio Sasaki, trumpet

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.:

The Door to True Humanity

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

---------------------------------------------

Mrs. LaRouche offered these two sets of remarks, her prologue and epilogue, to those gathered in Manhattan for the Schiller Institute’s three-hour memorial event celebrating the life and legacy of American statesman, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., on June 8. That celebration was live streamed to satellite events across the United States.

Prologue

This is a unique moment in all our lives, where we assemble here for the memory and honor of our beloved Lyn.

Lyn changed the life of most of us, in the most profound way. And if we ask ourselves, “Where would I have been, if not for the unbelievable privilege to have met Lyn, the most creative thinker of our times?” If one looks around in our society today, so many ill-spent lives, people drowned in material greed, chasing money, objects, entertainment—some are very successful. They make lots of money, but their soul, since long, has been eaten up by more want. Many are not so successful. They can’t make ends meet.

Lyn opened the door to true humanity for most of us, personally, and in countless numbers of discussions he had with people, over the long span of his life, he touched the lives of thousands and thousands of people, in the United States, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America. He actually changed lives and touched people in profound ways, in most countries of this planet, on five continents. Lyn would talk to many groups and individual young people. He would lighten up the fishermen of Peru. He would tell the shoemakers of Italy about shoemaking. He would speak with Italian legislators and legislators around the world. He would teach entrepreneurs about physical economy. He would talk to trade unionists, teachers, scholars, the best musicians of the world. He opened the door to truth and knowledge to many, many people. And many of those said that Lyn knew more about their field of expertise than they, the experts themselves, and that he was able to change the trajectory of their thinking.

The existence of Lyn is a miracle. He defied all obstacles to the assertion of his powerful intellect. He felt himself, as a young person, an “ugly duckling,” who would not fit in the banal environment which surrounded him. But when he was a young adult, he already had the inner strength to reject any intellectual corruption.

But Lyn added something to that talent: He had, for most people, unimaginable intellectual diligence and rigor. He was truly a truth-seeking person, a universal thinker, who conquered and added something to almost all relevant basic fields of knowledge: the natural sciences, Classical music, poetry, history—and the great Norbert Brainin, after two days of very intense discussions, said, “This man knows so much more about music than I do.” You could say the same thing about Lyn’s knowledge of history, American history, the history of the Soviet Union, of Africa, of European philosophy. And in all of these fields, and I’ve probably forgotten half of them, he made unique discoveries and added qualitative breakthroughs in them.

EIRNS

Philadelphia, 1976: Greeting a worker during his Presidential campaign.

---------------------------------------------

Out of all of this universal knowledge, he developed his own science of physical economy, and it was recognized by many outstanding scholars in many countries, that his was the most profound economic method in the field of economics as such.

Lyn’s motivation for his work was—and is—love for humanity. When he was working on a project, he would work for 20 hours a day, and he would produce, in his best times, 60 to 80 pages, with footnotes, so that the editors would have absolutely no work to change anything.

EIRNS

India, 1982: Visiting a tractor plant in India.

---------------------------------------------

He could not stand the idea of suppression of the potential of people, be it that they lived in poverty—he could not endure the idea of poverty in the developing countries, and he started to hate empire as that form of government which does that to people. But he also could not stand the oppression through erroneous ideas about the laws of the physical universe, because such errors would lead to the self-destruction of cultures and civilizations. I have never seen or heard of anybody who was so absolutely focussed on the necessary changes of the system of oppression, and so absolutely focussed on replacing it with his own vision of a more human and beautiful world.

Francesco Caprioli

Italy, 2000: Inspecting an experimental machine for shoe engineers.

---------------------------------------------

This view enabled him to recognize very early, in the 1960s, the devastating danger of the rock-sex counterculture. And look at the United States today, in terms of that culture. If Lyn would have been President—and he could have been, because he was in a very good way in the 1984 campaign, and the Illinois campaign of 1986—this would never have happened. And but for the operation of the neoliberals and the neo-con establishment, he would have put the world in order. Think about the changes he already started to the effect: The development of Latin America through his cooperation with López Portillo. The beautiful idea of overcoming poverty in India, through his working with Indira Gandhi on a 40-year development plan for the Subcontinent. He was about to overcome the military blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Pact through his conception of the SDI, the idea to end geopolitics and to proceed with the idea of one humanity.

EIRNS/Sergio Garcia

Mexico, 2006: Meeting with youth in Mexico.

---------------------------------------------

Think about what would have happened if his conception using the science-driver effect of the SDI to bring new technologies based on new physical principles to the developing countries had gone forward—a gigantic technology transfer, thus making it possible for these countries to leapfrog to the most advanced modes of production. For several decades already, the alleviation of poverty in Africa, Asia, and the United States, would have happened. You would have universal education of every child, already in the second generation, and of educated youth in the developing sector. In the United States, you would have a public debate of the issues Lyn raised in his beautiful speech of 1988 in Chicago, at the Food for Peace conference, to make the African deserts a lush garden, to produce enough food for the world population. There would be a debate in the United States, not about “Game of Thrones,” but about Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity and the laws of the universe. He would have musicians discussing the principles of thorough composition in the tradition of the span of composition from Bach to Brahms. He would have caused scientists to have a deep understanding of the principle of life, where they would have found a solution and cure to most illnesses.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Washington, 1994: With his friend Norbert Brainin.

---------------------------------------------

The creativity per se would be the highest value in society, and all would experience the intellectual joy of a new international Renaissance. And we, who worked with Lyn, had the privilege of getting a taste of what it means to live in the world of ideas. If Lyn would have become President, throughout the whole United States, and the world, this Renaissance spirit would have become the intellectually hegemonic power. The United States is very fortunate to have had such a person, with such a beautiful mind and such a prophetic vision.

Lyn and I had a meeting once with a bishop of Rome, and he said, Lyn is a man of providence, and I absolutely agree: Because Lyn’s life and his life’s work is in absolute tune with the intention of Creation. It’s a tragedy for the people of the United States, and the rest of the world, that the evil powers of the present, were able to derail this effort, at least temporarily. And a breakthrough for all of humanity will be associated with Lyn’s ideas.

EIRNS

New York, 1974: Founding of the Fusion Energy Foundation.

---------------------------------------------

But Lyn’s vision of a fully developed world becoming a reality in the form of the World Land-Bridge is now happening: Of a new form of international relations among nations, of a dialogue of Classical cultures replacing confrontation, and of the vision of an international cooperation of colonizing the Moon and a joint Mars mission. His enemies, who are the enemies of humanity and of the happiness of the people, may prevail in the short term. But they’re already haunted by the Erinyes. They may have been able to cover up their crimes for a short while, but there is this higher power of natural law, which will bring their crimes to the light of day.

Lyn, on the contrary, has earned eternal life. His life is in the simultaneity of eternity. His mind and ideas transcend all places and times. Lyn is now in a realm like that shown in the School of Athens: He is with Socrates and Plato, with Confucius, Kepler, Leibniz, Bach, Beethoven, Einstein, and Vernadsky, and all the best minds of all times, and all cultures.

You are immortal, beloved Lyn.

EIRNS

Rome, 2003: At a book-signing for Nino Galloni.

---------------------------------------------

Epilogue

I want to give you a quote which William Warfield gave as a contribution to the Festschrift for Lyn’s 80th birthday in 2002. “Yes, the great Johannes Brahms’ Vier ernste Gesänge has been for me, as well, his last will and testament. My friend, what can be better than, ‘Now there remains Faith, Hope and Love . . . These Three, but the greatest of them all, of these Three, is Love’ . . . Liebe, die Liebe is the greatest of all.”

Lyn, we love you so very much, you, who have loved mankind in such a way, that we make the sacred commitment to carry out and realize your vision, to contribute with all our potential to make the world a better place. You are with us, and we are with you, forever. And I say to you, what your last words were to me: Ich liebe dich. [standing ovation]

INTERVIEW: SPEED AND SIGERSON

LaRouche’s Beautiful Music of Freedom, June 9, 2019

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

---------------------------------------------

This is the edited transcript of an exclusive interview conducted June 9, the day after the Schiller Institute’s three-hour memorial program for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (September 8, 1922 – February 12, 2019) under the title, “Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.” on June 8. The video of the memorial has now been made available by the Schiller Institute.

EIR: This is Robert Ingraham with EIR and I’m speaking with John Sigerson, the National Music Director of the Schiller Institute, and Dennis Speed, who moderated the Memorial for Lyndon LaRouche in Manhattan, which took place yesterday.

What was the objective in setting up this memorial?

Dennis Speed: We called the memorial “The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.” We knew that because of the sudden death of Mr. LaRouche in February many people who might have wished to gather to pay honor to him, were unable to do so. We had an international conference of the Schiller Institute which happened only a few days later, but it was clear that something more should be done. And so, this was a way of giving an occasion to those who could not participate in February to pay their respects. It also gave us an ability to take a look at Lyndon LaRouche’s life, and discover many elements that were either forgotten, or simply hidden in some archives.

For example, we discovered many unpublished documents written by LaRouche, and also speeches, some of which were captured on video that we are now going to be able to make available. Our idea is to begin a process to establish the basis of an evaluation of LaRouche that is actually commensurate with his role as the chief intellectual figure, certainly American intellectual figure, of the latter half of the 20th century and early part of the 21st century.

I think the most important thing to say, otherwise, is that the unrecognized significance of what he meant to ideas, not merely in terms of what his campaigns for the Presidency were doing, but his just overall meaning as a thinker, is something that we think we got across, judging from the response of people who were there. There also seems to be a great amount of interest in assisting in the project of compiling LaRouche’s work and spreading it. So, from my standpoint, at least, that was what we seem to have accomplished.

EIR: In watching the event live, it was obvious to me that the whole was very carefully composed—the video clips, the musical pieces, the speeches, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s speeches. Can either of you say more about the intention that went into composing the memorial, how you wanted it to be?

Musical Works and LaRouche’s Ideas

Sigerson: Well, I can say that we had the idea of arranging the program in such a way that each of the three sections was organized around the performance of a major work of Classical composition that was extremely important in the development of Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas, but also in the development of the organization that he founded around those ideas.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

John Sigerson conducts the Schiller Institute Festival Chorus in J.S. Bach’s Jesu, meine Freude, accompanied by Andrés Vera, violoncello; and Bruce Director, contrabass.

---------------------------------------------

The first section was organized around the Bach motet, Jesu, meine Freude, which played a critical role in the development of the LaRouche Youth Movement during the early part of this century. The second section was organized around one of the key Beethoven sonatas, the Sonata for Violoncello and Piano, Opus 69, which introduced the idea of Motiführung, or “motivic thorough-composition,” a concept originally suggested by LaRouche’s close friend, Norbert Brainin, the first violinist of the legendary Amadeus Quartet. The opening bars of that sonata are identical to those of the piece we had performed just before, by Johannes Brahms [“Dem dunkeln Schoß der heil’gen Erde”], written upon the death of his close friend and collaborator, Clara Schumann, which has the exact same motivic development in it.

So, we had that theme implicit in the selection of those pieces. And then also in the last section, we also had some very critical pieces that I and others sang, which were German Lieder. We had the entire audience sing the Ave Verum Corpus of Mozart, which was, for me, one of the high points of the event.

We organized the entire event around those musical ideas, without having to say too much about those ideas per se. But I will just say, in adding to what Dennis said earlier, in bringing together LaRouche’s works, his written works, and his speeches, I have begun the process of working through many memoranda, private memoranda, public papers or limited-circulation papers—I never cease to be astounded at the depth of the discussion, much of which, I must admit, passed me by at the time when I first read them.

And so, I just want to underline what Dennis said, which is that it’s extremely important for all of us, both within the LaRouche organization, people who have been associated with LaRouche, but also people who have never met this wonderful person, that we disseminate as quickly and as widely as possible the full breadth of LaRouche’s ideas on music, on economics, on science, as much as possible.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Andrés Vera, violoncello; and My-Hoa Steger, piano, perform Beethoven’s Violoncello Sonata Op. 69.

---------------------------------------------

Speed: I would add the following: In the composition of the memorial, we tried to allow Lyn to speak for himself, as much as possible. And actually prior to both of the major works that John referred to, the Jesu, meine Freude and Beethoven’s Opus 69, we showed video clips of LaRouche speaking, in the first case, about his own experience in hearing a rehearsal and then a performance of the Bach motet in Leipzig, with the St. Thomas Boys’ Choir. And then, we showed a video of him alluding to motivic thorough-composition as well. So that the living Lyndon LaRouche, as a living individual, was present to the audience in a way that I think people appreciated.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Ramsey Clark, LaRouche’s attorney on appeal.

“[The LaRouche movement is] more than a political movement, it’s more than a political figure; it is those two. It’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the status quo, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost. . . . In what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focused on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one.”

—Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, speaking about the jailing of LaRouche and the concentrated effort to destroy his political movement.

---------------------------------------------

The other element was that we wanted to make sure that the LaRouche case was an integral part of our memorial. The injustice of the case, the fact that prominent individuals, such as the former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, spoke out about that injustice back at the time in the 1990s in particular. That that crime against LaRouche was most tragic for the American people, as was underscored by remarks made by both LaRouche’s attorney, Odin Anderson, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and this was in video from 1995.

So the purpose of the thorough-composition of the memorial, was to allow people to see LaRouche from different standpoints, but actually to experience the singular theme in LaRouche’s own words of his mission. And that mission was to stand up for human creativity, despite whatever attempts to silence him threatened his very physical existence: He just wouldn’t back off his intent to tell the truth. We talked about him, we referenced at one point, LaRouche as the character Don Florestan in Beethoven’s opera Fidelio, that he chose to speak the truth and “chains were his reward”—but he was never silent. He was railroaded, but never silenced.

EIR: We had a satellite showing in Oakland, California here, which I attended. Afterwards, a lot of people talked about the clip of Lyn speaking to the Pakistani organization in New York. People were also very moved by the testimony of Odin Anderson, Ramsey Clark, and Helga, in front of the Commission of Inquiry. I think hardly anyone had seen these clips before, at least the people in the audience. They were affected quite strongly.

John, is there anything more you want to say about the musical works themselves, or the performances?

Working ‘Between the Notes’

Sigerson: In preparing to perform the Jesu, meine Freude, we attempted to do, I think, a better performance, a performance more appropriate to Lyn’s conception of the piece, than we had ever done before, and I think we succeeded. We had three days of intensive rehearsal with people who had worked with LaRouche for many years; many of them had sung this piece many times before, but were scattered all over the country, and we brought them together for this event. We were able to achieve a vocal transparency we had never done before, and I think the audience was very appreciative.

However, I think that we have still only scratched the surface of “working between the notes,” as LaRouche constantly emphasized to us—and continues to emphasize to us. This requires a kind of control of vocalization, which represents a standard which we have to strive to live up to, not just in our own work, but try to spread; we need to spread that standard throughout the entire world of music and art and other artistic endeavor. It’s an extremely high standard which, if kept to—and it’s a universal standard—and if we keep that, this gives us one of the most important elements in being able to actually achieve the kind of dialogue of civilizations that Helga Zepp-LaRouche is now emphasizing, as absolutely necessary for the future survival of humanity.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Elvira Green, accompanied by My-Hoa Steger, performs Brahms’ Op. 105, No. 4.

---------------------------------------------

Speed: Let me add one thing, on the musical side: People have to experience the memorial. There’s really no way for us to put these ideas into words. That’s why we did it the way we did. As we look further into the archives, and listen to old recorded conversations and discussions, we’ll probably find enough there to be able to do a two-day symposium, just on Lyndon LaRouche and music. You could probably do several such, and we will probably be called upon to do it. Primarily, because Mr. LaRouche was the catalyst for the creation of the book, A Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration: Introduction and Human Singing Voice, which appeared in 1992.

Many of the documents, discussions, and other material that went into it had been completely unavailable; and now all of this can be made available. And it may be interesting for us to try to circulate some of this material, including to professionals, to provoke them to take up the challenge of furthering work that LaRouche began, work which, if investigated, and if mastered, completely will revolutionize Classical music practice, all music, in the United States and throughout the world.

That People Could Be Free to Improve Humanity

So, when you’re talking about Lyn, and you look in his work, the density of ideas, that for example, you hear in something like the 12 minutes of the speech to the Pakistani organization, which is what that is, the 12 minutes that he spent there is equivalent to what others don’t get to in months or years. Look at the question of composition. One of the things that people will be struck by, in watching the memorial—watching it from beginning to end—is the density of ideas in LaRouche’s presentation, and the clear way in which they’re enunciated. So that this notion of motivic thorough-composition that John referred to, is something that LaRouche practiced, both in his own thinking and in his own presentations.

So, I think one of the things that may be interesting for people to think about, is, don’t just think about the music as being what you hear when the chorus is singing, or the instrumentalists are performing. Think about the music as something that you’re hearing largely in the voice of LaRouche himself and it will create a kind of different experience, of the memorial as a whole. I think we achieved that, and I think it’s something that hopefully is reproduced in the recording.

EIR: Is there anything else either of you would like to add by way of closing observations?

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

John Sigerson, accompanied by Margaret Greenspan, performs Beethoven’s Adelaide.

---------------------------------------------

Sigerson: In reviewing some of LaRouche’s documents from the early 1980s, I came upon a short item in which he said that even before he founded our organization, the LaRouche organization, he always believed and insisted that the universe is ontologically transfinite: That is, that the physical domain that we live in, is a reflection of a higher domain of the actual universe.

And this is indicated in many ways, for instance, by the fact that we can only construct five regular solids, in our space. But that this means that our particular space of sense-perception that we have, is bounded by a higher order of universal lawfulness. His work, in so many domains—in the domain of economics, in the domain of physics, in the domain of music—was to find the invariant quality which allows one to touch that domain of the ontologically transfinite. And if you don’t understand what I just said, that’s the reason why we’re going to be issuing a lot of these papers by Mr. LaRouche, so that you can get your head around that. [chuckles]

Speed: Let me close with some words to those of you reading this interview. Join our choruses—we’re forming them all over the country. Our Manhattan Project aims to incorporate as many as 1,500 people into choral activity on a regular basis. Join our Committees of Correspondence which are being formed as a way of letting people come into a process of dialogue of discussion of great ideas, and elevate, therefore, the general discourse in the nation on matters which are important to a continuation of this civilization and this nation.

The thing that LaRouche insisted on, and he insisted on with a lot of us, was to “have fun,” but to have fun by challenging and destroying the stuffy, stolid, blocked, and banal authorities that haunt the mind. It was that, that caused him great animosity. But the other thing that caused it was his love of humanity, his belief that poverty of the mind was intolerable, unnecessary, and was the great evil. And if you could destroy the poverty of the mind, then the poverty that we see globally, expressed economically, physically and so on, was something that mankind would easily and readily overcome.

So this notion that he believed in, that people could be free, and that the idea of the education of the emotions and the development of the mind, to change humanity, to improve humanity, and to make oneself the vehicle for that improvement of humanity, that’s what we hope the memorial, when people see it, provokes in them.

EIR: Thank you both.

FROM SANA’A, YEMEN

Solemn Commemoration and Solidarity Stand for Lyndon LaRouche

Imad Al-Shahhari

Sheikh Saleh Sayel: “The keys to development provided by LaRouche will be engraved in the memory of all Yemenis.” Sheikh Sayel is seen here (back to camera) and in the next picture.

---------------------------------------------

May 31—A group of Yemeni officials and members of the BRICS Youth Cabinet—including Fouad Al-Ghaffari, a friend of the Schiller Institute and President of the BRICS group—held a commemoration on May 29 in solidarity with the recently deceased great American thinker, Lyndon LaRouche.

The ceremony was held in the headquarters of the Yemeni General Investment Authority (YGIA) and was addressed by the Deputy Director of the YGIA, Engineer Khaled Sharafaddin; Sheikh Saleh Sayel, Chairman of the Political and Foreign Affairs Committee in the Shura (Consultative) Council of the Yemeni Presidency, and Secretary General of Al-Tahrir Party (Liberation Party); and Al-Ghaffari.

Imad Al-Shahhari

Engineer Khaled Sharafaddin: LaRouche’s name is “on the lips of people in many parts of the world.”

---------------------------------------------

Al-Ghaffari, President of the Yemeni BRICS Youth Cabinet, and representative of the International Alliance of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) Strategic Projects, emphasized in his statement that the Yemeni people are confronted with the mission of implementing the slogan, “defend with one hand and build with the other” [coined by assassinated head of the Yemeni Salvation government, Saleh Al-Sammad], while benefitting from the vision provided by Lyndon LaRouche of a world that will rise from economic ruin to build the World Land-Bridge. He asked the audience “where would we be today if we hadn’t learned about LaRouche?” Reviewing LaRouche’s record of fighting for the non-usurious credit system for development, the Productive Triangle which evolved into the New Silk Road, he referenced LaRouche’s contribution to the emergence of the idea of the RIC (Russia, India, and China) which developed into the BRICS.

Imad Al-Shahhari

Women ministers of the Yemeni BRICS Youth Cabinet, which coordinates with the youth of BRICS countries. The woman in the middle is the Agriculture and Food Security Minister of the BRICS Youth Cabinet.

---------------------------------------------

LaRouche became known in Yemen as early as the 1990s, and later, the contributions of Helga Zepp-LaRouche and, along with hers, those of the Arabian thinker Hussein Askary. This, Al-Ghaffari stressed, contributed to the emergence of the Yemeni BRICS Youth group that shouldered the learning and teaching of the translation into Arabic of the Schiller Institute’s Special Report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge. Al-Ghaffari concluded by emphasizing the importance of knowing the LaRouche-inspired doctrine of the BRICS, not simply as a political matter, but as a scientific one, because it offers the citizen the power of forming a modern society.

Imad Al-Shahhari

Fouad Al-Gaffari: “Where would we be today if we hadn’t learned about LaRouche?”

---------------------------------------------

Foreign Minister Sharaf:

LaRouche Is with Us Today

Yemen’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Engineer Hisham Sharaf, sent the following message to the event:

Our condolences to Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the chairwoman of the International Schiller Institute, for the loss of her husband and life-long companion. We would like to express our appreciation for Mrs. LaRouche and her deceased husband Lyndon LaRouche for their stances regarding Yemen. Mr. LaRouche is present in Sana’a with us today through his development theory of physical economics, which has also helped Yemen by bringing China on board the Yemeni situation through placing Yemen on the map of the Belt and Road Initiative. We hope that Yemen will receive attention from our friends in China to play an active role in ending the war of aggression waged against our nation and in lifting the economic blockade imposed on our country, so it could once again resume its role in globally building and defending the joint mission of achieving the common Goals of Sustainable Development 2030.

A statement by Hussein Askary, Southwest Asia Coordinator for the Schiller Institute, was read by one of the Youth Cabinet Members, citing a passage from Prophet Mohammed’s Tradition (Hadith), stating:

When the son of Adam [a human being] dies, his/her connection to this world is broken, except for three: A continued charity, a useful knowledge/science, or a good posterity who pray for him/her.

In his statement, Askary noted that Lyndon LaRouche’s soul enjoyed all three ties to this world and immortality: First, through his international organization that is helping people around the world to create a better world; second, through his scientific, economic and philosophical ideas, which have revolutionized the world and given it the New Silk Road, which is now evolving into a world land-bridge; and third, through all the young people of the world (including the Youth gathered in Sana’a today) whom LaRouche adopted as his children, making them his posterity—who are now praying for him.

Engineer Sharafaddin on LaRouche’s Ideas

Engineer Khaled Sharafaddin, Deputy Director of the YGIA, told the audience gathered in Sana’a:

I would like to express my sincere condolences to Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, also known as the Silk Road Lady, for the departing of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche—may all his lovers around the world find consolation in his works and deed, especially his economic ideas of physical economics and creation of credit for infrastructure development. These ideas, that are natural to human character and intuition, have united our people here in the country and brought us many friends from outside. This is the deep-rooted foundation and the good effect that he has created and the which we feel here in this gathering.

Yemen has benefitted greatly from the knowledge of the late LaRouche as was evident in the report Operation Felix: The Miracle of Yemen’s Reconstruction and Connection to the New Silk Road [produced by the Schiller Institute in collaboration with the YGIA], which is one of the many gifts of Mr. LaRouche. This “miracle” report has contributed, through Yemeni resolve and in collaboration with the Schiller Institute, to bringing about a modern vision of the reconstruction of Yemen which strengthens its economic unity, as expressed in the report, through the “development corridor Sa’ada-Aden” and its extensions to the mineral deposits corridors and further to the coastlines, to connect with the Maritime Silk Road and the Eurasian Land-Bridge.

The “miracle” report is the best translation of the famous saying that “the best way to foresee the future is by building it yourself.” This commemoration event for Mr. LaRouche brings back the memory of the launching of the miracle report last year during this same month of Ramadan. The National Salvation Government has responded to the report by creating a high-level commission to study it. This report has already changed many things here, that we don’t have time to list.

A personality of the caliber of Lyndon LaRouche, who has been giving so much, has his name on the lips of people in many parts of the world wherever there are people who realize the commandment of our Creator that we were created to build/develop (i’maar) the world and be His vicegerent (khaleefa) on Earth. If we don’t adopt the doctrine of i’maar and neglect the saying of Imam Ali (Allah bless him), “let your eyes be more fixated on building the land rather than on collecting the taxes,” then the result will be the destruction of the Earth and the humankind. Human societies have followed and implemented many economic theories, but only the truthful and right one will prevail, which will be perpetuated along with his [LaRouche’s] other immortal contributions and graceful memory, that will enable nations to grow and achieve sustainable development.

Sheikh Saleh Sayel:

LaRouche Engraved in Our Memory

Sheikh Saleh Sayel told the meeting:

I would like to convey my deepest condolences to Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. This commemoration for the soul of Lyndon LaRouche is a unique event, because it is convened for the memory of a universal and inspiring scientist and thinker, whose like will not be repeated. His is a record of a glorious struggle against the arrogance of imperialism inside its own abode. LaRouche is a symbol for those who do good, as that was evident in his fight against usury and the international gambling casino and its fund [the IMF], and in his struggle to present the concept of national credit banking since 1975 as sovereign right of every free nation.

I would also like to express my appreciation of the role played by the LaRouche movement in supporting Yemen’s right of self defense in the face of the brutal foreign aggression. They keys to development provided by LaRouche will be engraved in the memory of all Yemenis as true foundation for the right to reconstruction and defense. The role of the ideas of LaRouche is something we rely on in the coming days and years as a crucial element for the future of Yemen and the world.

Imad Al-Shahhari

Officials of the Yemeni General Investment Authority and BRICS Youth Cabinet stand for Lyndon LaRouche in Sana’a, Yemen on May 29, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Banner Honoring the Immortal LaRouche

A massive banner adorned the meeting hall of the commemoration event, featuring pictures of LaRouche and his wife and collaborator, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in different stages of his life, placed like a film sequence.

The text on the banner, with the Old City of Sana’a in the background, reads as follows:

Commemoration and Solidarity Stand

for Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.

We stand here in the Republic of Yemen from the BRICS Program of the Yemen Investment Authority in commemoration of the recently deceased, great thinker Lyndon LaRouche.

It is also a stand of condolence for his companion Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute and the Silk Road Lady.

A stand of gratitude for his defense of Yemen against the three-pronged act of aggression, economic blockade and occupation.

A stand of solidarity with the international LaRouche political movement to achieve his dream of building the World Land-Bridge.

A stand for the victory of his soul as many of his dreams are coming true in many parts of Earth on the basis of Physical Economics, which he pioneered in our time.

A stand to celebrate that his picture will forever adorn the report, Operation Felix for Reconstruction of Yemen, to inspire and watch. Lyndon LaRouche has left us in person, but his ideas are immortal.

II. U.S.-Chinese Partnership for Peace

INTERVIEW

President of Italian OBOR Institute: Belt and Road Is a Strategically Stabilizing Factor

Italian President Sergio Mattarella (left) and Chinese President Xi Jinping are shown on the One Belt One Road Research Institute website.

---------------------------------------------

June 4—Michele de Gasperis is the President and initiator of the Italian One Belt One Road Research Institute (OBOR Institute) and is also the Chairman of the Italy-Mongolia Chamber of Commerce. He organized a very successful, three-day OBOR-Expo at the Fiera di Roma trade fair, the first B2B (business-to-business) event after the Italian and the Chinese governments signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the Belt and Road Initiative.

In this exclusive interview with EIR’s Claudio Celani, Mr. De Gasperis speaks about his initiative, as well as the new opportunities opened by the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) with Italy being the first G7 member to sign to it, and about other topics related to the “New Paradigm” of win-win strategic cooperation.

EIR: The OBOR Exhibition took place in Rome, May 15-17. You were the main organizer of it. Can you tell us what you hoped to accomplish, and how it went?

De Gasperis: The OBOR Exhibition was the first event that allowed all of the main players in China-Italy relations to gather under one banner. The response from all sectors was beyond our expectations: Institutions and trade associations, but above all firms and stakeholders, participated in the OBOR Exhibition with great enthusiasm and involvement. They all expressed a great desire to know more about both the BRI and China, to know more in depth and in a more nuanced way.

The Belt and Road, in fact, even with the great notoriety attached to it in the recent months, is still currently unknown to the public at large, as well as its relation to third countries—an area in which Italy and China have the potential for large-scale cooperation. In this sense, the three days at the Rome Fair have provided a solid contribution to spreading knowledge about the Chinese program and were an excellent window for fruitful B2B meetings among Chinese and Italian firms. We can confirm this year’s success and want to increase such activities in the near future.

Business and Government Collaboration

EIR: Do B2B initiatives such as the one you promoted, need government support? If so, in what form?

De Gasperis: In principle, such B2B meetings can have a relevance and a profile that is good enough to be self-sustaining. However, this implies a “discrimination” which is social in the first place but also towards the Italian productive system. Let me explain the concept: If you want to create a self-sustaining or self-fueled B2B platform, you have to be operating at the level of enterprises that can sustain participation in the initiative. Government support would be welcome in helping to expand access to the numerous Italian SMEs (small and medium enterprises), which are a pivot of our productive system and it would produce positive economic spinoffs.

MoviSol/Flavio Tabanelli

Michele Geraci, Undersecretary of State in the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, and head of the government’s Task Force China (left); and Claudio Celani, Director of the EIR Strategic Alert, at a MoviSol conference, “Italy on the New Silk Road,” in Milan, Italy on March 14, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

EIR: Are the fruits of Italy’s participation in the BRI, with the signing of the MOU, government promotional activity, and the creation of Task Force China already visible?

De Gasperis: We are harvesting the benefits of governmental activity and in particular the work of undersecretary Michele Geraci, whose merit in bringing an otherwise semi-unknown program to those in the Italian productive system should be acknowledged.

The various activities initiated recently by the Italian government are a welcome acceleration of communication. However, as I said, many particulars of the program, and especially the best modalities of interest for Italian firms, are still to be fully explored. We are facing a set of requirements that represent, at the same time, a big opportunity: aiding stakeholders and professionals in meeting the requirements to operate in the Italo-Chinese trade sector. In fact, by qualifying those who promote trade among the two countries—and consequently, among BRI countries—we can better steer investments by Italian companies, presenting to the Chinese market a more compact and organized idea of our national system, with a more integrated supply chain, thus greatly increasing the possibility to make deals.

Looking to the Future

EIR: How will your initiative proceed in the future? Will it expand to other countries?

De Gasperis: Next year will be the fiftieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between Italy and the People’s Republic of China. The year 2020 has also been declared the “Year of Italo-Chinese Culture and Tourism.” Tourism and culture will certainly be among the hot issues at OBOR Exhibition 2020, along with other topics that we are now determining in collaboration with Chinese and Italian authorities. Furthermore, during the twelve months from now to May 2020, we will organize in Italy and China a series of periodic, theme-based workshops which will be feeders to OBOR Exhibition 2020. Participation is certainly being extended to all BRI countries; indeed, I am happy to take advantage of the platform offered by your prominent magazine to launch this invitation.

EIR: You founded the Italian OBOR Institute in 2018. Can you tell us what the mission is?

De Gasperis: The Institute was founded in 2017 and became fully operational in 2018. Our organization has a widespread presence on the territory of China and Italy, with headquarters in Rome and Beijing and about 30 staff members in major Italian and Chinese cities.

Our mission is to build a system based on the experiences and contributions of all Italian players concerned with, or involved in the One Belt One Road/Belt and Road Initiative economic development plan, with the aim of representing Italy’s role within the program and highlighting the opportunities of commercial cooperation that can be developed in this important framework.

Our network is mainly composed of institutions, universities, and research agencies. This network is the de facto think-tank of our institute, through which we interface with private firms. We provide the latter with assistance in locating opportunities for cooperation with our Chinese counterparts in the framework of OBOR, in organizing missions to China and in receiving Chinese delegations in Italy, as well as in collecting statistical data and information on regulations in Italo-Chinese business. What we do is training our Italian members so that they have a conscious approach to the One Belt One Road opportunities, assessing benefits and risks. The same goes for our Chinese counterparts, to whom we offer a better knowledge of the Italian market, guiding them towards business modalities that are most fitted and advantageous for them.

Courtesy of Michele de Gasperis

Michele de Gasperis, President of the Italian One Belt One Road Research Institute, with a delegate from Shanghai, China, at an OBOR-Expo in Rome on February 25, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Countering Lying Propaganda

EIR: We have seen much hostile propaganda against the BRI and China in Europe, with China being accused of expansionist aims, of “debt diplomacy” and so on. How do you answer those allegations?

De Gasperis: The concept of “debt diplomacy” is generally presented in a fully distorted way, or better said, it is an argument promoted by incompetent elites that underwrite debt, often beyond any real capacity of repayment, leaving the burden to the next government. In this scenario, I hardly see fault on the creditor side, but I see instead, as I said, the incompetent management of those who have underwritten the debt. Therefore, we insist on knowledge: Our institute has an active think-tank aimed at giving tools to small and medium-sized firms, and is also available to concerned institutions.

EIR: One hundred-thirty countries have already joined the BRI. Schiller Institute president Helga Zepp-LaRouche has highlighted the politically stabilizing aspect of the BRI, characterizing it as “a new Paradigm” in international relations, based on cooperation without political interference. Do you agree?

De Gasperis: I agree, because in my view, the BRI is a system of economic cooperation, which is, however, primarily a system of cultural

and peace-bringing cooperation among the peoples. I have personally participated in many meetings with colleagues from other countries involved in the program and I can confirm that eliminating cultural barriers and favoring mutual knowledge have been a major facilitator to business activities. As always, peoples anticipate government choices, and independent from any momentary political convenience, people, culture, and the economy have already moved forward. Many things between Italy and China had already started—in a not consciously planned-out way. The notoriety acquired recently by the program in Italy, is further evidence of the need to promote and better know the project.

Italy and the Rest of Europe

EIR: Do you think it will be opportune for the Italian OBOR Institute to connect with similar initiatives, such as the just-born BVDSI in Germany?

De Gasperis: I consider this to be necessary, not merely useful. Our name is our mission and the exchange of knowledge with groups similar to ours means an acceleration of opportunities for firms. Sharing knowledge is one of the main aspects of our mission as an Institute, and we are firmly convinced that aggregating the Italian system and continuity of action with China—but also with the other BRI countries—will be one factor of success for the program.

On the Italian side, it is clear that our mission is to support and defend the Italian national productive system, but we also know that only by joining forces with other countries can we have positive spinoffs in general terms. Therefore I think it is necessary to adopt a common line at European level. On the other side, we are working to find a balance, the right position in defense of our SMEs in the globalized industrial system. Conversely, a lack of knowledge of those dynamics would find our system defenseless in the face of supranational strategies.

U.S.-CHINA COOPERATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

Operation Marcos: A Development Plan for Asia and the World

by Michael Billington

Library of Congress

Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Philippines, during his visit to the White House on September 14, 1966.

---------------------------------------------

June 8—In 2015, the LaRouche Political Action Committee published a pamphlet titled, “The United States Joins the New Silk Road—A Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance.” It presents the transformation of the world economy that would result from such a Hamiltonian policy, expanding greatly on the already phenomenal development taking place in over one hundred nations that are now part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

While President Trump personally expresses great admiration for Xi Jinping’s leadership, the United States has yet to take steps to join in cooperation with China’s BRI in developing third-party nations, as Japan and Italy have done in co-development projects in Asia and Africa. The British intelligence coup attempt against President Trump, through British assets in U.S. intelligence agencies, has been exposed and neutralized, but the same operatives behind the “Russia collusion” hoax have opened an even more vicious campaign to demonize China and subvert Trump’s oft-stated intention to establish close cooperation with China and his “close friend” Xi Jinping. The deeply depraved FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Congress in February that “China in many ways represents the broadest, most complicated, most long-term counterintelligence threat we face,” calling for a “whole-of-society approach, because in many ways we confront whole-of-society threats.”

This carefully cultivated anti-China hysteria has driven not only trade war, with tit-for-tat tariffs, but the assault on the world’s leading telecom company, Huawei; the shutting down of Confucius Institutes all over the United States; and sanctions against many countries, even so-called “allies”—all of this occurring while political forces surrounding President Trump, in the Congress, and in the press, escalate a vitriolic attack on everything Chinese.

It is urgent that the President resolve this conflict both peacefully and cooperatively. The United States, and indeed the world, is poised on the precipice of either a disastrous global conflagration, or its opposite, a New Paradigm for mankind, based on cooperation of the great powers of the world in scientific and cultural discovery and global economic development, ending the era of Empire and geopolitics once and for all.

This current report proposes that a great potential exists for U.S.-China collaboration and partnership in working together to accomplish the rapid agro-industrial development of the Philippines, a nation that shares a history spanning both an Eastern and Western cultural heritage. There are deep moral, political and economic motivations for undertaking such a task. Were the U.S. and China to act together in such a project, it would serve as a model for a similar joint-development of the other nations of Asia, and worldwide.

The ‘Operation Juárez’ Paradigm

In 1982, Lyndon H. LaRouche issued an EIR Special Report titled, Operation Juárez—Mexico/Ibero-America Policy Study. (Benito Juárez was President of Mexico from 1861-1872, and a close political ally of his contemporary, Abraham Lincoln—although the two men never met.) This report by LaRouche was issued at a time when the developing sector nations were suffering a catastrophic breakdown crisis, brought on by the combined effects of the orchestrated spike in oil prices, the orchestrated massive increase in international interest rates set in motion by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, and vicious austerity measures being imposed by the IMF on behalf of the essentially bankrupt financial empire centered in the City of London.

UN/Saw Lwin

President of Mexico José López Portillo greeting UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar at the United Nations in New York City on October 1, 1982.

---------------------------------------------

LaRouche’s plan was for Mexico, under the leadership of LaRouche’s close friend President López Portillo, to establish an oil-for-technology relationship with the United States (especially during the Reagan administration), and to forge an alliance with other indebted nations of Ibero-America to use the non-payment of their foreign debt as a weapon to force through a top-down reorganization of the entire bankrupt international financial system. This was to be a first step toward the establishment of a more just New World Economic Order, based on high-technology infrastructure and industrial projects.

The concept was to use U.S.-Mexico cooperation in real physical development as a model for transforming U.S. relations across Ibero-America, and eventually the world. It called for a return to Hamiltonian credit policies, for cooperative investments in modern industrial and agricultural development and infrastructure, ending the neo-colonial usurious policies of the Anglo-Dutch liberal system that had systematically infected the U.S. political and financial system since the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the assassination of John Kennedy.

LaRouche’s 1982 proposal was not adopted, and instead the Western Hemisphere was thrown into a downward spiral of economic decay, massive drug infestation openly run by the imperial banking system, cultural degeneration, and despair. The illegal persecution and prosecution of Lyndon LaRouche was a major aspect of the imperial drive to crush Operation Juárez and sustain the destructive powers of the financial oligarchy.

Today we have an opportunity, and a dire necessity, to succeed in this grand design where it failed in the 1980s. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, has said on many occasions that if Donald Trump were to bring the United States into the new paradigm of the New Silk Road—in cooperation with Russia and China, as well as Mexico and other nations—he will be remembered as one of the great presidents of American history. This is not a utopian dream, but a totally feasible and urgently necessary action.

An Exquisite Solution

I wish to propose, therefore, that a policy not unlike that of Operation Juárez be implemented today between the Trump Administration and the government of the Philippines, in full cooperation with China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, which could be called “Operation Marcos.” This was a concept already in the mind of Lyndon LaRouche at the time he authored Operation Juárez in 1982. Indeed, he was in a process of cooperation with the nationalist government of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines at that time—not as close as his personal relationship with President Portillo of Mexico, but nonetheless a direct relationship, and one that was based on the same programmatic premise of international cooperation in transforming the essentially colonial economy of the Philippines into a modern industrial nation.

By 1982, President Marcos had already begun a process of industrial and agricultural modernization that was the envy of the other Asian nations. For exactly that reason, he became one of the first “regime change” targets of the emerging power of the British-allied forces within the United States. A “regime change” coup against Marcos was carried out in 1986 under the direction of then Secretary of State George Shultz and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, two of the central figures in the transformation of the United States into a “dumb giant” for the British Empire, carrying out their neo-colonial wars in Asia, and later in the Middle East.

Operation Marcos would draw on the phenomenal development achieved under Marcos before the assault against him and his nation was launched in the early 1980s. The Marcos Administration achieved self-sufficiency in rice and corn for the first time in the nation’s history; launched “11 Big Industrial Projects” across the archipelago; built the first nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia; built health and cultural centers in the Philippines for use by all the Southeast Asian nations; and more. With the U.S.-orchestrated coup of 1986, falsely labeled “People Power,” all this was shut down, and the nation quickly became known as the “sick man of Asia” rather than the model of development. (See “Shultz and the ‘Hit Men’ Destroyed the Philippines.”)

Philippine Government

President Rodrigo Duterte and President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, October 20, 2016.

---------------------------------------------

With the election of President Rodrigo Duterte in 2015, the Philippines now has a leader with the capacity to reverse the looting of that nation by the banking cartels in London and New York. It also has a leader who is willing to take on the drug cartels (run by the same bankers) who had devastated the citizens of the Philippines. One of Duterte’s first acts as President was to have the remains of President Marcos interred with military honors in the Hero’s Cemetery in Manila, an act that had been denied by the puppet presidents installed after the 1986 coup.

When he was elected, Duterte told then U.S. President Barack Obama to “go to Hell” with his effort to use the Philippines as a foil to start a war with China. He immediately visited China and joined the BRI, He also deployed his Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana to visit China, Russia and India to negotiate military purchases to support both a counter-attack on terrorists in Mindanao and a full-scale war on the drug cartels. Duterte has not held back from targeting leading politicians and officers of the military and police forces who were compromised by the cartels. With the election of Donald Trump, he gladly restored friendly relations with Washington, while expanding ties to China and Russia.

The United States has a moral obligation to make amends for the criminal coup carried out against President Marcos in 1986, and for the destruction of the development process Marcos had set in motion. At the same time, that moral imperative demands that the United States act to fully restore sovereignty to the Philippines, which was only partially restored when Washington granted the nation independence in 1945.

Beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, the U.S. experiment in colonialism was a horrible mistake. America had liberated the Philippines from Spanish rule in the Spanish American War of 1898, but rather than restoring independence and sovereignty at that time, actions were taken to suppress the Philippine revolutionary forces who had welcomed U.S. cooperation in expelling the Spanish. The U.S. waged a bloody war against the Moors in the southern islands, and established its own colonial government. In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt promised independence to the Philippines after a ten-year transition, and despite the intervening of the Japanese occupation and World War II, the promise of independence was fulfilled in 1945. However, with Roosevelt dead, the Truman government imposed drastic restraints on the new nation’s freedom of action.

The Philippines and the New Silk Road

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Nov. 16, 2004 on Philippine radio station DZAR, hosted by Antonio “Butch” Valdes, who also heads the Philippine LaRouche Society and was a Senate candidate in the 2019 election with the party he founded, Katipunan ng Demokratikong Pilipino—KDP. LaRouche said at that time:

The Philippines has a very important pivotal role, some people would say geopolitically, in the entire region, of trying to bring together on a global scale for the first time, a world system, which is capable of accommodating both the European cultural heritage and Asian cultures. This is the great barrier, the great frontier, of a hopeful future for this planet: to bring together the cultures of Asia—which are different than those of Western Europe generally—with European culture, to get a global culture based on a system of sovereign nation-states, which understands that this unresolved cultural question has to be addressed, with a long-term view, of several generations, of creating an integrated set of sovereign nation-states as the system of the planet. So the Philippines is a very special country, with a unique importance for the people of Asia, in particular, in playing a key role in bringing about this kind of general integration of Asian and European civilizations.

Presidential Photo/Norman Alonzo

President Donald Trump and President Rodrigo Duterte, at the November 2017 meeting of ASEAN in the Philippines.

---------------------------------------------

This vision beautifully captures the mission of the New Silk Road. It also reflects the concept of the great philosopher, scientist and statesman of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz, who was in correspondence with the Jesuit missionaries in China. Leibniz took it upon himself to educate the Europeans in regard to the philosophy and culture of China, publishing a book titled Novissima Sinica (News of China), which could be considered the first call for the New Silk Road in modern times. He wrote:

I consider it a singular plan of the fates that human cultivation and refinement should today be concentrated, as it were, in the two extremes of our continent, in Europe and in China, which adorns the Orient as Europe does the opposite edge of the Earth. Perhaps Supreme Providence has ordained such an arrangement, so that, as the most cultivated and distant peoples stretch out their arms to each other, those in between may gradually be brought to a better way of life.

The 300 years of Spanish rule over the Philippines was brutal, but it was not without some benefits in introducing European culture and religion to the population. This is also true with the 50-year U.S. occupation. While much colonial exploitation can be found in the process, many aspects of the Hamiltonian tradition of the American System were assimilated. Now is the time for the global divisions of the past—the colonizer-colonized division, and the East-West division—to be finally left in the dust bin of history.

The Philippines, as LaRouche emphasized, carries the best of both cultures, and, in bringing China and the U.S. together in a grand project to aid in uplifting the economic potentials of the Philippines, this can serve as a model for all of Asia, and all of the world, for cooperation in the new paradigm and the spirit of the New Silk Road.

Malacañang Palace

President Marcos with First Lady Imelda Marcos and family at his First Presidential Inauguration in Manila, December 30, 1965.

---------------------------------------------

The Marcos Record

The joint U.S.-China cooperation in the development of the Philippines has a rich source to draw on from the Marcos era. Ferdinand Marcos was elected President in 1965—the first President who did not come from the elite class, but was a “commoner” who had trained as a lawyer. The U.S. war in Indochina was just getting under way, and U.S. military presence in the Philippines was greatly expanded, as the military bases at Subic Bay and Clark Airfield became launching pads for countless air-strikes. This activity contributed to a Maoist insurgency within the country, provoking a declaration of Martial Law in 1972, which lasted until 1981.

But Marcos was not only concerned about “counterinsurgency” in declaring martial law. The Philippines was still essentially a colonial economy. Productivity was low in both agriculture and industry. Marcos had set out from the beginning of his presidency to establish Philippine food self-sufficiency in rice and corn in a program known as Masagana 99. He focused on basic agricultural infrastructure, especially irrigation, in the major food-producing regions of Luzon and Mindanao. Credit facilities, mechanization, and the introduction of high-yield rice varieties resulted in the elimination of rice imports by 1968.

Yuan Longping, the Chinese agronomist who developed the first hybrid rice, in 1961.

---------------------------------------------

In 1972, Marcos invited Chinese agriculturalists to visit the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the world-famous institute located in Los Baños, Philippines, presenting the Chinese with a bag of the high-yield rice developed there. This led to a close collaboration between the two countries on the development of high-yield seed, and in 1977 the brilliant Chinese agronomist Yuan Longping, known as the father of hybrid rice, came to Los Baños, beginning a collaboration that continues still today.

When Marcos imposed martial law in 1972, among his first acts was a proclamation that the entire nation was to be considered a “land reform area,” and a declaration that all tenants working land devoted primarily to rice and corn were to be the owners of that land, up to a specified limit. Despite the enraged opposition of the oligarchy, the program proved to be extraordinarily successful. Coupled with the infrastructure and mechanization improvements, a quarter of a million peasants became landowners, and grain productivity increased by half.

Another major step after the declaration of martial law was to contract with Westinghouse for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was to be the first (and would still today be the only) commercial nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia. When the U.S. deposed Marcos in 1986, the already completed plant was moth-balled, although the country was forced to pay every penny of the cost of construction and the inflated debt service, without ever producing a single watt of electricity.

’The New Name for Social Justice

Is Development’

In 1979, Marcos launched his plan for the industrialization of the Philippines. His “Eleven Major Industrial Projects” aimed at transforming the country from consumer goods production to basic heavy industry. It was in part modeled on the “Heavy-Chemical Industry Drive” launched by Park Chung-Hee in South Korea in the 1970s, which successfully transformed that country into the leading industrial power, a “first world” nation, that it is today.

The Marcos plan included:

• A copper smelter, a joint project with Japan’s Marubeni, to go into operation by 1983

• Phosphate fertilizer production, using the sulfuric acid waste from the copper smelter, with international support from the U.S., Japan, Germany, U.K., Belgium and Spain, also to go online in 1983

• An aluminum smelter, a 50/50 venture with U.S. Reynolds Metals, to open by 1984

• A diesel engine manufacturing plant, in joint ventures with Japan and Germany, scheduled for production by 1982

• Cement industry expansion, converting existing plants from imported oil to coal, to go online in 1984

• Coconut industry production of commercial alcohol for detergents, to open in 1982

• Pulp and paper industry expansion—the Philippines had the only newsprint plant in Southeast Asia at the time

• Petrochemical complex, to be built near the Bataan nuclear plant, with help from the U.S. and Taiwan, aiming for a 1983 production start

• Heavy engineering industries, with Germany, to produce the machine tools and parts for the large industrial plants in the plan

• Integrated steel mill, with Austria, to open in 1985

• Alcogas, a project to make alcohol to produce fuel with 20% alcohol, 80% gasoline for running motor vehicles.

Marcos described the intention of his “Philippine Development Plan” as fundamentally aimed at providing social justice to the poor. He wrote:

At the heart of these Plans is the concern for social justice. The preparation of these plans has been guided by one objective: No Filipino shall be without sustenance.

We have therefore set our Development Plans toward a direct and purposeful attack against poverty by focusing on the poorest of our society, planning to meet their basic nutritional needs; reducing if not entirely eliminating illiteracy; expanding employment opportunities; improving access to better social services; equalizing opportunities; sharing the fruits of development equitably; and introducing the requisite institutional changes. We will pursue economic development for social justice.

EIRNS

Antonio “Butch” Valdes and members of the Philippine LaRouche Society, visiting the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant on May19, 2008.

---------------------------------------------

In this regard, he wrote in his 1980 book, An Ideology for Filipinos:

Indeed, we may say that the new name for social justice is development. For their ideals and objectives are—may well be in the final analysis—the real objectives of the Development Plans we have drafted. And, we are proud to say, these are perhaps the only plans for national development that have been prepared with the ends of social justice in mind. It is this fusion of social justice and economic development that I feel is our own significant contribution to the social justice tradition I have outlined.

Imperial Retaliation

While South Korea’s project succeeded, the geopolitical neoconservatives within the Reagan Administration and neoliberals in the Congress went to work to sabotage the Marcos industrialization project. George Shultz became Secretary of State in 1982 and immediately appointed Paul Wolfowitz as Assistant Secretary for Asia. Wolfowitz’s doctoral thesis argued that peaceful nuclear power should be denied to third-world countries, claiming they could not be trusted to not build nuclear weapons. Sabotaging the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was to be his test case for establishing a general ban on scientific progress in developing nations—a “technological apartheid” policy that would make the lords of the British Empire proud.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.

---------------------------------------------

In 1980, Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker raised interest rates to 20 percent. The impact of this on nations such as the Philippines, who had taken on large debts to achieve industrialization, was devastating. Debt service nearly tripled, without having taken on new debt. Simultaneously, “safety requirements” for the nearly completed Bataan nuclear plant were suddenly massively increased, causing delays and huge cost overruns for the facility.

The subsequent economic downturn was blamed on Marcos, as was the 1983 murder of opposition figure Benigno Aquino, Jr. “Conditionalities” were imposed for refinancing the debt—debt that was mostly fictitious, unrelated to any borrowing. These included repeated devaluations of the peso and the scrapping of nearly all of the Eleven Major Industrial Projects. NGOs from the U.S. and Europe peddling “democracy” sprung up across the country, but mostly in Manila (even though Martial Law had been lifted in 1982). Marcos called an early election to appease the coup plotters and won the election easily. While much of the urban population swallowed the lies about Marcos, he was dearly loved by the vast majority of the poor and disenfranchised population outside of Manila whose livelihoods had increased enormously through his reforms and investments programs.

DoD

President Marcos with U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz in 1982.

---------------------------------------------

With Marcos winning the election, the coup plotters simply declared it to be fraudulent. Shultz then recruited Police General Fidel Ramos and the (well-named) Cardinal Sin to front for a coup. Shultz had to run the “regime-change” operation (known today as a “color revolution”—the color in this case was yellow) behind the back of President Ronald Reagan, who supported Marcos to the end. Shultz bragged in his autobiography, Turmoil and Triumph, about hood-winking the President in order to overthrow Marcos and move him out of the country.

The Nature of Man

The LaRouche movement was essentially the only international institution that exposed the criminal duplicity of the coup against Marcos, naming the names of the coup plotters in Washington and their assets within the Philippines. The western press filled page after page of reports calling Marcos a “vile dictator,” and labeling his wife Imelda as “spendthrift and corrupt”—all lies of the sort now so familiar from the “fake news” press.

Just as his dramatic leadership in bringing the Philippines out of economic bondage went unreported, so also was Marcos’ vision of the nature of man and the quality of his humanity suppressed. In his book, An Ideology for Filipinos, Marcos wrote:

The Western philosophical tradition locates man’s uniqueness in his rationality: it defines man as a rational animal. The idea of man does not necessarily lead to the philosophy of humanism, for the concept of rationality could be construed mechanistically: as a movement of thought that follows a set of inflexible principles. The Cartesian conception of reason is mechanistic in this sense. For it regards thinking as something that can be pursued only in one way: beginning with clear and distinct notions, the mind moves forward, step by step, following only the dictates of logic. What Cartesianism overlooks is that element of creativity so essential to the concept of human creativity, so essential to the concept of human rationality. The recognition of man’s creativity, or that impulse to create new forms and new modes of coping with the demands of reality, has tremendous implications—not only for a philosophy of man but also for social policy and thus for ideology.

In a sense, we can regard the history of civilization as the history of human creativity. The so-called scientific revolutions represent man’s disengagement from traditional modes of thinking. The development of social institutions reflects all too clearly man’s effort to respond to challenges—where these challenges carry with them their own uniqueness, rendering old ways inadequate for dealing with new realities.

The humanistic thrust of our ideology precisely takes into account the fact that apart from being rational, in the Cartesian sense of the term, man has a gift of creativity that expresses itself not only in his art but also in his science and social institutions. This creativity is what makes man truly human. In fact, it seems more appropriate to define man not as a rational animal, but as a creative being.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche speaking at a memorial conference honoring rocket scientist Krafft Ehricke on June 15, 1995.

---------------------------------------------

The Divine Spark of Creative Reason

That passage captures the profound impact of western Christian culture on the development of the Philippines—the concept of the divine spark of creative reason that distinguishes human beings from the beasts, defining the nature of man and woman as being in the living image of God through participation in the unfolding creation of the universe. It parallels the creative insight of Lyndon LaRouche’s work (with which Marcos was familiar) in distinguishing the anti-Christian ideology of Aristotelians—the likes of Descartes and the British empiricists—from the Platonists, whose teaching was consonant with the teachings of Christ and his disciples, and energized every great era of scientific and cultural discovery in the Western world.

In his prison writings in the 1990s, published under the title, The Science of Christian Economy, LaRouche wrote:

The possibility of a successful society depends upon two conditions. First, the society must generate scientific and technological progress; to do this, the society must have developed in its members the disposition and capacity for scientific progress. Second, the society must adopt policies which cause (the physical equivalent of) productive investment in scientific and technological progress to prevail over opposition to such policies.

Thus, with certain qualifications, we must speak now of “man the creator.” The mental-creative powers, which mankind demonstrates through the use of scientific revolutions, to increase qualitatively the potential population density of our species, is the generality referenced. This generality shows mankind to mirror the Creator. Thus, man is designed to become the “little creator,” the small mirror-image of the universal Creator. The former, the “little creator,” we call the “Minimum”; the universal, the Creator, we call the “Maximum.”

Not only is this creative power uniquely characteristic of mankind, among all the species; this creative power is located within the individual human personality, as a sovereign potential contained within that individual personality. Thus, it is the individual person who, by virtue of representing this sovereign power, is, individually, in the living image of the creator (imago viva Dei).

In the frequent case, that we may think that particular persons fail to express this living image of God in their conduct, those persons were born with the potential for creative reason, even though they may have abused or rejected that divine spark of potential within themselves. Thus, all individual human life is sacred.

Mencius (372-289 BC) further developed the philosophy of Confucius (551-479 BC), establishing a humanist tradition in China paralleling that of Socrates and Plato in Europe.

---------------------------------------------

Role of China and Confucianism

What, then, of the “image of man” of the Chinese leadership, in the post-Mao era? The launching of the “socialist market economy,” which began in 1978 under Deng Xiaoping—in parallel with the last years of the Marcos regime—witnessed the rejection of the “Legalist” and anti-Confucian ideology of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which had engulfed China in a little dark age for a decade ending in 1976.

Deng’s “reform and opening up” included a revival of Confucianism, reaching its height today with Xi Jinping’s New Silk Road, carrying the Confucian concept of “Universal Harmony” to the rest of the world through massive infrastructure development projects. It was this focus on infrastructure, science and technology, combined with universal education, both in science and in aesthetics, which made it possible for China to lift itself out of relative backwardness to become the economic giant it is today, including the incredible feat of lifting 700 million people out of abject poverty.

These concepts have been embedded in Chinese culture from the time of Confucius and Mencius, although, like all cultures, this humanist Confucian tradition had to do battle throughout history with contrary ideologies parallel to the western Aristotelian and animist tendencies. The Confucian focus on reason over sense perception, in parallel with Platonist-Christian thought, is captured in this passage from the Book of Mencius in which reason is considered a potential endowed by Heaven:

The ears and eyes are organs that do not think; their perception is veiled by things. . . . The mind is an organ that thinks. If you think, you’ll grasp, if you don’t, you won’t. This is a potential endowed in us by Heaven. Once a man chooses to stand by his greater parts, his lesser parts cannot seize him. Being a great man is no more than this. (Mencius, Book 6, Part 1, Chapter 15; translation by Robert Eno)

For one’s thinking to be truly creative, it must conform to a virtuous desire to grasp the laws of the universe. Mencius wrote:

Thus benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not infused into us from outside. We possess them inherently; it is simply that we do not focus our minds on them. This is the meaning of the saying, “Seek for it and you will find it; neglect it and you will lose it.” The reason why some men are twice as good as others—or five or countless times better—is simply that some men do not employ their endowment to the full.

The Book of Poetry says:

Heaven, in creating Mankind,

Created laws appropriate for all matters,

Such that people could grasp these laws,

And love virtue.

Confucius said: The writer of this poem certainly knew the Way of Heaven. (Mencius, Book 6, Part 1, Chapters 7-8, translation modified by the author from that of Robert Eno)

The Belt and Road Initiative

We see in the Belt and Road Initiative, launched by Xi Jinping in 2013, the realization of this Confucian concept, that when one individual “grasps” a newly discovered law of the universe, this knowledge becomes immediately universal, accessible to mankind as a whole, and applicable to the advancement and harmony of all people and all nations. The transformation of China in only forty years, from an impoverished nation, suffering from periodic famines, horrific political upheavals, and international isolation, to a leading industrial and scientific power, is an historic event. The BRI is actively taking this transformation process to the rest of the world, and to the so-called “developing nations” in particular.

The LaRouche movement, both in America and in the Philippines and worldwide, has called on President Trump to have the United States join the BRI. Such an action would also be a major step toward the fulfillment of LaRouche’s strategic proposal for bringing together the “Four Powers” of the U.S., Russia, China and India as the minimum necessary force required to establish a New Bretton Woods world financial system, dedicated to the original intentions of Franklin Roosevelt at the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference.

Roosevelt’s earlier adoption of a Hamiltonian “directed credit” policy had transformed America through vast infrastructure development—roads, railroads, water and sewage systems, hydroelectric dams, electrification, schools and hospitals, and more. Following Roosevelt’s death in 1945, his original anti-colonial intention of 1944 was never fully realized, and with the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963 and the launching of the Indochina war, together with the reversal of Roosevelt’s New Deal financial policies, the United States began a downward spiral, with the systemic intrusion of British “free market” ideology and libertarian social decay.

Build.gov.ph

Artist’s depiction of the Panguil Bay Bridge, which will be the longest in the Philippines. It is one of the “Build Build Build” projects, with funding from the South Korean ExIm Bank. Ground-breaking was in November 2018, with an estimated completion in 2021.

---------------------------------------------

Today it is China that has used the “American System” method to carry out the transformation of the nation—centralized, directed credit focused on infrastructure, industrialization, mechanized agriculture, and the improvement of the people’s livelihood through health and education programs. They are now looking to carry out the promise Roosevelt gave to the former colonial nations as the war was ending. As FDR told Winston Churchill to his face, FDR intended to use American System methods to transform those nations that had been subjected to forced backwardness by the European colonial powers.

China is taking up that Roosevelt promise. For the first time in history, the former colonized nations are being shown the path to real development, modern infrastructure, industrialization, and the eventual elimination of poverty.

The Potential of the Philippines

The Philippines, geographically, is the gateway to Asia for the United States and all the nations of the Americas. Due to the Panama Canal, this is also true for shipping from Europe. Imelda Marcos had proposed that an underground canal be constructed from Manila to the eastern shore of the island of Luzon, to facilitate an even more direct route from the Americas to China and the nations of Southeast Asia. Others have proposed a Quezon Canal across the narrowest part of southern Luzon, just 17 km wide, as another means of expediting shipping from the Americas to Manila and on to mainland Asia. This was yet another project on the Marcos agenda that was crushed by the 1986 Color Revolution.

With the presidencies of Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump, there is no reason that the United States and China could not cooperate in realizing the vision put forward by Duterte, to rebuild the Marcos development legacy and go beyond as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Duterte calls his program, “Build, Build, Build,” to invest in the next decade over $180 billion on infrastructure projects to enhance the productivity of the nation in both agriculture and industry. It includes 75 flagship projects, including six airports, nine railways, 32 roads and bridges, and four seaports. There are also 10 major water projects, five flood control facilities, and multiple irrigation systems.

His program includes four energy plants but does not include restoration of the Bataan nuclear plant—at least not yet. The government has held discussions with Russia to both restore the Bataan plant and to provide small modular nuclear reactors or floating reactors, which would be perfect for a nation of over 7,000 islands. Since the Bataan plant was fully paid for, it could be rebuilt very cheaply, and at the same time provide collateral for government debt to build or purchase other reactors. Philippine LaRouche Society Chairman Butch Valdes has spearheaded a campaign to “go nuclear,” and a call to re-nationalize the energy sector to deal with the severe crisis in energy costs—one of the highest in all of Asia—created by the sabotage of the nuclear program and the reckless breaking up and privatization of the energy production and distribution system.

Duterte’s plan includes a combination of government funding and investments from other countries, at this point primarily China and Japan. The Philippines ranks only 97th in the world in terms of infrastructure, which has been a major concern holding back foreign investment. This, again, points to the neo-colonial policies of the U.S. and Europe in refusing to invest in infrastructure, claiming they were leaving it to the private sector.

CC/TitanOne

A Philippine call center.

---------------------------------------------

Another problem in attracting foreign investment is the lack of skilled labor. The Philippines has a relatively well-educated population. English is taught as the primary language in the school system. But tens of thousands of bright young minds have been put to work, by primarily American multi-national companies, in dead-end call centers, contributing nothing to the development of their nation. Up to this point, even graduates with engineering degrees have been forced to choose between working in these call centers, wasting their education, or going overseas among the millions of overseas contract workers so that they could at least use their skills, but often at the expense of breaking up their families. The nation has depended heavily on remittances from the millions of overseas workers to meet its debt obligations.

To succeed in his development drive, to make this the “Golden Age of Infrastructure,” as Duterte has called it, the government must find a way to correct this lack of skilled labor. President Duterte addressed this crisis directly in a speech in February: “Build, Build, Build is a bit delayed due to a lack of workers. There’s a lot to do here in the Philippines, but construction halts due to a lack of workers—like master electrician, master carpenter, master plumber. Many skilled workers are no longer here in the Philippines but have gone to the Middle East [as contracted overseas workers].”

Enter the Belt and Road

Japan, unlike the United States, has never given up on government-supported investments in building infrastructure abroad. Japan is now building a desperately needed urban transit system in the heavily congested capital city of Manila. Now, with the addition of China as a major investor, through Duterte having brought his country into the Belt and Road Initiative, the potential for a rapid and dramatic transformation of the country has been created.

After a series of meetings between President Duterte and several of his cabinet secretaries with President Xi Jinping and Chinese ministers, beginning soon after his 2016 election, China has fully engaged in the “Build, Build, Build” program. A Six-Year Development Program for Trade and Economic Cooperation was signed with China in March 2017. In November 2018, President Xi visited the Philippines and signed 29 cooperative agreements, and lifted ties to the level of “Comprehensive Strategic Cooperation.” As reported in the Schiller Institute’s 2018 Special Report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, Vol. 2:

In September 2017, a delegation under Duterte’s Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez visited Beijing, where it arranged a set of infrastructure projects in two phases. The first phase includes two major bridges in Manila. . . . Other priorities are a major dam and water control project to supply water to Manila; a Chico River irrigation system in the north of Luzon; an elevated expressway in Davao City (Duterte’s home town) in Mindanao; an industrial park; two drug rehab centers; bridges connecting islands in the Visayas; an agricultural technical center; the reconstruction of Marawi, the city in Mindanao that was seized by ISIS-linked terrorists in May 2017.

Many of the proposed projects have been on the books for decades, with promises from the World Bank and others that never materialized. These new projects will likely be funded by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China’s Exim Bank, or China’s Silk Road Fund, perhaps with support from the Asian Development Bank. . . . Chinese private sector companies are opening up new investments in the country, in infrastructure projects and in manufacturing, including aviation, energy, iron and steel, and shipbuilding. China’s Huili Investment Fund Management Company is planning a $2 billion world-class integrated steel mill, while Liaoning Bora is launching a joint venture in oil refineries and an oil storage terminal, worth $3 billion. The Duterte government is open to renewing joint oil and gas exploration with China in the South China Sea, now that both sides have returned to the earlier policy of Deng Xiaoping—that sovereignty issues should be put aside while the two nations cooperate in joint development.

Bild.gov.ph

The NLEX-SLEX Connector Road in Manila, now under construction as part of the “Build Build Build” program, being funded within the Philippines, with estimated completion in 2121.

---------------------------------------------

The Visible Hand

Two major rail projects are now underway: a high-speed rail connection between Manila and the former Clark Air Base, 58 miles north of Manila; and a rail line south from Manila to Quezon Province. A new international airport is to be constructed at Clark, relieving the overcrowding at the current Manila airports.

Other grand projects are in the pipeline. Two Chinese companies have contracted with the province of Cagayan in northern Luzon to build a research center and factory to build medium and high-speed maglev trains. A major ring-road rail line in Mindanao is being developed in sections.

Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin visited China in March of this year, where he issued a statement that captures the optimism for the future that is being inspired by the spirit of the New Silk Road in the Philippines:

I speak for my country, which wants to see much to hope for, and nothing to fear, from the rise of a new power. . . . Without the new China there will be no prospect whatsoever for the developing world to grow into emerging economies. We would still be as we were throughout the second half of the last century. We were at the mercy of Western markets which on a whim can turn us away as they did throughout the post- and neo-colonial period. There is no propulsion as strong as people power, but it demands the direction of a single hand. That hand is absent in Western democracy. That direction the Communist Party has supplied. No other institution anywhere in the world could do it.

The Role of the United States

There is no political, economic, or strategic reason that the United States should not, or could not, join fully in the global transformation that is taking place under the auspices of the Chinese-initiated Belt and Road Initiative. It is only ideological capitulation to the Anglo-Dutch liberal system that holds America back, sacrificing the American System on the Altar of Empire, against which we fought a Revolutionary War, a Civil War, and the Second World War, under the genius of true American thinkers: Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. The genius of Lyndon LaRouche was to locate that profound conflict between the American System and Anglo-Dutch liberal system as a conflict between human creativity and human subjugation—between creative freedom in the discovery of new truths about man and nature, as opposed to the submission of the Rights of Man to an oligarchical elite.

The same British-allied networks within the United States that carried out the coup against President Marcos, behind the back of President Reagan, and oversaw the destruction of the Philippine economy, are now fomenting the hysterical campaign against China and Russia, determined to prevent President Trump from realizing his oft-stated belief that having friendly relations with Russia and China is “a good thing, not a bad thing.”

There are over 3.5 million people of Philippine descent living in the United States. There are many Americans—including some in government, academia and the think tanks—who have good will towards the Philippine nation and its people. There is no justification for the American business community to be restrained from participation in the booming development process being unleashed in the Philippines, and worldwide, through the Belt and Road Initiative. Breaking the deadlock preventing U.S. participation in this process is both necessary and urgent if the world is to have a future of peace and development, rather than a descent into war and depression. Let Operation Marcos break that deadlock.

From An Ideology for Filipinos, by Ferdinand Marcos

Titles for the excerpts have been added.

The Nature of Scientific Discovery

As soon as new experiences emerge which a scientific theory cannot account for, we begin to doubt the theory’s adequacy. If scientific theories are taken to be tentative, it is only because the scientists realize their limitations; or better still, scientists know only too well that nature may unfold in a manner they have not anticipated. If we insist that science should consist of no less than permanent truths, then it will cease to be useful to us in dealing with nature. For science then would be blind to those features of reality that tend to throw doubt on the presumed truths.

Man’s Potential

The egalitarian ideal has a related presupposition about the nature of man. It assumes that each human being (disallowing individuals with natural or congenital disabilities) has the same potential as another to develop himself, and thus to achieve the full measure of his humanity. What prevents a man from achieving his full potential is precisely an institutional arrangement that denies him, but not others, those opportunities that would enable him to realize himself.

Human Rights: Economic and Political

A question that relates to this is whether in fact our people are as much concerned with political rights as those who have made it their business to profess them. Is it possible that the question of political rights looms large only in the minds of a small sector of the national community—those who use the issue of political rights for purposes of gaining political power—but for the masses of Filipinos themselves, the primordial concern is the economic right to survive with dignity?

Martial Law and Democracy

The opposition to martial law came from the Filipino oligarchy, which sensed belatedly that behind the martial law government’s effort to quell a rebellion was the resolve to reorganize the whole national society so that wealth and opportunities could be more equitably distributed. Allied with the oligarchy was the intellectual elite, itself oriented to power, who saw in martial law the diminution of its sphere of influence. The Americans themselves worried a great deal about martial law, for to them it represented a break from the democratic tradition. But what has not been properly emphasized is that the so-called democratic ideals are not exhausted in the political process; that in addition to those political rights, which the democratic tradition is known to uphold, economic rights deserve as much, if not more, attention by the government.

Oligarchy

An essential presupposition here is government’s awakening to the awareness that much of its power has been taken over by a small, but powerful, segment of society. Responding to the moral imperative that its only justification for existence is to serve the interests of all, such an awakened government may take the initiative to free itself from the grip of the oligarchy and to secure its autonomy. Again, this is not just another theoretical possibility for Filipinos. It is at the heart of our own democratic revolution.

On the Public and Private Sectors

We shall continue to adhere to a free enterprise economy, where the private sector shall remain our principle engine for economic growth and prosperity. We assert that only through the creative imagination of private initiative can the full flowering of economic development be achieved. Government will interfere only in those areas of economic activity where great risks are involved or private resources are inadequate to meet the demands for greater productivity.

Political Non-Alliance

We seek understanding and friendship with all nations irrespective of race, color, or ideology. We shall refuse to be pawns in the quarrels of the strong. We shall never allow intervention in the solution of our internal problems.

On the American Colonization

The coming of the Americans is often represented as the beginning of our political democratization; but this is more fancy than fact. The Americans first set up a military government that had to worry initially about the Filipino armed resistance. This armed resistance carried over the Filipino revolution against Spanish rule. Like their colonial predecessor, the Americans found it convenient to ally themselves with the prevailing power structure—the Filipino oligarchy. In an important sense, therefore, the Americans legitimized the power of this oligarchy.

Representative Democracy

The type of “representative democracy” introduced into the Philippines by the United States found itself in a most inhospitable environment . . . [America’s] people were skilled migrants from Europe. And the “representative democracy” that found formal expression in the American Constitution came from hundreds of years of practice. In tragic contrast, Philippine society was still imbued with tribalism and regionalism. . . . As an effective medium of our people’s aspirations, in fact, “representative democracy” was dying well before the crisis of 1972 [the year martial law was imposed—ed.]. It simply could not survive—given a rapacious oligarchy and an electorate, enfeebled by poverty, open to corruption.

On Democracy

Democracy is the formulation of a national consensus on basic, guiding principles, born of free and responsible discussion. Let us note this phrase well: discussion, not only free, because mere freedom can lead to chaos, but responsible as well.

Being a Citizen of the World

Basic knowledge must be supplemented by the motivation to see and understand the world, to develop one’s faculties of observation and judgement, to cultivate the critical spirit, and to cultivate a sense of responsibility for others. We must, therefore, emphasize cooperative effort over competition and collective over individual goals.

III. The Four-Power Partnership

November 18, 2009

Agreement Among Four Powers

Can Avert Total Collapse

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Remarks of Lyndon LaRouche to the “Save Human Dignity for the Sake of Mankind” conference held in Moscow, Russia on Dec. 3-4, 2009. The remarks were recorded Nov. 18, 2009.

Greetings!

Since the developments of this summer, there’s been a great change in the situation in the world at large. Following the period of the Rhodes conference,[fn_1] we had the effects of the negotiations between China’s President and Russia’s President, setting the terms which were later followed up on, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the new agreement with China on the development, the shared development, of Siberia.

This has made a fundamental change in the direction of history—this development, and its consequences. Now, the world has shifted from the former domination by the Atlantic Ocean, as the relationship between Europe and the Americas; and now, between the United States, and the Americas, across the Pacific, into the Indian Ocean, with the nations of Asia, and touching Africa.

This means that the great area of development in Siberia, especially in northern and eastern Siberia, is now opened for its realization: that the cooperation between China and Russia, in the development of this area of Siberia, has produced a fundamental change in the strategic orientation of the planet as a whole. And, hopefully, this is a more or less permanent change for generations yet to come.

www.government.ru

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Beijing on Oct. 13, 2009. Their agreements to jointly develop neighboring regions, including eastern Siberia, have shifted the world’s focus to the Pacific.

---------------------------------------------

What we have on our hands, is the vast resources of countries such as Mongolia, and Russia—in Siberia, northern Siberia. This is a development which affects the populations of Africa, particularly on the Indian Ocean coast. It affects India, Southeast Asia, China, and Russia. It means that there’s a change in world history from a trans-Atlantic orientation of modern civilization, which has been the case, essentially, since Christopher Columbus, to a new period, where the relationship of the United States, across the Pacific, to Asia and also to the coast of Africa, and to Australia, will be the dominant feature.

Especially in Asia, we have large populations. Russia, for example, has not a large population, comparable to the scale of China or India, but it has a very special role, with the territory of Siberia. China and India: China, 1.4 billion people; India, 1.1 billion people; the comparably large populations of Indonesia, and so forth. This means that the combination of the realization of the development of the raw materials potential, and production potential, in Siberia, is now being combined with the large populations typified by those of China and India; to combine raw materials and the labor force together, not to loot a territory of its raw materials, but to develop that territory, and to develop the peoples participating in the development of that territory.

This is the new world economy, if we escape the dangers that exist now. And we have to shift our thinking to that.

We also have to shift our thinking to something else.

kremlin.ru

After the expanded meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of State in Uzbekistan, June23-24, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin (center) is seen with China President Xi Jinping (on Putin’s left) and President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov (left).

---------------------------------------------

A Trans-Pacific Orientation

The future of mankind, even though it’s some generations distant, now, depends upon the development of the colonization of the Moon, as a manufacturing center for building pieces of equipment which will convey man to the colonization of Mars. This will be a fundamental change in the character of the apparent human destiny, over this period of time. And this program, which is now agreed upon, so far, by Russia and China, will be the starting point.

Those in the United States who know their history, who know their strategic history, realize this is a fundamental change. The world is now going to have a trans-Pacific orientation, as opposed to a trans-Atlantic orientation. And that will be for a long time to come. Because combining the populations, which are numerous, but underdeveloped, with a process of development of the raw-materials areas of Siberia and related places, is the solution for the present world problem. And we should look at these things in that way.

We also have to look ahead to Mars, the Mars colonization, which this will help to make possible. It will be several generations distant, before we do that. There are numerous problems, scientific problems, that have to be overcome, not so much in getting to Mars—we already know how to get to Mars—but to get men and women safely to Mars, and back, there are some problems that have to be worked out, on that one.

So, therefore, this will be the character of the coming period of history, provided we get through the present crisis.

But, there are certain parts of the world, which are not willing to accept this. The British Empire, for example. (Australia—yes, Australia will tend to be very much interested in this. Australia has resources, such as large quantities of thorium and uranium, and these resources will be very useful, not only for Australia, but for its neighbors. Thorium nuclear reactors are a very special feature of a development program during this period, and for support of this.) But, in general, you’re going to have opposition from what we call the British Empire, which is not the empire of the British people; it’s an empire which is based on London and the British interests, which is international. It’s the international monetarist system.

And what we’re going into, with this reform, with the Russia-China agreement, is the inception of an alternative to a monetarist system: a shift to a credit system. That is, instead of having an international currency, which exerts imperial power, authority over the power of nation-states, and over their economy; instead of a globalized system, we’ll have a system of sovereign nation-states, in cooperation through their credit systems in the development of the planet. That’s the direction we should be going in. That’s what my purpose is in this.

FDR Library

In our Constitutional system, we believe, not in monetarism, but in a credit system, as was the case with President Franklin Roosevelt, shown here at the Boulder Dam, 1935.

---------------------------------------------

However, in order to meet that mission—the mission not merely of starting this development, which the Russia-China cooperation begins, including Russia-China-India and other countries—we have to develop the science and technology which goes together with a Mars orientation.

The Moon-Mars Mission

Mankind is creative, instinctively. No animal is creative. Only mankind, only the human mind is creative. Living processes are creative; life is creative. But it’s not consciously creative. Even the inanimate world, so-called, is creative. The evolution of the stars, the evolution of stellar systems is a creative process. But the difference is: Man, individually, is creative. And it’s the willful creativity by Man, which is going to shape the future of the Solar System, and beyond.

We’re looking to that. In order to realize the objectives which stand before us now, we have to give mankind a new mission—mankind as a whole. The mission is typified by the idea of the Mars colonization. This requires us to make the kinds of changes, in terms of scientific progress, which are needed for mankind’s future existence.

We have many problems on this planet. And we can not solve those problems, extensively, without going into a development of the Solar System as a habitat of mankind. We’re on the edge of doing that, scientifically. There are many scientific discoveries, yet to be made, which will make it possible to act for man’s colonization of Mars. That will be in some time to come. But we need to act now: We need the intention of accomplishing the Mars colonization. We need to educate and develop generations of young people, who will be oriented to that kind of mission. In the coming period, we will have the birth of young people, who will be part of the colonization of Mars, in one way or the other, before this century is out.

We need to give mankind a sense of purpose, developmental purpose, not only throughout the planet, but through the influence of Earth on the adjoining regions of the Solar System, and beyond.

Those objectives are feasible. There are, admittedly, many problems to be solved, scientific problems, which are not yet resolved. We have many questions. But, essentially, we know this is feasible. We know this should be feasible within two or three generations. What we have to do, is give to people, who will be the grandchildren, born now, to give them something to realize. When we’re dead and gone, they will be there, three generations from now, four generations from now. They will be the people who actually colonize areas beyond Earth itself. We need to give them the opportunity to do so. We need to give society, in the meantime, the mission-orientation of achieving that colonization, for our descendants, three generations or so down the line.

The End of the British Empire

So, now we have a new situation. The old imperial system—and, some people may disagree with this, but there’s only one empire on this planet. It’s the British Empire. It’s not the empire of the British people; it’s the empire of an international monetarist system. And it’s the monetarist system, which is the empire.

The advantage of the United States in this, is that the United States is not a monetarist nation. We do not believe, in our Constitutional system, in monetarism. We believe in a credit system. It is a feature of our Constitution, which is lacking in Europe. And our crucial role, as was the case with Franklin Roosevelt, our crucial role in society, is to promote this kind of change, away from a monetarist system, which is the true form of imperialism. Many people talk about imperialism; they use the label for many things. Mostly, it’s nonsense, scientifically. There’s only one kind of imperialism we’ve known, in European experience during the past 3,000 years, and that is monetarism, as such. And that’s what we have to destroy.

Yes, there is a British domination of the planet, controlling the monetary system, as such, in the tradition of Keynes, and so forth. We have to eliminate that. But, we have to replace it with something, and this means going to a credit system, like that of the United States under Franklin Roosevelt, in which each nation’s credit system is sovereign. And you have cooperation, on a fixed exchange rate, among sovereign economies. We can cooperate in long-term creation of credit, for the fulfillment of these kinds of projects, which the present treaty-agreement between Russia and China signifies. That’s what I’m committed to. I’m looking forward to it.

And I think that we, who are conscious of these goals, of these kinds of goals, we wish to defend the sovereignty of cultures, the sovereignty of nation-states. We wish a system of cooperation among sovereign nation-states, for common ends, without tampering with the culture of the respective nations.

We need to have a conception, a task-oriented conception, of the goals toward which we’re aimed, in the future—two or three generations. We have to have a conception of what are the steps we must take now, to realize those goals, three generations ahead.

And I think we have the potential for doing that, just now: what’s happened between China and Russia, which is not going to stop there. It’s oriented toward bringing India in more fully. It’s going to mean trying to create a situation in which India cooperates with Pakistan, in defending themselves, both, against what’s coming out of Afghanistan from European sources, in terms of drug-trafficking and so forth.

NASA

An artist’s cutaway depiction of an inflatable lunar habitat, spacious enough for comfortable living and housing laboratories and food-growing capabilities.

NASA

Artist’s depiction of humans exploring near a base on Mars.

---------------------------------------------

There are many challenges of that type. But we can achieve that. We can achieve that, provided we come to extend what has been agreed between China and Russia, extend that on a broader scale, as the beginning of a Pacific-oriented development of the planet as a whole. And at the same time, with a mission orientation toward the development of an industrial base on the Moon, which is indispensable for the task of the colonization of Mars.

And when mankind has reached the point, that we have developed the launching of the colonization of Mars, and know it’s going to work, then mankind has gone to an entirely new phase of its existence. We are no longer Earthlings. We are now people of the Universe or, as they say in Russia, the Cosmos.

[fn_1]. See EIR Vol. 36, No. 41, Oct. 23, 2009 for Lyndon LaRouche’s Oct. 10 address, “A Four-Power Agreement Can Create a New World Credit System,” to the Seventh Annual Session of the World Public Forum Dialogue of Civilizations (Oct. 8-12), held on the island of Rhodes, Greece. [back to text for fn_1]