|This interview appears in the June 9, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LaRouche: Defend Peru's
Sovereignty as Our Own
The following is an interview which the Peruvian magazine Gente conducted
with U.S. Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche on May 31.
Q: It's a great honor for us to ask you a question
from Lima, Peru, Mr. LaRouche. Our first question is in relationship to the role
being played by the Organization of American States [OAS], in particular their
observation mission in Peru. What degree of confidence should we have in this
LaRouche: I don't think we should count on anything.
There are obviously positive factors coming from among circles within Central
and South America, but we know that in the United States, and also in some
circles in Europe, there are desperados at work. One should add that the way in
which the government of Peru, the President of Peru, and so forth, have handled
this situation, shows that a firm patriotic response does encourage sane
behavior on the part of observing parties.
Q: I would like to ask you about charges that have
been made in EIR magazine, and in statements from Dennis Small when he
was in Lima, about the links of Eduardo Stein, the head of the OAS mission to
Peru, with the Soros Foundation in Guatemala. What can you tell us in this
LaRouche: Well, Dennis Small is well aware of the
details, and I can confirm them. We've gone over this for a number of years, and
we know the relationship of Soros to operations based in Britain and out of New
York City, and therefore, Stein's connection to him tells us what kind of jungle
he comes from. One has to understand that the people who are playing this
international game, are counting on looting Central and South America, and other
parts of the world, through drug-trafficking, as well as other means. Soros has
a long history of being that kind of pirate, a predatory hyena attacking other
Q: What is the role that George Soros is playing
with regard to Peru, and the Fujimori government in particular?
LaRouche: First of all, the Soros crew is known for
international drug-trafficking legalization. He walks a delicate line, between
actually pushing drugs himself, and demanding that this traffic be legalized.
But from a moral standpoint, the man is a drug pusher.
Q: Since he is so well known as a promoter of the
drug trade, how come the man isn't in jail? How come he hasn't been charged? Is
he protected by powerful forces in the United States?
LaRouche: Yes, he is. Remember, the
British East India Company operation, which was launched in the 1790s, which led
into Palmerston's wars against China, the Opium Wars. The people involved with
Palmerston and the British East India Company, from the late 1790s through the
middle of the 19th Century in the United States, were the leading people from
around Boston, Massachusetts, Yale University in Connecticut, and New York City.
And their involvement in the international drug traffic is identical to that of
the British East India Company and their North American friends back in the
early 19th Century.
Look what happened to the countries of Central and South
America from, especially, the cocaine and the opium traffic, and also marijuana,
including the recent attempt to destabilize the government of Peru, the nation
of Peru. It's identical with British policy in conducting the Opium War policy
For example, the attack on the government of Peru in the
recent period, is identical in character to the attack on the government of
China during the period of the Opium War. And as we know, those circles on Wall
Street, which are closest to Al Gore, as well as to the Bush family, are
identical to the financial circles whose great-grandfathers were part of the
U.S. financier alliance with the China Opium War policy. Remember, that every
American President, from the time of Andrew Jackson until Lincoln, was involved
financially in the drug-trafficking policy. And you have the same tendency,
among the same political circles, at high levels in the United States today. The
only thing that's different, is the historical time period, and this has been
going on since, essentially, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
This has been a constant trend in financier circles out of New York and London
Q: What is your view of the Bill Clinton government
in the United States?
LaRouche: It's a mix. Bill Clinton is not a bad
fellow. He's been terribly persecuted and endangered from within the United
States, from people associated with George Bush and his friends, since 1992.
I've been involved in dealing with many of these threats to the President, to
defend him against these threats. But now, he's become, in this period, what is
called in the United States a "lame duck," a President who cannot be reelected.
And since the beginning of February, or about that time, the President has been
totally a prisoner of his commitment to support Al Gore, and Al Gore is the
worst. It's a question of how far Clinton is willing to go in supporting Al
The major threat to Peru right now from the U.S. side is
coming from circles associated with Al Gore, which are not different,
essentially, from those behind Bush, but it also happens to be Gore's circles.
Because [U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine] Mrs. Albright is very close to Mr.
Gore, in this sense, at this time. And I would hope that President Clinton would
be among those who are taking now a more moderate policy toward Peru.
Q: One of the clear indications that Clinton is a
prisoner in his own realm, as you have stated, is the State Department statement
that they do not support the recent elections in Peru.
Q: We would like to know your view, or thoughts,
regarding the complaint that you have presented to the OAS with regard to the
theft of 53,000 votes of yours in Arkansas, as your documents have
LaRouche: Well, the evidence in terms of Al Gore and
his friends running this operation against me in the United States, was clear.
It is a fistfight behind the scenes, as well as in public. But the issue here
came to my attention when I read the conditionalities which Mrs. Albright and
company presented to Peru on the recent election. Because every one of the
conditionalities which Mrs. Albright was dictating to Peru, Mrs. Albright's
confederate Al Gore was violating in the United States. Under those
circumstances, I thought it very necessary and morally obligatory for me to show
the world, that what the United States State Department was demanding of Peru,
was exactly what they were violating within the United States. Therefore, I was
concerned to alarm the world, including the nations of Ibero-America, to
recognize that this attack on Peru by the State Department, or by Mrs.
Albright's crew, was a piece of immorality that had to be turned back, for the
sake of all of the states of the Americas.
Q: There's also some discussion of OAS
interventionism in the internal affairs of countries in the continent, and in
this regard, the doctrine of "limited sovereignty." What are your views on this
LaRouche: Well, this is an old story. In the history
of the Americas, especially from the time of the Congress of Vienna, the states
of the Americas which were either independent, or struggling for independence,
were all imperilled by the British and their Vienna Congress, Metternichean,
Holy Alliance allies. So, most people don't know this, but the struggle for
independence for the new nation-states in the Americas was the struggle for the
principle of equality and republican freedom for the world as a whole. As a
result of that, since the time of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, every
American leader who was not virtually a British agent, has--like the case of
Lincoln with Mexico--always come to the defense of all the republics of the
Americas, knowing that the fate of each and all of the republics of the Americas
and of the United States itself, are interlinked.
And, from my standpoint, anyone who proposes limited
sovereignty, for any of the republics of the Americas, is virtually a traitor to
the United States. Independence of each and all of the republics of the
Americas, is the first line of national defense of the United States. And I
would also say, the prosperity of these republics, too.
If we stand together on this principle, we are strong in the
world. When we are separate from one another on this issue, then we are weak. We
are not the most populous part of the world--we have less than a billion people
in this hemisphere--but united we are a powerful force in the world. And a
powerful force for good.
I consider anybody who proposes limited sovereignty for any
country of the Americas, if he is a U.S. official, to be virtually a traitor to
the United States.
Q: I'm interested in knowing about the fact that you
are going to present, or have already presented, to the OAS a document with
regard to the Peruvian situation.
LaRouche: Yes, that's being done on my behalf by my
representatives, who are now in Washington.
Q: What's the tenor, or the point, of this
LaRouche: The point, essentially, is to assert the
principles which have been upheld by U.S. Presidents in this century, especially
President Franklin Roosevelt and also by President John Kennedy. The political
purpose is to try to bring a sense of unity among the patriotic figures and
factions in the hemisphere, to bring them together around a principle of common
defense of the independence and freedom of the states of the
I would emphasize in particular, that if you look at the
strategic situation within the Americas, Peru is crucial. The key countries of
the Americas are currently Mexico, Brazil, and Peru. If the attempt to destroy
Peru, launched in the name of this [Presidential candidate Alejandro] Toledo,
had succeeded, the situation of Brazil and Mexico would have become almost
impossible. And you know the situation of our friends in Colombia and in Central
America, in Argentina, and so forth.
My view is to arouse the conscience of people in my own
country, and in the Americas, to look at the facts of this case, the situation
in Peru, and to recognize that we will not turn back from this point of defense
of the issue posed, in the case of the recent Peru elections. And to emphasize
that the question of political freedom inside the United States itself, as in
Peru but also in all the South and Central American countries, depends upon our
uniting in defense of this common principle.
Q: Coming back to the question of Stein and the
mission which he led in Peru, I have a follow-up question. Can you say a bit
more about his intentions in coming to Peru, and if you can be more specific
about the activities here, and why he's trying to do damage to the Peruvian
LaRouche: I don't think he's that important. He's
significant, but not important. He's like a dagger stuck in someone's back by a
Venetian. His intentions are not important. The people who use him, their
intentions are important.
It's obvious, this is a long story. It comes from the period
when [former U.S. Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger was in power, when they
proposed discussion of the Second War of the Pacific. Since that period, there
has been a consistent attempt to destroy Peru, as a part of destroying all of
the nations of the hemisphere. All Stein is, is a despicable little dagger which
has been stuck into the back of Peru, with the attempt to assassinate
When you get the connection to the Inter-American Dialogue
crowd, and you look at the Wall Street crowd, including [New York Stock Exchange
President] Richard Grasso, who is behind this, and you look at the evil, old
Venetian-style man [former U.S. State Department official] Luigi Einaudi, who is
also behind this operation, and you detect the work of Einaudi against Peru
before Stein even got out of diapers, then you understand the hand behind the
dagger. It's not Einaudi, but the people for whom Einaudi has always
This is an old war, which many of us have been involved in
for a long time. This is really just that they've sent a new mercenary to attack
Peru again. And Stein is nothing. His importance should be precisely identified,
but not exaggerated. His significance is, that the evidence of who and what he
is, and who owns him, points toward who is controlling the hand behind this
latest choice of poisoned dagger. The fact that he seems to come from a family
of assassins helps us to understand this.
Q: Can you be a little more specific when you say
that Stein comes from a family of assassins?
LaRouche: Well, he's got a brother Ricardo, and a
whole group of connections, which have been documented, which are well known.
And, of course, my reaction on this is conditioned by my long experience in
I've been fighting for the freedom of the developing
countries since I was involved in World War II in Asia. And I've learned from
much experience, never to ignore the assassin who is sent to kill you, but when
you're dealing with an assassin, don't worry too much about his motivations.
That's clear; he's a mercenary. Look at the enemy who sent him. And when you see
this photograph of Grasso embracing this chief drug pusher, this FARC leader in
Colombia, and then you look at the relationship of this New York crowd and the
Inter-American Dialogue to that embrace, that is the clearest indication of what
we are up against.
Q: Finally, would you say that the hand which is
behind Stein, is the same hand that is behind Toledo, who ran in the recent
LaRouche: Absolutely, absolutely. Toledo is nothing,
he's obviously a nothing. Look at his background. He's a contemptible piece of
dirt, but he has a history, of how he was developed and trained. He was trained
by the same people who created this regime around Pinochet in Chile. He's a low
agent, he's a mercenary with no morals, with no politics, with nothing. He's
just another mercenary. He's not someone who comes from the political process of
Peru, who represents something in Peru. He's a filibusterer. Like they used to
send these fellows from the southern part of the United States, to these
countries in the Caribbean, to run filibustering wars to take over and destroy
countries. He may have a Peruvian background, but he's actually an enemy agent
deployed against Peru. That may be difficult for some people to understand, but
for an old fighter like me, who has been in these wars all these decades, I
recognize that phenomenon immediately.
Q: These connections you're talking about, in terms
of his training and the connection to Pinochet, could you elaborate?
LaRouche: Like Harberger. Arnold Harberger is the
key man, who was formerly at the University of Chicago. You had this fellow
Milton Friedman, who was also there at the time. Friedman is essentially a
stupid ideologue, who has no intelligence, but he had around him in his
so-called Chicago Boys, a real bunch of skillful, nasty assassins, of which
Harberger--who was the immediate trainer of Toledo at the time--was the key man.
Harberger was the man who orchestrated the Chile coup.
I don't want to interfere in the internal affairs of Chile
when I'm talking about Peru, but I would think that if somebody in Chile wanted
to put somebody on trial for what happened under Pinochet, they ought to put
Harberger on trial, and maybe Toledo along with him.
Q: Within all of this, what connections might Eliane
Karp, Toledo's former wife, have to all of these things?
LaRouche: Oh, who knows? It's probably a collateral
part of the operation.
Generally, I find, in my experience, that these people are
picked up in bunches. Sometimes they are discarded, sometimes they play
different roles. I leave these kinds of matters to the biographers, who tell the
history of the corpses of the mercenaries on the field of battle.
Q: I'm sorry to insist on this point, but you really
get the impression from watching Toledo, that he's been programmed to insist, to
demand, to provoke violence, and to keep pushing things forward in trying to
LaRouche: Well, yes, naturally. You've got to
remember that this man is an agent. He's nothing but an agent. And if one thinks
about how serious political people function, they function for principles, even
wrong principles. That's the difficulty sometimes in dealing with a serious
opponent, because they may be bad principles, and you've got to deal with their
But when you get someone like Toledo, if he fails in his
mission--as he has failed so far--the enemy, the people who use him, will dump
him, they'll sacrifice him in all kinds of ways, whatever they consider
politically convenient. Toledo is a man who is virtually one step away from
becoming a corpse in a garbage dump. And the danger to his life does not come
from Peru. It comes from the people who employed him, to whom he is now becoming
an embarrassment. Maybe Madeleine Albright, who is that kind of a Romantic, who
would do that kind of killing, would wish he would be assassinated. And knowing
what I know of Toledo, I think he's trembling in his pants, and maybe doing
something else as well.
Since the Peruvian elections have occurred, and since people
within the OAS, and even within the United States, are making a delicate
tactical adjustment in their form of attack on Peru, these people who employed
Toledo may toss him as a corpse onto the trash heap. I guarantee you that this
man is hysterical, desperate, paranoid, terribly frightened. And what he has to
fear most, is people around Madeleine Albright. For the rest of us, I think we'd
be happier if he would just go disappear peacefully someplace.
Q: Last question. What possible connection might
there be between the businessman Baruch Ivcher and the role of the Zionist
LaRouche: The Zionist lobby is a tricky term to use,
because there is the so-called Zionist faction which killed the former Prime
Minister [Yitzhak] Rabin of Israel, and who are the enemies of Prime Minister
Barak today. With that qualification, I would say that there is an element of
the Zionist lobby--which would be that element, as opposed to patriotic Israelis
such as Barak or Shimon Peres and others--these guys who are closely tied to
drug runners politically, and who were an integral part of former Vice-President
George Bush's Iran-Contra operation during the 1980s, and who are an integral
part of George W. Bush's Presidential campaign today. They are a major problem
for Peru, but they should be looked at exactly in those terms of
Q: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche, for this
opportunity to talk with you.
LaRouche: Thank you.