Subscribe to EIR Online

This transcript appears in the January 25, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this transcript]


Brit Panic Grows: Will Trump’s
Anti-Missile Plan Become LaRouche-Reagan SDI?

Ronald Reagan Library
President Reagan surprises the nation in a nationally televised address from the Oval Office, announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) on March 23, 1983. “Our only purpose—one all people share—is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.”

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s January 19, 2019 New Paradigm webcast with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She is interviewed by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our weekly webcast, featuring our founder and Chairwoman, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s January 19, 2019.

We’re in the middle of very interesting breakthroughs and new developments. Let’s start with one that has shocked a lot of people. On Thursday, President Trump announced that he’s going to pursue missile defense, using new technologies. This sounds somewhat like President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Helga, your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was on the scene then and was the author of Reagan’s SDI policy. What do you make of Trump’s statement?

Trump’s Missile Defense Program and the SDI

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: While Trump’s proposed expanded Missile Defense Program is very interesting, and many media did refer to President Reagan’s SDI, I still want to wait to see if it contains an offer to include Russia and China. That was a critical element of the Reagan SDI. Or is it, as some in Russia and China have stated, with concern, an attempt by what is rightly called the “war party” in the United States, to try to establish superiority in space. The English-language Chinese newspaper, Global Times, asked if this is an effort to enable the United States to attack a country with nuclear weapons without fearing that the United States would be counter-attacked? The article says that this is illusory and will not work, rather it will lead to the end of deterrence based on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Ending MAD is not necessarily a bad thing. Some of you may remember that when my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, developed what became the SDI, it was explicitly designed to replace Mutually Assured Destruction with the concept of Mutually Assured Survival.

This was his response to the medium-range missile crisis (the SS-20 and Pershing II missiles), which were on a launch-on-warning status in the beginning of the 1980s. The danger of an accidental nuclear war was extremely high. Starting in the late 1970s, Lyndon LaRouche developed the proposal that the two superpowers, working together, would develop new weapons systems based on “new physical principles,” and develop them together, install them together, and in that way, for the first time, make defense less costly than offense, and in that process render nuclear weapons obsolete.

There were, at that time, back-channel discussions on behalf of the National Security Council of the United States, with official representatives of the Soviet Union. My husband and I were involved in these discussions for one full year. And then, in February 1983, the answer came back from Moscow that the Soviets did not like this proposal, claiming that the plan would bring more advantages to the United States than to the Soviet Union.

That would not, in fact, have been true. President Reagan put forward twice, once in March 1983, and again eight months later, that the United States would help the Soviet Union apply the breakthroughs in the new military technology to their civilian sector, and in that way, help the Soviet Union overcome certain bottlenecks in its civilian economy. Lyndon LaRouche elaborated this proposal further, proposing a “draft protocol for the superpowers,” by which both countries would work together on joint science-driver programs, thus increasing the productivity of the world economy. The “draft protocol” included massive technology transfer to the developing countries, to overcome the underdevelopment of the Third World. That was the real SDI.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
Lyndon LaRouche discusses his concept of the SDI at a Fusion Energy Foundation conference in Washington on April 13, 1983.

The idea of doing away with both the Warsaw Pact and NATO was a truly wonderful idea, which would have changed the course of humanity had it not been rejected by the hardliners on both sides—the Bush faction in the Reagan Administration, and the Ogarkov faction in the Soviet leadership.

But it was rejected. It was a grand design proposal that would have overcome geopolitics then.

So far, Trump has made only an initial statement. Three representatives from the United States presented this to the press. One said that this program is in response to the hypersonic missiles of Russia and China. Another said that the technologies involved will have to be developed—that the plan mandates new technologies, not so-called off-the-shelf technology.

So, this does appear to potentially be a gigantic R&D program at this stage. But the key question is—and I insist on this—will it include cooperation with Russia and China, or will it be against those two countries? The answer to this question will determine if it is in the footsteps of the SDI or not. Let’s hope for the better. President Trump is seeking a better relationship with Russia; he’s doing very good things now with China; he wants to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. So, I absolutely give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see what it turns out to be.

Schlanger: In a press statement issued Dec. 3, President Trump said that he looks forward to working with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin, and hopes to soon have an opportunity to talk with both of them about ending the arms race. Apparently, that was one of the topics of Trump’s July 16, 2018 Helsinki discussion with Putin, which got some heat this week from the Washington Post, complaining, well, why didn’t Trump tell us what went on there?

BuzzFeed’s Fake Story Flames Out

On the so-called Trump scandals, Helga, a new one just came up. There was just a BuzzFeed report that Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen had admitted that Trump told him to lie. Within hours that story was shot down. Now, BuzzFeed is notorious in that it was the first media outlet to publish the Steele report.

What do you make of this insanity?

Zepp-LaRouche: It is obviously part of the ongoing British intelligence operation, in collusion with intelligence circles in the United States, essentially running a coup, to get President Trump out of office one way or another. It is interesting that even Special Counsel Robert Mueller has denied BuzzFeed’s Cohen story, saying it is not true. The head of BuzzFeed said he is sticking to his guns.

President Trump tweeted that it was BuzzFeed that launched the whole affair to begin with, with the so-called “dodgy dossier” of Christopher Steele. BuzzFeed has a record of being part of the apparatus using intelligence methods to run such fraudulent stories, which then get played into the mainstream media.

All this demonstrates the urgency for Trump to declassify all the documents related to this whole affair. And funnily enough, even the Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the American people have the right to know for themselves the dimensions of this story. So, one can only hope that President Trump finds the right moment to do this—sooner rather than later—because this really must be stopped.

The Integrity Initiative’s Spy Clusters

Schlanger: If the Wall Street Journal is serious about getting the story out, they should run the story on the Integrity Initiative that we discussed here last week, which is circulating somewhat widely. Have you gotten much feedback on the Integrity Initiative story?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, it is funny. There is a real buzz among some circles, including some politicians who have not yet come out publicly. I think it will all come out in a big splashy way. It’s quite scandalous that the mainstream media have not yet touched the story. Here we have a true story, about a British-run intelligence operation working through so-called “clusters”—groups of agents of influence in all Western countries, Europe, the United States, now spreading to the Middle East—not only meddling in the internal affairs of all those countries, but also involved in hyping up anti-Russia war hysteria, leading the drumbeat for war against Russia and China. And the mainstream media is not reporting any of this.

The list of the agents of influence who constitute these clusters, is now becoming known. There is a lot of investigation being done, and you can expect that a big, big bang—Paukenschlag, as we call it in German—will surface in the very near future.

I urge our audience to study and circulate these articles by Barbara Boyd:

• Part I: The British Role in the Coup Against the President Is Now Exposed. Will You Act Now to Save the Nation?

• Part II: The Integrity Initiative’s Foreign Agents of Influence Invade the United States

• Part III: A British Intelligence Fraud Creates the Coup Against Donald Trump

Distribute these reports widely; get people to really understand the truth about what has happened. If you don’t see role of the British, there’s no way you can understand the present strategic situation.

Schlanger: One of the points Barbara Boyd makes in her articles is that it’s not just the personnel involved; it’s the intention. You just brought up a perfect example: Is the intent of a shift to missile defense, an offensive, anti-Russia, anti-China policy? Or, is it for advancing cooperation among Russia and China and the United States, which Trump has said he’s for? Clearly, the British don’t want that to happen: They see that as an end to the “special relationship.”

UK Parliament
Left: UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

UK Parliament: Brexit, No; May, Barely

Meanwhile, it looks like Britain, the United Kingdom (UK), is becoming more and more irrelevant following the vote in Parliament on Brexit. What happened with that? Where’s this headed?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the moves by Prime Minister Theresa May and the Tories were first provoked a vote against the deal she made with the EU. Then there was the failure of the no-confidence vote against May herself, because many Tories are afraid if there are new elections, they will all lose their posts, and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn might become the next Prime Minister. This has created a situation where there are—as it looks now—no viable option concerning Brexit that will find a parliamentary majority. The Parliament has maneuvered itself into a real cul de sac—they’re stuck.

Even in the Anglo-American media, there is the admission—or at least a discussion—about the utter failure of the British Establishment. The Bagehot column in The Economist, on Dec. 22, says the problem with the British Establishment is that they’re more concerned about group-think, about clique dynamics, than competence, and therefore they are a complete failure, the British model is a complete failure.

Even the rabidly pro-British New York Times carried an op-ed, “The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class,” comparing the doings of the present British Establishment with those of the British Establishment at the time of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the time of India’s declaration of independence, and Britain’s “brutal” behavior, and this is a quote, the “brutal” behavior of the British Empire at that time with the absolutely stupid behavior being exhibited in the UK now.

So, there is an admission that this British neo-liberal model, the model which had been adopted by the European Union, by Bush, and by Obama—the neo-liberal model that imposed rules favoring the banks to the disadvantage of the population, the model that caused the Brexit revolt, that caused the defeat of Hillary Clinton, and caused the rise and the victory of the present Italian government, and is the actual cause of the Yellow Vests movement in France right now, that model is clearly failing.

German Elite Wants the UK in the EU

I think it tells you something about the condition of the present German elite, or so-called “elite,” That there was just a letter to the London Times appealing to the British to please stay in the European Union, saying “from the bottom of our hearts, we want you to stay.”

This is totally disgusting! And if another proof was needed to demonstrate that the members of the German establishment are just the caretakers of that British Empire, and in light of all the scandals—the coup against President Trump run by the British, the intelligence operations by the Integrity Initiative, meddling also in German affairs, hyping people up against Russia—that the German establishment would take such a move and appeal to the Brits to stay in the European Union, just shows you that they’re really closer to the British Empire in their mentality, than anything else.

And even were Germany the last country to wake up, people will eventually wake up. I’m absolutely confident it can and will happen. We have to make sure that positive developments occurring elsewhere do enter German politics, even if it’s the last place on Earth.

CC/Thomas Bresson
Yellow Vest demonstrators out in force in Belfort, France on December 1, 2018.

Meanwhile, in France and Italy

Schlanger: You’ve always pointed out, quoting the opening line of the famous Rütli Oath in Friedrich Schiller’s play Wilhelm Tell, “No! There is a limit to the tyrant’s power.” We’re seeing that in the insurgency that’s sweeping the so-called “advanced world.” The Yellow Vests are out in force again today in Paris and all over France; this clearly expresses the contrast between France, where Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron is flailing and failing, with the Italian government, which is moving forward in a determined and positive way. In the work that I do in the United States on radio and elsewhere, I’m finding a great deal of interest in these developments. Why don’t you give us an update on the differences, for example, between the French situation, in which the government is paralyzed, and Italy, where the government is moving ahead?

Zepp-LaRouche: Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte has been in Chad and Niger for the last several days. In press conferences with their respective Presidents, Conte praised the Transaqua project—the project for which the Schiller Institute has been campaigning for decades.

This project has now begun with a series of memoranda of understanding among China, Italy, and the six countries from the Lake Chad region, to bring the water from the tributaries of the Congo River through a system of canals and dams, to refill Lake Chad. Conte said this is the only way to address the poverty in the region, the only way to alleviation the reasons why people are fleeing that region and trying to migrate to Europe; and the only way to eliminate the basis for terrorism. Conte promised that Italy would become the leading advocate for this project in the European Union, because it is the only way to address the refugee crisis in a human way.

This is very, very good! This is in total contrast to what the EU is doing and what other EU members are doing. It promises to bring real industrial development to the African continent and addresses these problems in a viable way.

Italy’s Economic Development Undersecretary, Michele Geraci, has said that what is needed today is the revival of the spirit of the Renaissance, the Italian Renaissance, in which great pieces of art inspired science, technology and the emergence of industrialization in an early form. That spirit of the Italian Renaissance is exactly what is needed, so this is very good—and this is also what so far only the Schiller Institute has been talking about.

And then, last week, Luigi Di Maio, the head of the Five Star Movement, demanded the separation of the banks and a firewall between the casino economy and the real economy, with the immediate implementation of the Glass-Steagall Act, calling it by that name.

This is all very good. It shows you that even imperfect governments can come up with many, many good ideas. Italy right now is a shining light among the European countries—Italy is advocating cooperation with China, for the industrialization of Africa, and for lifting the sanctions against Russia. This is very, very good, and a very clear example that even in the context of the now disintegrating European Union, new ideas can emerge and can be an inspiration for all the other countries.

A Cotton Plant Buds on Lunar Far Side

The most wonderful recent development was not only the landing on the far side of the Moon by a Chinese lander and rover, but that two weeks after landing on the far side, as part of a very interesting experiment, a cotton seed sprouted and developed a bud!

This little plant has since died due to two weeks without sunshine on the far side of the Moon. The plant could not continue to live. But it is the biggest news of the day, because, for the first time, humans have successfully grown living material on the surface of another world. This has never happened before. It’s a gigantic step in the direction of future villages on the Moon, future interstellar space travel.

It’s only a first baby step, but the experiment proves it can be done; it could not have been done without man. It means that the creative power of man is the most advanced force in the physical universe, and that, as Krafft Ehricke said, many decades ago: Space travel and space research completely redefines the notion of nature. And it definitely proves we are not living in an Earth-bound system. Man can bring life to other terrestrial bodies—this is just a first glimpse of what we will be capable of in the future. China’s accomplishment should inspire all of us with a tremendous hope for what we can do, if we act in a good spirit and with a good plan.

Schlanger: In conclusion, I say to our viewers: Help us get this message out! Use these weekly webcasts to spread this message of hope and optimism. If we can have a cotton plant bloom on the Moon, maybe we can have intelligent life in the U.S. and European policy discussions, and that’s our job! Please work to get these webcasts out, and you’ll find that you will have great fun doing it.

Helga, thank you very much, and we’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I hope so—till then.

Back to top