Subscribe to EIR Online
This transcript appears in the November 14, 2014 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Potential for Positive Change
in the Wake of the Nov. 4 Elections

[PDF version of this transcript]

EIR's Dennis Small gave this response on behalf of Lyndon LaRouche, to a question during the weekly LaRouche PAC webcast, Nov. 7. The question was: "Mr. LaRouche, with the Republicans now in control of both houses of Congress in the wake of Tuesday's election, U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders in the House and Senate are due to hold cross-party talks aimed at ending political gridlock in Washington. What is your recommendation for what must be done to end the gridlock and form a viable government at this time?"

As for the positive steps that are required, a format such as this, makes it impossible and inappropriate to go through a detailed listing of everything required, and that doesn't, in fact, address the point, in any event. But to give a sense of the kinds of things that are required and immediately available, the sort that the LaRouche movement has been proposing and working on for decades, in fact, and which are now being taken up by very large political formations, internationally, and in the United States as well—internationally, by the BRICS group and associated nations, which do, after all, represent approximately half the population of the planet:

The kinds of things that are required, will address what was identified in the recent statements of the Schiller Institute conference held in Frankfurt, Germany,[1] as the three disastrous crises which can destroy the entire planet: that of the economy, the meltdown; that of war, thermonuclear war; and that of the immediate Ebola crisis. And as that Schiller Institute statement reads, a new paradigm, a complete change in the way we go about business, is the only way these things are going to be addressed.

Now, the point I would like to emphasize, is that this kind of change to the policies that will work, can happen this week, and must happen in the immediate days ahead. Concretely, APEC, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group, will be meeting Nov. 7-11, in China, and shortly thereafter, there will be the meeting of the Group of 20 in Brisbane, Australia on Nov. 15-16. At those meetings, the BRICS nations have made it very clear, that they are going to be posing some substantial alternatives to the disaster we're now facing; and these are alternatives which are in fact consistent with what Mr. LaRouche has laid out, over the years, and in fact, over the decades.

Obama: Diminished Global Clout

The big advantage that we have now is not only that this group has come into formation, and is moving forward internationally, but most significantly, that President Obama, as the immediate operative/agent of the British Empire, has been drastically weakened by this week's elections. And in that regard, I would just draw to people's attention, an interesting, and rather typical headline, in the International Business Times, which reads as follows: "After Midterm Loss, Obama To Attend APEC Summit, with Diminished Global Clout."

Now, it's our intention to make sure that that diminishes to the point of zero, or less.

Now, on the question of the economy, this will be taken up in a useful form, at both the APEC meeting and at the Group of 20. As I mentioned in terms of the policy that the United States must adopt, LaRouche has specified this very clearly in terms of his Four Laws [see below], the four measures that are immediately required.

At the APEC meeting, China, in particular, is planning to make a major issue of the AIIB, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. This is a new bank which has already been founded, which is in fact in the process of issuing credit, for the purpose of infrastructure development, of a sort which is urgently required in all parts of the planet, of exactly the sort which the Chinese have been carrying out.

Not only is China going to be doing this, not only has the AIIB been brought into being, not only are there many countries around the world, more than a score, which have joined in this, but the Chinese continue to offer the United States to come onboard!

The latest such example is an article appearing the official Global Times of China, written by Ding Gang, where he says the following: "An effective Asian order must only be a system that provides more opportunities for development. Asian countries need to raise more money in constructing railways, roads, and ports, to form a network of interconnectivity, and intercommunication. And they also have to jointly deal with the Ebola virus that will very possibly be brought to Asia."

And then he turns his attention to the United States. He says, "What the United States needs, is not a strategy of balancing power in Asia, but one that helps the country integrate with Asia's development, not by an equilibrium built on guns, warships, and air power."

Now, of course, the Obama government is stridently opposed to the AIIB, and has argued against even putting it on the agenda at the APEC meeting, but everything indicates that it will be, because U.S. policy under Obama has been completely opposed to investing in railways, roads, and ports, whether internationally, or in the United States.

You can see this very clearly in another major development this week, which is that the government of India announced that it is turning, not to the World Bank, but rather to the AIIB, to finance the construction of a very large number of coal-fired power plants; not that nuclear isn't better—it is, but in the case of India, what they said is, listen, we have 1.3 billion people who are starved of access to electricity. The World Bank has refused to lend money for this, and has in fact, made it impossible for us to move forward. We are turning to the AIIB.

I think that gives you an indication of the kind of movement that's going on internationally.

China and Mexico

Another very good example of this kind of policy, and the choices facing the United States, is what's going on with our immediate neighbor to the south, Mexico, where the Chinese government and the Mexican government have agreed in principle on the construction, by China, of four major rail routes. And we have a map which gives a representation of these four railroads and what the significance is of those railroads for the entire North American continent, including the United States as well.

Now, there is a kind of guerrilla warfare going on, as to whether or not the Mexican government will proceed with this. First the Mexican President [Enrique Peña Nieto], under pressure from the White House, announced that he would not be traveling to the APEC meeting; then, he announced that despite the pressure, he would be traveling to the APEC meeting. And then, immediately announced that China had won an international bid for one of the crucial four rail links that are indicated in bright green on the map, which is Mexico-Querétaro, the high-speed rail line. And then, one day after that, today, the Mexican government announced it was withdrawing having awarded that to the Chinese government.

One might well think of President Peña Nieto appearing before the cameras, both arms broken, saying, "I'm sorry, we're not going ahead with the deal." Because that's what happened.

Now, that was not the wise decision for the Mexican government to make, but they have plenty of opportunities, over the next week at the APEC meeting, to reverse that, and even more significant decisions and projects, such as the trans-Isthmus canal railroad, which you also see on the map.

And the point about all of this is that the United States should be the middle of these kinds of projects! This links all of South America, through the Darién Gap, through Mexico, through high-speed rail line, into the United States, across the Bering Strait, into the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which the Russians, the Chinese, and others are building in the form of the New Silk Road route.

In particular, I want to point out that one of the routes that the Chinese are proposing in the case of Mexico, is from the state of Nayarit in Mexico to Ciudad Juárez, on the border of New Mexico, at El Paso. That area is currently run by drugs, the drug trade. And if you want to stop drugs, you've got to bring development. And it's right there to be had. The offers are on the table, the BRICS are pushing it: The United States should throw out the trash in the White House, and get on with the task of joining in this project of world development. So we have the basis to do this on the economic front.

No Time To Waste

Another area where we have to have an immediate change in policy—and immediate means this week—it does not mean "some time after the next three years..."—it means this week. Because if we don't change things this week, there may not be a week after that: And I'm talking about the danger of world war, thermonuclear war.

We have a situation, as LaRouche was emphasizing in discussions this week, where the control of Ukraine by Nazis, put in place by a coup d'état fostered by the U.S. State Department, and Victoria Nuland in particular, with backing from the British who were behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings, has created a situation which is an immediate existential threat to Russia. The Russians have made it very clear that they will not tolerate this.

Ukrainian President Poroshenko, after last Sunday's elections in eastern Ukraine, announced that he was going to be sending military forces into eastern Ukraine; he also announced, in effect, that Ukraine would be pulling out of, or back from, the Minsk agreements, which provided for a settlement of the dispute between the eastern Ukrainians and the Kiev regime.

Both Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and representatives from eastern Ukraine have emphasized, over and over again, that the presence of Nazis and neo-Nazis in positions of power in Ukraine is unacceptable, and is a strategic threat to them. And they have, nonetheless, offered to cooperate with other major powers to establish a viable working relationship with Ukraine and Russia—deals around gas, and so on. It's there to be had; this can be done; the United States can reverse policy immediately on this, get Obama and the rest of the trash out, and have a situation where that kind of policy can pull us back from the brink of war in that area.

So, too, in terms of ISIS. This policy that Obama and the British have designed around ISIS is so completely, patently ludicrous and criminal, it simply cannot be explained! This week's development was that the Free Syrian Army, financed and armed by the United States, in its first encounter with al-Nusra, scattered, ran, went over to al-Nusra with all American weapons! Al-Nusra is like al-Qaeda. So, once again, the United States is, in effect, arming al-Qaeda and similar groups!

So the idea that somehow we can deal with ISIS, while trying to overthrow the government of Syria, is completely insane. The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and others have again, presented policy options which are workable. All we have to do is sweep the trash out of the White House, put together a policy combination on a bipartisan basis that works, and peace can be brought to this area, and the world can be brought back from the brink of war.

In terms of the Russian perspective on this, they are very clear about what's going on. Take the comments this week by Lt. Gen. Nikolai Pushkarev, who is a former officer of the GRU, military intelligence, with regard to ISIS; he said the following: There are reasons to believe that U.S. and British intelligence agencies may support the Islamic extremists to threaten the territorial integrity of Russia. These events will not lead to a good outcome. They have stated that they will attack America as well.

Now, this is a reality which responsible American military leaders are also totally aware of—the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, and others; it's completely evident to them what the situation is. And after this latest fiasco, in particular, now that Obama's power has been dramatically reduced by the Tuesday election developments, we are in a situation where the military voice of reason, can prevail as well here, in order to bring about a change in that circumstance, as well.

Ebola: A Worsening Situation

And finally, on the policy front, just to give a flavor of the kinds of options that are available, immediately, is the Ebola situation. Because this, too, is a crisis which has not abated. We actually have a worsening situation, no matter what you might want to read in some of the press. The circumstances are actually getting worse and worse, the rate of contagion is increasing, and the activity on the ground to deal with this, has not improved! Some things have been done, but very, very little, compared to the actual dimensions of the problem.

One of the very interesting things that did happen over the course of last week: Was there was a meeting in Havana, Cuba of the nations of South America, which was attended by a representative of the Center for Disease Control of the United States, which put politics aside, and said, this is a scientific issue, this is a strategic issue, this is a global health issue, which we all, jointly must address. And the role of Cuba is very interesting in this, and something which LaRouche simply recommends that we keep an eye on, because, in the case of Ebola, in particular, Cuba has played an extremely positive role, sending many hundreds of doctors, nurses, and so on, to the afflicted countries.

Now, LaRouche and associates have identified, and laid out, a specific war plan against Ebola which can and must be implemented immediately, and this, too, is immediately available. First, the United States and Russia, in particular, have to form the equivalent of a joint military command, for military-style cooperation for a war against what is in effect a biological holocaust, and bring to bear the capabilities—the scientific capabilities, logistical capabilities, and military capabilities—to deploy against this problem to:

Number one, address it; stop it in West Africa. It has to be stopped there. And what's required to do this, is you have to send in, not only teams to build hospitals on the ground, but most immediately, we have proposed sending in [military] hospital ships. These are very large; they are natural quarantine centers, they have all the capabilities required. The United States is not the only country that has them; the Russians have them, the Japanese, various countries. And since the three countries of Africa which are ground-zero for the Ebola epidemic—Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea—are coastal nations, this is a very viable approach to the situation, to send in hospital ships.

But the problem of course, is more than simply Ebola. You're talking about drought, you're talking about famine, you're talking about conditions that are rapidly resembling the Black Death. And so, what has to be done is, you have to bring in the kind of general, economic aid and development of the sort that can in fact be done, if we change the policy in the direction of what the BRICS are doing.

The third point in terms of fighting Ebola: A crash program, a Manhattan Project, to develop a vaccine, where scientific activities, now going on separately in different countries, are actually combined with this mission in mind.

Fourth, we have to prevent the spread of Ebola. Although the primary question is stopping it in West Africa, you definitely need to prevent its spread, and that requires very serious, scientifically defined, quarantine and protection methods, including providing the equipment necessary, and training necessary, to the personnel who are treating victims of this.

And the fifth point, like they say, "last but definitely not least": You have to get rid of Obama! Because none of this is going to work until you have Obamacare, and the author of Obamacare, whose name is Obama, out of the way! Clear him out of the White House. That virus is even worse than the Ebola one.

So those give you some idea of the kind of "off the shelf," in one sense, policy alternatives that are there, and now must be put together by a bipartisan coalition of forces, following the thrashing that Obama received in these recent elections, and put together the kind of government, which is capable of turning around policy at the 11th hour, because that is in fact what the planet is facing right now.

[1] See EIR, Oct. 31, Nov. 7, and this week's Feature, for conference coverage.

Back to top