Subscribe to EIR Online
This article appears in the April 11, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Do We Really Want a Third World War?

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

[PDF version of this article]

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche is the chairwoman of the BüSo (Civil Rights Solidarity) party in Germany. This article was translated from German.

Whoever had the idea of holding the "GröNagiaZ" (Greatest NATO Summit of All Time),[1] in the modern and super-ugly Tower of Babel in Bucharest, which, at 330,000 square meters, is the second-largest building in the world after the Pentagon, must have a macabre sense of humor. Indeed, the monstrous building—about 3,000 official delegates and an equal number of journalists only required one-third of the gigantic structure for the summit—was built according to the wishes of the megalomaniacal dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, who was, however, overthrown and executed before the structure could be inaugurated. According to unconfirmed rumors, it was the old, established PR firm Dracula Ltd., which took charge of the whole organization of the mega-events, from promotion and decoration, to catering (especially the excellent drinks), and including the graphic design of the famed fire-writing on the wall at the gala dinner in commemoration of Belshazzar and his Romanian successor.

But irony aside: The April 2-3 NATO summit in Bucharest, which was supposed to transform NATO essentially into an imperial global organization, is only one element of a breathtaking escalation of the strategic situation. Behind the scenes of the daily escalating financial collapse, the financier oligarchy of the British empire is trying to throw the principal opponents of the Anglo-American empire into chaos. Thus we have the orchestrated and violent campaign against China, as well as the unrelenting British campaign against Russia, and Putin personally, and the attempt to bring Zimbabwe back under colonial control. It is therefore evident, that the geostrategy behind this global policy of provocation is being carried out regardless of the consequences—or is even intended to build up an enormous factor of rage against London and Washington, among countries such as China, Russia, India, and others. If a totally different policy is not placed on the agenda, a new world war looms, which threatens to become even more horrendous than the world wars of the 20th Century.

At the NATO summit in Bucharest, the entire imperial agenda was supported by all the NATO members, with the exception of the issue of admitting Georgia and Ukraine, "at this point in time." Thus the admission of Croatia and Albania, and the French reintegration into NATO; the stationing of anti-missile defense systems and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic; the reinforcement of NATO troops in Afghanistan by 700 French soldiers; the integration of NATO's military structure with the EU, according to the directives of the Lisbon Treaty; and—according to unconfirmed media reports—behind the scenes, also debate and agreement on a new strategy paper that would include "preventive conflict avoidance" around the world, as the five retired chiefs of general staffs envisage.[2]

A look at the map leaves no doubt that NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, as an expression of the encirclement strategy against Russia, as well as the missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, massively violates the security interests of Russia. Russia has warned in advance of "catastrophic consequences" from these developments. Eight NATO members states, among them Germany and France, spoke out against the absorption of Georgia and Ukraine. And although Bush knew about the negative views of these eight, during his visit to Kiev two days before the Bucharest Summit, he promised the early absorption of Ukraine into NATO. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who, in the opinion of Spiegel Online has molted into a "crafty player in the NATO area," apparently persuaded President Bush to come to a compromise, so that the two countries would come in "not at this time." Ms. Rice made clear what this "compromise" is worth in a press briefing, where she said that it was only "a question of when, not if" these two nations would enter NATO.

President Putin clarified the Russian point of view on these matters in an hour-long press conference in Bucharest, where he stressed that the establishment of a powerful military bloc on Russia's borders would be understood as a direct threat to its national security. Declarations that this doesn't represent a threat, would not be sufficient, especially as this has already been heard before every expansion. Putin accused NATO of not dispelling unclarities about the future role of the alliance, such as the intent of becoming a worldwide player that dominates the territory of its member states.

Despite these clear words, Mrs. Merkel commented that NATO was not aimed against anyone, especially not against Russia.

This brushing aside of the opposition to this policy, and of the policy of constantly raising the pressure, highlights the evil intentions of the strategy behind this policy. Russia and, in another respect, China, will be provoked and put under pressure until they reach the limit of what they can tolerate, and then take pre-calculated reactions—which the Empire faction has already taken into account. U.S. Vice President Cheney publicly formulated the policy years ago, that the U.S. should never allow a nation, or a group of nations, to come close to the economic and military might of the United States.

Exactly at the point in time when the American financial crisis has escalated into a depression for the real economy, the London Economist, in a 14-page special feature on the future of American foreign policy, describes, on the one side, the decline of the United States, and, on the other side, Russia and, above all, China as the great rivals in the 21st Century. Other reports from different investment houses merely vary in specifying when China, and soon after, India, will have overtaken the United States, at least in the economic aspect.

The same Economist, on Feb. 3, 2007, had begun a series of articles with the title "Britannia Redux," in which they raised the claim that the time when Great Britain was the "sick man of Europe," is over, and London, through globalization, is again the rightful headquarters of power. According to this view, the fact that around 80% of all hedge funds have their headquarters in the Cayman Islands, and therefore in the British Commonwealth, definitely played an essential role.

You could add a long list of further details showing that the British empire has decided to come out of this systemic crisis as the dominant factor, and thus to incorporate both the United States and continental Europe, forced into the EU corset, as vassals of the empire. The strategic partnership among Russia, China, and India is supposed to be destroyed, and each of these nations, after they have been isolated and entangled in territorial conflicts, will be smashed.

War Scenarios in London's 'Sunday Times'

If you need still another piece of proof for this analysis, then you can find it in an astounding article in the March 30 London Sunday Times, with the title "Tibet Is One Thing, But India and China Tensions Spell Greater Disaster." The author first praises the "genial" maneuvers of George W. Bush to draw India onto the side of the United States (which, in India, has been seen, just the opposite, as massive pressure and geopolitical manipulation). Then he describes the tensions between China and India over the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, just south of Tibet (Figure 1), where China also has a claim, and over Aksai Chin, a thinly populated region on the high plateau of the Himalayas, northeast of Kashmir, on which India has a claim. But for China, Aksai Chin is very important, because it is building the world's highest highway, which will make travel from Tibet to Xinjiang much faster than would be possible along the northern route. The author is quiet about the fact that it is precisely these border questions which China and India have consciously laid to rest over recent years.

Now Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin, just like Tibet and Kashmir, are part of those regions over which Great Britain exerted control at the end of its rule over India, precisely in order to have room for ethnic and territorial manipulation. London followed the same policy with the Sykes-Picot Treaty for the partition of Southwest Asia, and the Trianon Treaty for the Balkans, always according to the idea of fomenting hundred-year-old ethnic conflicts for the benefit of the Empire.

The Sunday Times now elaborates a scenario according to which, after the death of the Dalai Lama, who is now 73 years old, there would be differences between the Chinese central government and the Tibetan exiles over who would be the authentic incarnation of the new Dalai Lama. China, according to the Sunday Times, would crack down hard against the insurgents. But—here the writer lets the cat out of the bag—if the Chinese government had been weakened as a result of an economic collapse, and unrest spreads throughout China, then it would be more difficult for them to crack down against the Tibetans. India, in a further development, could then advocate an international troop intervention, either sending in troops itself, or offering exile in Arunachal Pradesh. (In reality, the Indian foreign minister has already warned the Dalai Lama that he can only remain in India as a religious exile, but not as a political leader.)

If China, as a result of the U.S. crisis, falls deeper into crisis, and would react to the greatest unrest since 1989 with a reenforcement of its national control, this would raise tensions with Japan. If the death of the Dalai Lama were to coincide with the death of Kim Jong-il of North Korea, Japan would have added reasons to rearm; under these conditions, tensions would grow among China, Japan, and the U.S., and there could be a military exchange of blows over Taiwan. Then the Sunday Times writes: "The warm glow of the 2008 Beijing Olympics would be remembered only through a thick smog of tension."

It's Not Only Theory

Many aspects of these insane scenarios, in the best tradition of the geopolitics of Karl Haushofer, Lord Milner, and Sir Halford Mackinder, are already operational. The destabilization of China's western province of Xinjiang, by Uighurs trained as terrorists in Pakistan, is in full swing. There is also already unrest in Sichuan province. The plan, which lies behind the whole campaign against China, is no less than breaking away a hostile Muslim state in Xinjiang, creating a Greater Tibet, and reducing China to a relatively small territory. There are similar scenarios for India, which are aimed at conflicts among Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Tamils, and so forth.

When French President Nicolas Sarkozy, during the French-British summit in London at the end of March, invoked not only the Entente Cordiale of the last century, but also the colonialist tradition of the European powers, as an asset for Europe's role in the world today, this was by no means only nostalgia. Behind the British campaign against Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe lies no less than the intention to reverse the independence of what used to be called Southern Rhodesia. There is also no doubt that the "former" colonial powers are savagely determined to break the extensive agreements in Africa by China, and secondarily Russia, to import raw materials and build up infrastructure and industrial capacity in return.

Furthermore, there are ambitious efforts to make British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, under the Queen of England, into the foreign minister of the Commonwealth, to which 53 nations and 16 so-called "realms" belong. In addition, Brown and Sarkozy have already proposed Tony Blair as the first president of the European Union, who would then, according to the Lisbon Treaty, be elected for a term of two and a half years. If one then notes the networking of the EU and NATO, which are already undertaking common military missions in the Balkans, on the Lebanese coast, and, in the case of the EU, also in Darfur, what picture then emerges? If it should be revealed, that the NATO Summit in Bucharest really came together around the strategy paper of the five generals for global preventive strikes and the first use of nuclear weapons, which could not be clearly confirmed at the time of this writing, then the world finds itself on a short track toward World War III.

Whether Mrs. Merkel understands it or not, we are experiencing right now, a global alignment of an order of battle for a coming world war, in which the British empire, with its vassals, the U.S.A. and continental Europe, with the help of the militarized EU dictatorship and NATO, will be launched against Asia, especially against Russia, China, and India. The fire-writing on the wall could be read in Bucharest.

The British Motive

If you are looking to express the reasons for the current monstrous crisis, you would declare that the British empire, the primary author for this climactic world crisis, is acting out of utter desperation and insanity. During the whole period since the successful breakthrough of the Allied forces in 1944 in Normandy, the Anglo-Dutch financial powers, who wear the facade of the British monarchy in a certain way, like a Venetian mask, have had only one burning wish. They saw as their long-term strategic orientation, to root out the post-war plans of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who died at a most unfortunate time in 1945, and to corrupt the United States from the inside, in order to finally eliminate not only any recollection of the legacy of the American Revoltuion, the American victory over the Confederate puppets of Lord Palmerston, and the brilliant victory of President Roosevelt, but also to end politics in the tradition of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia in the whole world.

For the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarhcy and their accomplices in the American establishment, this means, above all, to expunge the American System of economy, with the help of which the U.S. became the greatest economic power that has ever existed.

Today, this British oligarchical intention has almost been realized. The current world financial system has been destroyed to such a degree, that the collapse of the global financial system and real economy, which has been escalating since August 2007, finds itself on the edge of a situation which could only be compared to the Dark Age, which was unleashed by the bankruptcy of the Venetian Lombard League.

The greatest fear which the British empire has about its current war plans against Africa and Asia, lies in the fact that precisely these actions could bring the United States to the point of reviving the policy of FDR, as occurred in 1932-33. Britain's dilemma lies in the fact that the speed, extent, and depth of the current global financial crisis does not permit the powers of the British empire to hesitate. London's impulse, and that of the powers tied to it, is that they have to act now, regardless of the risks. Thus, we find ourselves in a situation where we either defeat the monster now, or the British scenarios, which are already in motion, will drive the whole planet into ruin, and plunge the British empire, along with the rest of the world, into the abyss.

It is high time to put on the agenda, in opposition to this, cooperation among Russia, China, India, and the United States, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the New Deal, and a New Bretton Woods.

[1] During the Nazi period, people spoke (privately, of course) about the "Gröfaz"—an acronym for the "Größte Führer aller Zeiten" (Greatest Leader of All Time), i.e., Hitler.

[2] See Helga Zepp-LaRouche, "No to Europe as an Empire! The Militarization of the EU Must Be Stopped," EIR, March 21, 2008.

Back to top