Subscribe to EIR Online


LaRouche Defends Zayed Centre

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Aug. 31, 2003 (EIRNS)—This statement was issued today by the LaRouche in 2004 Presidential campaign committee.

It is my information, which I have received through channels which I know to be responsible and reliable, that the closing of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZCCF) in Abu Dhabi, where the U.S.A.'s James Baker III once spoke, as I had done, occurred under heavy pressure from elements within the U.S. Bush Administration. Such action by the United States is another piece of idiocy, like the continuing U.S. war in Iraq, which is directly contrary to the current and long-term security interests of my republic, the U.S.A.

Under the present circumstances, when I am, at this moment, the only legally registered candidate competent to be chosen in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, I have a special responsibility to speak out, on various occasions, in defense of the present and future integrity of the Presidency of my nation. Therefore, on this occasion, it is my immediate duty to point out the important role which the Zayed Centre had performed in contributing to the cause of world security and peace, and for which it is needed, more than ever before.

The world at large must accept as a matter of fact, that since the aftermath of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the control of the U.S. Presidency has been usurped by a group centered around Vice-President Cheney. This group around Cheney is part of those same circles, formerly known as the Synarchist International of the 1921-1945 interval, which U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and Britain's Winston Churchill united to join with others in defeating during World War II. This same Synarchist current which brought us Hitler then, is presently a powerful, subversive influence inside the institutions of the U.S.A. Cheney and his so-called neo-conservatives, are an instrument of that influence.

On account of that usurpation, my responsibility at this time, is to play a certain central role of leadership, in the effort to free the United States from the grip of that still-active Synarchist interest, which has usurped control of my nation. I am committed, as all thoughtful anti-colonialist, and well-informed leaders of my nation, to work for the establishment of that just new world economic order at which President Franklin Roosevelt, and the 1976 Colombo conference of the Non-Aligned nations had aimed, and which is urgently needed today for the peace and security of the world at large.

The strategic problem posed by the Middle East today, is historically situated, summarily, as follows.

Since the beginning of historical times, about 6,000 B.C., when something like modern geography and patterns of climate had emerged from the approximately post-17,000-10,000 B.C. melting of the last great Ice Age, the region of Southwest Asia has emerged to become a principal cockpit or flank of great struggles throughout adjoining regions of Eurasia and Africa. Since approximately the emergence of the Sumerian colonization of southern Mesopotamia, the area bounded by Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Persia, Turkey, and the Transcaucasus had developed as a center of both conflict and civilization for much of the world at large. Today that region, with its presently geographically extended, largely Islamic cultures, contains many of the elements which will tend to be a crucially included factor, or even a trigger, of unleashed generalized, asymmetric modes of nuclear warfare throughout the world at large today.

It is time to speak frankly about ending the relevant follies of current U.S. policy generally, and, with special emphasis on the urgency of establishing not only peace, but a durable peace in Southwest Asia.

What I am working to bring my U.S. fellow-citizens to understand, urgently, now, is that the current, grotesquely aberrant policies of Vice-President Cheney are insane from any rational military-strategic standpoint, as many retired and serving U.S. general officers and others have said variously; that, in their own way, within the bounds of professional discretion incumbent upon them.

The essential military policy of the U.S.A., as of other leading nations, is governed by a doctrine of Classical strategic defense, a doctrine shaped by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the leadership of the great commander Lazare Carnot in France, by the circles led by Scharnhorst in Germany, and exemplified by the work of von Wolzogen and others in designing the strategy for defense of Russia against the Grande Armée of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. That should be the policy of the United States and other powers today.

The presently contrary, imperial, utopian doctrine of world government, was brought about through a terrifying use of nuclear weapons, which was authored principally by Bertrand Russell. Now as then, the utopian military faction—that U.S. enemy from within which President Eisenhower called a "military industrial complex"—has always threatened, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in 1945, to plunge the entire planet into a prolonged dark age. Whoever proposes such a utopian "revolution in military affairs," such as a policy of nuclear preventive war, as Cheney and his confederates have done, must be considered a threat to all of humanity, including the U.S.A. itself.

Now, we witness what was virtually inevitable, accelerating irregular warfare resistance of the people of Iraq against the looting and other destruction being conducted by the occupying forces at the disposal of imperial pro-consul Bremer. The informed circles of the world know that the U.S.A., as long as it remains under the present Administration, and as long as a durable Israeli-Palestinian peace has not been secured, must withdraw from all roles which suggest a military occupation of any part of the Middle East in general. Otherwise, the situation created by continued U.S. occupation will produce even incalculable effects for the larger world, including the United States itself.

The behavior of the United States, in its bullying of nations of the Middle East region today, is often a copy of the extortionist "protection rackets" by those U.S. organized-crime circles which Cheney's Halliburton operations are imitating today. Such thuggery may induce temporary submission today, but will drive enraged victims to war-like violence tomorrow, as we see in the irregular warfare building up in Iraq today. If we do not protect the governments of the region against such blackmail, the people of those nations will revolt against the governments which submit to such pressures, and bloody chaos will result. Soon, unless Cheney's role is checked, or, better, his removal effected, it were inevitable that the violent reaction will not be limited to the territory of Iraq.

Therefore, the United States must get out quickly, and the UNO must be brought in under appropriate conditions and mandates, with a mandate for the early reestablishment of a stable and fully sovereign Iraq. There might be a U.S. alternative, were I already President of the U.S.A.—a President the people of the region could trust. Otherwise, there is no sane alternative. The U.S.A.'s submission to a UNO role is the only realistic course of action presently available. The practical question is: How shall that effort, involving the UNO's leading role, be made successful? At the present, degenerated state of affairs produced by the war and the lunatic practice of the U.S. occupation, peace in Iraq can no longer be an Iraq issue. Peace requires the voluntary, active cooperation among the nations of the region of Southwest Asia bounded, most immediately, by the Caucasus, Turkey, Iran, and Egypt.

The consequences of the stupid and outrageous folly of some U.S. representatives' thuggish attempts to stifle the voice of the Zayed Centre, must be assessed against that background.

The Arab world within that region of Southwest Asia is a group of relatively small states, many thinly populated, with much of their area presently desert. These states, many of which are fiercely jealous of their independence, do have profound common interests; but they require a forum through which definition of those common interests may be deliberated; that, with little obligation but that of free choice to accept the influence of moral and intellectual persuasion.

If we are to build durable peace to replace the presently ominous situation in Southwest Asia and adjoining places, we must engage the consent of the people, the nations, which inhabit that region. We need means to step outside the formalities of formal diplomacy, to create the environment which is fertile for successful diplomacy. U.S. pressures to shut down the Zayed Centre are disgusting to anyone who prizes democratic freedoms of peoples. Such disgusting measures, as presently set against the background of Proconsul Bremer's role in supervising the carpetbagging role of Cheney's Halliburton, are not the road to successful diplomacy; under the circumstances, such behavior by certain U.S. officials is less than human.

The Zayed Centre's role as a place for such a forum among the member states of the Arab League, has been proven most appropriate, and valuable on this account. Here, the world has had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the Arab world most immediately, and, implicitly, with a larger part of the world of Islamic cultures. Until now, the Zayed Centre's role in fostering of emergent consensus among Arab states, on numerous matters, has become a critical element in defining constructive goals among nations of the region. We need that channel more than ever in its past existence, at this time. By "we," I mean also the United States.

Back to top