This article appears in the July 6, 2018 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Russia’s Role in the New World Order
Vladimir Morozov is the Program Coordinator, Russian International Affairs Council, Moscow.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
First of all allow me to thank the Schiller Institute and Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche personally for this great opportunity of being here today with all of you, and discussing with the interesting and esteemed guests the future of the global world order and the role different countries and regions may play in it.
I’ll also share with you the idea that with the current political and economic dynamics, both on global, regional and national scales, it’s high time we openly discuss the future of international relations and principles that should guide the interaction between states and regions.
Unipolar, Multipolar, Multilateral
Let us look at some key ideas. First, even though we assumed a unipolar world with an absolute dominance of one superpower, is about to end soon, there is no alternative so far that is clear and feasible, and that is within our reach. A multipolar world, which has long been advocated by many countries, can be no better alternative.
Secondly, Russia’s role in the new global order will be determined more by its domestic dynamics, rather than the composition of the world order. However, Russia will play an important part in all the different regions, and possibly globally, trying not only to stabilize its immediate neighborhood, but also serving as one of the interconnectors in Eurasia and one of the guarantors of global security and stability. Thirdly—and I guess this is one of the crucial points—we cannot change the global order overnight. If we want an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary change which will imply a global war, we first need to concentrate on rebuilding trust. But trust is also something that we cannot rebuild overnight.
It is widely assumed that the only alternative to the present status quo, is a multipolar world. When we talk about the future of the global order, nearly everyone, in Russia—in Europe, in China, in the Middle East—agrees that the desired world order should be multipolar. But the idea of multipolarity traces back to the 1970s, with the rise of the Asia-Pacific countries, with the creation of the Trilateral Commission, etc. These ideas were extremely popular during the mid-1990s. However, our world is still not, in essence, multipolar. And what is more, when discussing polarity—multipolarity, unipolarity—people tend to get confused on the definition of polarity.
Multipolarity is, in fact, another version of the Congress of Vienna (November 1814 to June 1815)—a world order dominated by the balance of power and divided by several power centers, competing for the limited global resources. Although such an order is based on the interests of more than one state, it never takes into account the interests of smaller states, and those states that are not part of the global equilibrium, are disregarded by the global players. In a way, this kind of order will be a comeback of geopolitics, the thing we all try to avoid when discussing the future of the global order.
But what can the alternative to a unipolar or a multipolar world order be? There is a growing debate in Russia about this. Recently, we have published a new article by our director general, proposing that an alternative to multipolarity can be multilateralism. He says that multilateralism can be the best alternative that prevents the world from sliding down into confrontation and, thus, world war.
The key difference between multipolarity and multilateralism, is that multilateralism is based on the balance of interests rather than balance of power. It is insufficient for such an order to be based solely on the existing structures of the West, like NATO, the European Union, NAFTA, etc.; It must also incorporate the UN, the G20, the OECD, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); and possibly—possibly—we can come to a sort of collective security system for the Middle East and Africa.
However, we should take into account that what Donald Trump is doing is a symptom of an institutional fatigue, not only in the West but also in the East, and therefore, if we want to slide to a multilateral world, we need to concentrate not only on the institutions but also on the regimes, international regimes, and first and foremost, on nuclear non-proliferation and development assistance.
Talking about Russia’s role in the new global order, I guess that Russia’s role will, as I said, be largely determined by its domestic dynamics. Putin has entered his last term in power, and now he’s likely to concentrate more on the domestic agenda than on the international one. This means maintaining several major economic reforms, dealing with pensions, with the economic output, etc., and of course, the issue of power transition and political stability after 2024.
This, however, doesn’t mean that Russia will be leaving the global stage. We have to not be involved in all the matters the world offers to us, but what is crucial about the Russian foreign policy and Russia’s position in the world, is that Russia’s top foreign policy priority is internal and external security. This means that Russia is not willing, as it is constantly accused of by the West, to destabilize the regions bordering Russia, but is ready to use its military power and even project it overseas, as in the case of the Middle East in Syria, to help foster stability and help foster the national interests of the country.
This is how Russia remarkably differs from the EU and China, neither of which is involved in military operations overseas, but also from the U.S., which constantly interferes in global affairs, practically for short-term interests.
Secondly, while Russia is interested in stabilizing its bordering regions, especially the common neighborhood of the European Union and Russia, between Russia and China, etc., Russia will place more emphasis on the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. For Russia, the Belt and Road Initiative is not only an economic project which fosters Russia’s position as one of the transport hubs and interconnectors in Eurasia, but is also a way of stabilizing its most dangerous neighborhood, involving the Central Asia countries and Afghanistan, which can possibly explode if we do not stop extremism spreading there, and if we do not provide the people living there with a suitable economic alternative to raising drugs and terrorism. This is why Russia will continue its cooperation with China, especially with the co-development initiative President Putin and President Xi Jinping agreed to, concerning the co-development of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative.
Also, when talking about Russia’s foreign policy identity, I’m rather skeptical about the idea of “Eurasianism” in Russian foreign policy. I personally prefer the term “Euro-Pacific” power—in which we assume that Russia is a European country. But Russia has access to the Pacific region; it will be involved in all the matters, all the problems, all the conflicts that will go on in the Pacific region; and Russia can also serve as one of the parties interested in resolving these conflicts, especially the North Korea case and having access to the Asia Pacific gives Russia special relations not only with China, but also with the Republic of Korea and Japan, and also with the United States.
We can anticipate further Russian engagement in Syria, especially after the situation is stabilized and the terrorism is defeated. What Russia constantly proposes, apart from the postwar reconstruction of Syria, involving the European Union, the United States, of course, China, is creating a collective security system for the Middle East. This should also include not only Syria, but also Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, the United States, and the European Union and Russia, of course—as the guarantors that longstanding peace comes to the region.
I like the idea of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but it’s not only about the infrastructural project building rapid train lines from Germany to Moscow. It is also about people-to-people contacts. When we still have the visa regimes between the European Union and Russia, it really impedes the human, people-to-people contacts, and exchange of cultures, exchange of ideas, and exchange of opportunities.
The Trump-Putin Summit—What to Expect
Last but not least, as we all understand, the global order cannot be changed overnight. We can still propose some quick fixes in the meantime that would help stabilize Russia-Western and especially Russia-U.S. relations. First and foremost, I guess that many people here are very much looking forward to the upcoming Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki in July, but I guess not as much as they looked forward to the Trump-Kim Jong-un summit—but still. I think we should not anticipate, much, these talks, especially because the two countries are coming in with an explicit roadmap of restoring the bilateral relations and getting Russia-West relations back on track.
But still, I think that if this summit happens, it will be a major breakthrough from the past four to five years, because I guess the last such summit was held six years ago in 2012, between Obama and Medvedev. The Putin-Trump talks can create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation that may help restore relations. This is also true with regard to the possibility of an upcoming visit of representatives of the U.S. Congress to Russia.
Meanwhile, Some Quick Fixes
What could be the possible quick fixes? Firstly, we need to restore the diplomatic representation of the United States in Russia and that of Russia in the United States. Expelling diplomats not only severely affected the political dialogue, but also people-to-people contacts—getting visas for Russian citizens to visit the United States now takes up to half a year or a year, and I guess the same is true for U.S. citizens wishing to visit Russia.
Once we have a political dialogue going, the most urgent issue the two Presidents should discuss, is maintaining the strategic stability. This includes not only the new START Treaty, its possible extension, and all further nuclear disarmament, but also the future of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Preserving the latter is vital for European security, and soon—as we want to avoid an ever-greater arms race and its possible, unprecedented escalation. We need an open dialogue between not only our politicians, but also our technical specialists, including the military, on the problems we have in implementing these treaties and what other actions we can take in order to resolve our differences.
The next steps will be, of course, talks on Syria to stabilize that country, and of course, taking control away from the terrorists and restoring it to the legitimate government; and also dealing with the Ukrainian problem. However, I’m not expecting that much will be done in the meantime regarding Ukraine, but still, if we have an atmosphere of trust and if we have an atmosphere of cooperation, we will be able to resolve it.
Dr. Xu Jian
Globalization in Reverse and the Challenge for China’s Foreign Policy
in the New Era
Dr. Xu Jian is Vice President of the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), Director of the CIIS Academic Council, and Senior Research Fellow. This is his edited speech as received for delivery on Panel 1, June 30, 2018.
President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It is my great honor to be invited to attend the conference held in such a beautiful place. Today, I will briefly talks about globalization in reverse, China’s foreign policy, and the challenges facing China, including the three traps. There are some misconceptions and misjudgments by Western countries toward China’s development, which hinder the relations between China and the West. Our host, the Schiller Institute, offers me an opportunity here to explain China’s policies and China’s initiatives to resolve misunderstandings toward China.
I. China’s Perception of Globalization in Reverse
The trend of globalization in reverse is a hot issue in the current international landscape and it has been especially prominent in Western developed countries. Brexit, Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States, and the tremendous impact of far right forces on the political ecology of France, Germany, Italy and other major European countries, have reflected the rampant backlash against globalization in Western countries from different angles. In some developing countries, protectionism and nationalism have also emerged to varying degrees in recent years, which shows the trends of reverse globalization, anti-globalization and deglobalization are not limited to the developed world, but are a worldwide phenomenon with varying forms and momentum in different countries and regions.
Globalization in reverse and global trade protectionism are not accidental phenomena; there is a deep background for their rise and they are closely related to some problems of globalization, the most prominent of which is the inequality of social distribution and the uneven development among nations. Unequal social distribution is a weakness inherent in market economy, but economic globalization further exacerbates the problem. In market economy, the profit of different economic factors varies significantly, among which the difference between capital and other factors of production is most outstanding. The findings of French economist Thomas Piketty in this regard deserve special attention. Piketty believes that if the return on capital is much higher than the economic growth rate over a relatively long period, the risk of wealth distribution differentiation will become considerable.
The problem of uneven development among countries that arises from the process of globalization is equally profound and complex, which has two manifestations: the North-South problem and the East-West problem. For the North-South problem, globalization has not only spawned a group of emerging economies that contribute to the collective rising of developing countries, but has also marginalized a number of others. Such countries not only have limited benefits from globalization, but are also facing increasing risks and pressures. As a result, the gap between them on one hand, and the developed and even emerging countries on the other, is widening further. This situation has exacerbated the political and social ecology within these countries and is also one of the key factors in some continued regional conflicts and unrest.
There are complicated reasons for the marginalization of some countries in globalization, both domestically and internationally. On the international front, the biased rules of globalization have forged an international competitive environment that is detrimental to the well-being of these countries. Until recently, globalization has been dominated by developed countries, and relevant rules have accommodated their interests. This situation has improved considerably since the beginning of the 21st Century, with the efforts of developing countries, but there are still many unjust factors in the international order, and the North-South contradiction remains a prominent problem in the development of globalization.
The East-West imbalance mainly manifests itself between emerging and developed economies. The inexorable rise of a large number of developing countries over the past twenty or thirty years, especially major emerging countries, has changed the dominance of Western developed countries in the international balance of power. The world architecture is undergoing changes, changes without precedent in the last centuries, that strongly boost the development of multi-polarization. The uneven development has important positive effects on the progress of human society. However, as the world economy is under downward pressure, such a trend has also worsened the contradiction between developed and emerging countries in the international order. Particularly after the international financial crisis, Western developed countries, including the United States and European countries, have been confronted with many development dilemmas, and the contradictions between developed and emerging countries have also become more prominent.
Developed countries’ accusation against the emerging countries of free-riding reflects their intention to justify their own problems, but also has bearing on the difficulties of developing countries in enforcing the rules. It is needless to say that fair play depends not only on the fairness of the rules themselves, but also on whether the fair rules are observed, as well as on the effect of the implementation. As the economic volume of emerging countries grows, the difference in effects of implementing the rules has been increasingly relevant to the international competition and the order of globalization.
To conclude, the current reverse of globalization is the result of various kinds of problems regarding justice and uneven development in the process of globalization. The reasons for these problems are complicated, involving almost all participants in globalization. The resolution of these problems is not a unilateral responsibility of a particular category of countries, but a common obligation of all participants in globalization.
With regard to the development of globalization, we should transcend the limitation of narrow nationalism and understand it with the idea of the community of shared future for mankind. In his remarks at the General Debate of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in 2015, President Xi Jinping said: “The greatest ideal is to create a world truly shared by all.” Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom are common values of all mankind and the lofty goals of the United Nations. Yet these goals are far from being achieved, and we must continue our endeavor to meet them.” To uphold and promote the universal values of all mankind, advance the community of shared future, and promote the common welfare of all people should be the guiding beliefs of shaping the new globalization.
We need to inject new impetus into globalization through new initiatives. In this regard, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has outstanding significance. The Belt and Road mobilizes both international and domestic resources, coordinates the two civilizations of land and sea, and champions the vision of shared, mutually beneficial and balanced development, providing convenience and conditions for the people along the routes to create value and injecting new impetus into the transformation of globalization.
Certainly the transformation of globalization needs more new driving forces like the Belt and Road Initiative. With concerted efforts, countries can also forge more open channels for cooperation at international, regional and bilateral levels, such as the exploration and construction of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the Asia-Pacific FTA (FTAAP) and the China-Japan-South Korea FTA, and the promotion of agreements in investment and other areas between China and the United States, and China and Europe, so as to provide more positive energy for globalization.
II. China’s Foreign Policy in the New Era
In the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), Xi Jinping summarized China’s world views by arguing that “the world is undergoing major developments, transformation, and adjustment, but peace and development remain the call of our day.” In this process, Xi emphasized: “Our world is full of both hope and challenges.” On the one hand, the “trends of global multi-polarity, economic globalization, IT application, and cultural diversity are surging forward; changes in the global governance system and the international order are speeding up; countries are becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent; relative international forces are becoming more balanced; and peace and development remain irreversible trends.” On the other hand, however, “as a world we face growing uncertainties and destabilizing factors. Global economic growth lacks energy; the gap between rich and poor continues to widen; hotspot issues arise often in some regions; and unconventional security threats like terrorism, cyber-insecurity, major infectious diseases, and climate change continue to spread. As human beings we have many common challenges to face.”
Against this background, Xi warned that “no country can address alone the many challenges facing mankind; no country can afford to retreat into self-isolation.” At the same time, he expressed a relatively positive attitude towards the prospects of the world by calling that “we should not give up on our dreams because the reality around us is too complicated; we should not stop pursuing our ideals because they seem out of our reach.”
Xi’s summary of China’s world outlook in the political report delivered at the 19th National Congress of the CPC comprehensively reflects the mainstream views of China on the situation of the world. From the academic point of view, Xi’s evaluation of both opportunities and challenges facing the current world is well-balanced, with a question-orientation and an optimistic tone.
There are two central pillars in terms of the framework of China’s foreign policy: The first one is “to build a community with a shared future for mankind, to build an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity.” The second one is to “forge a new form of international relations featuring mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation.”
The basic approach of China’s foreign policy is to develop global partnerships and expand the convergence of interests with other countries. With this approach, “China will promote coordination and cooperation with other major countries and work to build a framework for major country relations featuring overall stability and balanced development. China will deepen relations with its neighbors in accordance with the principle of amity, sincerity, mutual benefit, and inclusiveness, and the policy of forging friendship and partnership with its neighbors. China will—guided by the principle of upholding justice while pursuing shared interests and the principle of sincerity, real results, affinity, and good faith—work to strengthen solidarity and cooperation with other developing countries.”
III. China’s Challenge: Properly Handling Three Traps
China is now facing some challenges, including how to cope with the “Thucydides Trap,” the “Kindleberger Trap,” and the Cold War Trap.
The first challenge China now encounters is how to cope with a paradox between two related traps. The paradox was first pointed out by Joseph S. Nye, Professor of Harvard University, although it was referred to as a problem faced by the United States. Nye argued in an article immediately after Donald Trump came to power: “As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepares his administration’s policy toward China, he should be wary of two major traps that history has set for him.” One is the “Thucydides Trap,” which refers to the warning by the ancient Greek historian that cataclysmic war can erupt if an established power (like the United States) becomes too fearful of a rising power (like China). “But Trump also has to worry about the “Kindleberger Trap.”
According to Professor Nye: “Charles Kindleberger, an intellectual architect of the Marshall Plan who later taught at MIT, argued that the disastrous decade of the 1930s was caused when the U.S. replaced Britain as the largest global power but failed to take on Britain’s role in providing global public goods. The result was the collapse of the global system into depression, genocide, and world war.”
The most interesting point of Nye’s argument lies with a dilemma the United States may face when it tries to cope with the two traps. On the one hand, according to Nye, the main problem of the Thucydides Trap for the United States comes mainly from “a China that seems too strong rather than too weak.” On the other hand, the problem of the Kindleberger Trap may emerge because of “a China that seems too weak rather than too strong” to help provide global public goods. President Trump is therefore facing a paradox, if only because he “must worry about a China that is simultaneously too weak and too strong. To achieve his objectives, he must avoid the Kindleberger trap as well as the Thucydides trap. But, above all, he must avoid the miscalculations, misperceptions, and rash judgments that plague human history.” (Joseph S. Nye, “The Kindleberger Trap,” March 1, 2017, Project Syndicate)
Unfortunately, the paradox faced by the United States seems to apply more or less to China as well. In a period when the Trump Administration pursues the “putting America first” strategy and prepares to reduce the United States’ contribution to providing international public goods, the pressure of the Kindleberger Trap on China grows inevitably. If China refuses or hesitates to take more responsibilities in providing global public goods, it is almost certain to hear stronger criticism that China continues to free-ride rather than contribute to the existing international order. If China does the opposite, that is, to take more international responsibilities which fit in with China’s rapidly growing national strength, as it has done, it is also unavoidable to hear the accusation that China is in search of regional and even global hegemony.
Reading the accusation about China made in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America delivered in December 2017 helps understand how serious the dilemma faced by China may become. This document, referred to by President Trump as “an America First National Security Strategy,” argues that the increasing competitions in the world “require the United States to rethink the policies of the past two decades—policies based on the assumption that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners.” It concludes: “For the most part, this premise turned out to be false.” It argues that the reason is the United States faces “three main sets of challengers—the revisionist powers of China and Russia, the rogue states of Iran and North Korea, and transnational threat organizations, particularly jihadist terrorist groups.”
It points out in particular that “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair,” etc. In such a circumstance, China has to do more in order to overcome the Kindleberger Trap. At the same time, China is supposed to do less in order to reduce the danger of the Thucydides Trap. China has to strike a balance between the needs of doing more and the pressure of doing less in providing international public goods. That is the dilemma faced by China when it simultaneously faces the Kindleberger Trap and the Thucydides Trap.
In addition to the challenges resulting from the above-mentioned two traps, China also faces a third trap, the Cold War Trap, in current international circumstances. The Cold War Trap is concerned with both the Thucydides Trap and the potential conflicts in terms of the ideological difference between China and the West. As correctly pointed out by Joseph S. Nye, with respect to the so-called Thucydides Trap between China and the United States, “there is nothing inevitable” because the effects of the trap are often exaggerated. In other words, it is possible for the two powers to avoid open conflicts if only because both sides know very clearly that costs of such conflicts are too high to afford.
However, in spite of this kind of possible positive prospect in evading open military conflicts, China and the United States will still face the danger of being involved in a cold war trap if both sides fail to address two sets of issues: One is to raise mutual strategic confidence, the other is to curb mutual contradictions in the ideological field. Past and current experiences suggest that neither of them is easy to substantiate. For both political and strategic reasons, mutual trust and mutual confidence are always something insufficient in Sino-U.S. relations in the past decades. With regard to the ideological factor, the negative reactions of the United States and some major European countries to China after the 19th National Congress of the CPC cast a strong shadow in this respect.
The texts of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America reveal the situation. Although it claims that “It is a strategy of principled realism that is guided by outcomes, not ideology,” this claim is nevertheless misleading if one thinks that the America First National Security Strategy of the United States places values and ideology on the back burner. On the contrary, this document clearly lists the ideological factor as one of the four vital national interests that the United States “must protect in this competitive world.”
The Trump Administration makes a systematic and quite coherent explanation about this stand by saying that “we will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous. We will compete and lead in multilateral organizations so that American interests and principles are protected. America’s commitment to liberty, democracy, and the rule of law serves as an inspiration for those living under tyranny.” Based on this analysis, this document takes a rather harsh attitude towards China when talking about bilateral discrepancies not only in the economic and security fields, but also in the ideological realm.
For instance, the document asserts that “China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests,” and that “these are fundamentally political contests between those who favor repressive systems and those who favor free societies.” European countries such as Germany and France also made some negative comments on China over the international order, approaches to global governance, and other issues.
The negative attitudes of Western countries in general, and of the United States in particular, suggest that pessimistic trends are on the rise in relations between China and major Western powers. This situation is of course not good for promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in the world. Therefore, concerned parties should make joint efforts to prevent these trends from further development, although it is not easy to stop, let alone reverse the trends. At least for China, this situation is obviously disappointing and more or less out of expectation. The gap between China’s expectations and the response of the West suggests that something must have gone wrong with mutual perceptions between China and the West. It also implies that none of those negative trends is inevitable. To prevent the situation from further deteriorating, there should be efforts to strengthen mutual understanding and minimize misperceptions on both sides.
U.S. STATE SENATOR RICHARD BLACK
On the True Interest of the United States
Senator Richard Black is a member of the Virginia State Legislature. He made his presentation via prerecorded video.
I’m Senator Dick Black and I’m pleased to join you for this important conference. My remarks will focus on the Mideast conflict and America’s undeclared war against the Syrian people.
Our current actions against Syria are unlawful and they run counter to our vital national interest. More importantly, they represent a direct pathway to a much larger and far more dangerous and unpredictable war against Iran and its neighbors.
Syria is the center of gravity in the war on terror. In other words, its survival as a viable, intact state may very well determine the outcome of the global war on terror. Should American succeed in our long-held objective of toppling the legitimately elected Syrian government, this would lead to an unprecedented expansion of jihadist terror. Within months, Lebanon and Jordan would fall, and this would likely embolden President Erdogan, the Turkish dictator, to drive hordes of battled-hardened jihadists from the battlefield to overrun the nations of Europe.
Some Personal History
For this reason, America’s dogged opposition to the Syrian nation-state poses a clear and present danger to Europe and to all of civilization. Let me be clear: I’m not speaking as a pacifist. I served in uniform for 32 years. I was wounded fighting as a Forward Air Controller in the 1st Marine Regiment, and I made 70 combat patrols, generally at night, deep behind enemy lines. I was wounded during an attack, and both of my radiomen died fighting beside me. Before that, I flew 269 combat missions as a helicopter pilot. My aircraft was hit by enemy ground fire on four missions. Eventually, I served as a division chief in the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) at the Pentagon. There I prepared executive orders for the President’s signature, and testified before Congress on behalf of the U.S. Army.
I say this to let you know that I love my country, I’ve bled for it. And I respect the men and women who obey the orders that they are given, when we send them over to war, even though I often think those orders are extraordinarily ill-advised.
I’m deeply concerned by the direction of American foreign policy, particularly as it affects Syria, because that nation is a vital gateway to Turkey, and thus, on to Europe itself.
Before the Syrian War
Before the Syrian War began in 2011, Syria was one of the five safest nations on Earth. It had the greatest women’s rights and the greatest religious freedom of any of the Arab nations. It was debt free; it produced its own energy, food, many of its own manufactured products; its economy was very well balanced and it was self-sufficient. Syria had been at peace with Israel for 40 years. In 2013, just to demonstrate the secular nature of the government, Syria erected one of the world’s greatest statues of Jesus Christ, and it towers over Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. Syria is a diverse and secular country. It is home to about 2 million Christians and 2 million Alawites. Now, the Alawites are a very highly modernized population. Additionally, Syria is home to Druze and large Sunni and smaller Shi’a populations of Muslims. The great majority of each religious group has supported the central government. The Grand Mufti Ahmad Hassoun is the spiritual leader of Syria’s Sunni Muslims. Ahmad is an unwavering supporter of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.
During the seven brutal years of the war, the Syrian nation of about 23 million has united, and withstood the combined forces of two-thirds of the world’s military and industrial might; but despite this massive international pressure, there has not been a single assassination attempt against President Assad, who enjoys overwhelming and passionate support of the army and the people. Syria has faced the combined might of Americans, British, French, Israelis, Turks, Qataris, and Saudi Arabians.
The United States Is at War with Syria
By any reasonable definition, the United States is at war with Syria. Since 2012, the United States has operated terrorist training camps in Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and now inside Syria, itself. We have supplied terrorists fighting Assad with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of arms, ammunition, training, and payroll. This was done under the CIA’s classified program, “Timber Sycamore.” Once that program was disclosed, it was quickly terminated, but American-financed weapons, training, and manpower still flow freely to terrorists under other covert programs.
Despite this lengthy war of aggression, not a single terrorist has ever become a popular figure among the Syrian people, who remain doggedly loyal to President Assad and the Syrian armed forces. Recall that it was al-Qaeda that hijacked civilian airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, killing 3,000 Americans. Nonetheless, throughout the Syrian War, the United States has aligned with al-Qaeda and its affiliate against Syria. Virtually every so-called “moderate rebel group” has at one time or another fought shoulder to shoulder with al-Qaeda or ISIS. The dominant jihadists are sworn to behead all Christian and Alawite men and to make sex slaves of their wives, their daughters, and their children. For this reason, the success of the American venture in Syria could very well trigger one of the greatest genocides in recent history.
Contrary to Western propaganda, the war was never a popular uprising. President Assad did not take harsh measures against early demonstrators. In fact, he issued orders requiring riot control troops to carry wooden batons instead of rifles. As a consequence, many died at the hands of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood before he finally relented and permitted them to protect themselves with loaded weapons.
Chemical Weapons Attacks are Fake News
Let me address the often-cited claim that Assad has used poison gas, crossing some “red line.” That claim is patently false: The same propaganda ploy was used first by the CIA, as a pretext to launch the invasion of Iraq. That deceit proved so successful in laying the groundwork for the Iraq War, that it has been used several times during the conflict in Syria to blame President Assad for “gassing his own people.” This lie has duped Americans into being drawn ever deeper into the Syrian War. But ask yourself this question: “If Syria wanted to use poison gas, why would they use it on toddlers and their parents, instead of using it to defend against ISIS and al-Qaeda in the desperate battles raging across the country?”
Now, poison gas is not used in pinprick attacks against civilian targets. If it is used, it is employed massively, in conjunction with large-scale, offensive maneuvers on the battlefield. Each of the three false-flag attacks, staged by al-Qaeda and its allies, was convincingly disproved by the world’s most respected investigative journalist, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh—the man who wrote the story of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, and the Abu Ghraib prison misconduct in Iraq. He has greater access to the inner workings of the CIA and Pentagon than any other journalist today. It would be totally irrational for President Assad to employ poison gas given the predictable backlash and the total absence of any military benefit to Syria.
The Spoils of Perpetual Wars
The United States has long planned regime change in Syria. According to Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, America first began drafting war plans to topple Syria in 2001. WikiLeaks published actual secret plans that were developed by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Those plans laid out detailed steps to destabilize and topple the legitimate government of Syria. In 2010, Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. She executed plans to overthrow Libya to capture its arsenal of weapons and use them to arm terrorists in Syria. When Libya’s leader, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, was murdered in 2011, we invaded Libya under the guise of a “no-fly zone.” We quickly gave the Turks control of a Libyan air field and then began flying plundered Libyan weapons into Turkey using Qatari aircraft. The first aircraft that was sent from Libya also carried 700 Tunisian terrorists, who were then sent across the Turkish border, and into Syria.
From 2011 until today, the United States has fought to topple the popularly elected government of Bashar al-Assad and install a puppet regime. But why are we fighting in Syria at all? In fact, what are we fighting for anywhere in the Middle East? Our own actions have spawned huge armies of ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists. Without us there, both Iraq and Syria would soon eliminate the last vestiges of these terror groups and restore order to their own nations. So, are we fighting to serve U.S.—or foreign—interests? And, are we simply deploying courageous American troops as a sort of Foreign Legion for hire?
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the brutal dictator of Saudi Arabia, was overheard saying, “I have Kushner in my pocket.” Some believe that Jared Kushner, who had access to Presidential intelligence, may have revealed the names of Saudis who were disloyal to the Crown Prince shortly before the Saudi dictator launched his brutal crackdown on those same dissidents. Is this all being done for personal gain?
Now certainly war profiteers have amassed enormous fortunes through these wars. And we know that our coalition partners, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, want to topple the Syrian government and run lucrative oil and gas pipelines across Syria’s sovereign territory.
But, you know, I am amazed at Americans’ acquiescence in perpetual Mideast war. No one even mentions an end to hostilities and a return to peace. By contrast, it’s instructive to recall that we only fought in World War I for 17 months, before politicians were forced to promise that that would be the “war to end all wars.”
Now think of this: After 17 years, we remain committed to several simultaneous wars with no end in sight. It’s breaking our military forces down and it is bankrupting the nation. How many Americans realize that fully one-third of the entire U.S. national debt has been incurred through our Middle Eastern wars? Despite American lives lost, soldiers maimed, and treasure wasted; despite one and one-half million Libyans, Afghans, Yemenis, Iraqis, and Syrians killed; despite trillions in property destruction—I cannot point to a single thing that these wars have done for the American people, or for the vital national interests of the United States. Instead, we’ve generated massive strings of refugees, who are hostile to Western values and determined to undermine European cultures.
We started these wars facing a small contingent of terrorists. Well, here we are a generation later: We’ve multiplied their ranks a thousand-fold, by arming, training, and financing these same terrorists. We’ve given them real-world battlefield experience, making them the most combat-ready forces on Earth today.
This, in my view, is suicidal madness. The enormous fear and resentment we have generated have obliterated generations of good will. This makes it a near certainty that China will soon displace, through peaceful means, the trade and influence the United States has tried to exact through fear and terror. Unless we develop a strategy for peace, China will displace us as the world’s dominant power. Our present strategy amounts to regime change by raining down bombs, collapsing homes, and blowing bodies into the streets. By contrast, China quietly builds highways, factories, dams, infrastructure, without instigating violent coups. Now which approach will appeal to foreign nations? Given the choice, they will inevitably opt for China’s roads, bridges, dams, and factories over the American bombs, destruction, and bloodshed.
Just take a look at Iraq: From 1990, when the Gulf War first began, until today, the United States bombed that country almost incessantly. During the 28-year bombing campaign, we’ve dropped over a third of a million bombs on Iraq and the number is still rising. Just this past week, we, or our ally Israel, bombed Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), killing 22 and wounding 12. At that time, those Iraqis were fighting ISIS, our supposed enemy. So this week’s attack rounds out the 28th year of hostile actions on Iraqi territory, against a nation that, just like Syria, has never once taken hostile action against the United States.
Now, returning to Syria: The United States, which once promised “no boots on the ground,” is likely to have as many as 8,000 soldiers, marines, and contractors, stationed in Syria today. We built at least 11 bases in northeast Syria, a fact that Turkey disclosed in 2017 to our enormous consternation. U.S. troops are presently embarked on a mission to carve out a tenuous landlocked state, by granting the Kurdish minority dominance over predominantly Arab lands in northeast Syria. This region, lying between the Euphrates River and the Turkish border, comprises about 30% of Syria’s land mass.
While Syria is sparsely populated, it holds much of the oil, gas, and agricultural wealth that sustains the entire Syrian people. Should this American “Plan B” succeed in splitting Syria apart, the nation’s people will be permanently impoverished—all so the United States can block ancient trade routes linking Syria, Iraq, and Iran. This appears to be part of a strategy to pave the groundwork for a far greater war yet to come.
But There is Great Hope in and for Syria
But there is great hope in Syria. The Syrian armed forces and its allies have liberated 90% of Syria’s population. Since Russia intervened in 2015, Syria has scored an unbroken string of battlefield victories. Almost all of its major cities have been liberated by the Syrian Army. It’s only the resistance of the United States, Israel, and Turkey, that prevents a rapid conclusion to the war. It’s high time for the United States to depart from Syria, and to leave the Middle East. If we leave, there will be a time of peace and reconciliation. Refugees will return, and rebuilding will accelerate.
Since its liberation by Syrian forces in 2016, almost one-half million Syrians have returned to the Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo. The United States could make an impressive humanitarian gesture, simply by lifting its naval blockade of Syria, and by releasing the monetary restrictions, in order to end the starvation, the poverty, the deprivation of medical supplies that we’ve inflicted on their people.
Americans are a good and decent people. Our nation is better than our foreign policy would suggest. We need to stop inflicting violence by supporting terrorist groups and restore peace to the world.
Lt. Col. Ulrich Scholz
Interest Monsters: Democracy,
Human Rights and Other Hypocrisies
Lt. Col. (ret.) Ulrich Scholz is a former NATO planner. This is an edited report, combining his prepared address with the transcript of his speech. He spoke on Panel I, June 30, 2018.
Good morning. Thank you very much, Mrs. LaRouche and Mr. LaRouche, for having me here again to speak what’s on my mind and in my heart. I was here two years ago, and talked about war as a pathology of the West. Just a few words about myself. I flew, in the first third of my military career, Phantoms and Tornadoes. In the second third, I planned wars. In my third, in my military education, I understood war. And now, I’m in my final stage of learning, and I am trying to find out why we still engage in wars, and how we can change that.
I’d like to start with George Bernard Shaw, who once said, “Sometimes I like to quote myself. It puts spice in the conversation.” I’ll quote myself here: In March 2003, I was at Queen’s University at Kingston, teaching on the subject of security policy, and I gave a speech to local business and political people. Six weeks prior to that speech, President George W. Bush had invaded Iraq, and that was my topic. My American colleague on the left argued for the war, and I argued against the war. And sometimes, I didn’t know what was going to happen; but my feeling was that if we didn’t put the UN in charge of the world, we would end up where we are now. And we ended up there.
After that, I went through several educational processes. I thought about how to change the UN—I now think it’s not an organizational change we need. I think the problem is not the structure of the organization—the problem is that the UN, which failed in its main mission of keeping peace in the world, needs instead to concentrate more on brokering interests. This word interests—I’ve heard it many times this morning—is very important. I think the problem is that nations have interests, and we don’t pay attention to those, especially the big ones. The second is the human element when we talk about interests. We are humans and what works on the micro-level, with families and individuals, has a record of working very well when applied seriously. When we try to resolve political conflict, we disregard this aspect. We often view NATO and the U.S. government organizations, but forget that inside those organizations there are human beings. We should focus more on how we get those people in those organizations together.
Let us not forget the hypocrisies in international relations. The West has waged war since 1990, many times—Kosovo, Libya, Iraq several times, and Afghanistan. All these wars were always begun with an alibi: “We do it on behalf of the international community”—whatever that is. Or the UN flag is used under the banner, “responsibility to protect,” or “humanitarian intervention.” I argue, and I can prove it—I won’t go into that full proof today—that these are all alibis. These are hypocrisies. The real reason the West goes to war is for interests.
The following is from the prepared address.
The World Needs an Effective UN
Since its founding in 1945, the main mission of the UN as a world organization has been to keep the peace. Despite all merit due in creating a kind of international order, the many wars and conflicts that have taken place since then are sad proof that the organization has failed in its main mission.
I would like to suggest that we understand and use the UN more as a global interest moderator rather than a peacekeeper. Because, by focusing on the first, success in the second is much more likely; and last but not least, the UN as an effective broker of interests could become the driver for projects like the New Silk Road.
In my short presentation I am going to make the argument that the main reasons for the UN’s failure to keep the peace, and for the resistance to the New Silk Road Project from some international figures, are the disregard for the importance of interests of all international actors and the neglect of the human dimension in dealing with those interests. Since the end of the Cold War in 1990, democratic states have waged war and violated their ethics quite a few times. They waged war in the Balkans, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in Syria. In doing so they also killed those whom they pretended to protect. They invented ethical terms like “responsibility to protect” and “humanitarian intervention” to cover up their real intention for going to war: National Interests!
At the beginning of the air campaign to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, U.S. Air Force General Chuck Horner, commander of allied air forces of Desert Shield/Desert Storm, told his pilots to break off an attack and bring back their bombs if they ran the risk of being shot down. He said that there was no target in the whole of Iraq worth dying for. I would like to alter his statement to make it a universal one: There is no target in the world worth killing for.
The Philosophical Foundation
America’s post-World War II foreign policy has been greatly influenced by Hans Joachim Morgenthau, a German-born American political scientist whose basic idea of an all-mighty state refers back to Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan. In 1948, Morgenthau published his work on foreign policy, Politics among Nations. It contains the essential ideas of “Political Realism.”
The following four ideas are my selection. They reflect the history of states from 1648 (the Peace of Westphalia) until today. The first idea is almost a no-brainer: Political power serves interests. Countries and peoples have interests, and it is the duty of their leaders to use their power to secure them. The next three ideas, I call essentials: Balancing not intimidating, Values are interests = hypocrisy, and thirdly, Limits of universal values. I call these essentials because they contain the main reasons why politicians fail to secure the interests of their peoples.
Morgenthau’s arguments against the Vietnam War support this argument. I dare to say that all wars America and the West have waged since Vietnam have not been in the interest of their peoples for the same reasons.
Balancing Interests vs. Intimidation
To make my argument, I would like to focus on Essential Number Two. It is here that post-Cold-War neo-conservative politicians in the United States deviate from classical realism. Instead of trying to balance interests with other stakeholders in the realm of foreign policy, they either go to war as they did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, or they intimidate others as they are (have been) doing with Russia, North Korea, and Iran. I argue that in all these conflicts they have failed to secure American interests.
But intimidation not only jeopardizes one’s own interests. It also increases the risk of armed conflict, which entails the danger of escalating to something worse, such as global terrorism or nuclear war. Lasting security, based on one’s own interests, is achieved best if those interests are balanced in a mutually benefitting way.
At this point I would like to come in with ethics, which are not an Interest per se. The real power lies in living ethically, not in preaching ethics. A foreign policy based on balancing interests rests on human values: empathy, tolerance, and mutual respect.
Ethics flows like an underground river. If we allow intimidation to run foreign policy, the underground river carrying intimidation is called Angst.
Trust and Education
When people of different countries, political systems, and cultures meet to resolve conflicts and to balance interests, it is important that they know, understand, and like each other. The ultimate goal is trust, which should not just be the result of empathy, but sympathy. Relations developed in such a way must be set up on a long term basis (years!). The people selected should be of special character with outstanding soft skills in an inter-cultural realm. They don’t have to be the subject matter experts, rather they should be facilitators at the various levels of cooperation, governmental and non-governmental. Outside the functionalities of projects, their interaction should be autonomous. Cooperation should be driven mainly by the spirit of the common goal and not so much by organizational interests of the day.
One final word on education. I consider failed communications as one of the main reasons for violent conflict resolutions, which is not a matter of language but a matter of perceiving and thinking. Conflict parties discuss their differences in the first order of cybernetics, not understanding that they are dealing with second order problems. I suggest therefore that everybody who is in the business of conflict resolution and balancing interests should get a thorough education in systems theory and the philosophy behind it. There cannot be any objectivity, because “Everything that is said, is said by an observer.”
Colonel (ret.) Alain Corvez
The U.S. Refusal of a Multipolar World Makes the Transition Very Painful
Col. Alain Corvez is an international consultant and former Counsellor for the French Defense and Interior Ministries. This is a summary report of his speech, which was presented in French on Panel 1, June 30, 2018.
Speaking in French, Col. Corvez said at the start that he felt much inspired by all the previous speakers, that particularly Senator Black’s remarks reflected an “extreme reality” which poses the main problem. Trump is challenged by the Deep State in the United States, the covert oligarchy which forced him to continue the military interventions, this being a brutal policy which is not in the interest of the real Europe—which de Gaulle called the “Europe of the Nations.” The European Union of today is a technocratic, supranational regime. For France, the question is when will France finally denounce Saudi Arabia and Qatar for their aggressive policies in the Mideast, against Syria and Yemen? The sanctions against Iran which the EU decreed are also not in the real European interest, because the Europeans have to cooperate with Iran and with Russia. The sanctions have not had the planned effect on Iran because the Iranian nation supports its government.
On the North Korean problem, the Singapore Summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un is opening the door to demilitarization and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which is a break from the last years of aggressive and brutal policy against other nations by the United States. This shows that neither confrontation nor war solve problems: solution can only come from dialogue. A rapprochement is under way, with South Korea moving closer to cooperation with Russia and China. India and Japan are also reviewing their policies in the region. Although there are still many problems, the world is on its way toward a future without the nuclear Damocles’ Sword that is still threatening all of humanity today. The recent SCO summit presented a healthy alternative to the G-7 Summit of the Old Paradigm powers. That summit represented 42% of the world population, opting for peace, cooperation and development. De Gaulle once said in a 1964 speech to Mexican students, that if the threat of nuclear obliteration can be averted, the road is free to a better world, and indeed, the offer is there today to build such a world.
The President Trump
Europeans Do Not Know
Roger Stone is a U.S. political strategist of the Trump faction in the Republican Party. He made his presentation by live video.
First of all, I want to apologize for the fact that I cannot join you personally. I very much appreciate and [inaudible] and the Schiller Institute, and my good friend Harley Schlanger, who arranged for this video presentation.
I also want to salute the Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp-LaRouche for your forward-thinking agenda and your commitment to economic and financial reform, which I believe, with the assistance of the Trump Administration, can remake our global thinking entirely and move us towards more peace and prosperity on a worldwide basis.
I am very familiar with the extraordinary and prophetic thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, having encountered him in New Hampshire in 1980, during the Republican primary for President of the United States. And, as a former aide to President Ronald Reagan, I recognize the important backstage role that Lyndon LaRouche played in the last election of a non-neo-con outsider, as President of the United States.
I must say, that in 1980, I was more of a conventional conservative Republican, and at that time, I thought Dr. LaRouche’s views were somewhat exotic. Today, I would say, however, that I have evolved to recognize the role of an evil, two-party duopoly, that has, unfortunately, run the United States into a ditch.
The two-party duopoly of the Bushes and the Clintons, working together, has given us endless foreign wars, where our apparent national interests were never apparent; erosion of our civil liberties, with a government that keeps meta-data tags on Americans, reads our emails, monitors our text messages, catalogues our phone calls; gave us trade policies which were based on “one size fits all” international trade agreements, which appeared to be beneficial to our trading partners, but on rare occasion equally beneficial to the United States. We have pursued immigration policies that cheated those who were waiting on line to get into the country and obtain their citizenship legally, to the benefit of those who jumped the line and entered the country illegally, and in many cases, left our streets and neighborhoods unsafe.
I am a 40-year friend and associate of Donald Trump, and the evolution in my thinking opinion between 1980 and 1988, led me to believe that Trump was the one man with the stature, the courage, and the independence from the failed policies of the two-party duopoly that has run our country, and that he should seek the Presidency. I sought to convince him to become a candidate as early as 1988. I sought again to convince him to become a candidate in 2000, and again in 2012. And then, finally, successfully, in 2016.
Now, I would concede to you, that despite my early enthusiasm, the time was probably not yet ripe for a Trump-style candidacy. It is the first time Americans have gone outside a career politician or a military hero, in order to select a business person as a President. Unthinkable, as early as 1980, perhaps. Perhaps, it was unthinkable in 2000. But after a [inaudible] eight years of the Obama Presidency, the stage was set for a reform-oriented President who was committed to stronger and better relations with both Russia and China, and who rejected the new world order as put forward by President George H.W. Bush and furthered by his son, President George W. Bush—an agenda that was seamlessly pursued, whether the President was Republican or Democrat, whether our President was a Clinton or a Bush.
We now have a scandal in the United States, in which claims of Russian “collusion” are used to mask what is, in fact, the greatest political scandal in our history: And that is, the use of the power and the authority of the state to spy on and undermine the candidacy of the Republican nominee for President. In fact, having been a veteran of the Nixon Administration, I recognize that Nixon was removed from power because men who were associated with his campaign, were caught breaking into the Watergate facility, to plant bugs (which never really worked) to spy on his opponent and the Democrats. He was also removed, because men who were associated with his campaign were caught infiltrating the campaigns of his opponents, Sen. Hubert Humphrey, and then, later, Sen. George McGovern.
Anti-Trump Scandal Worse than Watergate
The scandal which we are looking at today, is far more egregious! At least in the case of Nixon, and it was never proved that Nixon himself approved any of these illegal activities,— but in the case of Nixon, the individuals who were apprehended were private citizens. Here we have a far more egregious abuse of power: It is the use of the state’s authority and its extraordinary technological capability, to hijack the 2016 election and subvert democracy itself, in an attempt to wire the election for Hillary Clinton.
The entire Russiagate investigation, the totally unproven charges of Russian collusion, are a smokescreen, to mask those illegal activities by the Obama Administration in its attempt to hijack our last election, referred to in the text messages of FBI agent Peter Strzok as “the insurance policy.” We now know that the FBI, under Barack Obama, infiltrated the Trump campaign as early as May of 2016—far earlier than it admits opening its investigations into alleged “Russian collusion” by the Trump campaign.
The role of British intelligence in all of this, cannot be underestimated. We know that Prof. Stefan Halper was approaching members of the Trump campaign—at the lowest possible level, I might mention—in an attempt to plant evidence of Russian collusion. It is almost laughable that the Washington Post and the New York Times continue to claim that the activities of Halper, the activities of others, were an attempt to ferret out Russian collusion, when in fact, they were attempts to plant faux Russian collusion to be discovered later, in an effort to undermine Trump in the seemingly unlikely event of Trump’s victory.
I never had any doubts about Trump’s ability to win the 2016 election. It’s important to recognize that 2016 was the year in which the mainstream media lost their monopoly stranglehold on political discourse. This is due only to the rise of a vibrant and robust alternative media, which in turn, has given far greater currency to the ideas and principles of Lyndon LaRouche, to the ideas and principles of Donald Trump, to reset the world stage for cooperative trading partnerships and relationships with both the Russians and the Chinese, and put an end to the neo-con policies of war and bankruptcy, which the mainstream media have continued to pursue, quite sadly, with vigor.
Sadly, what we see today in the United States, and perhaps across the world, is an attempt to put the toothpaste back in the tube. That is to say, a war of Internet censorship which seeks to silence voices such as mine, and my friends at Infowars, for example, alternative media outlets like Breitbart and the Daily Caller and others who espouse Trumpism, and remove them—from Facebook, from Twitter, from YouTube—it’s a war of eradication, and an attempt to strangle our First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, and to use monopolistic practices and anti-competitive business practices to end our free speech and our access to this wonderful medium of the Internet which makes our dialogue, here, today, entirely possible.
I must say that the prospects for a Trump-Putin summit in July, have raised the hackles in some corners of Washington, D.C., as well as Whitehall, to a level of near-hysteria. President Donald Trump is one who believes that when your adversaries possess thermonuclear weapons, as well as vast economic power, that one is much better off in a dialogue with them, than in a Cold War. And therefore, I firmly believe that his trip to Helsinki to meet Vladimir Putin is a mission of peace, a mission of future economic cooperation, and perhaps of joint cooperation to eradicate those Islamic extremist elements that seek to damage both of our nations.
Mueller Went after LaRouche, Now after Trump and Me
What is going on in the United States—the persecution of a number of President Trump’s key advisors, is reminiscent of the kind of tactics that were used against Lyndon LaRouche by the Bushes in the 1980s. One of the principal reasons I am unable to join you in person, is that, as you may have read, Special Counsel Robert Mueller—unable to prove any “Russian collusion” on my part, unable to prove any collaboration with WikiLeaks with respect to its devastating disclosures regarding the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton, unable to prove or provide any evidence that I had any knowledge of the release of John Podesta’s emails in advance—now seeks to come up and conjure, perhaps fabricate and manufacture, some other charge against me, perhaps relating to my business, or my finances, or my tactics.
This is the same Robert Mueller who harassed Lyndon LaRouche in the 1980s, who now seeks to persecute me, simply because of my support for President Donald Trump.
I’m being sued by the Democratic National Committee; I’m being sued by an Obama-affiliated group called Project Democracy; I’m being sued by a Chinese billionaire—all of these sore-loser lawsuits are without merit, but exceedingly expensive. On top of which, now, I now must fend off the efforts of Robert Mueller to bring some bogus charges against me, in his attempt to either silence me, or to seek my cooperation in testifying against my friend of almost 40 years, Donald J. Trump. This will not happen.
My friends have set up a legal defense fund for me, at Stone Defense Fund.com. I must say that contributions from foreign nationals are perfectly permissible and those who wish to make a contribution will have my heartfelt thanks. I face an extraordinarily difficult and defensive battle as the Deep State has targetted me, because of my long association with Donald Trump, and my commitment to his non-interventionist foreign policy and his policy of economic revitalization of the United States.
Trump Bashed for Successes at Home and Abroad
We have seen a precipitous rise in violence in the United States, and a near-hysteria on the left, which is based almost solely on the increasing success and popularity of the Trump policies. We will have in excess of 4% economic growth in the next quarter. We were told under President Barack Obama that this rate of GDP growth was structurally impossible. They were wrong.
We have seen the creation of 1 million new jobs, 228,000 in the month of May alone. We have seen the President on the cusp of a historic peace deal in the Koreas, and perhaps the successful denuclearization of a nation long-considered our greatest foe. How ironic, that the President has pursued a peace deal in the Koreas, that if it had been achieved by Barack Obama would be called “brilliant” by the mainstream media; but because it is achieved by Donald Trump, they call it “risky.”
The President pursues non-interventionist, peace-oriented policies and a reform agenda in terms of revitalizing our economy, in terms of reforming our immigration system, in terms of redoing our trade agreements, so that they are of reciprocal value; and in terms of reaching new relationships with both the Russians and the Chinese, built on our joint desire for peace and prosperity.
I have every confidence in this President. But I do not underestimate the Deep State’s efforts to destroy his Presidency and to remove him. It was reported by Bloomberg News, only yesterday, that Robert Mueller, the same hit man for the Bushes who targeted Lyndon LaRouche decades ago, will decide about raising charges against the President in his final report, this fall. How convenient! Just before the 2018 midterm elections.
The previous day, Bloomberg News reported that now, Robert Mueller would focus on the issue of “Russian collusion.” That’s extraordinary. He’s been at it for two years, and has spent in excess of $17 million of our taxpayers’ money. I thought that he was focused on “Russian collusion.” As the attempts to harass me demonstrate, his investigation has nothing to do with “Russian collusion.” As Mr. Mueller seeks any process-related crime, pertaining to the termination of FBI Director James Comey, an extraordinarily corrupt public figure, or to the dismissal of Gen. Mike Flynn, a true American patriot, who was also subject to harassment and legal undermining by Robert Mueller and his cabal of thugs.
So, the prospects for the Trump Presidency are strong, because as his political strength grows, as his public support in the country is galvanized, it gives him a freer hand to deal with the Mueller outrage, and to deal with the fact that he has a partisan prosecutor who has been given broad and unfettered legal power by Trump’s own Justice Department, and quislings such as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who seek nothing less than to undo what they could not do at the ballot box in 2016.
A Field Manual for Victory
I’m delighted to have the opportunity to join you! As some of you may know, my sixth book, Stone’s Rules, is now widely available. I would put this book up there with Machiavelli’s The Prince, or Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, as a field manual for victory, that is applicable for any person, regardless of their chosen avocation. Whether you are in business, or politics, or technology, or media, or fashion, or even agriculture, these are the tested rules of the road, the hard lessons that I have learned in 40 years in the American arena. I commend this book to you, you can buy it through Amazon or Barnes & Noble. I think most reputable book purveyors in the country have it available, and I think you will enjoy it.
I thank you very much for your kind invitation to address you today. I look forward to a new world, based on the leadership of an American President who is deeply committed to a new set of policies, rejecting the policies of the neo-cons and their British co-conspirators, and fostering a new spirit of world peace and cooperation. I have urged the President to study the Silk Road policies that you are so enthusiastic about, and which I have come to embrace.
I salute you, and I thank you so much for your time this morning. Thank you.